♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for april 22. with less than 200 days to go until election day, how excited are you to vote in this year's presidential election? a little more than half would describe themselves as excited, and a new poll from nbc shows interest in voting among registered voters in this year's

contest has hit a 20 year low so if you are excited to vote in this year's presidential election and you want to tell us why, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you are not excited and want to tell us why, call us at (202) 748-8001. and you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. you can find us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, and you can also reach out to us on x @cspanwj. so here is the gallup poll that was released. americans showing average enthusiasm heading into this year's contest for 2024. they compare it to years past. when asked about this year's election, this was back in march, 54% of those describing themselves as more enthusiastic to participate in this year's presidential election versus 41% saying they were less enthusiastic. and then the same, about 4%, going back four years to the

matchup between biden versus trump. it was 56% saying in april of 2020 they were enthusiastic to participate. less enthusiastic, 28%. and then back to 2016 when it was then donald trump and hillary clinton, 46% at that time in may saying they were more enthusiastic to participate. and then 6% saying they were in the same when it comes to that. that is the gallup poll. in breaking down by party as well among democrats and democratic leaners. among democrats, 55% saying they were more enthusiastic to participate, 42 percent saying they were less enthusiastic. among republicans, 59% saying they were more enthusiastic, 35% saying they were less enthusiastic.

that is the gallup poll. we will take your poles as well starting off our program today about your excitement if you will to participate in this year's election. again, if you say you are excited to participate, it is (202) 748-8000. if you are not excited and you want to tell us why on our no line, it is (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. and then you can always post on our social media sites at facebook.com/c-span and x @cspanwj. here is the nbc poll that was released yesterday about interest in this year's november election on a one to 10 scale. this was the percentage of registered voters answering with a nine or 10, 10 meeting they were "very interested." 64% in april 2024 saying they were very interested in this year's election. comparing it to years past, july of 2020, 77% at that time.

69% going back to 2012. 74% expressing interest in participating in april of 2008. so again, the yes and no lines are available. yes if you are interested or excited to participate. no if you are not. let's hear from someone on our yes line. this is tyrone from new york. tell us why you are excited to participate. caller: i am excited to participate mainly because i appreciate what this country has given to me and has provided for me. i don't appreciate the fact that people take this country for granted and have developed this entitlement, the idea that this country owes us everything it has, and it does not. i am glad to call up and say something negative about the

president and nobody is knocking on my door ready to drag me away. it is a free society. i appreciate it so much, and yes, i want to keep this democracy going. host: is it excitement in the process itself or about the candidates involved or a combination of things? caller: it is a combination of things because it is definitely appreciative that we have this opportunity to be able to vote. a lot of us did not have the opportunity to dictate the path that our country is taking. some people don't participate, and some people do. that is their right. but i am glad i am able to make that move. again and not have anybody drag me out of my house and beat me to death because i decided to vote on the path this country is to take. i appreciate where i am at. i am a man of color and understand my history and i know that this is not a given. i don't have to have this. host: ok. caller: people can take it away at any moment.

host: got you. another person excited to participate, this is paul in kentucky. you are next up. hello. caller: i am excited too. the last caller, he is right. i am excited. all of these -- he is stalling this, all of these show trials. rfk said he is the most dangerous man in the democracy in the history of the world. we will lose the country and they will be people showing up at your door to drag you off because it is extremely dangerous. we have to save this democracy by curtailing them. host: so it is definitely the people involved that your excitement level is based on, the people involved versus anything else. caller: yes. i was a trump supporter. i like to say this. i even liked haley.

what they are doing right now, i am very excited to vote for president trump to get biden out of office. he is a very dangerous and evil man. host: paul on the yes line. if you wanted to say you are excited and wanted to tell us why, that is the yes line. if you are not excited about it, you can tell us on the no line. you can always reach out to us on texts at (202) 748-8003. and then you can post on our social media sites. let's go to donald in indiana also on our yes line. donald, tell us why you are excited. caller: ok, maybe i am looking at this too literally this morning. i am getting ready to go to work, but i don't know. i hope people do take this election very seriously. the man from new york i guess said it better than i can

probably say it. i hope people don't think that they have to be "excited" like this is american idol in office everything. this is your civic duty. get out there and vote because this election is very important. that is no hyperbole. so i hope everybody gets out there and votes. and hopefully votes for joe biden because trump is just not fit to be president of the united states again. host: i am curious why you compared your election to something like "american idol." caller: you know, like the primary thing, you hear people say "i am excited about the candidates, this, and that. these are good choices we have. you don't get everything you want, so you have to get out there and vote. as the man from new york said, a

lot of places you cannot vote. here in the united states, black people were not able to vote. especially to black people, i am speaking to black people. i am a black man myself. i get out there and vote every time. everybody out there, you need to do the same thing and stop this silliness about "i'm not excited about the candidates." host: ok, donald in indiana. again, 54% of the votes are more enthusiastic about participating in this year's contest versus 48% saying they were less enthusiastic. the same 4% were using the term excited, if you will. i suppose you could replace it with enthusiastic. but as far as your excitement level for this year's elections come into -- this year's election. this is eddie on our no line. caller: how are you doing?

i put the no line, but i want to say that we need to be excited. because if we put this loser donald trump back in office, you see all the courts he is going to. he is losing and everything, but the republicans want to put him to be excited. we are not going to be excited because he will not do nothing. he is going to court. the only thing he will do is get back and stir people up again. who wants to be excited about that, about having donald trump back in office? nobody excited about that. no. we just need to all get excited by keeping him out. even if they don't like joe biden or what he has done. joe biden will be better staying in office and getting things done.

because i am looking at my bank account and what he did for me the four years he has been in there. if i have a way to show my record for four years donald trump was in office, the only thing he was was talking bad about people and trying to get his way and get out of trouble, beating the system. yeah, we can beat the system. i will be excited to get out there and vote for a candidate that i know helped me out. host: ok, yes. again, pick the line that best represents you. i know yes and no is a clear-cut thing but pick the best line there. if you look at nuclear politics, put in aggregate figure -- an aggregate figure

together of their most recent polls in this sampling, march 20 52 the 17th of this month. that collective averaging saying president trump with the slightest of leads at 44.5 percent versus joe biden at 44.1%. if you go to the website, it lists the individual polls, their results, and how each of the candidates fair when it comes to that. you can see that at the website for the matchup between former president trump and the current president, joe biden. your level of excitement when it comes to participating in the november contest. daniel in orlando, florida, on our yes line. hello. caller: hello. good day. i am extremely excited to get donald trump back in office. what biden has done in four years, he has destroyed our country, opened the borders.

he is about business. he is about making americans, all americans having prosperity, having money. 50% of the american people cannot have $1000. trump will make this country great again because of instead of producing that, we will produce oil. he will be a dictator on day one because he will open up the rest of the oil and start producing something instead of producing that. he is the best president we ever had. and what they are doing to him in these courtrooms is a travesty. it will go down in history as being the true salem witch hunt of the 21st century. just despicable what these people are doing. host: ok. on the no line, philadelphia, this is steven. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: listen.

i have been voting for years, every year, and i am not excited because of the information that most of the people are getting. they are talking about stuff that is not happening, no facts, and that is why i'm not excited. there are too many people that have the wrong information. and they are voting in ways that are not logical. host: so why would that impact your personal level of excitement? caller: i am not excited because i do vote and i will vote. i don't take it for granted. however, just seeing the information that some of the media is putting out to these people and lying to them, i am not excited at all, no. host: steven in philadelphia.

the nbc poll takes a look at the various candidates in the november race and seeing their potential of winning. if it is just the two named candidates, joe biden and donald trump, it is 44% supporting joe biden. 10% saying they are not sure or would not vote or other being the category, and 46% leaning towards former president trump. if you include more candidates -- they list five, which include robert kennedy, junior, cornell west, that shifts over to 39% casting and giving their support to joe biden. 13% to robert f kennedy, junior. jill stein and cornell west getting some. 6% saying they e t sure, and 37% giving their support to former president trump. again, your level of excitement when it comes to this year's presidential election.

tony in missouri on our yes line, you are next up. hello. caller: yeah, good morning. i will vote for joe biden. donald trump should never come close to office again. this one is really dangerous. he is very dangerous. he is a crook and as crooked as it comes. please let everybody go and vote and make sure this guy does not get to the oval office again. thank you. host: ok. diane on our no line in north carolina, hello. caller: hi, how are you? i usually vote democrat, and i am not excited about voting democrat anymore. that does not automatically mean

i will vote republican. so no, i am not excited at all. host: why do you think you are less interested this time around? caller: one with the border. and it is just a lot of things going on. we are helping everybody else except the people here in the united states. host: ok. if that is the case, how do you ultimately decide how you are going to vote? or maybe you have not made that decision or when do you think you will make that decision? caller: i have not made that decision and it is fearful because i have always voted democrat but i am not feeling it this year. i will pray until that time comes. host: ok, diane there in north carolina factoring a lot of things when it comes to your level of excitement come this year's election. on our yes line, you can call (202) 748-8000. our no line, (202) 748-8001. on the sunday shows yesterday, it was illinois democratic

governor jb pritzker asked about this year's election, when he is seeing on the ground not only in his statement others and how that factors into excitement levels in november. here is a portion from his interview yesterday. [video clip] >> i was in michigan yesterday and the enthusiasm level among democrats in michigan is very high. i was in even a republican committee meeting with the democratic leadership there and we had a huge crowd. people really are knocking on doors, talking to people about what is important in these election -- in this election. robert f kennedy, junior, being on the ballot will have little effect on the ultimate result. people understand there are only two candidates that have a path to victory in this country and in michigan. of course, that is joe biden and donald trump. the challenge for people's you are looking at two very different sets of values, and i think people understand it is joe biden that stands for american values, the values of

standing up for your neighbors and your community, standing up for working families and women's rights, and the contrast is huge between those two candidates where donald trump wants to take away peoples right to get an abortion if they want to come up wants to take away peoples workers rights and lower people's wages. and is indeed the one who sent jobs overseas while joe biden is the one who has brought american jobs back to this country. >> governor, you are talking about this as if it is a binary choice. the whole point in michigan is perhaps you see the other states decide who will be on the ballot, other swing states. it is not a binary choice. rfk, junior, provides a third way for people who don't like what joe biden or even donald trump for that matter but in this particular case it is joe biden i am asking about, they don't like what he is selling. >> i am not suggesting there are

no other names on the ballot. i am suggesting simply that when people go to the ballot box in november, they will see there are really only two choices because it is throwing away your vote if you are a democrat and vote for someone else on the ballot other than joe biden. host: that was from sunday. in the vein of that interview, we offered a binary choice in our yes and no line. yes if you are excited to participate in this year's election. this is loomis on our yes line in illinois. go ahead. caller: i am excited because i want to make sure donald trump does not get elected president of this country again. host: is that the sole reason or are there others? caller: well, i am a former republican and i think our party is not in their brains to elect this guy as candidate for the presidency. host: ok. that is lewis in illinois. let's hear from chris in

california and our no line. hello. caller: good morning. yes, i just don't feel excited about the election. it is not that i am uninterested or feeling inhibited about participating. i have been motivated enough to switch to the democrat party, which i have not done since bill clinton ran as far as i can remember. did i lose you? host: no, you are still on. so you are basing your ambivalence on what, do you think? caller: oh, gosh. i am disappointed that the republican party has -- i watched so much of the january 6 committee and the evidence and the changing of testimonies. so i really feel depressed and

disappointed that the republican party has not taken a stand against donald trump being a candidate. host: ok. chris on our no line. let's hear from john in florida on our yes line. hello, john. john in florida, hello. one more time for john in florida. ok, we will go to lorenzo in maryland on our no line. hello, thanks for calling. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. first of all i have to say no because of the gas lighting. i hear some of it already on your show. how they normalize. we know that is coming. most important for me is i find it fascinating donald trump has a great possibility of winning based on four or five states. he lost the popular vote by 2.8

million in 2016 and i was told he is a man of the people but the people did not put it in the system. there is the possibility he can lose the popular vote again, ignore the will of the people, and let's go to the outdated electoral to put him in. on top of that, if that does happen, he will praise the system, but if he finds a way to lose, we will start this election integrity stuff again with no evidence at all. so i hope that the numbers are overwhelming. i hope there is no doubt, that they will continue to gaslight, continue to normalize their gas lighting with the likes of fox news, which gaslight all the time. i hope my vote counts as a full book because i don't think it does compared to some of these other states. host: ok, that is lorenzo in maryland offering his thoughts on his level of excitement to

participate this year. if it comes to specific issues, maybe that motivates you and your excitement level. nbc taking a pulse of that. 23% of those among registered voters think it was inflation and the cost of living topping the list of the most important issue facing the country heading into this election year. immigration following that by 22%. threat to democracy at 16% after that followed by jobs in the economy at 11%, abortion at 6% time with health care, and then climate change at 5%. the issue of social security and medicare, 4%. and then crime at the bottom of the list, 2% saying that is the most important issue adding into this november election again. if that maybe motivates how you vote and your level of excitement in voting, you can factor that into your answers as well and give us a call on the line. (202) 748-8000 on our yes line. (202) 748-8001 on our no line. brad from maryland on our yes line, hello.

