Left Face
Join Adam Gillard and Dick Wilkinson while they talk politics and community engagement in Pikes Peak region.
Left Face
City Council Court Case Updates and Global Geopolitical Dynamics
This episode delves into the ongoing lawsuit regarding cannabis legislation in the local government, exploring the implications of Amendment 64 and the community's vital role in civic engagement. We discuss the economic benefits of cannabis, the necessity of voter participation, and the political landscape's broader challenges.
• Update on the lawsuit Adam is involved in
• Examination of Amendment 64 and its effects
• Discussion on city council's role and governance
• The economic implications of cannabis legalization
• Importance of community engagement and voting
• Thoughts on Netanyahu's Gaza comments
• Call for active participation in protests and democracy
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Left Face. My name is Dick Wilkinson and I'm joined this morning with my co-host, adam Gillard. Good morning Adam. Good morning Dick. How you doing, bud? I'm doing great. You are listening to the Pikes Peak Region podcast, where we discuss military veteran issues through the political lens. We cover topics both local, national and international, and today we're going to start with a local topic that we've covered recently. It's an update. Adam is the plaintiff in a lawsuit and we're going to hear an update from Adam on how that's going, and it's moving quick, so it's pretty exciting, if you're interested in this case.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. So, like people know, I sued city council with one of the owners of one of the cannabis shops around here. Council, uh, with one of the owners of one of the cannabis shops around here. Um, we, the republicans, responded uh, yesterday or the day before now? Uh, right now it's friday, right before we're going to court, uh is when we're recording this. Uh, the republicans responded. They said they agreed with everything laid out in our lawsuit, that, like you, you know, the citizen initiative 300 passed. Uh, there's, their initiative failed. They, they agree with everything. Yeah, until it gets to the point where we said you can't have an election in an odd number year.
Speaker 2:And then there was a couple other things, but but that that was kind of the big, uh, the big one, cause some of the wording on what they put forward is a confusing. So that was part of the complaint too. So there's some deliberate confusion there. They say that they didn't deny that, but as far as the ruling, for what year it takes place in, they want legal review. So they deny allegations, they want legal review. So they really just kicked it to the courts to see. And now it's a matter of do the courts read the letter in the intent of the law?
Speaker 1:because it's pretty clear that you do this in the big elections for voter turnout purposes um, and I want to clarify, adam, because I I've read a little bit and that's that Amendment 64 piece. Right, correct, yeah, amendment 64, for our listeners we want to put it at the right level. That happened when Colorado, the state level, approved cannabis sales and they said here's how jurisdictions, both municipalities, counties, whatever, need to coordinate their sales. They cannot change or put valid initiatives or ask the public to change the rules, except when it's high visibility elections. That was done by the state to protect, basically protect the industry from small municipalities and counties being too aggressive, just like what's happening right here.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, yeah, Because you know when you look at the size of Colorado Springs and who this affects, and you know Dave Donaldson.
Speaker 1:Second biggest city in the state Right.
Speaker 2:Dave Donaldson got in with under 10,000 votes, so yeah, he's the one throwing the wrench into the system right now.
Speaker 1:But there's what about 300,000 citizens in?
Speaker 2:the city limits, right, yeah, and so you know he represents such a small portion of our population and yet they're allowed to make these huge decisions that are just keeping taxpayer money from. You know fixing roads, building overpasses, you know like walking overpasses over some of these big roads now, so kids aren't getting hit by cars anymore. You know it's a. There's a lot of good solutions out there that we could do with this, but at this point you know we've made that argument. We're past that argument. We've won that argument twice, like on last ballot. Now. It's just about gross government overreach. Are they just going to ignore the law and are the judges going to allow them to ignore the law? Yeah, because it's pretty clearly how it's written well, I agree.
