Politically High-Tech
A podcast with facts and opinions on different topics like politics, policy, technology especially AI, spirituality and development! For this podcast, development simply means tip, product and/or etc. can benefit humanity. This show aims to show political viewpoints and sometimes praises/criticizes them. He is a wildcard sometimes. For Technology episodes, this show focuses on products (mostly AI) with pros, cons and sometimes give a hint of future update. For Development episodes, the podcast focuses on tips to improve as a human spiritually, socially, emotionally and more. All political, AI lovers and haters, and all religions are welcome! This is an adult show. Minors should not be listening to this podcast! This podcast proudly discriminates bad characters and nothing else.
Politically High-Tech
237- Overcoming Adversity: Michaela Cox's Journey and the Power of Political Visibility
What does it take to overcome life's toughest challenges? Join us as we sit down with the inspiring Michaela Cox, who opens up about her journey through legal blindness, divorce, and widowhood by the age of 38. Michaela's story is a powerful testament to resilience, spirituality, and maintaining moral values despite the odds. Get ready to hear how she refuses to play the victim and instead embraces a mindset of strength and perspective, offering valuable insights on the importance of spirituality in overcoming life's adversities.
Our conversation then turns to the realm of political campaigns, where we scrutinize the implications of candidates who remain absent from the public eye. We discuss the significance of visibility and authenticity in political success, analyzing strategic pairings such as JD Vance for Trump and Tim Walz for Kamala Harris. Learn about the delicate balance of political compromise and governance, and the crucial role of collaboration and communication in a functional democratic system. From personal voting philosophies to the dynamics of political loyalty, this segment offers a deep dive into the intricacies of modern politics.
Finally, we explore critical topics such as the Electoral College and the often underappreciated importance of local elections. Understand why responsible voting and correcting misinformation are vital for a healthy democracy. We also delve into the concepts of parenting and political awareness, stressing the need to prepare the next generation for the responsibilities of adulthood while encouraging civic engagement. This episode is packed with thought-provoking discussions on resilience, political strategy, and the importance of an informed and active electorate.
Go to this episode to see my first interview with Michaela Cox at 8:11
Follow Michaela Cox at....
Her website
https://www.myheartfeltmeditations.com/
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lib2zOIPh8U
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100042237133134
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/nowisee779/
Follow your host at
YouTube and Rumble for video content
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxk1oJBVw-IAZTqChH70ag
https://rumble.com/c/c-4236474
Facebook to receive updates
https://www.facebook.com/EliasEllusion/
Twitter (yes, I refuse to call it X)
https://x.com/politicallyht
welcome everyone. Politically high tech with your host, elias. I have a reoccurring guest here. She is bold, she is fearless for her opinion, okay. And if you embrace victim mentality, well, she said the exact opposite of that. So if you want to be poor me, I have four eyes, but I still can't see. Or I got a half of a leg and yet I'm dying.
Speaker 1:Oh, this lady will put you to the shame okay and I'm just and I've known her for quite a while and I'm more than confident. I'm saying that, okay and sure. I think even even me. I learned how to be more resilient. Tough enough and look, I got my own issues. Everybody got their own issues. Some are more obvious than others. Apparently, some people take time. You got to analyze them a bit. Oh, this person is very, very weird If you pay attention to not even how they talk, but how they behave in certain situations.
Speaker 1:Sometimes a certain situation reveals that I know her. If you love your victimhood, don't talk to her. I'm just saying that right now. If you love being sorry and me, I get disgusted with that. I mean, I used to feel that way, I used to be depressed and guess what? I don't want to go back to that. It only seems attractive in the short term because it's easy. It's easy, but after a while, I don't know, you go lower and lower and lower. It's some kind of psychological addiction. Okay, that's all I'm going to say about it. So let's welcome back and I'm not going to say all that. All I'm going to say about. So let's welcome back, and I'm not going to say all that. I'm going to say, be resilient with Kayla Cox, just make it nice and simple. And for those who are returning or they don't know anything, what do you want the listeners and the audience to know about?
Speaker 2:well. First of all, thank you for having me, and I appreciate your kind words. I'm glad to be here. I love having good conversations. I am an author and speaker. I currently have about 14 books. I like to share my message and story because, while I don't know everything or have all the answers, I can share with what I have learned about what it's like to travel. My journey of navigating knocks at the door that I've had. That involved a lifelong disability of legal blindness, divorced at 26 in 2005. And then I was blessed and fortunate enough to meet the love of my life after that, and then we were together for 12 years and then, in 2017, going on seven and a half years ago, in October we lost him, and so I became a widow and single mom, all by the age of 38. So triple D by the age of 38, disability, divorce and death. And yes, it's taught me a lot, so I have a lot to talk about and write about.