caller: good morning, pedro. excited but concerned about the election. excited because i think this is a very, very important election for our country based on what has been going on the last 7, 8 years. what they are doing to donald trump is just reprehensible. we all know that it is in fact election interference. if you cannot see that, like anyone can help anybody because they could have brought these bogus charges against him at any point, but they waited until the year of campaigning for the election. it is so obvious that they waited so it is interfering with his campaign. now he has to sit in courtrooms. we have seen attorneys at the hearings. it is a kangaroo court. it is obvious. but my concern is in 2016 they

did not think biden was going to end. i'm sorry, 2020, they did not think biden was going to win. washington, d.c., was boarded up. not because they thought trump was going to -- not because they thought biden was going to win but they thought trump was going to end. when the election comes this november, they will again board up washington, d.c., because they will be concerned about a trump victory. not a biden victory. the reason they will be concerned about that is the left will be unhinged. and due to these bogus charges against trump and like someone else mentioned gas lighting, a lot of gas lighting but most of it is coming from cnn and msnbc and even some people calling in on c-span. lost my train of thought. i am driving. host: that is ok.

we got the thought there. let's hear from dave in wisconsin on our no line. hi. caller: hi. i am not enthusiastic about going to vote this year because of the lack of confidence that i have in the vote count. i am a trump supporter and i am enthusiastic to vote for president trump again, and the reason is i totally support the issues he agrees with me, but again, my confidence level is shaken because of all the -- we had mass rallies. president trump mass rallies last time and biden had very few people. a lot of people were mentally prepared for a trump victory, and it just shocked our world that it did not happen like that. and so i don't know what to say except i will do my duty but i

am not enthusiastic about it. i will be prepared mentally for anything. host: how did your state deal with the issues of voting? will they allow a certain amount of mail in things or drop off or will it be show up on election day? how does it typically work in wisconsin? caller: i can't tell you the details but they allow maryland votes. there was a ruling recently with the democrats here. i don't know what the details are but i have not heard anything that makes it sound like anything is different, you know, very much different from before. i just don't know what will happen, but i will do my duty. i am not enthusiastic. host: ok. let's hear from sharon in maryland on ever yes line. hello. caller: yes, how are you doing, pedro, this morning? i am calling this morning because i will go out there and vote. i am using my voting power to

get rid of donald trump because donald trump should not be running this country. we have kids, future children we are trying to raise. why should we have a man like that in office that has this type of arrogance and bad attitude? we teach our children to do the right thing but yet we have a man that will represent this country that does wrong things and keep doing bad things and thinks he can get away with everything. donald trump is not above the law. another thing, he is not above god. god is in control of everything you do what he tells you to do and things will go right and things will go right for this country. i am doing well. all my grandkids are doing very well in school. my sons, they are doing well. my daughters are doing well. and we own our home. i give thanks and glory to god.

these men in the military have no backbone to keep standing up for donald trump because they make the men that passed away for this country look like they did not do nothing to help this country out, so if you are a man of valor, stand up for this country and do what is right. host: ok, sharon, got that. salvador in new mexico on ever yes line, go ahead. caller: yes, pedro. i am going to vote. first of all, i was not going to vote because i don't like both candidates but i don't want trump up there in the white house. i don't know why the media gives him so much attention. he is very inexperienced. he is a bully, and that is why i will vote. i don't want him up there clowning around and running everybody else around, bullying everybody. that is why i will vote. thank you, pedro. host: ok, salvador, on this question on if you are excited to vote in this year's election.

if you are on currently, stay with us, but if you want to call and let us know about your thoughts on this election, it is (202) 748-8000 if you say yes you are excited. for this year's election. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and then you can always post on our social media sites. that is facebook.com/c-span and on x. you can post @cspanwj. delaware on our no line, sharon. tell us about your level of excitement, why you called the no line. caller: well, hello, good morning. host: morning. caller: i am not excited to vote this year. however, i will, and i will vote for trump. if we take a look at what has happened to this country and the world for that matter in the last three and a half years, it

is total chaos. and you will notice if anybody switches tv channels once in a while and looks at fox or newsmax and switch back over to cnn. look at all the democrat cities. those people who were primarily democrat voters, they are even saying, you know what, enough is enough. we have had it. we have had it. every situation, every topic has just totally gone bad from crime to the economy to open border -- to the open border. i just don't understand how anybody can back biden. as far as raising every kid's right, i think the guy in the white house telling us to pay our fair share in taxes, his own son was not paying his fair share, but he will get up there and hire 87,000 irs agents to

look into everybody's taxes this year. it is just not right. so if all the democrats and everybody that hates trump so bad plans to vote for him this year, they must be happy with the way things are going. host: ok, that is sharon in delaware. again, stay on the lines if you are there. keep calling us if you want to participate. we will continue on with this question about your level of excitement in the election. today marks the opening arguments in the former president's first criminal trial based out of new york city. other legal aspects of the former president are expected to come into play this weekend helping us sort what to expect is devlin barrett who serves as the justice reporter and also the newsletter co-authored of the trump trials newsletter. good morning, mr. barrett. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you, and thank you for giving us your time. guest: sure. host: everybody is paying attention today.

we have a jury. what happens today? guest: so today we will have opening arguments and will probably get the first witness and obviously it is a big moment. never had a trial like this in american history, and it will be a test of the system, and it will be a pretty momentous thing. host: as far as the opening witness, who do we expect? guest: at this point, we expect it to be david packer. he once ran the company that publishes the national enquirer. and they are -- he is basically going to be on the stand to describe how he and trump allegedly had conversations about how to prevent stories from him -- stories about him from surfacing in the public in 2017. host: i suppose with the first witness we will get a view of how the prosecution and the defense -- i guess what they

plan to use. can you give us a sense of what we might expect from both sides going forward? guest: i think the defense's main line of attack is most of the evidence for trump's knowledge or involvement in this effort to falsify business records, most of the allegation against trump specifically comes from michael cohen, his former lawyer. and the defense argument is michael: is simply a liar that cannot be trusted, period. the government's argument would be that he may be a liar and untrustworthy, but in this instance on this case with this evidence, there is enough corroboration of his account that you can believe him when he says trump knew about this. host: that is today's proceeding and what to expect. your story today in the "washington post," you talk about things to watch for, particularly tomorrow when it comes to the gag order given to the president. can you elaborate on that? guest: one of the ongoing legal

fight of this whole process has been the things trump says outside of court, attacking the family members, the staffers of people involved in this process. and the prosecutors are asking the judge to hold him in contempt for the public statements he has made. trump is arguing he should not be punished for those things, that those payments were acceptable, but so far it looks like the judge will not agree with that idea. host: and then come wednesday or at least later on this week, one of the things you write about was concerning a bond the former president used in order to satisfy the demand. you tell the viewers what that is about? guest: this is actually today across the street in manhattan. there is a hearing on whether trump's $175 million bond is valid and meets the requirements of the court.

that bond is important because it allows him to put off paying a more than $450 million judgment in a civil case that he lost just in the last few months. and so it is very important to trump that the court accept this bond. and so that is also an important hearing. it is a big week and a lot of courtrooms for donald trump. host: including the highest court in the land, the supreme court finally hearing the president's immunity case. can you set that up for us? guest: on thursday, there will be oral arguments in trump's claim that he has immunity from being prosecuted for the january 6 instance. if charged with election obstruction and he claims presidential immunity, that is a huge case not only for trump but the country and future presidents. host: mr. barrett, are you

there? guest: i am hearing you. can you hear me? host: i got you. that is expected later on this week. there is plenty going on this week, and our guest devlin barrett write about it in the "washington post" today. you are the author of a newsletter. what is that, and how can people find it? guest: you can find it at the "washington post" website and we give a weekly update of what is coming up. we also on big news days will send out an end of the day some recent people can keep track of it because there are so many cases that people get confused -- that it can get confusing. host: covering the first criminal proceeding for former president trump. you for your time. guest: thank you. host: if you want to follow along and listen on thursday, you can do that live starting at a lot of different ways to do it. our channel c-span, you can

follow along at c-span.org, and you can follow along on the app at c-span now. san diego, california, on every s line. this is dee. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: yes, i just want to say i listened to you and everyone's comments. i feel like this country is going to hell right now and the rest of the world forget we cannot blame one person for that. you cannot blame president biden for people running across the border. i stay in a border town and i have been running across the border the whole time, every president that has ever been in office. believe me, i see it. but i want to say that the most important thing right now is

that i grew up in a country that i thought had moral standards. and the person that was in office would be someone we could look up to. i cannot just sit back. i know president biden is an 81-year-old man. we had four years of hell with trump. and then to be in a situation in the court, i can't take people going to court and then running over just to get back in office to avoid being possibly the first president ever facing this amount of crimes. he did what he did. we all see it. i watched it unfold. i watched a girl get shot on tv.

you are going to live in a country that you can proud of come and we can work on all the other stuff if people can stop being mad when the democrats win, when the republicans and gop sit down and do everything they can to not pass anything. it is ridiculous. host: ok, let's go to john in maryland on ever know line about your level of excitement to participate in the election. hello. caller: good morning. i am not excited at all, and i have seen what this country has put up for presidents and it is a shame. we have joe biden. he is done, finished, burned-out, burned-out. -- burned out, burned up. host: so it is not the president that is your choice? caller: you are talking to me? host: yeah. caller: donald trump, they are

talking about calling him a liar. when he came to office, that is all he did come -- did, lie, lie. this man is not a king. he is a human being who lost his office and needs not to get back in there again. host: so if it is not him and not joe biden, who is your choice? caller: i don't have one. that is what i'm saying about how sad we are as a nation. the people have no real choice of who to put in the white house. it is not fair. the democrats failed as. the republicans care nothing about people. host: ok, charlie is next on every s line in wisconsin. caller: hi there. happy earth day. this day was started in 1970 by our own former governor nelson and we should all be out planting a tree. heck yeah, i am excited to vote in this election.

it is a vote for democracy. either we reelect joe biden, who is doing a great job, and the unemployment rate has been lower than it has been in decades, and we help move towards a more progressive movement. donald trump is a despot. he is dangerous. his family and people all around him talk about how awful it is and we just cannot have that. also, you talked about -- you asked about have voting regulations are in wisconsin. frankly, we are ranked 32nd in the country for making it difficult to vote. we have had 15, 20 years of total republican rule locally, and for the first time this coming election, we will have fair maps and maybe we can turn our assembly and our center around at least over the next year or two. if we did not have our governor, we would be in trouble, and we need to keep joe biden firmly in his seat.

