Left Face
Join Adam Gillard and Dick Wilkinson while they talk politics and community engagement in Pikes Peak region.
Left Face
Global Reverberations: The Trump Presidency, Geopolitical Risks, and Domestic Challenges
What if the shockwaves of an election could be felt across the globe? Join us as we dissect the monumental impact of Donald Trump's presidential victory on both domestic and international fronts. Discover why a diverse array of Americans, including immigrants, rallied behind Trump despite his controversies. We'll challenge the dismissal of experienced figures like General Kelly and General Mattis and question the potential repercussions of Trump's immigration promises and their alignment with voter expectations.
The geopolitical landscape is more volatile than ever, with tensions simmering between the U.S., Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Iran. We'll explore how Trump's foreign policies might inadvertently fuel Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe and alter the delicate balance in the Middle East. Consider with us the unsettling prospects of a renewed Cold War or even a third world war, as global hotspots threaten to spiral into larger conflicts. This episode offers a critical look at how these tensions may redefine international politics and alliances.
Economics and politics collide as we examine U.S.-China trade relations and the widening gap between political parties and the working class. We'll critique the short-sighted nature of trade policies and the disconnect that leaves voters feeling abandoned. Additionally, we tackle the often-misunderstood concept of freedom of speech in the workplace, distinguishing between constitutional rights and employer restrictions. Our discussion emphasizes the importance of aligning personal values with professional life, all while grappling with the societal implications of responsible speech. Join us for a nuanced exploration of these pressing issues shaping our world today.
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of Left Face. This is the Pikes Peaks Region podcast for veterans and political issues. This is your host, dick Wilkinson, and I'm here with my co-host, adam and Adam, I want to apologize. I have been pronouncing your last name with the wrong emphasis on the wrong syllable, so I turnt it up and call Adam Adam Gillard, but he says Adam Gillard.
Speaker 2:Yeah, gillard, yeah, that's more of the English reading You're on the French reading Sure it's a common when I was down. I was down in Tucson for like six years and it was always Guyard.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, the double L, yeah yeah.
Speaker 2:It's a, it's an evolution, yeah.
Speaker 1:Fair. So it's an evolution. Yeah, fair. So the regionally specific last name of Adam Gillard. Thanks for joining me this morning, adam. Good to see you. Good to see you too, bud. Yeah, well, we are going to cover the obvious topic this week, which is the fact that the presidential election happened, but we're going to take it from a couple of different angles. We're going to start with the global affairs that I think we're all familiar with, that there's some assumptions, maybe some big changes in the foreign affairs front, and then we're going to take a little bit of an introspective look at what does this mean for some of the core tenets of American citizenship and the freedoms that we enjoy? We're going to just take a little deep dive into a couple of topics there. So let's start with the global affairs. Donald Trump won on Tuesday, and he didn't just win, but he won pretty. You know it was a pretty broad spread of votes in a lot of different areas, both key swing states and some traditional strongholds that just increased their vote.
Speaker 2:So it wasn't a what's wild to me. Yeah, what was wild to me is, by like nine o'clock we kind of knew yeah, talk our time. You know, it wasn't like into the night like we were left guessing.
Speaker 1:It was pretty clear like no, like he had it exactly, and uh, that's I think that's that's what a lot of people have called it is the mandate or the very strong message that Donald Trump's transgressions has not impacted their confidence in his ability to lead the United States. And that's really what I think I've taken away from all the punditry and between the tears and the cheerleading that I see on all the major media outlets over the last you know 24 hours. For me, it's just that the American people have haven't spoken about what they want for leadership. Maybe they don't agree with every single thing that Donald Trump says I don't think there's anybody out there that does but I think that, for whatever reason it's specific voters he hits the right note with right people and so he won.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I just don't understand that man To wrap my head around it, cause, like you know, when we look at like different levels of leadership, but like when you're looking at just being like the commander in chief, you, you know, keeping on that general kelly, general mattis, they've both said like how unfit he is. The intelligence community is terrified, um, after you know previous leaks and things like that, yeah, and, but that's the type of leadership they want there you go, you hit it, and I was going to make that comment.
Speaker 1:It's the style of leadership, and so the reason that people will ignore or discount that word of the generals that we're tuned into. They say, well, they're that old school DC leadership, they're the old thinking, they're from the old guard, they're even from old, like a past era of the military, and so their relevance towards the America that Donald Trump is trying to produce Just isn't there, and so they're willing to discount 30 plus years of leadership experience To say they may have a valid point, but it doesn't matter, because what he's trying to build just doesn't include people like them, and that was a sweeping sentiment for a lot of people to get past a lot of the transgressions. Right Is that it's offensive to the old guard and we don't care about that you know, and that rallied more than the base is the thing that rallied more than the base.