Speaker 1:I agree that it sounds like it's always good when an argument can get down to one or two really specific points, right, and then, of course, precedent there is always. What kind of helps support that point. So the good news here is that there's precedent and there's an established law that's not brand new. So the judge has something to work with. Is what I'm trying to say. It'll be interesting. I'm going to say, you know it'll be interesting, I'm going to be. Hopefully I will be there this afternoon and then you'll all hear an update next week. What's what do you think? I mean, we know we had the deadlines on this thing getting on to the ballot. So our goal, or your goal, would be a win would be if this just gets suspended and then handled as if it was ever to be on the ballot again, handled in the appropriate way, which is almost two years from now before it could be reviewed.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, yeah, you know. I think the win for us is that the law is followed as it's written and as it was intended.
Speaker 1:You know there should never be another ballot initiative, but for now, like short term goal, long term goal, short term goal is stop this April.
Speaker 2:Yes, you knowil. Yes, you know, because you know april 14th, yeah, yeah, yeah, the ballots, you know, get printed and mailed out. So, yeah, yeah, it's getting that, putting a halt on that and you know. So, yeah, a state of execution just to make it to decide it later, as long as it keeps it off the ballot. Yeah, just decide the case later, but keep it off the ballot.
Speaker 1:Well, yeah, and today is a hearing, and so that you know for sure, I mean it's if the this is more to clarify everything and for the judge to set a real, actual appearance date, now the judge can do that as fast as they want to if they think that there's something to resolve on a timeline, but there shouldn't be any necessarily any pressure for them to have to do that If they believe amendment 64 is their guiding principle from the judge perspective. But yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if they could just, you know, throw it out today, cause again it's clear, uh, but we gotta let let it play out and see what happens. But it's uh, it's really frustrating how much effort and work is going into trying to like do good things for this community with this revenue that it's going to bring to us. Yeah, yeah, this whole city council, hopefully in April. This is a wake-up call to a lot of folks and we get more people to show up, because these April elections, these small off-year elections, you get 40% turnout. Like I said, this guy got voted in with 10,000 votes last time and we only have 40% of our folks show up.
Speaker 2:Like we did this to ourselves, like this is on us, like we have to show up and vote and actually like participate in the democracy how we're supposed to. And it takes multiple elections. It takes, you know, a lot of BS that you have to listen to, but, man, you have a lot of BS that you have to listen to. But, man, you have to turn in those ballots and you have to get out there and vote, because this is the direct result of the apathy that we've been trained to have.
Speaker 1:And Adam, I'll second that you're encouraging people to vote because the city council seats some of them are on this April ballot. So even if the cannabis initiative, you know, doesn't go on the ballot, as we hope it does not, still open your ballot when it comes in the mail, yeah. And look at the candidates in there and see who supports your issues. Is what you're trying to say?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. And if there's like any motivation that you need as you drive around, you see Dave Donaldson signs that says I vote for you, like he doesn't vote with us.
Speaker 1:You know he's trying to like for us. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's a big difference there.
Speaker 2:And he's saying that on his sign, like he's telling you exactly who he is. Uh, listen to him. Get his ass out of office yeah, well, that's a whole nother.
Speaker 1:Uh, push right there well let's get through today and then if we, if we're victorious today, then we can try and get, get the uh yeah problem out of the seat and go from there. Well, that's all encouraging, man. Thank you for doing that. I'll say thank you. I'm not in the city limits but I'm a customer, of course, of this market and I'm up for more availability and more flexibility and I'm happy that the companies here can have an opportunity to hire more people. One thing you mentioned in your update to the party, through the emails and stuff, was that the increase in employment, both retail side, production side, there's a lot People don't realize that these companies are tiered out. It's not just one storefront, but that storefront is selling you a product that comes through three or four companies to get to you, and so that's important. Right, the increase. There is not just a one single facet of increase, right, it's an increase in multiple layers of the economy.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's on top of that $10 million in tax revenue. Yeah, never mind the taxes, just the economic activity, right, yeah, the jobs we create.
Speaker 1:We have 500 people that get jobs in the community that are getting paid, maybe better than they were before. You know, then that's a plus for everybody.
Speaker 2:You know that's families, that's direct support to families right there you know, yeah, and I made a post on Reddit last week talking about this and that got some traction and that was one of the responses is, like you know, we talk about the 10 to 15 million dollars, but what about the other consequences of this?