i am excited. it is all about democracy. i will be out knocking doors to have people vote and driving people to the balance. host: ok, charlie in wisconsin. you can hear her excitement level and share yours on the phone lines. one of the people excited to support president trump this time around is south dakota's governor. all the shows yesterday, talking about her support for former president trump. [video clip] >> if it is between joe biden and donald trump them every single day of the week i will support donald trump. i have from the very beginning. he is someone i have supported since 2016 because i recognized he did not think he was better than anybody else in the country. he wanted to run for this office so he could serve for the people -- so he could serve the people and fight for them every single day. outside noise and the judicial system and cases and lawsuits

used to weaponize our judicial system against him. when he was in the white house, every single day as governor i got to be on offense. i got to solve problems. it's joe biden has been in the white house, i have to defend the freedoms of my people in south dakota. i am every day trying to push back on what this federal government is trying to do by increasing cost for everyday families who get up everyday and go to work. yes, donald trump should be back in the white house and i will do all i can to help him win. i have run 11 campaigns but i won them all. i don't have to lose it so i will make sure i do everything i can to help donald trump when. host: "the new york times" takes a look at campaign spending at this point of the election cycle , saying it was in march the trump campaign spent $3.7 billion compared to $11.4 million in january, much less than a 29.9 million dollars spent by the biden campaign in march.

it seeks to build a campaign war chest for the general election. stir biden's campaign had $85.5 million on hand at the end of march according to his monthly filing with the federal election commission, a significant increase from the month before. he ended february with $71 million in his account when trump ended with less than half of that. glenn is next on ever know line in california. hello. caller: good morning. i want to call in because i am disabled veteran right now sitting in a va hospital, and i remember when president trump was running for office. he was asked why he differed his enlistment in the military, and his exact words was i am not stupid and people who got wounded arm more rounds, losers. also, he has been convicted or lost his cases with the little girls he was playing with, and

why doesn't he just pay everybody? everybody is aware that he is complicit in his actions. thirdly, the reason i won't vote for him is because he needs to deal with the taliban to get our troops out of afghanistan and turned around and sold some of our weapons to syria, who sold them to saudi arabia and people like that, who turned around and killed the kurds who were helping our forces in afghanistan. he took money from the military budget to build a wall that does not do any good. artificial intelligence and what we have now should be enough defense to guard the border. he has the people all around the country riled up talking about immigrants. if he looked in the mirror, he would find out that i am native american. all you people are illegally here. you are only citizens of the united states. you are not american and cannot claim that title. host: ok.

terry is next in illinois on every s line. caller: i am so excited, pedro,, i cannot hide it. because i cannot wait for this day to flush the guy down the toilet because donald trump is ruining this country. you have joe biden taken care of everything. he is fixing the infrastructure, creating jobs, and you have a guy that wants to take away women's freedom. and he does not care about this country. he just wants to put this country in a trashcan. and then you stood on tv, pedro, and you let them guys talk all day long, republicans talk all day long about sending this country down the drain. you talk about a man that stormed the capitol and you let them get on there and talk all day and they do nothing for this country. yeah, i'm excited, and i cannot wait to flush donald trump down

the toilet where he belongs. host: ok. the new york times took a poll of a different nature when it comes to the presidential election, asking people to describe their sentiment towards it in one word. so here are the most common responses. the top response is anxious, and they make a point that six of the top 10 words expressed uncertainty about the election. it was anxious, nervous, scared, uncertain, worried, and then concerned. number two on the list, disappointed. one of two words that express more negative sentiment, that being disappointed and frustrated, and then two were optimistic, hopeful and excited, the windward explanation of what people thought about going into the november elections. you can find more at "the new york times" on how they broke that african marriott in virginia, you are next up to get go ahead. caller: hi.

good afternoon, everyone. i am not excited about joe biden. and i am not excited about the border. i am not excited about the economy. i am not excited about every time that joe biden is doing a presentation, he seems like he is sleeping. he is not with it. he always looks confused. and this year for the first time, i am voting for donald trump. host: who did you vote for last time? caller: last time, i voted for joe biden. host: so what specifically changed over four years? caller: i don't like joe biden, how he always looks sleepy. he always looks tired. he does not look like he is with it. he does not look like a man of power. he does not look, you know,

powerful to be president of the united states. host: ok. there in virginia. next up is annie in st. petersburg, florida, on every s line. hello. caller: hello, good morning. absolutely, i am happy. i just can't believe that everybody is not remembering that we get to vote. we get to vote. that is a wonderful thing. we get to make a change. absolutely, i am voting for biden. i am getting trump out. host: is the reason you are excited solely to cast a vote against donald trump or is it specifically more towards what president biden has accomplished over the last couple years? caller: well, i could say i am not 100% -- well, actually, yes,

yes, yes, that is exactly at. also, i will tell you something. we really need to get out and vote, and you really need to think that if you do vote for trump, then you and it is all over with and he gets in and everything turns upside down, just remember that you voted for him. just remember. host: ok, annie in florida. we talked about the supreme court oral argument concerning the former and his immunity claims. something to watch out for in the supreme court today, and right after this program you can follow along if you wish that today the court will hear argument for the most consequential case when it comes to the rights of people experiencing homelessness. in grants pass versus jobs in the supreme court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public

property if they have nowhere else to go. the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will make it easier for communities to climb out homeless people's tent encampment even if no housing or sheltering exists. this story adding that over 60,000 people in america express homelessness -- experience homelessness on any given night and many individuals are sleeping outside on streets, cars, train stations, and other settings not designed for human residence. data published in late 2023 showed a rise in homelessness in most states. that court case and its oral argument to me can follow along by watching this network. you can follow along at c-span.org. if you are interested in following along hearing the case. gary in indiana on our no line, hello. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: this is gary davis from bloomington, indiana. i am a senior citizen. i will not vote this year

because there is nobody running. and joe biden is raising everything up in prices. and people are sleeping on the street. i can understand why anybody would really put joe biden back in there again, so -- host: but you are saying you are voting for nobody this time around. caller: yes. host: why is that? caller: yeah. there is just nobody to vote for. why vote? if we are going to go to socialism anyway and another five or 10 years, maybe we will be in socialism so i'll just make him the king and let it go. host: let me elaborate on the question. if not joe biden, why not former president trump? caller: he will not get in there because he got she did last time. recording it over and over and over but he will not get in there.

if he does not run this time, they may shoot him to get him out. host: we believe it there. politico reporting david pryor, a democrat who was one of the state's most beloved figures and remained active in public service after he left office, he has died. he was 89. senator pryor went undercover to investigate nursing homes while a cumbersome and. he died saturday of natural causes surrounded by his family. david pryor was a heart attack and stroke survivor who was hospitalized in 2020 after testing positive for covid-19. also, the associated press is reporting terry anderson, the globetrotting press correspondent who became one of the longest held hostages in lebanon in 1985 and held for

nearly seven years, he died at 76. he chronicled his abduction and tortuous imprisonment by islamic militants in his best-selling 1993 memoir. he died on some weight in his home in new york with his daughter. scott is next on your level of excitement in this year's elections. scott in georgia, go ahead. caller: yes, i am excited to vote in this election because i feel like we need another four years of biden. you can hear from all of your pro biden callers that he has done a great job i believe he has not. if we get another four years of him, we will realize what a terrible job he has been doing. surely the price of gas will go up to eight dollars a gallon homelessness will triple. under his administration, the judicial system has become more corrupt than ever.

we have laws being passed that anybody can walk into anybody's house and it is ok. there is no crime being committed. it is insanity. until we reach full twilight zone, we will not realize what the demon-crats are all about so yes i am excited. host: lori is in carolina on our no line. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? host: i am well, thank you. caller: i am not excited at all. matter of fact when i go to the voting booth, i will only vote for, like, my governor, county commissioner, local sheriff, school board members. i just will vote for local government, state government on down. anybody in watching -- anybody we send to washington, d.c. come anymore, whether a representative or a president for that matter, they just go up there and they have their own

self-serving interests and they are giving all of our money away to foreign countries. we have a lot of problems at home and nobody is addressing them, so no, i am not excited. i am only voting for my state government on down. i look to what affects me locally, and that is all i have to say, pedro. i am not excited at all. host: ok, one more call from ohio on our yes line. you are the last call. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for what you do. i am super, super excited. and why? the most recent indicator is in his the passing of the foreign aid bill. host: you are on still. go ahead. caller: yeah. ok, do you hear me now? host: you said you got excited with the foreign aid bill.

keep on with that. caller: ok, well, for the last few months i have been watching this channel obviously and the house of representatives. an increasingly, the passage of bills, there is always amendments, and those get defeated. those get defeated all the time by the 350, 175, 58. there is a middle road in this country. there is a sensible middle road in this country. and the best indicator of that this last week's vote. five votes where the national socialists got identified, this streaming got identified, and the will of the people of this country was expressed.

host: ok. in ohio finishing off this round of calls. punch bowl reporting the passage of the foreign aid bill, senators are set to establish first roll call votes on the package for early tuesday afternoon, including a vote to invoke closure. it starts the clock before the final passage unless there is agreement for earlier. as theas the caller had mentiona package, or a series of amendments, expected to vote. there is a listing there. you can find out more at punch bowl news as the current status of the bill that passed over the weekend. it is earth day. we will be joined by two tests -- guests talk about the various aspects. the first is defenders of wildlife's jane davenport. later, former representative bob inglis of the advocacy group

republicen. their thoughts on this earth day coming up on "washington journal ." ♪ >> friday night, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, a one-stop shop to figure out what candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with firsthand accounts from political reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or c-span c-span download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or

wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house is out for the passover holiday. the senate is in to consider house foreign aid bills. wednesday, conversation between former congresswoman liz cheney and a historian on how america's leaders can put principals first and americans can improve on relationships. thursday, the supreme court will hear oral argument to decide if former president donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. and former members of the house and senate meet at the penn biden center on the current state of congress. and the white house correspondents dinner. this year's headliner is colin

jost. president biden is expected to speak. watch live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, the free mobile video app. or had to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is jane davenport. she is the senior attorney with the group defenders of wildlife on this earth day, talking conservation efforts. guest: thank you for having me. host: how would you describe your group? guest: defenders of wildlife is a nonprofit organization. our mission is to conserve native animals and plants in their native habitats, so we are laser focused on protecting biodiversity. host: what does biodiversity mean? guest: biodiversity means the amazing range and number of species we have on this planet.

we are in a situation where we are losing species faster than we can even describe them. so, absolutely, we need to protect all the precious parts of our ecosystem in order to thrive as one species on a healthy planet. host: we hear a lot of species, their engagement, but is a particular one people may not know about that you would highlight? guest: i would like to bring up the north atlantic white whale, a species of whale that is only found in the waters of the united states and canada. we are fewer than 360 surviving whales. people do not understand a lot of our whale species have not yet recovered from the era of industrial whaling, and yet these large whale species provide tremendous ecosystem benefits. for example, they help fertilize

plankton at the surface, which is the basis of the food chain, so we cannot have healthy oceans , we cannot have healthy fisheries unless we protect our large whale species. unfortunately, we are just losing them to fishing gear entanglements. as a land based animal, people do not necessarily think about what is going on in the oceans, but we have to protect our oceans and ocean wildlife. host: taking a look at that species and others, that would fall under the large umbrella of the endangered species act. where does it stand today and article really what has this administration done to protect the animals under it? guest: the endangered species act in general? host: yes. guest: the endangered species act celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. it is our flagship law for protecting imperiled species in this country. it has had an amazing track record of bringing species back

from the brink of extinction, including our national symbol, the bald eagle, the parikh and falcon, the american alligator. this administration has recently published new regulations, updated regulations, to implement the statutes. some of that is great and we are appreciative of what the did, bringing back productions 4-species, for example. however, it was also a lost opportunities in a lot of ways. the administration did not put in better protections for habitats that species need to recover. host: protections such as what? guest: such as consideration and protection when humans are moving forward with actions like building a highway or exploring

for energy sources. we need to make sure there is a balance in all of our projects between accomplishing human objectives and ensuring we are not wiping out see -- wiping out species and their habitats. host: are the standards usually established when going forward with those projects to see the impact on wildlife? guest: yes. there is what is called a consultation process. when a federal agency is approving a project, approving a new forest management plan, a new fisheries management plan, giving a loan to support a highway project area federal agency has to come to either the fish and wildlife service or the national fisheries service and engage in this interagency consultation to say what are the effects on the species going to be? is it going to result in jeopardy to the revival and

recovery of the species, and how can we avoid that? how can we put mitigation measures into place? how can we get what we want in a way that protects species and crackle habitats? that consultation process is how we reconcile the needs of human objectives with the needs of imperiled species. host: this is jane davenport of defenders of wildlife, joining us this earth day. if you want to ask questions on how wildlife is protected, you can call us on the line. (202) 748-8000 for the eastern. (202) 748-8001 for and pacific time zones. if you want to post your question or comment via text, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. we are told that the endangered species act, 16062 species currently protected, 1200 plus endangered ones. as numbers go, how do those

numbers compare to species overall and what is protected? guest: we are in the middle of a global biodiversity extinction crisis. there are twin crises we face. both the extinction crisis and the climate crisis, and they are related to each other. globally, we are at risk of losing one million species. we are in another era fo extinction, just as serious as an asteroid hitting the planets. in the united states, we are very fortunate to have this law, the endangered species act, which is one of the strongest in the world for protecting species both within the united states and species that are in foreign countries. some of those species that are included in that number are species that do not exist in the united states but can still benefit from the protections of the endangered species act.

