Why the Democrats only play to win

Buck Sexton filled in for Glenn on his radio program Monday, where he shared his insights on Saturday night's Democratic debate. If you didn't watch it, you didn't miss much --- it was intended not to be watched by the vast majority Americans, Buck noted.

That being said, Buck highlighted one important takeaway --- a lesson on how Democrats play the game.

"Democrats play to win," Buck said. "Why? Winning means power. You have power, you can get what you want."

If the debate looked like a preposterous game show, it's because that's just what it was, Buck continued.

"With the, 'oh, well, who is going to be the next DNC nominee?' We all know who it's going to be," Buck said. "They know who it's going to be and have for quite some time, which is why they have managed to set up the process in this way."

Listen to the segment below for more.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

BUCK: You have a debate that wasn't supposed to be seen. Many of us chose to watch some of it. If you watched all of it, I applaud you. Because I don't think there's a whole lot that you could take away from it, other than, this is how Democrats play the game. And maybe there's a real lesson here for Republicans that they should pay attention to.

Democrats play to win. What is the central tenet of the modern progressive Democrat party in this country? What is number one? What is the first rule? You know, first rule of Fight Club is never talk about Fight Club. What is the first rule of the Democratic Party? Win. Why? Winning means power. You have power, you can get what you want. You can do what you want. Without power, you're irrelevant.

So whatever you have to do to win is what is what is wise, is what is just, is what is good. It doesn't matter what the acts are, right? The ends completely justify the means. Democrats want to win. They have discipline. Fact that this looks like a preposterous game, almost like a game show, quite honestly, at this point. With the, oh, well, who is going to be the next DNC nominee? We all know who it's going to be. But they know who it's going to be and have for quite some time, which is why -- why is why they have managed to set up the process in this way.

You hear about Bernie Sanders, lawsuits, this is all just noise. This is sound and fury signifying nothing. It's just trying to make it seem like there's something going on here. It's a good look. It's a good look for Bernie. Bernie gets to burnish his national credentials here. He gets to sort of get his name out there, build more of a brand for the Democrat socialism that he's trying to make mainstream. Something we should all keep in mind is, it's not that hard for him to do because how far apart -- really, how far apart are Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on issues of economics, for example?

You can say the biggest difference seems to be that Hillary very gladly takes large donations from Wall Street, from hedge funders, from people who have very big pockets. Bernie trashes them all the time, and perhaps too much, so he won't take as much cash or any cash from them. We'll see. Depends on which one. Depends on the donation.

Hillary is pretty comfortable with that stuff because Hillary has completely taken in that Democratic principle of whatever it takes to win. Do whatever it takes.

We have the Republicans squabbling. All kinds of going after each other. And for what?

You think they're going to be a stronger candidate at the end of this whole thing? You think that this isn't going to help Hillary in a general? It's time for some of these Republican contenders to go back to either whatever other public office jobs they had or their book tour or something else.

Because the Hillary machine -- as I like to say, Hillary and the Democrats, it's like Skynet and the machinery is self-aware. They will do whatever it takes to win, even having a ridiculous Saturday night debate that is intended -- intended not to be watched by -- by a vast majority of the American people.

Featured Image: Democratic president candidate Bernie Sanders waits as Hillary Clinton walks on stage at Saint Anselm College December 19, 2015 in Manchester, New Hampshire. This is the third Democratic debate featuring Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?