Speaker 1:That rallied more than the base is the thing that rallied more than the base. And you know, I'll share something that I heard that I think is super relevant. When we try to look at things at face value like Donald Trump speaks ill of immigrants, but also just Latino people in general, often get subjugated in, even whether it's direct or indirect, by his language or the people around him. It just, it's just what it's been all along. Yet you could. There was no shortage all across america of people who you would think donald trump is talking about and saying these mean things about. But everyone that they spoke to that voted for donald trump that might fall into one of these, whether they're a first or second generation immigrant or whether they've been, you know their family's been here for a very long time but they're still just very rooted in that Latin identity.
Speaker 1:They said he's not talking about me, he's talking about some other Latin people, some other immigrant people. He's talking about other people, latin people, some other immigrant people. He's talking about other people and there was never an assignment of guilt or ownership or the problems he's talking about are coming from me. They just didn't see things through Donald Trump's eyes. They saw it through their own eyes and I mean that's valid as a voter. I can't. Those people would process the information and said again his style of leadership is more important to me than what he says about my friends and family or my neighbors or my community.
Speaker 2:And it sucks, though, because now we're just in a position where, you know, he said day one he's deporting millions of people, and so like, if he goes through with that, you know when. If he doesn't, then he just yeah, he lied to all of his folks. If he goes through with that, you know when? If he doesn't, then he just yeah, he lied to all of his folks.
Speaker 2:Yeah so like, and Stephen Miller's already got his little plan to like, denaturalize people. So like they're going to try it and like people's families are going to get torn apart and they voted for this Like they're they're voting for their own families to get torn apart.
Speaker 1:It like they're voting for their own families to get torn apart. It's very possible. Yes, I think something that's you know. Cnn brought it up, so there's some. There's been some heavy bias on CNN over the last few weeks, but CNN brought up that the stocks that went up overnight after Donald Trump won. They highlighted one of them, which was the four contract prisons companies that have that own and operate forract prisons. Their stocks shot up. Where do all those people that he wants to deport need to go first?
Speaker 1:They have to go to jail somewhere so that they can get processed out of the country. So, for-profit prisons there's a lot of mothballed facilities around the United States in rural areas that don't get used. They got replaced and the beds and spaces there got conformed into like bigger facilities. Those things are still there and ready to just, you know, throw the power back on and you can open them back up. And that's what those for-profit companies specialize in is getting one of those places turned back on quickly and ready to do something with it, right?
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's just a legalized concentration camp. That's what it is.
Speaker 1:A contract concentration camp yeah, you could say that, and the stock for those facilities went up. So you know CNN brought that up, so I want to just color that bias. But it's a true statement and it's a theory. You know that the law and order arm of everything is going to lead to taxpayer dollars blowing into the billions. Possibly you know to do what you know.
Speaker 2:So what's the?
Speaker 1:end. What's the end state?
Speaker 2:And it's you know, when you're talking about the sheer numbers that have, like they're tied into our economy, like they're workers, like a lot of them have EINs, that they pay taxes and things like that, like he's when they talk about going after these folks, like they're going to kill all that economy or all those jobs for the economy, because there's not like a whole bunch of white folks waiting to do, yeah, the backfill is not there, yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:Cause we had. We had fields rotten, you know, in the last couple of years, you know, when we're in that trade war with China, like the soybean fields are rotting, we couldn't send them anywhere, we couldn't get them picked.
Speaker 1:Well, and the pandemic too. We just couldn't migrate people back and forth between areas that they usually migrate. Workers not even migrate across the international border, but from region to region within the United States. They couldn't. They couldn't move, you know, to go do that work. So we've seen the direct impact of not having a labor force to do that. Now the argument to that is those are the people in our economy that tend to be the most exploited. You know, especially from the Democratic Party side of the house. You know low wages, no benefits, high risk jobs. You know dangerous work, people get hurt and they don't have any backstop to help. Those are the problem jobs within our economy in some ways, and so if this highlights the issues there and improves the quality of work or the pay, then you say, well, maybe there's some trade-off there. So again, we got to see how it all plays out. But there's some telling signs when for-profit prisons start to turn the lights back on you know that something's coming.
Speaker 2:And then, with an administration that's historically removed, all oversight of everything.
Speaker 1:Yes, yeah. A cart bar is wide open to the earth wide open earth.
Speaker 2:So we're going to dump all these people into these prisons and, like where's the oversight? Who's taking care of them? Like, who's making sure that they're being treated humanely? But yeah, yeah, that's where we're going now. So let's peel it back. Let's start where we want to start.