Speaker 1:So, anyway, Even a divorce, something that a lot of people don't know how to handle, and I think which gender actually handles it worse? I think it's the male gender. Yeah, at first they seem kind of stoic, resilient in general Just generally speaking I don't know everyone's individual and then they go downward spiral. It seems like they emotionally damage and then they bounce back up.
Speaker 2:I don't know. I think it depends on. I mean, there might be something to that, but I think it has a lot to do with the variables and the reasons and the what's in the circumstances around it that can make it good or bad. It has a lot to do with whether it's divorce or anything. How a person handles that, regardless of gender, is going to have probably a lot to do with their personality and their perspective in life. Like I just explained to your audience, I have three major life circumstances and you're correct to say I don't play the victim card and I could have said screw it on all of them. So I don't know, it has a lot to do with your perspective and mindset, no matter what you go through.
Speaker 1:Yeah, my mindset is very important.
Speaker 1:You told me that at 15 years old, I would have thought you was crazy and tried to argue. Argue with you. Argue gets you to death, shouts and yells. You don't understand me. You don't know what the bleep you're talking about. Well, if you want to hear me curse, that's more the old episodes, even though people allow to swear okay, this is an adult podcast you're talking about. Well, if you want to hear me curse, that's more of the old episodes, even though people allow to swear Okay, cause this is an adult podcast. But if you somehow 17 and prove that you're extremely mature, I'll make an exception, cause there's some people that are extremely mature and there's sadly a lot of 20, thirties, even 40 year olds that act like babies.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah.
Speaker 1:And trust me, I know I have worked with some of them, I have some of them even in my family and I told myself, oh my goodness, I thought people would be more mature, more smarter. No, I think, mature biologically, that's all they did. But in terms of mindset, spirit, I think spirit is most important one. People love to put that aside or just think it's gobbledygook or it's too offensive. I think it's offensive that we are removing God and drifting away from him more and more. I think that's personally offensive and I'm proud to say it. I'm more of a spiritualist Christian and I think moving away from him is the worst thing this nation could do and we need him more than ever. I think we've gotten weaker, we've gotten dumber as a nation and we're definitely more immoral, definitely more immoral and definitely more immoral. And if this keeps up, we could end up like a crappy fantastical not fantastical, just a third world nation. There's really some signs of that. There's really some signs of that in America. So, yeah, the stock market looks good, but remember, all it takes is like one day crash, yeah, and it goes down four. Okay, that's what I'm gonna say. So you know, mccain's went through her d's and guess what? Guess what? There should be no excuse.
Speaker 1:Look, I get it. Sometimes life is hard, I get. I can be sympathetic to a certain point, but to make your problem into a long running soap opera, that's why I have a problem. You want to drag it on all of your problem? Well then, resolve it. Oh, I got problems with you because after a while I get drained and it gets tiring. You don't want to do anything about it. You love your problem. You love your problem, so people get. So people get bewildered or shocked when I say you love your problem. You love your problem because, like you play the victim, you always give excuses, excuses. I'm not saying life is easy, it's not. I think in a way it's a good thing, because how are you going to get stronger, how are you going to get smarter? How are you going to evolve? If life was real easy, we'd just be. What's this movie? Oh, ali.
Speaker 2:There you go.
Speaker 1:I think obese, lazy, brave, rotted human human beings. I don't even know how to talk properly. We could end up just like that, with convenience nearly perfected. So, yeah, I try to make my life less convenient. For that reason, is exercising convenient? Oh no, it's opposite. It's opposite convenient.
Speaker 1:Alright, I'm trying to make this too spiritual, but we're going to definitely lace in with some politics, because it's my show and she also talks about politics as well and I like to hear her opinions as well. Remember, I don't need to agree with it. Disagreement doesn't equal hate. Disagreement is just opposing ideas. They're kind of the mental clash or ideally and this is rare it becomes one super awesome idea. It gives you a mission to that. We are definitely going to talk about some politics. Awesome idea they gave me a impression to that. Yeah, so we are definitely going to talk about some politics and I will definitely remind you Bible or give a message of resilience as well, because I just think people need to hear that more than ever.
Speaker 1:Tribalism is making people stupid, more emotionally charged, and both the left and the right, and even the center. Sometimes the center falls for this nonsense as well. I cannot give the center the pass. I've given them the pass certain times, but not this one. Sometimes someone joined the left, sometimes they joined the right, depending on the issues, but someone even fanned the flames even harder on both sides of it and my reaction is bro, you're just making things more difficult, but stop yammering and you pick your starting topic Either resilience or politics. Go right ahead.
Speaker 2:Well, I think right now they kind of go together because we're going to be resilient to get through these next 70 days of the crap show we're in. Can we make it the next 70 days, please, and then take a break? But um, you know being funny, but yeah, in in this country when you're actually we hit sort of be right there.