Speaker 1:Yeah, tax is 20 percent of rec sales, right? Or 18 percent, yeah, I think so. So that's just one fifth of the overall economic activity that's happening there. Economic activity that's happening there. It's pretty easy to just, you know, scale that out and say, yeah, if it's 15 million dollars in taxes, then it's, you know, 60 million dollars of actual economic activity within that market, right?
Speaker 2:that's a lot yeah, yeah, yeah, and you know people. I've made this argument with a lot of folks before uh, you know when they talk about cannabis being a uh gateway drug and things like that, and that there's always these unintended consequences. Unintended consequences can be dealt with when they happen, but in action, you're intending a consequence at that point. In action, you are choosing the garbage that we have to put up with the lack of infrastructure, not being able to put new turn signals in, or, you know, have these crosswalks, no public transportation, Like you're choosing those consequences with these roads. So, like being afraid of like unintended consequences, like I'm afraid of what we're choosing right now, Like I can deal with other things that happen down the road. You know if we have the proper things, you know safety nets in place, but, yeah, choosing no action is just kind of ridiculous to me.
Speaker 1:So I saw some feedback on that Reddit thread there and it was to some comments that we had made during the bit too. You know the bias they were saying. Your bias is clear in that if you said, why would any politician turn down the opportunity for more taxes or more revenue, that that was short sighted, that there's a lot of reasons why someone would do that. Well, I agree. I do agree that you know some of those folks believe that they have a need to vote against something for moral reasons or whatever. It is like that. Whatever they were elected by their constituents and they talked to them, I hope. But here's my take on that. Yes, you're right, it's short-sighted to say money is the only good thing and there won't be anything bad. I'm not saying there won't, but the intention here, the framework we're trying to work within, and why that comment is appropriate. But here's my answer those things are controlled already. Those things are controlled under the laws that were made at the state level and the entire statewide program. So those that's there to control those harms already. We're not starting a new industry. We're not starting something that's brand new where there's no guardrails, there's no safety, there's no public inspection capability to see what's going on.
Speaker 1:If it was a totally brand new market and we were asking to do something that wasn't happening in the rest of the state, then I'd say, yes, these people have a reason to be afraid or concerned.
Speaker 1:But we've got years of data, we've got years of framework that has been improved over time.
Speaker 1:So the safety concerns or the cultural concerns, those have been addressed through all those other laws and regulations. So we are really arguing a very fine point, as what we brought up in that last episode, that all we're concerned with here is the transaction and the location of the transaction. It's not the presence of the substance, it's not the availability to people who shouldn't have it, it's not the safety of the substance. Those things are already controlled by the other rules, and so the argument that someone's turning down money that's why I say that is to bring it to such a fine point is that everything else is already controlled, and right now the argument is purely over where the transaction happens, and that's why I would bring what sounds like a short-sighted argument of money is good and there is no such thing as bad. Well, what you just said is we're choosing the absence of money, and that in the very specific point that we're arguing about is what I'm trying to represent is why would a politician choose absence of revenue versus positive revenue, when all other things are controlled?
Speaker 2:Right and in the context of, you know, when you go to these city council meetings, people stand up there and, you know, make their complaints, make their grievances about a whole litany of things, and all of these things can be solved if you had, you know, some more tax revenue coming in. So you know, when you have a list of problems and you don't have any solutions and somebody brings you a solution and you just say no. Like you know, I hate to make it a simplistic argument, simplistic argument, but you know, at the end of the day, when we're trying to talk about such big things, you know you have to hit the big topics first, and then you have to draw a point.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly so well, and that's also the opposition's plan is to, you know, rule by confusion, right, and so denying the ability to make a point, right. That's kind of part of their game plan is we don't want to talk about one thing, we don't want to get focused on one thing. We want to focus on everything and make it confusing, right.