for example, if the species is popular in international trade, the endangered species can help mitigate that for species imported into the united states. host: you talked about the balance of preserving species. i imagine that, for someone trying to build an org developing land, when they run into protections issues, they will say, because of these rules, i cannot achieve these goals i want. how do you strike that balance between the need for develop meant some areas and the need for protection? guest: in many cases, there is a lot of fear and misinformation around that very subject. as a matter of fact, defenders of wildlife, several years ago, examined 90,000 of those consultations i mentioned, where the federal agency involved in a project in the wildlife agency consulted. in exactly zero of those consultations did the project get shut down or was unable to

proceed. basically, the consultation process is all about making it work, both for the project, the proposed project, and for the species and its habitat. so it is a false choice to say we can only have one or the other. we can have both thriving economic development as well as thriving species and habitats. host: when do? groups like yours get involved? guest: when things are not going right. at defenders, we use a variety of tools in the toolbox. we certainly work on the hill. we work with our allies and champions in congress to advocate for especially appropriations, because as an amazing statute as the endangered species act is, it is desperately underfunded. we say the esa is starving, not broken.

it basically needs triple the appropriations it gets now to ensure species recover, which is the point of the statute -- not to keep species on life-support but to restore them to health. we work through the courts. we litigate. that is one of the things i do. and sometimes, it is opposed to the federal government. and sometimes we intervene on behalf of the federal government, when the government has done the right thing but is facing a challenge. we work directly in the field. one of our flagship programs is about promoting coexistence so that, for example, if a wolf attacks and kills livestock, that is real harm for the farmer or rancher. so we work in the field to promote coexistence by putting up fencing, by having guard dogs be present to deter the wolf.

there is a lot of ways in which, again, talking about a false choice -- it is a false choice to say we can either have wildlife or we can have human interests. there is lots of ways to go exist and make sure both sets of needs are fulfilled. host: jane davenport of defenders of wildlife. our first call comes from tina. she's in maine. you are on with our guest. caller: hi, good morning. i am so excited about this program today. i've been volunteering to help monitor the typing -- piping plover. they're migrating, landing on our beaches. this is my third year. i work with audubon society in the portland area, fish and game in maine. i realize i have learned so much about these little birds. they look so delicate, but they are very hardy. they migrate here, they land on

our beaches. as volunteers, we go out -- i am working with the scarborough -- the county of scarborough, maine. and we have a program. we volunteer, we work about three days -- three times per day with shifts, and we educate people who are walking the beaches. we educate folks with dogs. we have to implement, try to remind them gently and kindly, that their dog should be leased when there are plovers around. they are trying to build their nests. soon, eggs will be hatched. that is a real crucial time. again, there's dogs on the beach, other critters, other predators. i guess the good news is every year they do the count, and i guess there's other states in the northeast -- maine leads the

way because of the great efforts of so many volunteers, from the yorks to mid-coast. our numbers are growing. babies fledge basically from mid july, and them of july to august -- host: thank you. let me stop you there. the important of volunteers that she brought up. guest: absolutely. today is earth day. every day should be earth day, but today's a day, around the world, people are engaging in exactly these kinds of voluntary efforts, whether it is a monetary and protecting piping plovers, which you are doing, which sounds amazing, whether it is protecting sea turtle nests on beaches, or whether it is doing cleanup of a park or stream. i applaud you. the world needs more citizen conservation. host: what's a piping plover? guest: it's a shorebird.

they're the ones who skitter on the beach . as tina said, they are amazing, as they look like these tiny birds, but they make this amazing migration. when, as many shorebirds do, when they reach our beaches, they need to have food sources. one of the efforts that defenders has made is to protect horseshoe crabs, which provide, their eggs provide a food source for piping plovers an other shorebirds. it is not to protect them just in maine or north carolina or florida, wherever they may land. these species travel thousands of miles, so we had to be cognizant not only of local impacts but impacts throughout their range. host: this is from tommy in north carolina. good morning. caller: yes.

we went to mexico, in this is about six or seven years ago. they said there, and they were talking about china was taking more whales than they were supposed to be. in the united states cannot help keep these animals and stop china from killing and destroying them. that is the problem, other countries take advantage of our stuff. to make their stuff more satisfied and feed all the things they should not even feed off of and take their oil and make all kinds of perfume and everything else. but, hey, you know, there's no big deal about it, because they will not put no sanctions in it, because there is too many people

in congress who will vote against it. that is just like our president, biden. host: ok. tommy in north carolina. guest: international trade in wildlife products around the world is definitely a leading cause of risk to species. the endangered species act is a very important tool we have in the united states that can help combat that trade as well as other statutes that we have that can help combat that trade, because the u.s. can be a big hub for not only wildlife products shipped out but wildlife products imported as well as transportation across the united states and to and from other countries. we definitely need the support of our members of congress to fight wildlife trafficking wherever it originates.

fortunately, we do have the tools to fight back, but like i said earlier, we need better funding to make that enforcement more effective. host: i think it is the law of the fish and wildlife service that manages the environmental protection -- species act. how much do they get currently? what is the figure your organization is seeking? guest: there are two agencies that administer the endangered species act. the fish and wildlife service and the national maine fishery service, part of noaa. our numbers show we need about $850 million a year, if i have that right, which is about -- they are getting about one third of that every year. unfortunately, what that means, is as i mentioned earlier, the point of the endangered species act is not to keep species in the icu, right? it is to recover them, like the bald eagle, to the point that statutory protections are no longer needed.

unfortunately, of those species you mentioned earlier, the 1600 plus, many of them get less than $1000 per year for recovery. some of them do not get any. so they are stuck in the icu, because the agencies do not have the money they need to do what the statute directs them to do and get these species to the point of recovery. host: earlier this year, a group of republicans released their own effort on conservation, the american wildlife habit conservation act. one of the things as they say state need more of a say in how management is done versus the federal government. that is a broad generalization, but what do you think of the introduction of the act? guest: i cannot speak to the act particularly, but what i will say is, first, the endangered species act already has a robust mechanism for cooperation between the states and the federal government, and states play a critical role, not only

in protecting endangered and threatened species but also in helping to ensure that species do not get to that point in the first instance. then also, secondly, like i said before, we need to fund the endangered species act, because that will also help the federal government help the states implement critical protections and enhance that cooperation effort. host: it was washington state's republican dan will house. he talked about the difference in his mind. i want to play a little bit of what he has to say get your response. [video clip] >> more than its intent, you know that the endangered species act, in so many ways, has failed in its vision to recover and delist species and instead, unfortunately, in some instances, has been used as a tool to control the rights of

private landowners. we have to improve species' conservation efforts by empowering state and local efforts and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to species recovery. what works to recover a species in my state of washington may not work in the great state of arkansas or georgia or montana. the americas wildlife habitation -- habitat conservation act, always easy to say, delivers critical support to the individuals on the ground who have been tasked with restoring and preserving at risk habitats to better manage those species. host: how do you respond to that? guest: i disagree with the premise that the endangered species act is a one-size-fits-all approach. first of all, everything that happens under the esa has to be based on the best available

scientific and commercial data. that is a statutory requirement. by definition, that means there is no one-size-fits-all approach, because species and their habitats are different. there is no uniform "a species is listed, here's everything we will do to protect it." it is always on a case-by-case basis. second, there is already a riposte -- robust mechanism for cooperation. in most cases, the states are critical partners in conservation. third, getting back to the funding, we need triple the appropriations we have right now so that the endangered species act can do the job that it was always meant to do and recover species to the point where they don't need the statute's protections anymore. host: we are joined by jane davenport with defenders of wildlife, their senior attorney. let's hear from kal.

caller: good morning. my query relates to the concert as conversion to alternative energy sources. one with ink, with the mantra of "drill, baby, drill" that biden has been completely opposed to, the reality is oil production is up about 18% during his time in office as president. what do you see as far as the national or worldwide trends for alternative energy production in light of the continuing use of oil and natural gas? guest: i think that is a great question. i think it is really clear that the path we are on of continuing the trend and increasing the trend towards fossil fuel production in this country is the wrong path forward. that is why defenders is a huge proponent of renewable sources of energy. that being said, renewable

sources of energy, whether it is onshore or offshore wind or solar or any other kind of renewable energy, all projects like that can have effects on wildlife, and that is why we are so focused on making sure that renewable energy projects are cited appropriately and are managed and mitigated appropriately, so that we can have renewable energy and healthy, thriving wildlife populations. host: a viewer from x follows up on the question of the whales, asking why are all those whales dyg? there is some relation to submarines and sonar? guest: i agree that what is going on with the whales is highly concerning. it is actually not true that offshore wind is a source of the problem. if you have ever heard of the saying, "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" the

risks our large whales are two. three. two cost about humans are entanglements in fishing gear and vessel strikes. in fact, on the east coast, both north atlantic right whales as well as atlantic compact oils are currently in the midst of what we call unusual mortality events. one of the biggest causes of those is vessel strikes. that is why we are so adamant the biden administration needs to finalize a proposal to expand vessel speed protections for these large whales by slowing boats down, just like a slow speed zone when kids are on their way to school. when you have slower speed limits, you can get where you're going, but you're not going to run over and kill a whale. host: with those slower speed zones be in the concentration of where the whales are? guest: that is exactly right.

going back to the school zone analogy, we have those twice a day, when kids are on their way to or coming home from school. what the vessel speed rule does is have seasonal speed limits. when man -- when whales already traveling north-south and vessles are traveling east-west, we have zones. then they move away from there, so the speed zone is no longer in effect. it coordinates with where the whales are, when they are there, and when they are most at risk of vessel strikes. host: let's hear from david. david joins us from michigan. go ahead, you are on. caller: good morning and thank you very much for taking my call. i have a little story where i protected some animals. one day, my wife was going to work, and the car just did not run right, shaking and almost

stalling out. i looked under the hood -- sure enough, some of my wires to the motor were chewed up. i didn't know what it was. i looked in the motor and saw rat droppings, so i took it to the auto mechanic and, for $260, he fixed them. i did not kill any rats in the process of this, and i used peppermint oil, made my spray, and i sprayed the motor, and so far, so good. there were no rats killed, because god's creations, the rats are a part of that circle of life. and for birds of prey, they pick up those animals and eat them. cats also. so, no rats were harmed in this little story. but i want people to know, if

they ever have that problem with their automobile where the wires were chewed, they can use peppermint oil spray, and the rats kill peppermint oil. there is only one rat i will not protect, and that is donald j. trump. host: that is david in michigan. guest: i wonder if the car smells better with the peppermint oil. but the caller raises an excellent point. we need to be aware of the unintentional consequences of what we do. if we are trying to kill rats or mice with poison, what happens to the hawks, the eagles, the foxes that eat those? we can't just go about our lives poisoning critters that are inconvenient, like rats and mice, without thinking about the

effect on the larger ecosystem. host: there was action from the biden administration on peace act criminals. what are they and how will they impact animals? guest: i cannot member what it stands for. this is not an issue i track so also because i focus on wildlife, but the epa is regulating pfas because of human health concerns with these forever chemicals and our water supply. they are being ingested by people. huge range of health effects that we have just begun to scratch the surface. whatever happens in the human environment will also happen to wildlife as well. again, it is not my issue, but i think it's a huge step forward in recognizing that we cannot just continue to use chemicals or make plastics and so forth

with abandon because of the effects on humans and wildlife. host: mark in new jersey. hello. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to wish everyone on the planet a happy earth day. for me this is the most important day of the year and we should celebrate our mother earth every single day. we can all do something. i made a commitment to use less fossil fuels many years ago. i'm doing well, i have my solar panels, my plug-in hybrid, and i want to do more. now, i'm trying to cut down on plastics which is a difficult one, but i'm going to keep going. i am a member of defenders of wildlife, i appreciate the work that you do, ms. davenport. let's clean up this planet. it is the only one we have. we should worship mother earth as the true god. take care.