Speaker 1:Let's go it was so easy to fall into a rabbit hole there. I know. I want to tell you, adam, and I'll tell the listeners that I'm not afraid of anything today.
Speaker 1:I'm not like, oh, you know, I'm not shaking in my boots say, what's going to happen? And is america going to die or going to end? Um, I'm not, do I think we're going to see a lot of things and a lot of changes? Yeah, sure, but like, do I have this existential fear? No, not, really, not today. And so, you know, let's color, I'll color my comments with. None of them are made from a position of like, oh no, what are we going to do? Or the sky is falling.
Speaker 1:I think there's ways to deal with even all the curveballs that are about to come towards us as a nation will be all right. So, with that being said, where do we stand on the global stage? How do we impact the ongoing wars that exist both in Europe and in the Middle East right now, that are a tinderbox to turn into much bigger conflicts? And the chessboard has been thrown off the table as of Tuesday. Whoever thought they had a strategy has got to go to plan T for Trump. You know, how much time do I have, right, before there's a different playing field or different consequences, right? What do you think? Let's look at the Russia conflict first. What do you think there?
Speaker 2:So first, I think the Biden administration needs to restrict or lift the restrictions on where Zelensky can use their weapons. I think they need to make a big push. I don't know if it's too late, I don't know if the winter's already set in over there, if they're kind of already screwed on like any kind of like a late offensive, yeah, but with some of our long range missiles that we can reach during the wintertime, uh, into territory, uh, into Russian territory, like I think those restrictions need to be lifted, um, and they, we need to hit them hard while while we still have them. Cause, like when, when Trump was president you know he's, he's so proud of not having any wars and stuff like that but like what he did was he recognized Russia-owned Crimea, he recognized that annexation. So he just rolled over there. He gave away all of our stuff in Syria, all of our bases and all of our strongholds there, kind of gave those over to Russian forces. We saw some Russian tactics in the space domain and there was never any really kind of uh, what? Not even a wag of the finger at them. Yeah, um, yeah, so like he rolled over a lot when it came to russia. So I really hope, uh, we can make a push or bite him like, just kind of like, let's take the reins off and let use our weapons to their full force.
Speaker 2:After that, you know, you're looking at the spring offensive, when it's time for the next thing to start and Trump will be in power. I don't think they're going to get the funding and the weapons from the next Congress. I'm kind of scared about that. They're not going to get what they need.
Speaker 1:You know, I really appreciate that. You brought up something better than Trump's words, which he has said that he would let Putin do whatever the hell he wants in Eastern Europe. Right, yeah, and honestly, on the eastern front of NATO, I think is included there. You know he really has no respect for NATO, so I don't think he cares about any aggression there. But the fact that his policy position was to allow that will recognize the annexation. That's much stronger proof than his words of I'll let Putin do whatever he wants, because Trump can say whatever. And then, when the problem really lands on his desk, what are we going to do? But he's telling us what he's, what he's willing to do, and so I think you're right.
Speaker 1:You know, I would like to think that it doesn't make sense that borders would be changed by force, especially not in Europe. We know where that leads to. There's no mistake about what happens when we allow that to happen Anybody I say we, anybody. There's no mistake about what happens when we allow that to happen to anybody. I say we, anybody. But that's squarely where Donald Trump both has told us he is willing to go and has presented the truth that he's willing to go to.
Speaker 2:I think Ukraine may be just totally it's going to get. The border will change.
Speaker 1:I don't know if Kiev will fall. That's what I think. I don't know if Kiev will fall, but the border will change quickly and that may be.
Speaker 2:the end of the war is an annexation. Yeah, yeah, some of those oblasts on the east side there, I think those will. The US will lean heavily on a ceasefire. That works out something like that. You know one of those armistice. Same thing like in Kosovo. Kosovo, too, we create these long term agreements where we just draw a line and say, okay, you guys are over here, now we're over here. I think that's what they're going to lean on, which is sad because but then what if the remainder of Ukraine joins NATO?
Speaker 1:What if that's what happens next? Then what if the remainder of Ukraine joins NATO? What if that's what happens next? Right, is it? The remainder of Ukraine is inducted into NATO. As soon as that ceasefire happens or that DMZ gets set up, they get drawn in. And now again we're back into who knows what right.
Speaker 2:It's really heading right towards another Cold War. Yeah, yeah, that's it. We just moved it from Germany to Ukraine, right, so, but it's really heading right towards another Cold War.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, that's it. We just moved it from Germany to Ukraine. Right, we just moved to checkpoint east a little bit, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:And you know we've been doing that with our missile systems, like our defense systems, that we put putting up in like Poland or Romania and stuff like that, and so you know, that's what you know. Russia always gets antsy about it. Yeah. And so you know, that's what you know. Russia always gets antsy about it, yeah, and I mean, we didn't like them when they put them in Cuba.