Speaker 1:I actually love that. The hidden third option let's mix it together, love it. Oh, you video game nerd job was one of the abuse. Unlocked the secret third half. Go right, let let's do that.
Speaker 2:Go for door number three. I mean, it takes our election cycle and presidential years are basically 18 months. So you better be resilient if you're going to run that race literally. And the American public need resilience not to lose their cold year in it and lose all sense. But I don't know. It's been interesting this year. We've lived in a lot of unprecedented times and historical times. I mean, yeah, I'm 45. I'll be 46 in November and I guess I've been trying to keep up with politics probably since the 90s, more so.
Speaker 2:You know, later 90s, when I was in high school, we had an attempted assassination on a president where the president stepped out although, yes, I remember them referencing in the news this that j uh lbj did, but he did it with seven months to spare, so they had time to figure out their crap instead of oh I don't know 30 days prior to the dnc. Like, give me a break, you can't pull that off in time for anybody except the smart. The only logical conclusion they came to was what they did, but I don't know if it's going to be the smart play for the DNC. We'll see in 70 days and then you know you have a. There's just so many things at play right now and you have a president who's not running again but yet he still seemed fit to run, live out his presidency, which I don't know if that's rational.
Speaker 2:But then, one of the things as much as I'm conservative, I'm not really thrilled with what I've been hearing on one of the news channels that I watch. The conservatives, unfortunately and as much as I am a conservative and I usually agree with them cannot have their cake and eat it too right now. They can't scream bloody murder and say Biden's not fit to run for office and want him out, and then, when the DNC did, take him out, basically, and ambushed him. I don't know who will ever completely claim that one and arranged this, that Kamala Harris got put in, and then say that it was undemocratic because all of the 14 million people that voted for Biden aren't being represented when they had the DNC last week. You can't have above-ways people. You want them in or do you want them out? Come on.
Speaker 1:I mean for me to criticize the Democrats. They always try to play this, having both sides, both contradicting things, going their way to see if they could work or not. Look if they pull it off. They're geniuses. But based on what I'm seeing here, and especially with Biden, there's even rumors about evoking the 25th amendment to get Biden down so Harris could be president already through the remainder of this term, which sounds crazy, but I personally believe it's just rumors. I you know.
Speaker 2:I think they've done that already. When he stepped down from the election, they should have done that already back in what was it end? End of June.
Speaker 1:I personally would have picked January this year, ideally, just like, but you know I'm idealist. I guess that idea is not based on reality. Sally to your point, which I'll be very critical about. You put Kamala Harris in such an unfair situation she has. Her campaign needs to move at least 300 miles per hour every single day and if she fails, you give a legitimate excuse that you know Biden is a step down on time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly. I mean it had to be end of July. It was. It was end of July or mid-July because they were a month out from convention. You're going come on. Compared to seven months when LBJ did it back in the 60s, that's ample time to pull your crap together. But 30 days I mean, like I said, you've been running this election for 18 months what are you going to do in 30 days to get someone ready for DNC? Whether they had viable candidates or not other than Kamala Harris, I don't know, but it was the only time, sensitive, efficient answer they could have done, whether they really were going to get it or not. Now, luckily, their delegates got in line and got her nominated. But before she was nominated, they were saying there was free agents in the DNC that didn't have to do that if they didn't want to. Free agents in the DNC that didn't have to do that if they didn't want to. So I don't know.
Speaker 2:But the other thing I like or don't like or which I don't, I'll just say that. But what I don't really like, and what I've been seeing is very interesting in this election cycle, is, regardless of an American citizen's viewpoint, as a member of we, the People and able to cast a vote. There have been things throughout this election whether you lean conservative or liberal that how in the world would you think what is going on the liberal side of things in the DNC is a good idea? It's not even smart. Okay, obviously, it got rendered that Joe Biden is not able to withstand because he got out, but whether you liked him or not when you saw his performance, I mean, this is a job. We are electing someone to fulfill a job. So when you think about when American people go apply for jobs, there are certain expectations, there are certain standards, there are certain things that should be expected, and if you can't do that, then why should you get the job? So that's why they got him out.
Speaker 2:Now I say this to bring the next point. The way you run for president, the way you convince people that you are willing getting worthy to vote to get the job, is to show yourself and do things. Where the hell has she been? How do you think not showing yourself in front of the people that you're wanting their vote? You're trying to get their vote and you disappear from the scene? How exactly? I would like to find out. Do you think that is going to afford someone the privilege of running a country when you can't even show yourself before your voters? I'd like someone to explain that to me. How is that supposed to be work? I mean, isn't that like a major part of the job application that we call the political election cycle? I don't get it like. How does she think that's going to work?