Speaker 1:And we want to bring up things that have already been established and controlled and act like they're out of control, and we want to just ignore the fact that there's a regulatory agency that controls all this stuff. We want to act like that doesn't exist and we want to confuse and just smush a bunch of topics into one argument, and that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2:And that's the goal, right, and so that's why we have conversations like this to try and draw out those very specific points, to stop the confusion and bring it down to something that we can focus on as a voter. So kind of a good segue here into the next thing we want to talk about. We're talking about the constant barrage of things happening. They also do things that are just people didn't see coming a mile away. Minister Netanyahu said that he wants America to take control of the West Bank and make it like a tourist destination, kind of move all Palestinians out to surrounding countries and make it the place to be in the Middle East. And at first, you know, we were talking about, you know, not even discussing it because it's just so outlandish and ridiculous.
Speaker 2:But Netanyahu just yesterday said that he supported the idea. He thought it was a great idea. But it's one of those things where that's outlandish going on. It's still behind the scenes. People are still trying to keep Musk out of the systems at the Treasury Department and things like that. So there's all these things going on and distracting us. But with the what are your thoughts on us trying to annex Palestine really? Or, you know, the Gaza Strip? I think I said West Bank, I think I meant Gaza.
Speaker 1:No, he said Gaza Strip he's talking about the whole area that anything would be where Palestinians are now, they would all be gone.
Speaker 1:There would be no region where Palestinians should permanently reside. They would be refugees only. And then America would build. As he's a real estate agent, he's like we're going to build golf courses and hotels and beach resorts and it's going to be the Mediterranean hotspot. Yeah, it'll be a hotspot. Here's my thought. It'll be a hotspot. All right if bombs are hot.
Speaker 1:Yeah, if you couldn't offer me a free week in the penthouse over there, because I'd be so concerned that I'd get blown up when I go down to eat breakfast, that place would be the biggest magnet for terrorist attacks. It's already a place where terrorist attacks and you know just violence occurs all the time. If you took and put Americans there and said we're just going to come over here and have fun Literally, we're going to come over here and mock you. We're going to spend money and have lavish, luxurious vacations in your home. Going to spend money and have lavish, luxurious vacations in your home, tell me, these people are not going to swim back from wherever you put them. They're going to swim from Egypt to Palestine to murder people with forks. You know what I'm saying? There will be no stop to the carnage. That's one.
Speaker 2:That's my first take on it.
Speaker 1:That would be the most dangerous place on earth.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, yeah. Yeah, it's not a a hot spot now Like they have those. Tel Aviv is a beautiful city, yeah, as great beaches, things like that. Not a hotspot tourist initiative, because it's dangerous, Like when you off every one of your neighbors and now we're talking about shooting people or shoving people out into other countries that they're. They didn't want him in the 40s when we tried this the first time. It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1:It sounds like a way to turn on the terrorist generation machine is what it sounds like to me. Also, I want to remind people we're going to get in our time machine again and remember some of the history that I don't think most people know about or don't remember or just literally never really understood. So just a quick insight. Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, and Syria were both of the places where he really grew up and called home before he ever went to Afghanistan.
Speaker 1:He created his terrorist campaign based on the presence of America in Kuwait and other parts of that region.
Speaker 1:He saw it as basically the encroachment of a new crusade of the West and Christianity to try and unseat Muslim authority in that region, and that was his inspiration for why basically all things American or the West should be attacked vigorously until they leave this part of the world so that we can either develop our caliphate or basically just have this region of the world as what God has given us.
Speaker 1:That was his view on it, right. So what drew 9-11 to exist was our peacetime presence in that region. If people didn't understand that, now you know here in this episode. Hopefully they see that the inspiration to kill Americans is based on our presence in some of these countries, even if we're not overtly at war or attacking people, it doesn't really matter. And so this concept would be what motivated Osama bin Laden. It would be that on absolute American rock and roll steroids, you know, and that again, the secondary effect of that is not just regions there are going to get attacked, but Americans will get attacked abroad and in the United States if we try to do something like that.
Speaker 2:Right, because people need to understand when you go over there, they don't see you as a, an American tourist Like. You're a part of the government, you're a part of Western culture. You know part of the problem. You know a lot of times in their eyes, um yeah, and occupation.
Speaker 1:That would be a luxurious occupation. That's how most of the world would see that really weird.