Speaker 1:So like I understand, yeah it's incredible, it is, it is.
Speaker 1:It's incredible, yeah, but at the same time, like you guys are being aggressive towards the whole Western civilization, so like you have to meet us halfway here and you know, maybe everybody just take a breath have to meet us halfway here and, you know, maybe everybody just take a breath, agree, well, sounds like we got our crystal ball out and, uh, ukraine's not not gonna probably not gonna have the best outcome in this is what where adam and I have called it. So go ahead and write that down, taking notes at home.
Speaker 2:If it, if it's, if it stays, russia versus ukraine? Yeah, ukraine, it's going to go towards Russia.
Speaker 1:Gotcha. So we'll call this the first hundred days bingo. How about that Annexation in Ukraine? Put that on the card for the first hundred days bingo. So now let's get the second square worked out Gaza and Israel. Man, again, I think we have some history that can prove what would happen. Um, but what's? What's your thoughts on that? And where has Trump's? Has he made any comments in the last part of the campaign that makes any indications there? What do you think?
Speaker 2:I think it's been kind of interesting. He's been kind of quiet the last few days. Um, yeah, you know like I didn't even think about that until you mentioned that, but uh, I think it's been kind of interesting. He's been kind of quiet the last few days. Yeah, like I didn't even think about that until you mentioned that, but with them, like that situation is so much more complex because you know Hamas being funded by Iran, hezbollah being funded by Iran, you know like Israel is kind of sick of the proxy thing and they're taking it right to Iran now.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And that has so much, and obviously Trump does not get along with Iran. So I think they're going to encourage Israel to, to to keep striking Iran and we'll we'll keep funding, we'll fund Israel even more. They'll take the fight to Iran and still finish wiping out Gaza. And that's the one that really scares me when I talk about if Ukraine and Russia stays Ukraine-Russia, if Israel goes full-blown against Iran and Iran starts launching big things back, if that really breaks out and Saudi Arabia gets involved, which again brings us back to some missing documents from Trump's bathroom about attack plans on Iran and stuff like that. There's some important documents that went missing. If that gets spun up, that's quickly going to turn into something larger and it's going to bring the whole like that will be the World War Three trigger point right there.
Speaker 1:You know I am not one it's not a popular statement, but I guess I'm an army guy and so I understand that human rights come in a lot of different forms and different areas and there's clearly what's right and what's wrong. But then that becomes very negotiable depending on the type of government that's in charge in those areas, and that standard shouldn't change. But it's not something that I usually get too caught up in and Israel direct super small, focused conflict. Everybody's been really concerned about the high casualty toll in Gaza and the form of warfare that's been going on. There is just a siege Right.
Speaker 1:Donald Trump does not care about that at all, and more to the effect of I think Netanyahu's not had a great relationship with any president in America for a long time, but everyone tolerates whatever it is that he's up to. For the most part, everybody just stands back and watches. I don't think Trump's going to take that type of role here. I think he will completely ignore any kind of despair that's happening in Gaza or Lebanon and just pour gas on the flame like big time. He's always said I'm going to do what I need to do for Israel. I'm in charge and this is my war Right, not just in the current conflict, but in every kind of situation that's happened over the past 30 years.
Speaker 1:That's always been his position, I think, regardless of how well him and Trump get along or talk smack about each other. That is something that Trump sees as the shiniest object, you know, and he's willing to back that up under almost any circumstance. And so if there was ever a case to be made about some kind of genocide or human rights stuff, it's gone. Now is what, I guess, what I'm trying to say. If Biden was always tiptoeing around the Palestinian plight and Harris had to be really careful about the Palestinian plight in her campaign, that's just completely out of the conversation. Now you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I agree. I think he's just going to be, like you said, pouring gas on the fire.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and if he can score some wins in the Middle East through Israel, that's just going to get him funded yeah yeah being anti-iran is a big deal for his base right, um, and they, they think that the obama era um nuclear deal was terrible. Um, I wasn't a big fan of it because I felt like they got too much rope and we really didn't have any teeth for the amount of rope that they got. So leaving the deal completely didn't do anybody any good either.
Speaker 2:Right, because again, we lose that oversight. And for the last 20 years, iran's been a couple of weeks, a couple of months away from nuclear weapons, and it's the same thing. They're always close, they're close, they're close, they're close. 20 years, iran's been a couple of weeks, a couple of months away from a nuclear weapon. Yeah, and it's the same thing they're always close, they're close, they're close, they're close. Yeah, and they are. It's just, you know, I think, a miniaturization thing that they're trying to work out. Yeah, but so, for being how close they are, now is not the time to walk away and let's like not watch them, like it's one of those things where, like you, you know what's going on, they're gonna keep doing it. If we don't have our inspectors there, we just lose all, all oversight, you know donald trump is an interesting character around diplomacy because he is that is the most political, polite way.