Speaker 1:beats me, I think, to your point. It's very undemocratic how this transition happened. No one has voted for. This is not to attack kamala, at least for mine, and it's procedural the fact yeah it was.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it was a political party procedure to replace the caddy because, let's be honest, b Biden bombed extremely bad, objectively speaking. I mean I even heard MS. I forget one of the commentators said that we couldn't even spin this. No, they couldn't. One of them actually met that television. I laughed so hard because I was waiting for them to spin it. Oh yeah, definitely. Oh yeah, okay, tell, tell, all right, come on, cook me a good story. Cook me some good BS. Give me high quality caviar BS. How are you going to spend this? Some try? Okay, if you try, you're drinking a Kool-Aid. Oh, and there was a. There were some that were actually actually not a few. There was some that were actually honest. I said, oh, this is this looks really bad. Yeah, it did, it was really really competent. You know he's a liar, I mean they lace all the criticisms, but it made it look competent. That's what's going to some of the undecided voters. And I said, yeah, you got to project confidence as a leader. I'd be the not being an egotistical maniac, but yeah, compared to Biden just being lost and look like he was staring into space half the time, I mean it's, it was sad. I mean me.
Speaker 1:After watching that debate. I normally tell people watch the debate. But for those of you who haven't, god bless you. Just watch the highlights. For those of you who watch the highlights, you got everything you need Because that debate. I'm telling you personally, I never felt so stupid in my life. I think half my IQ points have dropped after watching that debate. I'm telling you personally, I never felt so stupid in my life. I think half my IQ points have dropped after watching that debate. I just I couldn't. I could, I'm, my brain just couldn't. I said no, no, no, yeah, my hardware fried for at least 12 hours. I said I couldn't even text, I couldn't even speak properly because I was still marinating. How horrible this stuff was. If you miss out, god has blessed you he has spared you from this, suffering me as a mild political junkie.
Speaker 1:I watched it and I suffered Greatly, mind you. It was all mental. Well, I felt even physical too at times, because I'm not even sure I wanted to get out. But enough about me. But it was just horrendous. That's why they had to switch. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2:I just don't understand how, if she's not going to be around and she's hiding out, by all points and purposes, you're basically doing what your boss did he hid out. And second, how are you giving yourself the chance to persuade anyone and what makes you think you're going to give the public anything different? And the other thing I find interesting they have been griping and complaining and their whole message has been up until she got into the race doom, despair and agony on the American public. And we're in a horrible state and it's awful out there, and now all of a sudden, because you're in the race, it's all joy. How did we get from that overnight to joy all the time? Does it not occur to them that the time? Do they not occur to the america? Does it not occur to them that the american public actually knows how to listen and compare and contrast and go, wait a minute.
Speaker 2:This isn't syncing out like. This isn't right, something's off here. Like are we all that stupid? Not really, but y'all must think we are. I don't know how they think they're gonna make people make that big of a jump with them, but what do I know? Anyway, things I've been noticing that I'm just like. That doesn't work, aside from your own political affiliation. If you're talking about procedure and disappearances, I don't see how that's working for anybody. What about you?
Speaker 1:yeah, and I mean the republican, republican commentators, I should say, who are predicting Gavin Newsom, gavin Newsom, gavin Newsom. I rolled my eyes because even Dems would not be, I believe. At least, I don't think Dems would be that insane to put Gavin Newsom over Kamala. Do you know how disrespectful that is to their woke constituents? Well, it's not even that Right-assing squabble of color, a woman of color, I think would be a big backlash. A Democrat civil war, I think would have started.
Speaker 2:Not only that, he's. He's on his own sinking ship on the West Coast. What makes you think he's going to fare any better for the country? And another thing that I didn't like to happen at the DNC, which I don't understand, which to me is a matter of form and etiquette and consideration why do you want someone running the country? When she walked out of her own party, literally the night that Obama spoke, she left. She didn't even stay for her own party.
Speaker 2:So why are you walking out of parts of the job that you are having to do to ask for the job that you want? I need someone to help make sense to me how that is supposed to sync up and connect To me. That is like worst form, bad form, and so I don't even know what you do with that. I really don't. Why would you walk out? Not just the DNC, the party party itself, but it's your party. They're basically putting this on for you to get you elected, so why would you walk out of your own party? That's like going to a birthday party and then you say peace out, I'm done. I don't understand these things. Someone, I literally cannot, like you were saying I don't know what to do with these things. I can't compute them because they're so illogical to me. I don't get it Well.