guest: as i say, there is no planet b. mark, your point is very timely. the theme of this year's earth day is people versus plastics. everything that we can do to reduce our dependence on plastics is vitally important first of all because plastics are made from fossil fuel. second, they are lasting in the environment and having effects that we have just begun to understand. we have all seen for example with sea turtles, the horrible pictures of a sea turtle trapped in the plastic six-pack rings, or whales that have washed up on beaches dead because their stomachs are full of plastic bags and fishing rope. what people don't understand is those plastic bottles especially in the ocean coming from our laundry, those tiny

micro-plastics that we cannot even see with the naked eye, those are building up in the ocean. i just read they were more particles of like a plastics in our ocean then there are stars in the milky way. the basis of the food chain, plankton, fish larva are eating those plastics, and then little fish are in by bigger fish, bigger fish are eaten by bigger fish. here we are as humans at the top of the food chain, eating fish and shellfish, ingesting those plastics. i applaud you for everything that you are doing. we all need to reduce and hopefully eliminate our dependence on plastic. host: jane davenport, senior attorney with organization. thank you for your time. we continue our theme of earth day talking about the topic of climate change joined by former representative bob inglis to talk about what washington

should be doing to combat climate change. later on in the program, and interview with two polital contributors who work largely on social media, stephen mundell and brad polumbo, joining us on the program. ♪ >> matt drudge started his website called the drudge report in 1995. in those early beginnings he had just 1000 email subscribers. within a short time, that number jumped to hundreds of thousands. until the mid to thousands, he was very visible appearing on television and hosting his own radio show. without notice to his public, he has disappeared from public view. chris moody just finished hosting a podcast series called "finding matt drudge." >> host of the podcast series

called "finding matt drudge." available on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> get information from members of government right in the palm of your hand when you order your copy of c-span's 2024 congressional directory. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.95 and every purchase help to support our nonprofit operations. scan on the right or go to c-span.org to get your copy today. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other.

since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced unfiltered coverage of government, taking you where the policies are debated and decided, all supported by america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: bob inglis served in congress as a representative of south carolina from 1993 to 1999, again in 2005 to 2011, now executive director of a group called republicen. great to have you on the program. tell us about your organization, what are your main goals? guest: energy, entre nous or, and the environment. obvious misspelling of the word

republican, and we are trying to get into the conversation because we think conservatives know that free enterprise can solve this if we fix the economics. we think what we have is a problem of economics that has environmental consequence. we are conservatives who care about climate change, think there is a solution in free enterprise, one that is actually acceptable to many progressives. host: those conservatives you talk about, how many do you think go along with your line of thinking? guest: we have over 10,000 members online, with us in various ways, taking actions. but we think there are way more than that out there. it's a matter of making that visible and audible to their members of congress and senators. here is the thing that i hope doesn't burst any bubbles. politicians typically follow,

they don't lead. if we establish that constituency, they will follow it and actually provide some direction toward solving climate change. that is what we are working on. host: you formally served in congress. how did you come about your view of climate change? guest: my first six years in congress, i set climate change was nonsense. i didn't know anything about it except that al gore was for it. pretty ignorant but that is how i was in my first six years. then i was out of congress doing commercial real estate in south carolina, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again in. 2004 very conservative district in south carolina. that was the year that our eldest son just turned 18, voting for the first time,, came to me and said i will go to for you but you have to clean up

your act on the environment. sisters and mother agreed, that is a new constituency. that was step one of the metamorphosis. step two was going to antarctica and seeing the effects of drilling. step three was something of a spiritual awakening at the great barrier reef. seems improbable on a godless science trip, this climate scientist named scott was showing me in the glorious great beer reef --. reef. i could see that he was worshiping god and what he showed me. we had the opportunity to talk and add words to that observation. st. francis of assisi said preach the gospel all the time, and if necessary use words. that is what scott was doing.

he was talking about conservation changes he was making to love god and people. people that come after us. i got inspired, wanted to be like my friend scott, who has now become a dear friend. was not a very good political move because the tea party was on. i thought i was nice enough to got invited but i was specifically uninvited. for that and other heresies. my most enduring against the tea party orthodoxy was saying that climate change was real. ever since i been out to convince conservatives that it is really conservative to act on climate change. host: this is bob inglis from the group republicen, executive

director, formally served in congress. the numbers, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000, democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to send us a text, (202) 748-8003. people hear carbon tax, how would it work, how does it combat climate change? guest: actually the thing that most are medically reduces emissions, and the evidence of that is some modeling that you can see with an outfit called inroads. they saw the same thing. en roads. it's in mit's sloan school of business model that you can play

with, make several assumptions. the result is you will see carbon tax most are medically reduces emissions. how would it work? since we are conservatives, you can be sure we don't want to grow the government in solving climate change. the way that we do it, we reduce payroll taxes and then switch the tax to carbon dioxide. the bottom 70 percent of americans do better when you do that kind of tax swap. here is the key thing, apply it at the borders. so that it becomes something that goes worldwide. that is a crucial element here.

we do that and it makes it in the interest of our trading partners to do the same thing back home. then you have the whole world following american leadership with 8 billion people seeing the true cost of the burning of fossil fuels. it is built into the price of everything. at that point, the cleaner, greener stuff appears cheaper then the dirty stuff made accountable. that is what i was mentioning out the outset, the problem of economics and fixing that. the air gets better and we stop dumping so much trash. it cost something to put it there. then people look for ways to avoid that and by the cleaner, greener stuff. host: are there other countries, organizations that apply that kind of philosophy, what is the

end result? guest: great question because we are about to be taught about this by the european union. starting october last year, a company in south carolina makes steel, perhaps export some to europe. in october, they had to start saying much emissions they had in the making of that steel. starting in 2026, they have to pay a carbon tariff essentially on those schools -- goods they are sending to europe. at that point, members of congress will start getting a call from companies like nucor saying we are paying a tax, essentially a tax or tariff, we are paying that to europe. you could have collected it here. it makes no difference to us. it makes no difference to our

customers because it has to be paid one way or the other. the lights will go on in the congress. why don't we collect that money? why do we let these companies keep on forking over to the europeans? then people will realize we can do that to china. then we will be moving onan american carbon tax that is paired with the reduction in payroll taxes so there is no growth in government

that comes from fossil fuels. but i truly would like us to focus on the word conservation versus climate. in my family, we have a nasa engineer, i'm a scientist but not a climate scientist. the last glaciation period 20,000 years ago, our seas were almost 400 feet lower. florida was three times the size it is today. it was due to axial recessions. i cannot get into the physics today but we should really focus on conservation and we need to be focused on our solar winds because everything we do today is electronic. that is the real threat, whether or not our systems are hardened enough to deal with all the physics and everything coming from our sun.

people don't really understand the science of climate. host: debra in ohio, thanks for the call. guest: certainly correct we need to focus on conservation. we think it is quite conservative to focus on conservation. it is only the last syllable where they differ. we are also aware it's important to let people know that the sides is pretty clear on this. the chemistry and the physics are very clear, the modeling is complex you can doubt some of the modeling. you can pull apart some of the assumptions, but the chemistry, adding co2 to the atmosphere and that causes an increase in the heat here, that is pretty much

indisputable. physics isn't new. the chemistry, i can even understand that. i only had high school chemistry and i know there is an equal s ign there. if you add more carbon dioxide, you have to follow the chemistry. very important for us to get that word out. we have some merchants of doubt. a book turned into a movie by that same name. really shows how some people introduced doubt when there really was not any doubt. host:e have a view who asks via text should we be fighting climate change or developing strategies to cope with its effects? some believe that we can eliminate it. guest: the viewer is correct we

have some baked in damage. we cannot avoid all the consequences but if we act now and act particularly with the power and the speed in which free enterprise can deliver innovation at speed and scale i think we can avoid the worst of it. but it is true we have some adaptation we are going to have to do. essentially, we have been smoking for a while. no matter how old you are, you go to the doctor, they will tell you please stop. if you've been smoking a long time, probably some damage. we have been smoking. there is some baked in damage. but let's act now to avoid the worst of it. host: minnesota is next. john, democrats line. caller: i want to respond to the

republican woman who called in earlier. she quoted climate scientists regarding glacier ages in the past. it is good that we trust what our climate scientists have said about the past, but now the exact same climate scientists are saying the burning of fossil fuels is causing our earth to warm at an unusually rapid pace and that we need to act as quickly as possible to reduce the use of fossil fuels. i'm always surprised when i hear people quote scientists about the past but then do not believe what they say about the present. finally, my real question was, who do you think is really behind all of the false information that is being put out about renewables? now they are saying solar panels

are heating up the earth. who is behind all of this false information? guest: you can be sure that people have an interest, sometimes a financial interest. it depends on your portfolio. in congress they say where you sit determines where you stand. in other words, where your district is determines where you stand. in business, where your portfolio is is where you stand. some companies unfortunately are trapped in a spot where they don't think they can innovate. those are the ones that fight like heck to stop innovation. but innovation is coming. i think that is just the reality of the situation. if we do it right, we can innovate quickly. host: the biden administration has touted its effort on climate and green energy through the inflation reduction act. what do you think of its record to date? guest: if i were still in

congress when that was up, if it had been offered as a freestanding bill with elements that you could vote up or down on, rather than a reconciliation package, i might have voted for some of those things. there would have been a fair number of republicans as well. it was a reconciliation package, an inherently partisan move. when we as republicans did it, no democrat votes. when democrats did it, no republican votes. if it was a freestanding bill, i think they would have been a fair amount of republican support for those things. what conservative doesn't like a tax credit? that is essentially what they are. very powerful tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, and hydrogen.

those are going to work. the proof of that is in the private sector estimates that exceed by two and three times the estimates of the tax cost of the biden administration. the biden administration things it is going to cost x for the treasury to give up that money because of the tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, but the private sector estimates are two or three times that amount. that tells me, private sector folks know that this can work. powerful incentives. but the challenge, you are affecting the economics. i mentioned in the outset this is a problem of economics. you are changing the economics for those private sector firms because you are giving them a tax credit, and those are powerful. but if you are a chinese company, you don't pay american

taxes. so those tax credits are worthless to you. so you are not affecting the chinese company's economics, not getting the world in on it yet. that is why we have to keep on searching for an even more powerful solution that goes beyond just weaning up the air here in america, which is wonderful. fewer asthma cases, greater life expectancy, fewer hospitalizations. that would be great but you need to get the world in on it to solve climate change. that is why we need to focus on things like an effective carbon border mechanism. host: earlier this year, debate on the house of representatives over a carbon tax, republicans pushing back including ryan zinke, who served in the former administration as interior secretary. i want to play you what he had to say about the carbon tax.