Speaker 1:I don't think he believes in any form of diplomacy with Iran, and so the idea that there could be watchdogs or a deal or a nuclear agency that actually curbs their ability to do anything doesn't exist in his mind. He sees that as a lost cause, as a totally hopeless effort, and so I think that for him that diplomacy is all about. You know, steel, just hot lead, that's what. In the form of Iran anyway, he only sees that as conflict and, you know, threat with military might is really the only way to deal with Iran. I think he sees that, and yet somehow he believes that North Korea is, can be wooed and can be, you know, handled with the right kid gloves to achieve some I don't know what outcome right, no one even is really, I mean, granted that they've done their own launches and testing and have their own you know dangerous capabilities.
Speaker 1:It seems like a very contained problem, but for whatever reason, diplomacy there was top of the list Versus someone who's got the real capacity to do real damage and do more dangerous things on the world scale. Those guys just need the big stick. So that's what I'm getting at with. It's completely unpredictable where Trump has a romance with Putin, but Putin's like he's going to be the president of the country we're at war with by proxy. So F that guy.
Speaker 1:But if the annex happens, they'll send each other birthday cards.
Speaker 2:You know what I'm saying. They're on each other's christmas list for sure yeah so so those you know those two war situations, you know they have their own dynamics. What do you think about, like economically, with china? Do you think he's going to go back into a trade war? Um, like, what do you think he's going to like focus on when it comes to dealing with the second largest economy in the world here?
Speaker 1:well. Well, he takes very big bets on short-sighted initiatives I think is a way to describe his policy towards China and I think he's just got a few of those loaded up again and it's almost like shooting craps.
Speaker 1:He's just like, wow, here comes the guy, let's see what happens, right, and so that's what tariffs are in his mind is like, let's just put tariffs in different industries and see what makes them squirm. Right, nothing, it will never, never make them squirm. You know like, yeah, you know, but he thinks that's his, you know his weapon, and not just tariffs but any, like you say, trade war type situations where he tries to get raw earth materials or who knows what from other places. And yeah, he's going to do all the same stuff that he did last time, but in this instance he knows that perhaps he knows that there's four years instead of potential eight years, and so I think he'll have to be a little more accelerated on whatever he's trying to do with China. But man to say that there's a coherent economic plan behind what he hopes to do, I won't say that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's fair enough. Yeah, I really am afraid that people are going to go back into. I mean, when he was the president, we saw a 26% increase in farmers claiming bankruptcy because their fields were rotting. Steel industry got hit really hard, but these are the folks that are still voting for him, right, where is the disconnect between the democratic party and the working party Party and just the sense of our own freedoms here that we have? You know what I mean? Like where's the disconnect between what our Constitution says and our freedoms and what each party stands for, and how could the Democrats have been so far off on this election?
Speaker 1:Yeah, well that. That famous line that James Carville is the economy, stupid, right. I saw that headline in the next morning and it came down to it's the economy, stupid. The Democrats.
Speaker 1:This is something that often upsets me, because I embrace free trade and capitalism and Democrats see capitalism as a curse word. But it is the identity of America, above all racial lines, above all industries, socioeconomic. Even the people who come to America from other countries know what they're buying into. They know what they're coming to participate in and it's capitalism. And so I think that Democrats focus so much on abstract forms of citizenship, abstract ideals that don't meet that bottom line. And this is just the world that everybody lives in. Capitalism is the world that we live in, and so I. For me, that's the disconnect is that when Democrats treat capitalism as a dirty word, it puts them in an extreme. It puts even a moderate looking Democrat in a more extreme category, because they're saying I don't, I want America to play by a slightly different set of rules and we don't know what that is and what that looks like, and people aren't really interested in playing with their money like that.
Speaker 1:You know, what I'm saying. I'm scared of that and I want predictability. I don't really care about everything else right now, I just want predictability in my finances, and that was it. That was the disconnect was ideals that don't touch the bank account didn't work in this cycle.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, yeah, I think we really need to lean more into like helping the unions and things like that and actually like show up for them. You know, when we look at the 2008 crisis and all the banks got bailed out, like union members had to work longer because, like, like, their pensions didn't get bailed out, right, but all the banks did so like if we want to say that we're for working class people, we actually need to show up and start getting things passed, because we've had opportunities We've had the house and the Senate before to pass things like the PRO Act or to repeal, you know, other things that don't allow us to strike together and things like that I think Thomas, not Thomas Bacon, davis Bacon the Hatch Act, those things, like we've had opportunities in the past to look at those and we just ignore it and we don't solve the problem and then we use it as a talking point during these elections, like, hey, you know, these things are a problem. These things are a problem. We need to get rid of this. Well, you know, 10 years ago, you guys had control of everything and you didn't do shit about it. Yeah, you know. So like you can't sit there and just use it as talking points during elections. You actually have to deliver some things, and Democrats just don't deliver.