Speaker 1:I got to break the news. The American society is running on vibes, emotion more than logic. That seems to be increasingly true and don't get me wrong, yeah, it's only good for like two seconds, but we need to. I don't go back to society where it was run more on logic and what's the right thing to do in principle, as opposed to all this stuff. I say dnc, do a decent party. I think that's the only praise I could give them. If I would pick one of the two conventions, I'll go DNC just for the party vibes and just go home after that and then pull a Kamala where the things get somber and difficult, just walk right out. That's what I would have done.
Speaker 2:The other thing, the only thing she's. This is what, when you are not around to say what's going on, leaves people to speculation. So my speculation is she only able to do one thing is get ready for a debate. That's in.
Speaker 2:Okay, today is the 27th, I believe. Yeah, um, so correct me if I'm wrong. Like 14 days, so what? You're only able to do one thing at a time. So how are you going to run a country if you can only run one thing at a time? And, by the way, women are supposed to be superior multitaskers anyway. So I don't know if you're faring very well for the job you want or for your gender, but anyway. So that's concerning, I would think, if that's in fact what she's doing, but she's not coming out for the public. Last I heard, for the public, last I heard, I think the count was up to 33 or 34 days or whatever it is. Where's kamala? She's not helping herself, in my opinion. And then, like, what makes you think, meaning the american public, what is she going to present at the debate of her policies? Because no one's really heard except for her when she announced her economical plan or whatever it was, and both sides are like that's not going to work.
Speaker 1:Yep, and I did mention that to one more left leaning guess. I just think her not being transparent with policies is more of a weakness. Even if she has a bad policy, at least put something out there and get some feedback and maybe add some modifications to it. A bad policy is I hate. Well, yeah, we are such a decaying society. A bad policy is I hate. Well, yeah, we are such a decaying society. A bad policy is better than no policy. I'll be Obviously. Ideally, you want good policy, but, verza, just say something Instead of having your campaign staff say it for you. That's another criticism. They are doing something to talk you through. And to your point.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think Women are supposed to be far more superior than men in multitasking. I think they have more fluidity in moving different hemispheres of their brain. That's why they're able to do that. They'll just switch this and that and they do it effortlessly. They could probably do two or three. I mean, shoot, let me use my old mother, for example. She did three things effortlessly. I said I don't know how you could do that. Me as a stereotypical man, with that one. I could just do one thing at a time. I mean, I barely master how to do two things at a time. After that, if I try to do the third thing by breaking his fried, no, can't do it. It's just a miracle I could barely do two tasks at once. And they say it's not good for the brain too but I don't want to make this too scientific.
Speaker 2:So how is she going to go on a country?
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, you got to juggle a heck of a lot more than two or three tasks. Yeah, it's numerous.
Speaker 2:And I think she's going to have a heck of a fight against her because, as far as I know, one of the main things she was responsible for she didn't even do well as VP. She's going to have to answer for a lot of the things she did or didn't do or didn't do well, and she's not even set her policies, nevermind ready to answer those questions that I think it's fair and reasonable that are asked of her, especially if she's trying to go for the job that she's going for. I mean it's I don't know. So I just I don't see how it's going to work right now unless something drastically changes in the next 70 days, which, considering the timetable she had to do, which really wasn't fair to her.
Speaker 2:I will give her that You're lost a lot of ground, in my opinion, to waste the few precious days. You had to basically not do anything for the last 30 to 35 days. That's five weeks of major time that could have been in your favor. That I don't know if you have anything really to show for the way I'm seeing what's coming on the news, unless I've missed something major, but I don't think I have.
Speaker 1:No, no, I mean, there's so much I could go on about. And I mean what do you think of her? Vp pick Tim.
Speaker 2:Wall. I don't know enough about him and he doesn't look that he doesn't. Okay, I don't want to sound anything, but I find it interesting and I know she's probably trying, because usually vp picks are a strategic to make sure you have a balanced ticket to catch all the votes you can. But I find it interesting that critics of the republicans and the conservatives have said they're a white man's party. Well, you put an older white man on your ticket. Okay, is that one of your major criticism of the other side of the aisle? Now, because I guess of her own background she feels like she needs to pick up the votes from the white man.
Speaker 2:Male America maybe, but that's your whole criticism of so many candidates that have been on the right and the conservative Republican side for decades. So then, how did you think that was going to serve you? If that's your whole, if that's your one basis for your criticism of the other side, of why they shouldn't win, then why did you just do what you say they've been doing for years? They had no business doing? Maybe I have a weird thing to connect and I shouldn't say that that a problem because, like I said, it probably was a strategic move. Usually VP picks are a strategic move in what they think they can get, that the nominee that's for president can't get, but still it's like really Okay, you must not really had a problem with the conservatives, like you said you did, because you just put them on your ticket, basically by demographics.
Speaker 1:I don't know.