[video clip] >> a carbon tax makes america less competitive. it forces families to pay more for groceries they are struggling in. and it also, on our allies, who now depend on a low cost american energy, now we are going to a transition to where, ev's in china land? does anyone realize 85% of the minerals that power ev's, lithium, nickel, processing are all in china? the very idea that we would make ourselves less competitive and give the advantage to our adversaries, and who is going to produce energy? if it is not us, who will? i can make a list. perhaps he ran -- iran, perhaps

venezuela, perhaps russia. host: part of the argument from representative zinke's point of view. what is your response? guest: he represents the buggy whip manufacturers. when henry ford was bringing out his model t, you can go back in the congressional record and find the same comments from the people that represented the buggy whip manufacturers. it just seems like he is stuck in the past, representing an existing industry, buggy with manufacturing, in his case, fossil fuels, and cannot see any way out of that. maybe that is his district, his state. but the world moves on. we found out there were all kinds of problems with henry ford's car. the tires were not any good. some of them blew up like molotov cocktails driving down the road. there was gasoline in them.

it scared the horses. peoplewere hurt because of henry''s cars coming around and backfiring. but it worked and we decided it was an easier way to get around than the horse. buggy whip manufacturers went out of business. isn't that what conservatives really believe? we believe in the creative destruction is him of the free enterprise system. we say that that brings innovation and moves people along. sorry to say that what we just heard, it is going to be just like the buggy whip venue factors. in the future we will say, can you believe somebody said that on the house floor? look at how we are doing energy now. but we have to get there. host: you heard his comments on electric vehicles. a recent poll by the wall street journal looking at the sales of hybrids over ev's.

hybrids getting the majority of sales over ev's, other stories about a softening of sales on ev's. where do you think the electric vehicle falls in, as far as the future is concerned, contributing less to climate change? guest: i'm a big fan. i remember in 2017, my wife said we need to walk the talk. she said i'm going to go test drive a volt, the chevy car, hybrid. she came home with said volt. at which point our youngest daughter from college called to make sure we were ok, thought that we were having a midlife crisis, because we had never bought a new car in our lives. we would always buy a used car, fix the transmission. the first time we ever bought a new car. pretty impressive car.

you go 50 miles on electricity and then converts to a gasoline engine that charges the battery. now i understand mary barra, the ceo of gm, says they will start to make it again. that is a neat transition. mr. toyota says that is the future, to do this kind of hybrid. we say at republicen.org, let the free enterprise system figure that out, make it so the cost of owning fossil fuels is built in through a carbon tax, paired with a reduction in payroll taxes. then let's see what the impact is on cars. it may be that toyota is right, that mary barra's decision to reel in production of a hybrid will be right. in the meantime, we surely need to get off all these admissions

and make us accountable for that, and then we will find those hybrids pretty attractive vehicles. host: bob inglis is joining us for this conversation. david in san francisco. hello. caller: he has an unenviable effort. when you think about money, people are born into a system that they have no knowledge of, the rules are never taught to them, and then there are con artists who take advantage of those rules. when you think of polluters, each drop of pollution might cost 30 times more than they got in profit. when you think about trying to clean up the pollution, and these people are making money polluting, and there is no money to clean it up. this whole thing about getting tax breaks for stopping

pollution might work. it could be cost effective. but what we really need is for these people to clean it up. and it is getting worse and worse. the idea that america doesn't have an infrastructure bill, much less an infrastructure bill that works on cleaning it up, means that we are heading for an ugly disaster. if these people have figured out it is not cost-effective to clean it up, and our lives are not cost-effective, and they would spend money on lawyers looking for some excuse why they should never clean it up rather than actually cleaning it up. host: david in san francisco. guest: david, what you are onto is the key message that we have at republicen.org, this idea of internalizing negative externalities.

every time i say that, the ad guy laughs and says i don't know what you're talking about. basically accountability for the side effects of burning fossil fuels. that is what it's all about, fixing that problem of economics. right now we all get to trash dump into the sky without paying a tipping fee. that is not what you do if you are a trash hauler. in san francisco where you live, you pay a tipping fee at the dump. that causes you to back that up to your customers, and then your customers are more careful of what you will put in the bin to take to the dump because it costs them something. that is what we need, a price on carbon dioxide. i say we are conservatives that want to cut taxes somewhere else, the payroll tax, that would fix the problem of economics. there are progressive listening, i think that sounds familiar.

i have heard about this before but i may progressive, they might say. it might be the same thing that al gore has been for over 30 years. i asked if i could keep on saying that. he said, if you are talking about a load, and i said, no, i'm talking about a carbon tax that is steadily rising. you can tell people what i have been for. it's the same thing i've been for 430 years. even though we message to people right of center, talk about people like elton friedman, our ultimate goal is to bring america together. and to solve this by leading the world to solutions on climate change. it really is time for america to come together to do that. but it starts, we think, with getting the insensible partners and the instant -- indispensable

nation and on it, and that is american conservatives. host: let's hear from republicans in georgia. john, hello. caller: i don't believe there's any statistical data that shows with the united states is doing make any difference in climate change. the united states reached its peak of co2 emissions in the year 2000 to 5.77 kilotons admitted. the paris agreement calls for all countries to reduce their co2 emissions by 50% of what they produced in that year. the united states has reduced our co2 emissions by approximately 15%. on the other hand, china has increased there's by 300%. indy has increased there's by 200%. if we were to reach the goals set forth in the agreement, china and india would have eclipsed our reduction by 150%.

nothing we do is going to have any impact until china and india get on board with it. and do you really think the people living in countries in africa, who live in conditions unknown to the western world, really care about climate change? emerging countries cannot emerge from a third world status on renewables. somehow there has to be away for countries to emerge from third world status in other ways. host: thanks, caller. guest: i would say i think it is quite possible for those places to emerge into wealth, growth of their economic situation on renewables. in fact, that would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? why continue to support petro dictators in places like saudi arabia where the leader of that

country sends people to cut journalists up and into pieces? those are the people that we hang out with? why don't we defunded those folks? make a village in india light up at night by this tribute it energy systems with better solar and better batteries. if we play our cards right, we can invent and perfect those things here in america and sell them to them, creating jobs and wealth here in america, serving our customers in that village in india. what an opportunity in free enterprise. also a way to improve our national security by saying to these saudi arabians, see if you can drink that stuff. we can send you copies of our constitution if you would like but we just don't need you like we use to. what a difference it would be.

i think free enterprise innovation is the way that we will get there. it is pretty exciting actually. host: republicen.org is the website for our guest. bob inglis formerly served in congress, now director of republicen. thank you for your time. guest: great to be with you. host: coming up, a conversation about politics and political issues with two political commentators on the state of politics who do a lot of their work on social media, reaching out to younger voters. we will be joined by steven bonnell and ran palombo next on -- brad polumbo next on "washington journal." >> they say i'm over the hill. don lemon would say that is a man in his prime. >> watch coverage of the annual white house correspondents

dinner, live on saturday with cohost colin jost as the featured entertainer, as well as president biden who's expected to give remarks. coverage begins at 6:00 eastern. journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. 8:00 p.m. on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom from before the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner, live on saturday on the c-span networks. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely

unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any online at c-span.org. videos of key hearing, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear to the right of your screen when you play select videos. this makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our collection our products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase

helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our annual studentcam documentary competition. this year, c-span asks middle and high school students across the country to look forward while considering the past. participants were given the option to look 20 years into the future or into the past, and we received inspiring and thought-provoking documentaries from over 3200 students in 42 states. our top award of $5,000 for grand prize goes to nick coleman and jonah roth line, high schoolers in western connecticut. there documentary navigates passed in future conflict with iran. >> it is evident that in the next 20 years the u.s. must make policy on restrictions for americans traveling to iran.

not only will we see hostagetaking but the u.s. will no longer have to participate. >> be sure to watch the winners c-span every day this month starting at 6:50 a.m. eastern or anytime online at studentcam.org. >> matt drudge started his website called the drudge report in 1995. in those early beginnings he had just 1000 emo subscribers. within a short time, that number jumped to hundreds of thousands. up until the mid 2000, mr. drudge was very visible, appearing on television and hosting his own radio show. he has just disappeared from public view. chris moody just finished a podcast series called "finding matt drudge." we asked him to tell us what he found. >> chris moody host the podcast

seriesd "finding matt drudge" on this episode of book notes plus. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing unbalanced coverage of government all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: outside of new york city, a camera pointed at the courthouse where opening statements are set to begin in the criminal trial of donald trump.

we will have that camera there as the day goes on in case something happens. you can respond to what happened on tomorrow's washington journal. joining us now is a discussion on social media, politics, impacts on younger voters. two guest joining us for this conversation, steven bonnell, social media commentator, also joined by brad polumbo, who also does that work on social media and other platforms, both adjoining the program for the first time. guest: thanks for having us. host: let's find out a little bit about you. mr. bonoan, what you do in the space of social media and politics, where you come from politically? guest: i run a youtube channel where we do politics, philosophy, science, news, all sorts of things. been doing politics online for about eight years.

most people would consider me center left too far left depending on whether we are talking about economic or social issues. host: same question to you. guest: i make content on youtube, write various publications, come to things from a center-right nonpartisan perspective. host: to both of you, why are you particularly interested in the world of politics, what kind of information do you deliver it to people that perspective we follow you? this to palombo, you start. guest: i tried to separate here are the facts, here is my take. nobody can be completely objective but i try to separate what i'm giving in my opinion versus what i'm describing what is happening. the reason i find it interesting is because the policies that we are talking about and debating, they have every day impacts for real people across the country that can be life-changing. sometimes that goes unnoticed amid all the culture wars. arguing about what some

celebrity tweeted. but when we are talking about the federal government, we are talking about the power of life and death, economic decisions that transforms people's lives. discussing and debating those things is one of the most meaningful things you can do in political discourse. host: mr. pinnell, the same question to you. guest: a lot of the political conversations happening in the online world and mainstream media world are pretty bad. i take a pretty critical approach, try to do more reading and research and the average online commenter does. i could have strong opinions about what we can do domestically or internationally, some base level of factual information we should all be sharing. i really stress the importance of doing the reading, research, having a good factually informed opinion before we discuss what we should do about whatever problem we are discussing. host: could you tell our audience not only where you are found but also how you present

information on the platform, how it impacts what you do as far as possessing that information. mr. bonnell, you go first. guest: i'm on youtube. in terms of presentation, livestreaming. those are videos that are put on the internet. i will do debate with other people on their show, sometimes my show, sometimes on the internet. when i'm not doing debates or covering breaking news, just reading stuff on stream. it might be a supreme court decision, pulling some lawyers to chat about it. talking about the u.n., pulling ngo's. just like variety of people with expertise in areas while reading the original source material so people can have informed opinions on whatever news of the day are. host: how many followers do you have on your various platforms? guest: youtube is my main one,

almost 800,000 there. host: the way you present information and how social media impacts that? guest: i have about 115,000 subscribers on youtube. that is one of my main platforms. i try to entice people with entertainment, content that is just fun, that is not super political or serious, or frame things in a way that is engaging or entertaining to people. while it may depress us as serious thinkers and commentators, a lot of people on the internet are looking more for entertainment. sometimes you can hook them in with a little bit of entertainment content that is just humor, doesn't have a lot of substance to it, and then they stay for more serious discussion. i try to take that mixed approach to content creation. host: how do you approach the editorial side of it? i assume you work alone on your platforms. how do you make an editorial judgment as far as the

information you present, mr. polumbo? guest: i use my own judgment, sources that i routinely rely on that i trust and view as credible. i will not just signed a random website that i have no idea where it came from or just repeat things that other commentators are saying. i will try to have some kind of reputable source, something i'm going off of, not just spouting off. my editorial judgment, i worked in traditional media for years, so i take some of those principles and apply them to the digital space of transparency, letting people know, this is my opinion. this is not a neutral news report you are getting here. linking sources and getting transparent about where information is coming from. i try to take that same approach with additional commentary. it just looks different but a lot of the same principles apply. host: mr. bonnell. guest: it's important when people are trying to figure out what is true and not true, they

realize sometimes news consumption is like diet and exercise. they don't think there is a shortcut. what are the news sources you trust? if you are reading headlines, it is none of them. i try to do a good job of reading entire articles, reports, entire supreme court decisions. once you have read a fair amount in any given area, it's easy to pick up which information synergizes with what you have read before, what information is slanted or biased. when it comes to editorial decisions, we will read whatever original source material be confined. i vastly prefer to read an indictment over a cnn or fox news interpretation of an indictment. it is good to read the original material. once you develop that vocabulary for a particular issue, digging out which sources are good and bad, just looking at whether the information aligned with what

you said before. host: if you want to ask questions about how they do their work online, the information they present, other related matters, steven bonnell and brad polumbo is joining us. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. if you are a boater under 35 -- a boater 35, -- voter under 35, (202) 748-8003. when it comes to this election year, what are you telling your audience about this election year, what are they telling you about the responses of how they see things shaping up this year? mr. polumbo, you go first. guest: i'm trying to highlight the different policy issues the candidates are focusing on. i have been talking about

biden's repeated attempt to cancel loan debt. president trump campaigning on massive escalations in terrace -- terrace, taxes on imports. the horse race in traditional media is really following criminal trials, lawsuits, other things that is not so much my lane. i try to focus on the actual policy agendas they are going to implement if they are elected. then people can decide for themselves if it is something they support. in both cases i'm pretty critical of what they are running on and doing, their record. what i hear from my audience which i would say is right of center, mostly under 40, heavily female actually, but what i would say is it is a lot of apathy toward the system, toward voting for either one of these guys. a lot of these people are drawn

to either option, and if they do vote, it will be a hold their nose, vote for the one they can stomach the most. a lot of them honestly will not vote, will vote third-party or independent, because they don't feel like either major party is appealing to them or speaking to them, or that either of the candidates are qualified or represent their interests. host: mr. bonnell. guest: i need to get brad's audience. when i talk to people, i would like to be policy focused, but i remember i did an event with another youtuber. we had to ask questions about what the person in front of us thought. it was a trump supporter, i am a biden supporter. i had three guesses to guess what he would support trump over biden. foreign-policy position, position on immigration, is it because of his position on tax

cuts? after striking out three times, he said he thought biden was senile. my mind was not even in that direction. i like to cover fact-based stuff on my stream. a healthy chunk of my audience appreciates that. then there is this other side, unfortunately, the culture war stuff. a lot of the politicians success, for better or worse, sometimes just comes down to stage presence. i thought ron desantis had a good shot of winning the republican nomination right until i saw him interact with an audience. he absolutely didn't. trump's stage presence was so much better than his. i tried to follow as much factual stuff we can but paying attention to other things that the voters like is also a part of it. host: we have questions, people lined up to talk to both of you. this is from andrew in ohio.