Speaker 1:That's it. That is the crutch of politics and something that I like to argue about with people I don't want to say argue about. I point out it's kind of like Adam Ruins. Everything that TV show here is like oh, you think all these things are good. You're really just being tricked by marketers and stuff like that.
Speaker 1:And that's one of the things that I'll let people like a little bit of that inside baseball. Hey, the governor gets a win when they get the headline and when they cut the ribbon, but if that program is just a disaster after that, it kind of doesn't matter. Right? Their job was to start the program, fund it, get somebody hired to run it, and they did that's what they did. They did their job. Now we would like our leaders to take ownership of those and continue that emphasis and make sure that that program works out.
Speaker 1:But if it doesn't, I got 25 other things that I have to think about today because I'm the executive of a whole state and so I just got to keep cranking out these headlines and I got to get the right people in play to get those things running. But that doesn't always happen, and so the political disconnect is within the party. There is that enticement towards the politician of make sure you get your headlines, make sure you get your fundraising done in between cycles so you keep that money coming in the door, so when it's time for re-election you're ready to go again. That's the business aspect of politics that leaves the, the constituents, out of the picture sometimes. Right, and I hate to say it, but that's the game, right, that's the game the politicians have to play, and unfortunately, it does lead to lower quality of service from our elected leaders.
Speaker 2:Sometimes, once they, once they figure out that game and they get in, then they don't change it. You know they're like well, I figured it out, I'm sitting here, um, you know, so I'm never going to change that shit, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1:And, and it's you know, is there an assimilation to this? Like this thing's bigger than me and so I just have to participate. There's, there's some of that feeling, right, you know, especially if you're a very partisan person, you get sucked into that and, man you are, you are the heel of some other, more senior person and you just kind of have to do what they're, what they're telling you to do. So you got to be part of the coalition, you to be part of this movement, and if that's not necessarily going to benefit your constituents, we'll get them next cycle, we'll make sure get them in the plan next time around, you know well and uh, at the uh, the house of reps level, you know, I've heard people talk about having like term limits of like six to ten years and stuff like that's like that.
Speaker 2:That is, you will not get shit done with only you know six to ten years and stuff like that. It's like that, that is, you will not get shit done with only you know six to ten years.
Speaker 1:I think the hope, just I think we need to like expand their terms more than just two years, because they're constantly in in that on the election campaign yes, I think the house should be four, leave the senate at six, and I think the idea though, and but again, it's one of those nobody's ever done real communism right.
Speaker 2:Like real term limits.
Speaker 1:Um, the. The idea would be that it breaks the status quo and it's no longer this extremely strict hierarchy of committee ownerships and senior politicians that are like running roughshod over the junior politicians. The hope is that the term limits breaks that down and puts more people on a more equal footing. There still has to be internal structure, but you don't have these long-term kingdoms, if you will, where you're like hey, I got millions and millions of dollars for your campaign last year. I own your vote in certain situations. The idea would be the term limits would discourage those kind of kingdoms from popping up internally to the house or to the senate, you know that's the hope.
Speaker 2:But we still, we still need continuity within our own bureaucracy, though we can't be turning over legislators. You know every. You know decade. You know you give them 20 years, 20 to. You give them 20 years, 20 to 30 years, just like a military career, 20 to 30 years max, and then you have them move on. But we need that longevity in there too, so that things don't just flip flop all over. You know the presidency is a short term, the legislatives you know that medium 20 year terms, and then you have life for the Supreme Court, for real longevity there.
Speaker 1:But uh, well, we can look at the idea of cutting them too much.
Speaker 1:I think we can look at like um, the UK has and and I mean most European countries have multiple parties that change hands of power all the time and have short term, you know goals and plans that they lay out and if they don't achieve them, they'll give up the government that they tried to build and might only be in power for a year or two. And then there's some kind of internal vote in their parliament and they say a new party has to take over because you had two years to launch this plan. Things are, things went the wrong direction and we got to have another election internal to this body. They do that flip-flopping of leadership and continuity is basically non-existent in those governments.
Speaker 1:It's always a new plan, always a new batch of people.
Speaker 2:I'm not saying it works well. There was that one prime minister. She was a prime minister for 30 days or something like that, when the queen passed away.