Speaker 1:There is no, there is no recent modern history, you know, last 200 years. There's no precedent for anything like that. I don't know. The Romans probably did that back in the day. They were like Greece looks pretty. Think that anybody's done that, and I can't within the new, what we'll call the global world order, where there's a governmental system that everybody is trying to balance power against each other. Nothing like that's ever happened. So I don't know who knows, but he's serious.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because he's making threats to allies, with Greenland, canada becoming the 51st state, the Panama Canal. He's making all these outlandish claims that kind of keep us distracted and talking. But then we still have these 25-year tech guys getting breaking into our systems and I guess, yeah, yesterday congress put some holds on their stuff, but like once they've been in and they've putting their codes in place, like they can put back doors into all this shit. So, like them giving up, like they're the keys now, like it doesn't matter, they've already been inside the computer. Um, what are your thoughts on like what, that whole process, what was going on during that whole process and what's the goal?
Speaker 1:oh gosh. Well, um the you know, I think, what? What we're seeing is the true statements of, like, we're going to be uh, belligerent in how we cut things out of the government and we're going to do it in a very, not just an aggressive fashion, but in a basically a haphazard way, and that was communicated, that was telegraphed to us.
Speaker 2:Yeah, his, his advice to president trump was fire all mid-level bureaucrats. Not like, not like, do a review board like, fire all mid-level, just cut them out and then what we need will somehow grow back out of the rocks, you know so that's my take on it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you're right, it's. Let's turn this into gravel and then whatever grows back out of that is basically what needed to be there, right? Yeah, and um, I see the elon you know, elon musk having unfettered control to just send cronies into places. It sounds dystopian, man.
Speaker 2:I know.
Speaker 1:It sounds Orwellian, it sounds insane, honestly.
Speaker 2:I can't believe they got as far as they did.
Speaker 1:I can't give you any kind of logical reason for why that. Blowing away precedent for access to secure information just doesn't make sense, even if your intention is. Once you're vetted you have authority to come in here and do all kinds of crazy stuff. The once you're vetted part is still kind of important.
Speaker 2:You know right, yeah, yeah well I mean no, uh, as soon as one of his executive orders was to give clearances to all of his folks. So again the OPM. They didn't do their investigations on him.
Speaker 1:I think I heard on the news there's six-month temporary clearances is basically what his order does, but we also know that he could issue clearances to anyone, basically forever. Like, the president is the original classifying authority and so he can just say that you have access to this. So there's not really any legal ropes around the president for doing that, which sucks, but that's how the system is, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, when you're at that level especially now with some of the Supreme Court rulings like legality is not not the question, it's all about ethical and like doing the right thing for the American people and this is not the guy that's going to do it.
Speaker 1:well, here's why I think we do end up with both the tech people being in these spaces. I think you know these some of the court cases that are coming from states about USAID and the money federal money just getting shut off to all kinds of different stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah, us aid is another one too.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean all that stuff that's happening. I think the way this comes to a head and the way, if we want to wrap it all up as the confusion bubble, is a festering infection and it has to come to some kind of head. And what I heard in my you know, listening to the news was it's going to come to a head where a court case makes it to the right level federal or Supreme Court and they issue a specific, you know ruling or order and it's very clear. And then if the president just says I just don't agree with you and tell those people to go into that building anyway, right, and says you know, don't get, the National Guard will escort you in there, the local police will not stop you.
Speaker 1:That kind of situation that's what he's already told us he's willing to do to exercise his power. And so somebody like an Elon crony gets blocked by a judge. And then a week later, Trump just sends the National Guard down there and says open the doors and don't argue with me.
Speaker 2:I think that's how some people see this coming to a head, and, my God, faster than we could have ever imagined of the podcasts about that Andrew Andrew Jackson moment where the Supreme court made a decision and he stands out there and says they made the decision, now let them enforce it. You know where, you know you just kind of take the, the president takes that stand and you know what. What do we do then? So, yeah, I think we're probably going to get to that point, but at the Supreme court's going to have to make a step out of line of their own backers and things like that too, because the Supreme Court's so jacked up right now.
Speaker 1:And everybody's looking to the Senate to be the voice in the process.