our line for independents. you are on with both guests. good morning. caller: nice to see you on c-span, brad. next election i am voting libertarian or constitution party. every year since 1989 we've had more federal, state, local government employees then manufacturing. ross perot said if you cannot make anything, you cannot buy anything. we have been running a trade deficit every year since 1976. trump or biden will not fix that. medicare and social security are causing a catastrophic increase in the national debt. baby boomers control over 53% of the nation's wealth and they are getting health care and social security every single month. it is sad what is happening to this country. you look at military spending, the pentagon failed an audit for six years. china, russia, they have more warships than the united states.

i can understand what is happening to the country and the disrespect to the taxpayers. host: can be hold on just a second? former trump -- president trump is outside the new york courtroom. >> we have this company. i put up 175 million dollars in cash but she says the bonding company is no good. she doesn't like the bonding company because she doesn't know if the collateral is good. i put up 175 million in cash and she is questioning the bonding company. when the number is 175 which is what we are supposed to be putting up and we put it in cash, she shouldn't be complaining about the bonding company. i put up the money. i have plenty of money to put up. nobody is going to be listening or coming to new york anymore. businesses are going to be fleeing because people are treated so badly.

it has got to be the most unfriendly place to do business. that is why businesses and people are leaving. on the letitia james case, the worst attorney general in the country by the way. and she is keeping business out of new york. businesses that are here are leaving. that means jobs and revenue. somebody has to step in, the governor, has to do something because businesses are fleeing. letitia james. 175 million. she is complaining about the company. why would she be complaining about that when i put up the money? host: former president trump outside of the new york courtroom at the start of that first criminal trial. apologies for that. we wanted to give our audience a flavor of what was going on. the caller talked about the third independent party. mr. polumbo, wanted to ask you

about that. apologies for the delay. go ahead. guest: taxpayers and you are a fiscal conservative, donald trump is certainly not really embodying those values. he spent tons of money in office, ran massive trade wars that i think hurt everyday americans, working-class americans badly. certainly, president biden is worse, maybe not by a whole lot, but neither candidate is appealing to you. president biden came in and signed massive stimulus bills that worsened inflation, funneled way more money into programs that were rife with fraud like the covid era stimulus programs. he has, at every turn, try to spend on additional subsidies for green energy subsidies that he is aligned with. he is somebody who has honestly taxed and spent taxpayer money

in a way that would have made even an obama or hillary clinton blush. he just shows a leftward drift of the democratic party. if these other things we are concerned about, i don't blame you for voting third-party or writing in. two just because of me voting for the lesser of two evils is not sucking i believe in. ultimately enough people are disenchanted and don't reward them for putting up these candidates don't appeal to our values, eventually they will change, but people will actually have to do that in large numbers first. host: mr. bonnell, idea of a third party or people looking outside of the two candidates? guest: i encourage as many conservative candidate to vote third party because that means my candidate could win. i'm all for it. personally i don't think we should have a moral value attached to paying taxes. understandably want to pay as few as possible but we got into this strange world where people

on the left start argument that taxes should be higher because it is more moral, people on the right argue that they should be lower because they are immoral. we should focus on the programs we want to support, federally and state wide, school districts, what programs we want to support, what level of taxation we want to support those programs. if you feel like the taxation is too high, we can scale back on the program. people become too fixated on those particular taxation numbers, and the whole morality of the argument becomes much in taxes we should pay, which is silly and misses the point. in terms of spending, presidents have spent a lot. i wish we could have a democrat come into office that is not on the heels of a prior economic disaster. sucks that obama had to come in and spend our way out of the highs and crisis, biden came in and had to spend our way out of the covid crisis. hopefully a democrat can come in

without the deficit being complete and collapse. guest: the economy had mostly recovered when biden took office. the american rescue act was entirely unnecessary. it funneled trillions of dollars into this after we had come close to recovering. it just poured more fuel onto the fire. guest: i wouldn't say that the economy had quickly recovered. worldwide there were things happening with supply chains, other countries experience and problems. the united states in regard to economic recovery came out on top. maybe japan gave more stimulus than us, but the united states was one of the most excessively recovered countries after the victim back. -- pandemic. that was due to the spending that biden did in the early part of his presidency. host: caller: it must be really sad

to be bent off of twitch and to lose your wife as well. i just wanted to say you have really bad political analysis. just reading off of wikipedia. you say your political analysis is good but wikipedia alone doesn't give you a good political analysis oig wanted to ask you a question about finding the great political background which leads to the whole supreme court -- host: i think we got your point. before you answer the question of the benefit of her audience,

what is twitch? guest: it says social media group on the internet. you should always be reading a variety of sources. it could be encyclopedia or one particular publication or even one particular author waiting dez reading a wide variety of material is good. host: paul in new mexico independent line. guest: i have a question for you. i notice you took a position on the israel-palestinian conflict. by your admission at the time, it you knew almost nothing about the conflict when you took this position and you scoured wikipedia for justification for your position. has -- of anybody else had done that, what would you have said to them? guest: i would say if that

person shows up in debates with people who are supposed to be prevent -- defending the palestinian position and the only thing the red was wikipedia and they did well every time they are opposed by these pro-scholars, it would make the question of the pro-palestinian side. guest: don't you think debating is a skill in and of itself? somebody can simultaneously be very good at debating which nobody disputes that you are yet if they are debating an academic that might be super knowledgeable, debate is not their skill, in my present as if you are winning the debate but it doesn't necessarily mean your norton more knowledgeable and more correct guest: that is true but as an academic, and humans, we cannot attach our brains to each other and transfer information, we have to do it through language. if you cannot communicate what you believe, that's a failure on your part. you should want to communicate with other people so it behooves

you as an academic to learn how to communicate those ideas effectively. also different types of debates and conversation will lend themselves to different types of rhetoric. i've talked to many people calmly and the amount of rhetorical preparation you need is different then and alex jones where we are literally screaming at each other. debates are about the most rhetorical argument but they are for people who don't have the information. they just want to preach to people what they already believe. host: is wikipedia part of that research? guest: sometimes for starting point. i think anything could be a good starting point. then you go to news articles and books and documentaries and other online resources. guest: i don't think there's anything wrong with looking at wikipedia and going to the sources they cite for more

information. is it fair when people say you knew little about the conflict before october 7? is that an attack or true by your own admission? guest: it's fairly true, i knew some stuff but in terms of -- i know a decent amount when i spent a few weeks doing in-depth reading about a particular thing. i knew the rough sketches of israel-palestine but nothing in detail. i can't be well read on every particular thing so after october 7, i did more in-depth research so i can have a more in opinion about it. host: how much interest on your respective platforms of the topic of israel-palestine are you getting these days? guest: there is interest in it but it's outside of my expertise. i've taken the approach that one of the big things i cover is free speech so that's related to the palestine-israel situation.

i've seen both sides but i have some intellectual humility about the fact that i don't know a lot about the conflict area it's so complicated and has such an extensive history. also it's really hard to get good information. what's happening on the ground is there is the fog of war and it's unclear and we have sources in hamas run sources and the idf that are not neutral. they may be clearly have a stake in skewing the information they present in different ways so i tried to stay in my lane when it comes to grand pronouncements about the conflict or who is right going back to the early 20th century and all of that area i focus in areas where it intersects with my specialties and interest like the free-speech debates and those kind of things. i think there is a ton of interest in the topic online whether it's youtube debates or tv debates. there has been enormous interest in this in conversations with

people from across the spectrum on that issue. host: what do you think about the instances that happen in the news but bringing various college presidents to capitol hill to talk about protesting and the topic of free speech and how it relates to that? >> on one hand, the college presidents conducted themselves poorly from a pr perspective. they were sort of right on the merits that in abstract, what they're asked over and over by republican members was calling for genocide a violation of your policies? if your policies embody free speech under first amendment standards, than the correct answer to that would be no in most circumstances. it is not considered incitement of violence to vaguely advocate for genocide happening somewhere in the world at some indeterminate time in the future. it is represent -- is reprehensible, and people and

some of the phrases they were discussing in that debate light from the river to the sea, palestine should be free, it's open to interpretation. israelis reasonably interpret that as the elimination of their state. some people say they mean something different. they say the words themselves are incredibly vague. the idea that those would cross first amendment boundaries for the policy of a school that embodied free speech, i think they had a substantial case to be made but from a pr perspective, they handle that and conducted themselves very poorly in those hearings and came off very poorly i think. host: how our college campuses responding to that? guest: when i look at these issues, the thing that i value most is consistency. just be consistent in whatever it is you will say. i want to agree with what brad is saying in terms of policy statements and it's good at the

college administration were representing that particular thing. i feel a lot of americans feel this way -- if the demonstrations led back to bring back slavery or we are pro-note trans people, with the school administrative cap the same energy in terms of defending that free speech? i feel like heads would've rolled for that. i think protecting free speech is very important on our college campuses. they have a progressive orthodoxy view that has to be spread among the students. i hope we value those principles of free speech and debate and i hope administrators are consistent when it comes to defending not pro-hamas but all of the protests related to gaza and israel. i hope they are consistent when

other types of protest come up on college campuses. guest: i agree that the problem is they are saying things that are technically true about re-speech when it comes to defending extreme pro palestine protests but for years, they've been taking a different approach to other things that some people find offensive. they have no leg to stand on which is a valid point and complaint. host: our guest both talk about politics on social media. they are joining us for this conversation. you been addressed as destiny several times, can i ask you about that? guest: sure, my background is professional gaming but i started online contact -- context 15 years ago and i got into politics with the rest of the gaming community around 2016 and my name stuck because i had the online handles. people still call me that.

host: let's hear from minneapolis. caller: good morning, destiny. i was a viewer of your starcraft days and i love the hit squad. i like that you were talking about consistency. let's talk about a couple of statement you made in the past where you are talking about the black lives matter protest. you said it needs to effing stop if that means white dudes mowing down protesters. at this point, they have my explicit blessing. i can't say the word on tv, this crêpe needs to stop, he needed to stop a long time ago and you said that on twitch which is why you are no longer on twitch. you know stream on a state funded by state gambling. the other consistency much and is do you find [no audio] host: we will leave it there.

do you wanted to address any of those? guest: we have a lot of pretty crazy conversations streaming. there was stuff related to the blm stuff and a lot of conversation about defensive property and person relating to rittenhouse and the kenosha riots. i support communities that want to defend themselves from rioters. going into communities and burning buildings down or torching stuff i think is horrible. there is no political aisle that should support that. they were calling for peace and writing needs to stop area if the police cannot defend the communities, i would hope it but i hope there are not violent events like this but the community needs to roll over and except that some amount of people come from out of town and burn down their businesses is insane to me.