Speaker 1:I yeah yep, that happened yeah yeah yeah, I mean that's great that's a good point.
Speaker 1:So I'm not saying that works well and I don't want to come again. We're capitalists and they're much more socialists and they're gonna have this back backdrop of taxes and the schemes around. How they fund their government are just totally different than how we do it. So, meh, there's that argument to be made. I'm not saying they're a good model, I'm just saying that they somehow managed to do this government thing with 10 political parties that are always jacking in for the top spot. So it's possible. Actually, let's wrap up on that, man. I wish there was a third party. No, shit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because that bill didn't pass either. For us the rank choice stuff.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the rank choice got beat pretty handily. Only about 40-something percent went for it, 56%, no, when you got both parties coming out against it, you should probably vote for it.
Speaker 2:I'm not around that.
Speaker 1:But I just I don't know. I wish they're America's not interested in a viable third party right now, but I just wish it was some way to do it yeah.
Speaker 2:Like I wonder if we can address it at, like, the local level. You know at least have like municipal versus be more ranked choice voting and start there. You know, at least have like municipal places, be more ranked choice voting and start there. You know, start at a grassroots level and try to show how productive it could be and kind of build it up.
Speaker 1:There are places in America that do that, and when I was interacting with the libertarian party down in mexico, that was their kind of mantra was run for races that are not party affiliated or that are on lower level, local tickets, and have that libertarian by your name so that basically the population gets more exposure to just people serving in office that have that there and you know then. But then try to run the board, be popular and try to run the board from like a very low, like a school board, you know type uh, lower local position and and then you know, be become a popular politician and use that to promote yourself up to you know state or something like that as a libertarian. And I was was like that ain't gonna work, man.
Speaker 1:Not unless you just have your own money to fund your own campaign at that state.
Speaker 1:Right, if you put a hundred K in the pot and try to run for the state house, then sure you got a shot Right. But uh, if you're going to try and work within a party, uh, you know, if you're up against somebody who's well-funded, you're not going to make it. It's all money that's back to the capitalism. That's why there's not a third party is because there's not enough money available to third party candidates to run anything like a real campaign.
Speaker 2:We need to get rid of Citizens United, All those text messages and all those mailers and shit like that. That's all possible because of Citizens United People being able to dump ungodly amounts of money into these elections. Like that's where all that goes is to all these things Like let's get rid of it publicly, fund elections and actually have like real conversations about policy and not who can bring in more money.
Speaker 1:I'm all about shorter election cycles too. Like rules and laws around. Like no one can declare candidacy until January of the year, that that November it's going to be right. Like, do all your backdoor stuff, go into your party and do your partisan internal stuff, but no public announcement. You can't file for candidacy until this point. You can't legally raise funds for your campaign until this point. Right, so that it, you know, again takes a little bit of the toll off of the electorate. You know of constant, never-ending campaigns. Right, like we don't have to do that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. One thing that I learned when I was campaigning was about the. What was it called the? Fair was campaigning was about the. Uh, what was it called the the?
Speaker 1:fair.
Speaker 2:Uh, it was one of the fcc things that reagan uh repealed, where like oh yeah, the split, yeah, yeah, yeah, and like there was there used to be like really good legislation on uh, you know, have an equal airtime and equal, like if a news show says Kamala Harris is a Marxist communist, they need to explain the other side of that too. They can't just say that and just walk away from that, losing that stuff. I think it really hurt us, because now we get a lot of people that are walking around and just kind of they just feel free to say whatever they want to say and they think that they can just be free to say whatever they want. Tell me about the time you just talked to somebody recently where they had that thought, where they just kind of get to say whatever they want and do whatever they want.
Speaker 1:And yeah, just tell me about that. That story, well, yeah, so, um, I was. It was social media, which, of course, you run across a variety of opinions there, and this opinion was presented as serious and not you know, they weren't being flagrant, uh, but they were. They were offering a very slanted opinion. And they said, if you are a white collar worker in America, that you have less freedom of speech than blue collar workers or small businesses, where they're not. You don't have a corporate watchdog like that would care about what you say online or what you say in a public forum. And they said you're at risk on social media of someone putting an ad to your company and saying, hey, link to your company and look at what this person's saying, like you should be mad at them and there should be consequences.
Speaker 2:There's been a few cases where, like that, that one girl got a NASA scholarship and she like cursed out the guy on the board and was like F you, like I got a scholarship. And he's like, well, I'm on the board and no, you don't. So there's situations like that, but but pretty much every situation that I see is usually somebody kind of being you know a jerk and getting called out for it and having consequences. Yeah, Did this person like hold to that, that, that stance, that white collar people have it so much harder because they can't speak their minds?