Speaker 1:He's pretty progressive on certain things yeah um, you know, and this is my criticism for both vps, I don't think either of them are strategic. And I was saying again, I think jd vance is a bad pick for trump and I think tim waltz is not a great pick for kamala harris. They both are now strategic in that sense he's supposed to expand the base, moderate the ticket, in my opinion at least, but neither side of the aisle has done that and I will repeat that again, with the exception of Trump getting allies in the RFK camp. He would be like Tulsi Gabbard. So I got to say that's, that's something not to.
Speaker 1:You can't just laugh that off. No, you can't. And you know you want to get these swing. You know they, they could pull in some independent votes, the ones that have been hesitant not all of them, of course, but they got. I think they could pull enough. If Kamala's going to just laugh her way and underestimate Trump and his strategy, well, she's definitely going to lose and Trump cannot undesperate her either. So let's just I'm just going to say it as an independent, looking at this as fair as I could, because it's a toss-up so far based on polling. But Trump keeps this up getting these independents or even skeptical people, he could eventually win. Kamala's going to change her game Definitely.
Speaker 2:I don't personally have a problem with JD Vance and what I've seen of him. I didn't know a lot about him before. That's usually the way it goes. I know much more about the presidential nominees than I do the VPs, and I have to go look them all up, right, like most American people do. But when I did look him up, I don't necessarily have a problem with him inherently.
Speaker 2:Although I had half suspected and theorized before Trump announced that it was going to be JD Vance, I had almost expected him to pick a female or like a Tim Scott, to kind of counter and bounce out the ticket is what I thought he would have done.
Speaker 2:But I will say maybe one of the things that he that JD Vance does have going for the Republican conservative ticket is he's younger and he comes from, I think, one of the states that have been more in the forefront, and that I think he would be able to maybe reach the demographic of a younger nature, like the millennials is probably what I wonder if that went into part of that thought process. Whether he's a strong candidate or not for the Republican ticket, we'll'll know in November, but I wonder if that's what he brought to the table as opposed to. It could be argued that Kamala's pick a VP being Tim Walz are out of touch because he's not in that demographic and he's, like I said, white America. So it'll be interesting to see how it plays out and see how it serves them when they run the numbers on the map and what they're going to be able to gain from their picks and not gain from their picks.
Speaker 1:Yep. Only the election results will be the real determining factor. These polls are preliminary. They're just like watercolor paint it can be washed off with a few curveballs and it's just an idea, right? It's not definitive, it's not set in stone. Except if polls show one side winning by seven plus points, then you could say, okay, this person has a shot to definitely win this, and if it's double digits, it's almost guaranteed this person has a shot to definitely win this, and if it's double digits, it's almost guaranteed this person's going to win. I mean, in terms of Democrats, they're moderating their ticket because, thanks to AIPAC, they already got rid of two of the extended members of the squad because they were too anti-Israel.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:And so definitely more moderate Dems are replacing the squad. But I think the core squad, the original four, I think they're okay, but the two newer ones, cori Bush and Jamal Bowman, they were gone and I think without AIPAC Jamal Bowman would have still been gone because he wasn't a great congressman. In my opinion he wasn't. I mean, he caused trouble, he delayed the vote procedure with the fire alarm thing. Yeah, yeah, that was bad and he tried to lie about it. But even the media had to call him out on it and I was never a fan of him. He used to represent my. I said, yeah, I was never a fan of him. He used to represent my district.
Speaker 1:But I'm happy to deal with this Democrat, just a regular Democrat, as opposed to Jebel Baldwin who is, in my opinion, a bit on my side. I'm happy with that. Redistricting happened because I was not. I was. I would have definitely voted right if he would have still represented my area. That's how well I'll even try to.
Speaker 1:You have to look up this person and listen. You can wear clown makeup Republican. I would still vote for you over this guy. And if the Republicans really bad, I will vote for you over this guy. And if the Republicans are really bad, I will vote for them very, very easily. I just think I go by what I think is best for the area, right and the time. That's how I vote.
Speaker 1:I have no political partisan loyalty. That's my brand and I've been like that since my mid-20s. Well, I mean, it's good to say this again I started off as a very moderate Democrat who would agree with Republicans on some things like fiscal responsibility. I've always been kind of a Republican on those issues. I never really wavered for that. Culturally, I'm kind of more like a social lover, but for the most part, yeah, that's what makes me more moderate. That blue dog wing of the Democrat has been dying off. Yeah, well, I'm one of those who jump ship. So what's going on with the Democrats? Nah, I'm not to be raised. I'm good, especially the world political correctness stuff. Don't tell me how to talk. This is anti First Amendment, okay.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I have strong issues with that. Three things, two things, before we jump on that. As far as one of them is, I just I forgot what one of them I was going to say just now. But okay, so research first thing in the censorship, but I would say that, oh, I know what it was.