Speaker 1:The big brothers yeah, slow this thing down somehow, and man, nobody, nobody somehow, and man, nobody, nobody, I mean they you know very light, um, just I don't know superficial, like this is a bad idea, and then you know they're still gonna vote for it, like nobody is genuinely saying I'm gonna take a stand against this person or this issue at all. You know, telling somebody in the hallway of the cap that would be unfortunate and then walking into your office, that's not a no vote.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because Pam Bondi got approved this week. So somebody that already doesn't really understand the 14th Amendment, I don't know if you remember during her hearing where she said that she needed to go study it or something like that, and the person was like, hey, like you're up for a pretty big spot here. You should know what's going on. So, but yeah, she's approved, everybody's moving forward. I don't know, did RFK Jr get approved yet?
Speaker 1:He's not. No, he's not through the process yet. Okay, the way it's all have the uh author of project 2025 is coming in to be the deputy director of omb. Yeah, and I guess he's going to be the deputy, so that he's a little bit out of the spotlight and he'd just be out there slashing folks, just firing people, but I mean, he's still clear, he's going to be in the spotlight. Um, yeah and uh, you know the the secret videos of him that got recorded, where he's like oh yeah, we're absolutely doing project 2025.
Speaker 1:You know, that was back in like august of last year I know this and now here he is with the red carpet and they're like come on in here, man, come do exactly what you said you were gonna do yeah, that's so frustrating project 2025. What are you talking about? Yeah, you know it's going to be remembered as the Trump Doctrine, you know. Like, in the end, it's going to have his name on it and that's how history is going to remember it. In his second term, trump enacted the Trump Doctrine. You know?
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely yeah. It's just, it's pretty crazy that we warned everybody. It's pretty crazy that we warned everybody. They said it. They're not saying anything new. These are their words, that they were saying and everybody's like or people in my circle were like he's saying he wants to be a dictator, he wants this fascist Christian rule.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that was the one thing that reminded me again, because I forgot about that video, that vote or bought his statement of how, why are we just letting people in from all over the world, like, why can't we ask them what they think about Sharia law? Can we, can we try and recruit people from Christian areas, you know?
Speaker 1:and I was like what you know, like the, I'm a Christian and I, you know, I want to promote I'm evangelical in my faith. However, america is a secular government, and the idea that the government would be screening citizens based on any kind of religious concept is the entire opposite point of why people came to America, and I guess it just proves that, with time over time, humans forget everything you know Well this is a good point that you make there.
Speaker 2:We were talking with some other folks yesterday and I talked about how one-on-one talking with evangelicals like they're good with legalized recreational cannabis being sold in the city and stuff like that, but it's the big church overall that says no and then they put their money behind it and kind of drive the narrative. But when you talk to people one-on-one or in small group settings, everybody's kind of like yeah, well, that makes sense, but that disconnect between even the congregants and the big church is pretty gross when it comes to they're trying to manipulate people's voting into what they don't even believe in themselves.
Speaker 1:And I ended up at a coffee shop yesterday that sells books and I picked up. It's a small book, it's short, I should say only like 100 pages or so but it's written here by a local guy here in Colorado Springs and it's called the Cannabis Conversation and on the front of the book is a church sitting in like a weed field right, and the whole point of the book is what we're talking about here. How can the American Christian church and American Christian culture approach this cultural change of cannabis being present in our lives and not being illegal or persecuted in the same way? How does the church deal with that or adapt to that? How do they not ostracize someone like the author of this book, who has a child with epilepsy that needs cannabis as medicine? How do they accept him into the culture of the church, understanding that the substance is not a sin? Right, and that's basically what the book is about, right?
Speaker 1:Um, so I'm just a few pages into it now. I'm very um, I've related already with, like, my own personal journey through this, being a christian that needs cannabis as medicine. Um, and how? How do you talk about it at church? How?
Speaker 2:do you talk?
Speaker 1:about it with other people in your congregation and be open about it. Um, for me, it's always easy to lead with. I'm a 100% disabled veteran. Let's just start the conversation there, and then now we can say oh, by the way, we're standing in the church and I chose to come here, right, so probably means I'm interested in faith and that I'm a Christian. All right, so now we've established two points, you know. Now let's talk about cannabis. You know, and that's that's how I have always approached it and I've been successful, like you said, and never getting a crossways look from anybody at any position to say what I think you're doing is harmful or sinful. I've just never heard it from anybody need to have those conversations too.