Speaker 1:What they were.
Speaker 1:What they were conflating and this is what, luckily, most of the comments were able to fish out of this conversation was your freedom of speech is freedom from harm from the government.
Speaker 1:Freedom from harm from the government that the sheriff is not going to come and arrest you because you said something mean online. That the president or your electorate, your elected officials, should not be persecuting your business because you hold a certain political opinion. That's what that freedom is enshrined through the Constitution. It is not in relationship to a contract you hold with your employer. Your employer has a set of standards for your behavior and that may include your speech in public forums, online, whatever, and you need to understand that contract, because you've negotiated some of your freedoms in exchange for an opportunity to earn money, and those two things need to be seen as two totally separate experiences for you as a citizen that you can choose to leave that job and retain your freedom of speech to say whatever you want, even if that's your former employer and most likely not have any kind of consequence of legal outcomes. But you may get fired by anybody if you are not adhering to their policies, and that is not an infringement on your freedom of speech. That was really no.
Speaker 2:Well, and you look at Colorado being a right to work state anyways, you know they get to uh fire people for without cause, for anything.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that was part of the conversation too, was the at will nature of a lot of work and again, I'm like you applied for the job you know, you are an employee that applied for a job.
Speaker 1:It's not the same. The government is, and someone else brought this up the government is imposed upon you. If you're a birthright citizen of the United States, you have been handed this government and this constitution, but you were not handed the employment. You were not, you know, drafted by the military. To come show up today or we're going to find you. That's not how you got your job at a bank. You know, if you have a job at a bank and they have a policy that you cannot go online and say you know outrageous things or you'll get fired. That's not an infringement on your freedom of speech. And so I just was.
Speaker 1:You know, I was encouraged in the end to offer my own experience that, as a veteran, freedom of speech and everyone having that right is very important to me because I feel like I put my life on the line to protect that. But I need to make sure that people, as grown up citizens out here in the workforce, influencing what other people are trying to say and think which is what this gentleman gentleman wanted to do that they can recognize the difference between those two things, um, and that we have a lot of choices to make in life, and you should choose your employer based on your values. If something like free speech is important, right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Like I said a lot of times, it's people kind of mouthing off and just being mean and coming from like a hateful spot. Like yeah, that looks bad on any company. Why would they want a hateful person working for them to be the?
Speaker 1:face of the company.
Speaker 2:Even if it's just a viral video that you're.
Speaker 1:You're the dude that works at the loading dock. But if you got their t-shirt on and you're saying, hey, what about somebody? You're the most popular employee of this company, right?
Speaker 2:We are looking at you, you know, yeah yeah, yeah, all right.
Speaker 1:Well, I think that wraps it up. Um, we have man, we covered the map with that one. But uh, wild, wild, blue yonder, bright frontiers. Who knows what's coming next?
Speaker 2:right, that is that is an accurate statement right there. We are definitely in kind of the unknown right now, where man, if he follows through on even a portion of what he said he wants to do, like I'm scared. But I hope we have Because, like you know, again we talked about turning the military against civilians and he named civilians. He named like Adam Schiff and stuff like that. You know what I mean. Like you know, he said day one he wants to be a dictator. Yeah, he wants to deport all these people, yeah.
Speaker 1:RFK seems to already be speaking on behalf of the campaign. He put out a tweet or something that said uh you know if you work in these certain departments, uh, clean up your records and pack your bags.
Speaker 2:So your bags, so yeah, yeah and you know he's talking about just all the uh, just the stuff that like if you're a millionaire, yeah, you can probably get good raw milk. Yeah, yeah, you have access to that. But you're gonna make raw milk legal for everybody and like like that kills people, dude, like if it's not properly transported and maintained and like regulated properly, like like from the cow to your mouth, like it's going to kill people, man, and yeah, it's.
Speaker 1:I guess if the raw milk costs $30 a gallon, then fine, right Like go for it.
Speaker 2:Make it legal, nobody's going to buy it.
Speaker 1:So there won't be any raw milk companies, right, you've got to drive down to the farm to get it and then that's on you, you know. That's what you want, I guess, go for it, you know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but there's going to be people out there because we know people like to live on credit. People are going to not be able to get the good stuff. I got my raw goat milk.
Speaker 1:But they want to complain about the price of gas $3 a gallon. But I'll pay $40 for a gallon of raw goat milk.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I got a milk guy. He brings it in from El Salvador.
Speaker 1:On a donkey yeah. Oh man, that's a great that's probably the most positive thing we could. We finished the show on in a long time, right there.
Speaker 2:I hear you alright. Well, hey, it's good talking we'll. We'll talk to everybody next week. Yeah, take care everybody.