Speaker 2:Push that we saw by a bunch of liberals and Democrats would bite them in the butt, and I've never understood this. I mean, there's always exception to every generalization and you know rule in politics especially. But from my understanding, a lot of times, people who are of a Jewish heritage tend to lean liberal. But what I've never understood about that was how could they lean liberal or be liberal or be democratic when as I always knew to be true, but it's obviously shown itself to be accurate, at least more over the last, going on a year since everything happened, and I believe what? October 6th, 7th of 2023. That party that y'all are members of, as a Jewish heritage and Israeli background, do not support you. So why are you going in line with them? I don't understand. I've never understood that. How could the people of a Jewish background ethnically, you know, whatever support a party who has no love for them at all, which has been proven over and over again the last several months. And then it actually plays into the next topic you just talked about, wokeness and cancel culture and political correctness.
Speaker 2:I've always had a problem with that, because my theory is, first of all, it is not American. Second of all, it goes against First Amendment's right, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So if you want the freedom to speak what you want to speak, then I should be able to speak what I want to speak, and vice versa. And my theory is if they're willing to censor one camp or one voice, then it's only a matter of time they're coming after all of them. So I don't want to open up that door. I them. So I don't want to open up that door. I want to have the freedom to speak. I don't have to agree with you. It's called compromise and it's called intellectual dialogue. That's what America is about.
Speaker 2:By the way, people, because we've forgotten that, which it seems we have over the last several years you should have the right to speak your mind. I should have the right to speak my mind, as long as we're doing in a respectful manner that does not cause harm or infringe upon someone else's right. Just because I want to exercise my right and just because someone has the microphone and they're the loudest does not mean they speak for everyone. Okay, there's something to be said for the silent majority. And there's something to be said for the loud few that thinks in the majority just because they're being heard by everybody, that thinks they're the majority just because they're being heard by everybody. And the other thing is I don't like that at all and I take severe issue with that and it just doesn't work and it shouldn't be allowed because, like I said, you open up legal precedent, then they're gunning for all of us and it just doesn't work.
Speaker 1:But anyway, I don't think it's right and that's the problem. People don't think it's right and that's the problem. People don't think long term. They're saying no right now. How I feel I want to silence the opposition. No, I'm against that. I agree with that entirely. I do.
Speaker 1:When it comes to like, I try to support first Amendment, with the exception of death threats and things. Well, you know, they can use that as a core law against you. Well, in terms of controversial ideas, I think they should just be speaking out. You know, just let the public square determine if it's, you know, viable or something. As I was saying, even if a controversial opinion should be expressed. And let's see if the public square is receptive or not. Most likely not, but they should have a right to express themselves in general. That's my thing. Like I said, unless you're a convicted criminal or a proven criminal, then of course that's where I draw the obvious line. That should be an easy line to draw. This person is free to cause responsibility. You're the responsible, you're a criminal. They all apply to you. That's my obvious thinking of all of this stuff, not just because you have a different opinion or hurts your feelings.
Speaker 2:And that's the thing Law that is based on emotions are very, very dangerous, or perception, yeah, and that leads into another important piece of this puzzle that I think we've forgotten in this country Well, the perception to, and protect our way of life that allow us to continue having those rights. We've forgotten that with great power comes great responsibility, and people don't want to take the responsibility of. If you have this power, of this freedom that most people in the world wish they had, then you need to do it responsibly, meaning you need to be okay to open conversation and, like I said, if you want the right, then someone else needs to have the right as well. Extend what you want for yourself and do it responsibly, in a respectful manner, so we can have dialogues and not think, just because you want to do whatever the heck you want, that you're free from the consequences.
Speaker 2:I don't know if I've said this to you before on your show before my husband when he was alive, favorite thing, and I won't say the words he put because I don't want to offend anybody but you can be an idiot walking down Harlem with a sign on your chest saying I hate racial slur fill in the blank, that's fine. You have a right to do that, but you also don't have a right to get excused from the beat down, you're probably gonna get your ass handed to you, okay, just because we have freedom of speech does not mean we're free from the consequences of when we choose not to handle that responsibility, that freedom, in a responsible manner. That comes with the power that we were given to have that freedom. And that's part of the problem in this country is people want to do what they want when they want it right now, damn the consequences, and they don't have to face it or they don't think they have to.
Speaker 1:Yep, that's what I've been saying. You know I've been saying the same thing. See, it's cause you could say something crazy doesn't mean you're shielded from the consequences or the outrage reaction. Oh, why is people reacting that way? Well, what do you say? Oh, adolf Hitler was good, what? No wonder, I can't blame the public for that. If there was no outrage then I would question the public. I'd say, wow, has the public gotten corrupt?