Speaker 1:You know, we've always been told don't talk religion, don't talk politics, but talk it, man it affects people.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it affects everybody like it. Yeah, they don't care about it, but it cares about you, so. So having those tough conversations, that's huge, man. Thanks for uh always having those and we need to encourage everybody to keep having those conversations. We had some protests the other day downtown um people and signs and things like that. It's one thing to go out there and hold those signs, but you need to make sure you're taking that energy into your personal lives and affect the people around you.
Speaker 1:I'll use that. We're doing the most natural segues we've ever had in this show. This is great. I got some firsthand exposure, adam, to exactly what you're talking about. Yesterday we were at the office the El Paso County Democrats office and the front desk phone started to ring and I know that we generally don't answer it when we're there because we're not the volunteers that do that, and I don't know the training. You know the information of how to field those calls and tell them what resources they need to be plugged into. Like I just don't know.
Speaker 1:I've never sat at that desk but the phone was ringing and you were recording your segment for this interview we did yesterday and I said man I have to answer the phone. I have to make it stop making noise. You know that was the problem.
Speaker 2:It was a high pressure moment, you know.
Speaker 1:it was like the meme where the guy's sweating and there's a red button and he doesn't know whether to push it. It was that right. You see my eyes glaring at you like get the damn phone. So that I picked it up and I was confronted. But the story ends in a great way. So it was a gentleman. I pick up the phone and he's a citizen. I feel like he's probably a Democratic voter, registered Democrat, and he calls the office and basically, you know, I could hear that what he was saying, kind of like we talk about people at city council meetings. He was like okay, here's my three minutes. You know, like this, somebody answered the phone and I'm going to tell them what I have to say and I'm fired up, right. And so he was fired up. I said hey, sir, how are you? El Paso County Democrat's office, I'm a volunteer, how can I help you? And he was like I'll tell you how you can help me.
Speaker 1:We need people out on the streets protesting. We can't let all these things happen. We can't let Medicare and Medicaid all the support to all of our communities is just evaporating. We have to have people on the streets. We need visible protests, we need visible candidates. We need people out there right now telling us what they're going to do to fix this problem, even if it takes two years for them to get into office to do that. And I said, all right, all right, and I'm taking notes and I'm just trying to keep bullet points of what is he, what's he talking about? And he says we need protests. I want to know who my candidates are. I want to know what they care about right now and I want to know what's the plan to stop all this craziness. And the party needs to do something now. If it's through the courts, if it's through state-level legislation, get to work.
Speaker 1:He said we got to get to work. He said, you know, we got to get to work. And I said, all right, you know, I hear it, I hear what you're saying. This is a you know, your, your desire for the party is this call to action. Um, I want to make sure that somebody calls you back and I want to. You know, I just want to follow up with you and see if there's some way we can, we can help you do what you're talking about. Right, yeah, and he.
Speaker 1:And then the conversation turned a little bit because I saw his name on the car on the caller ID. So I used his name and I said hey, sir. And I called him by his name and I said I hear your passion and I hear you're very concerned and interested in trying to make these things change. And he said and then he was like all right, he could tell that someone was listening. He wasn't just yelling into the phone anymore and the conversation changed and he said here's the deal.