how could any reasonable person support that. at some point, people realize that is crazy. they find themselves supporting crazy positions. host: as far as being knocked off twitch, was the color correct? guest: not at all, that didn't factor into it. there were a lot of discussions whether trans women could participate and i was fighting with a lot of trans activists on twitter which was the worst that form on the internet. in fighting with the trans people on twitter, they are arguing that trans people -- trans women can -- should compete with other women on any level. i'm generally supportive of trans people. i'm not entirely sure why i get been. host: as far as dealing with those who may be with you a special on -- especially in the

social media platform, how is that different than dealing in real life? you want to elaborate on that? guest: it's very different. keyboard warriors will say the most horrific and nasty and libelous things to you behind a screen and behind the cloak of an anonymous profile that they would never say to your face. if you just reply to them at the time, they will apologize. they say i never thought you'd see this but there's a toxicity online fueled by anonymity and feeling it's far away like you are not really talking to a real person. i'm not perfect and i'm sure you can find examples of me breaking this principle b i like to stairway from ad hominem and argue with people about their ideas are what they are saying or why they are wrong and less about why they are evil or bad or terrible human beings. i find a lot of that exhausting even when i quietly might think it's true, i don't actually find

it productive in any circumstance to just attack people as people when you disagree with what they are saying. ultimately, i'm not approaching these conversations with the goal of changing the individual's mind but maybe of reaching people in their audience or on the fence or maybe marginally attached to them. if you attack them and they like this person, they will feel defensive rather than being open to your message. i try to steer away from that but the online debate, you become desensitized to up it when my friends and family here about the things said about me on a regular basis that have no basis in truth and are completely libelous and defamatory if i wasn't a public figure and there's a different standard than but if they were saying this about their neighbor, they could be found guilty of defamation or libel for defamation. there is a lot of privilege that comes with this. there is a lot of perks that come with doing what we do.

we are not exactly laboring in the mind. we're often pre-well compensated but the downside is opening yourself up to this torrent of hate and lies and vitriol. i think it takes a certain type of person who's able to become effectively desensitized to that and decides it's worth it. it's not something i think most people would want to do. host: let's hear from jane in illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen, i won't be using any foul language. my comment in question is the young people nowadays, i question where they are spending their income. in our day, we didn't spend a thousand dollars a month on our cell phone or streaming devices. we also didn't use pot or marijuana and we didn't spend

$10 for coffee drink. i'm just wondering whether these people should be reviewing their cost-of-living since that seems to be what they will base their vote on this next fall. don't you think they need to revamp their priorities and stop complaining about spending money at the grocery store? guest: two things can be true at once. gen z definitely has some financial irresponsible habits. sometimes the culture there is not the most responsible culture. also, things have gotten more expensive. inflation over time especially in areas like housing and stuff like grocery prices have skyrocketed in the last couple of years. it is completely fair and reasonable that people are struggling to afford modern life.

there is a little bit too much of a trope going on in the question of maybe if they didn't spend all that money on avocado toes, they k for a home. maybe there is a little grain of truth in that. they do make a responsible decision sometimes but frankly so did your generation back in the day when they were 20 or 25. the difference is that things have gotten exponentially more expensive. you look at the cost of college, the cost of housing and there are complicated reasons that in my view, we have restrained free market forces that could have brought those costs down and we bloated them to regulation and subsidies and other things we can unpack but to say if the young kids for that they can afford things because they buy too many $10 coffees, i find that not very compelling. that's the reason the ok boomer meme exist because that kind of attitude is detached from the economic realities that gen z is facing and growing up with which are not good and a lot of that

is not their fault. gen z is not a power in this country. how many jen's ears are there in congress? we literally have had zero but even in congress, there's only a few. the decisions that other generations have made have created the economic environment in which gen z is struggling and i'm always an advocate for individual responsibility. taking account of what you can change a maybe that means cutting out your daily starbucks run or something else. that's not the big picture of why people are struggling to afford homes or struggling to afford college or struggling to afford groceries. that's not the big picture and i think it's tone deaf and unfair generational criticism. guest: i agree with brad. a lot of jen c -- gen z people are there children. they're not illiterate teenagers

or in any generation. i think millennials are about the most financially competent people. i think the world today required more of a sophisticated mind to navigate a financially coming out of high school. college is basically a requirement now and things like having a cell phone or having the internet are a requirement for participation in day-to-day life which in some ways is good. i don't think for a baby boomer, it would've been a good criticism to say don't you think it's dumb you are wasting so much money on gas in cars when you could be walking everywhere or sit around? as the standards of living increase, it might mean people having cell phones or access to the internet. i don't think these are the worst things in the world and we should recognize the younger generations are feeling more pressure to make more challenging financial decisions

at the age of 18 and figuring out what they want to do for the rest of their life and whether they should take on $5,000 of student loan debt or $85,000 to pursue a degree in a job market they've never participated in before. host: a viewer from x -- guest: it seems to me talking to older people and looking to the environment, it seems they are more interested in political incident seems like people know more things about political issues. whether those things are true and whether they are more educated i think is not the case. i don't know why this happened maybe because of social media but everyone has to have a political opinion about everything and everything is political whether the type of coffee you drink. it might be the type of clothing

you wear for the type of food you eat or whether it's a type of social media platform you're on. it seems everything is hard-core politicized. as result of this people don't have the time to research the different topics they are supposed to have a high level of conviction on. it leads to a bunch of people having incredibly strong opinions about things they know absolutely nothing about. i think that's the media environment we live in. i hope that changes in the future but that's to be seen. guest: in the age of social media, young people are more likely to know something about an issue. they're more likely to know something isn't true or know something that's true but they are more informed but it's not always good information. you constantly encounter young people with extremely strong opinions about things that they improperly defined. they say they hate capitalism and socialism but when the follow-up question asked them to

define the two terms, they get it wrong, objectively wrong. they say they want to free palestine from the river to the sever they cannot name the river or the sea. they don't actually know anything about the geopolitical events in that region of the world. there is simultaneously an increased level of interest and more people who think they know something and some of them do. people tune into multihour streams of experts in conversations and debates more than they ever did but a lot of people also just get their news from headlines they don't click on or from extremely simplistic talking heads who just say talking points and they might think they know more than they do which is sometimes worse than being ignored and aware of it. host: a follow-up session for both of you -- guest: yes and no. i think there is a greater need for media literacy but it's not just that.

it's the incentive structures that face media which are deeply broken. that's actually a function of the audience and with the audience demands. media companies just do frankly with the audience wants. if honest, substantial, nonpartisan coverage brings in cliques and eyeballs, that's what we would get more but the reason we get more partisan and more inflammatory and more dishonest coverage from most places is because that's what the audiences are demanding and are being rewarded. it's not just the literacy, we absolutely have a problem with media literacy but it's also the media incentives that are deeply broken in this country. guest: i agree one million percent. audiences are getting exactly what they want the same thing with the political candidates. they say they are unhappy with the media landscape but they turn on a television station that agrees with them.

these people won their respective primaries. on the democratic side, there were a lot of candidates in that field before we got to joe biden. i think sometimes people in the country don't want to take responsibility for the environment they are reading so they find ways to blame the system or the media or blame whatever big bogeyman is behind the curtain. i think people need to take a more critical look at how they are navigating the information environment we live in today. i don't necessarily agree with the concept of media literacy. i think people have a high degree of media literacy but it's just them choosing not to deploy it when it has something they don't want to be critical of. if you hit -- hand a particular study to trans people to republicans, they will start speaking about prospective studies and speaking about process. if you show them something

relating to hydroxychloroquine or any of the other covid drugs, that goes out the window. there are one or two examples they cannot justify you being racist or can't justify you being discriminatory. they will have an opinion but if you went to african-americans being treated poorly by the united states police, the issue is not one of media literacy. i think the people are very lazy today and because of the political environment we live in and the high level of condition every topic, they don't want to do the reading and research because they'd whether agree -- they'd rather agree with her family and friends. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. anybody who votes for biden is either ignorant of the issues or

is as much of a sinister liar as biden is. let's just say immigration is people sauntering into the united states or of europeans with skills that could compete with the professionals in america. you'd see how fast the wall would go up. and ordering troops to the border. biden is the war criminal and she. you seen what happens in places that support him. the public schools where i worked for 38 years, kids learn how to hate the united states. of course, biden started his presidency telling whites how systemic racist we are.

he repeated the myth of violence on blacks. host: what would you like our guests to address? caller: we are talking about facts and not just saying -- you cannot vote for biden if you are depending on facts. host: we will start there. guest: i don't want to say i'm a trump supporter but if you support biden because you don't support facts, the border stuff is complicated. when you talk to people about it, seems people genuinely -- genuine believe the democrats want to come into this country for free. i don't think any administration is ever said open borders.

people say they are opening the borders and letting anybody saunter into the country. then why do we have the record number of apprehensions when people come here. ? the idea that anybody wants the situation at the border now is not true. the democrats tried to get a huge bipartisan bill through the house and the republicans shot it down. they have an issue to fight over election time so that legislature was shut down so biden can't do much with what we have now. if you asked to seek asylum, you're allowed to come in in the u.s. and wait for your case, you can't just rest on try -- on title 82 -- 42. you have to go through title eight new got to go to the ports and is a huge backlog now and republicans don't want to approve more funding for the orting -- for the border or expedite the process. what are you supposed to do when

half of congress doesn't listen to you? guest: i agree there is legislative changes that had to be made before the border can be fixed. to say what can biden do? he repealed dozens of executive policies as it affected the border and immigration from the trump administration. some republicans did try to advance people like the hearts on the bill but it didn't go anywhere near for enough to address this and it's undeniable that we have a crisis at our southern border and rightly or wrongly and i agree it's not all within his control or his fault but when you are president of the united states, the buck stops with you. you are to blame for these things ultimately in the public's minds. it's a real liability for president biden at the border.

i acknowledge republicans have been deeply cynical. trump wants this as a pressing issue but president biden is the present and the american people hold the president responsible for what happens under their watch. what's happening now is unmitigated humanitarian disaster at our southern border. host: let's hear from rick in atlanta on our line for under 35. go right ahead. caller: i have a question. i used to watch some of your debates. i remember you used to have a broadcast. i want to ask you about consistency because you said that one of you said the n-word in the face and nobody could hear you? then you really upset with people use the word paisano, so

i want to ask about consistency. guest: that's an interesting reframing of a conversation that took place a long time ago. there was another large streamer like me and another one where the argument was that there are different things relating to language standards online and broadly speaking, i think most people on my would agree there are jokes that are appropriate and jokes that are not. i don't think it's really a controversial position. some language can be ok would depend on the environment. i've never defended calling people racial slurs ever. i'm not in favor of that if somebody calls me that. host: you are talking about candidates and third parties.

another viewer talks about robert f. kennedy, jr. and the what do you think of him? guest: rfk is a deeply un-charismatic character to me. i've seen enough that i don't want to see anything of him again. he is a right-leaning guide that seems to have strange positions on things like covid or the vaccine. i just don't follow much of him after the little i've seen of him on joe rogan and other conversations. guest: i'm not even sure i would say that he is right-leaning. he is all over the place. he has different positions. icm saying things that make the right mad. it seems he's socially progressive.

i think we -- he will ride this independent buzz, this dissatisfaction with the other two candidates i think you will get enough votes to be significant if he can get on the ballot which is not easy. ultimately, i think he will draw from both. he might draw a little bit more from trump voters if anything. he seems to have some crossover appeal with that kind of populism. i think he could be a significant influence even it begets 5% of the vote. even that is more than enough to make the difference. in that case, people should not blaming rfk voters. they should blame their parties for losing those voters. host: our two guests are talking about issues of politics and their view of social media. tell people where you can be

found on social media? >> check out my youtube channel, brad palombo. guest: you can find me on youtube. con. host: to both of you gentlemen, thanks for the conversation. guest: guest: thank you. thank you. host: that's it for her program today. at the supreme court, case taking a look at homelessness in the united states and how neighborhoods respond to it. it's part of an oral argument provided by the court and we provide them to you. you can always find them on our website at c-span.org those oral arguments are set to start shortly. [speaking another language] [captions copyright national cablsallite corp. 2024] [speaking another language] >>