Speaker 1:I'm 70 years old, I have HIV and I feel like they're coming for me. These problems are going to land on my doorstep. They're coming right now. He said I'm going to go to the bank and take all my money out, because I don't trust Elon Musk to do anything. I don't trust Donald Trump to run the treasury, I don't trust that the banking system is going to be safe and I'm old enough now that I just need to have my cash put it in a safe and wait, because I think they're going to mess everything up and I'm not going to have access to healthcare or medicine that I rely on right now, and I can't wait for them to destroy the banking system too. And I was like all right, this is why you called. Now we know right, this is the action that you wanted to see. I get it, but the reason why you wanted to see it, that was really important, and thank you for sharing that with me.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he's probably terrified. Exactly who else is he going to reach out to? It was the fear.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he finally felt like he could be vulnerable and he said I'm afraid and I don't feel powerful enough to do something about this. I need the Democratic Party to help. Yeah, and that reminded me why I caucus with the Democrats. Right, because that guy does need help and he would have been called slurs and insulted. If he called a Republican office and asked, told him the same thing. He would have been insulted, he would have, they would have called him names and that's disgusting and I want to be on the other end of that phone to help those people. So that's why I'm a Democrat.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah, that's cool man. That is such a powerful story and, like you said, once you get past that anger and fear, you get past the anger. That's your first emotion that people show. You know that's that fight or flight. Oh yeah, once you get to the root cause of it and where it comes from, and the fear that's, you know, based in his reality, like he's not bullshit in there, like it's a serious threat to him, it's not hyperbole, it's not mushy, squished up, confusing talking points.
Speaker 1:This guy knows what the consequences are and he does not want to suffer consequences for things that he did not choose. You know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, one of the posts or like themes I've been seeing going around on the Colorado Springs Reddit there is that, with the protests that happened a few days ago, how effective was it? Do they mean something? Things like that?
Speaker 2:Oh, I feel that sentiment big time I do yeah, if you take pictures of those protests right there and you would have had them for that guy to see. That guy would have felt good about it and say hey, we're doing this. Next time we're doing this, next time we're doing this, we'll try to get you the information. Um, yeah, those those protests do mean something because, like other people, one can't be out there doing it with you. You know that they, they like to see that people are still fighting.
Speaker 1:And, yeah, he wants to be represented and he believes, you know, as a political party is, it's a group of representatives all right, like that's the point and he believes he's part of the message, and then he wants that message to represent him. Excellent, excellent. You know, that's what citizens should be doing.
Speaker 2:Exactly that's what we need, because the second, that the second that he just goes. Well, fuck it, I'll take my money and run and give up and not even try to make that phone call. That's when we've all lost. You know, yeah, yeah, you. If we don't show up for these protests, even if it's one person standing there with a sign, go be you buddy. As soon as we've lost that right to be able to go out and do that and congregate, we've lost.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I love the protest and for those people that's the value is that they are taking that energy and doing something with it instead of eating them up instead of causing them some kind of personal trauma, and it makes them feel empowered.
Speaker 1:And that's what the only thing that you can do as a 70-year-old person with medical issues that isn't working and feels like they're being run over by a steamroller. If that's all you can do, then I'm not mad at you. It's not all I can do, and so I don't go do that. I'm not mad at you, um, it's not all I can do, and so I don't go do that. I don't participate in that way, but that's, that's just me, right, like I want to participate in other ways, but I can't be mad at people that that's how they see their, their call to action. Go for it, right, because that happens on the other side too. It's not purely a democratic um thing to go and protest the the.
Speaker 1:Trump flags driving up and down the streets with banners and flags, blasting music and acting obnoxious. That's its own form of protest. Right To act like all those stupid liberals. Just go out and march in the streets. Don't tell me that you did not see Trump supports. That were basically protests all over America in the last eight years. That shit happened all over the place.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, to wrap that up, people can sit there and protest all day, though, but we need to make sure that we're doing it with a goal of getting out to the ballot boxes turning those ballots in. You can take up to 10 ballots back with you to drop in the box, so make sure all your folks are voting, and take all that energy from these protests and these new movements and make it be effective and actually vote. That's what matters.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you're right, that's the tip of the spear, as we say in military circles right, the vote, right, when you turn in your ballot. That's your tip of the spear, and it can't get any more effective or pointed than that. So, yeah, you're right. Again, for the folks that can't go out there and stand in the street, um, that they just, for whatever reason, it's not available to them, voting is the is the answer. Right, Right, yeah, cool, well, that's how we I think we should leave it on that is just to remind people that your voice matters and that your vote matters, and you should take advantage of those opportunities to share your voice.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely All right. Well, everybody have a great week. I got to get to court, so stay safe out there and we'll give you an update next week.
Speaker 1:Take care. Thanks everybody.