Speaker 2:And I think your point that say it out in the public square and see what they say back. And then over the last 10 months, going almost into 11 months, when there was outcry of anti-Semitism against the Jews I can't get that word out now anti-Semitism there we go, I think, and they were allowed to do whatever they want and they thought they could get away with it and the public basically said, no, that's not okay. And then there's been people that in the academia world, their heads are rolled over it, as they should. In my opinion, it doesn't fly right now and it shouldn't fly. Some things should never be done and that's one of them, if you ask me, especially when they're your country's ally. I mean and that goes back to another thing about the current administration, particularly now that Kamala Harris is in the seat of running for president, whether you like your ally or not, because they are your ally, you meet them and you greet them and you speak with them, never mind the fact.
Speaker 2:If you read the Constitution, one of the main duties that is written in the Constitution for the executive, meaning the president and the executive branch, is to deal with state matters and have I don't want to say host or entertain, because that's not the right verbiage in the constitution. But you deal with them, you meet with them and you, that is part of your job. You, you represent the state, you represent our nation as oh, I don't know the president, the head of our nation, sorry. So you don't skip out on that. That is actually one of the written, defined, specific parts of your job. You don't get to skip out on that just because, oh, I'm sorry, I don't like you guys and they're your allies for crying out loud you don't do that. It's bad form and it's horrible and it's horrendous and it should have been done. And so that leads me to believe that. What other part may she skip out on if she gets elected to the job that she's asking for from the American public? Whatever, what do I know?
Speaker 1:It baffles me, I do agree. You cannot cherry pick all the easy responsibilities. Just talk to allies that are cool based on, based on vibes. Oh, we got the same vibe. We're the same good vibe oh no, you got the bad vibe. Mckay, I don't want to talk to you. You got hinky vibes just because of the vibes.
Speaker 1:No, sadly, you have to talk to people that you don't like, you don't agree with or if you just can't stand, for whatever reason. I mean, that's part of being an adult. I think we are just forgetting that as people, you know, let's go with a job. For example, do you pick your coworkers and your boss? No, unless you accept the job, the position that's embedded within, okay, the coworkers and and the boss, good amount of times you're not gonna like some of them, but you have to learn how to work with them to get things done, and that's part of being an adult, not. Um, you want to have this high school mentality? Oh, I want to hang out with, okay, because me. Or our republicans? Oh no, heck, with those Democrats. I don't want to talk to them. They're weird, they're all about them.
Speaker 1:Vibes, I like logic. No, you know, you got to talk to people who have different opinions. Ok, so she's going to get things done. I mean your personal life. You do whatever. You do whatever as long as you're not hurting anybody or doing something illegal, okay. But when you're dealing in the public, you're gonna have to deal with people, situations that you don't like well, I mean do I say embrace it?
Speaker 1:yeah, no, but you have to handle it like a mature person there's two instances.
Speaker 2:First of all, if there was peace in the middle east, because we all got along, we wouldn't have to worry about making peace in the east East. So obviously you're going to have to deal with people who you don't get along with, because that's why there's not peace and we're at war of our nation had to do. They would lose their minds. Because what most people forget in modern times because we weren't around at the beginning of our country how we elect our presidents now and VPs was not how we used to do. It Used to back in the day, and I promise you they did not all agree.
Speaker 2:You had a list of people running for the presidency. Number one got the president and then whoever number two got the most votes, they got the vp. It didn't matter if you agreed or not, it was by vote only. So, if so. And so got number one the most votes. They were president. They got the number two most amount. The second amount most amount of votes. They were vp. It didn't matter if you were oh, we're buddies, we like each other. No, no, no, no. And there were some knockout, dragout fights between the first and second presidents and vps, and that is why they did eventually say we're going to change that because we don't like that it was. I want to say, it was the 11th or 12th amendment where it changed it to now how we currently vote, for you're on one ticket together and whatnot, but back in the day, when this country started, you didn't pick your VP. The American public did Like it or not? Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 1:I mean just imagine. Let's just 2016. Imagine Hillary Clinton won by a popular vote. Let's just Hillary Clinton won and Donald Trump is vice president. You know how chaotic that would have been. Imagine that I could just Listeners, viewers, use your imagination, Imagine what that was like.
Speaker 1:Hillary Clinton president, Donald Trump vice president. I don't think Donald Trump could handle being vice president very well. Let's just be clear. He's a big alpha personality. He wants to be at the top and they will be creating an argument because of that law. Probably good in a way, because they passed a lot of crappy laws anyway. But that being said, I kind of agree with Republicans on that one. A lot of crappy laws was passed through Congress, so less productivity the better right now, until they come up with good policies. Let's imagine that right. Imagine if that system wasn't in play. Oh, and another thing the Senate was elected by the state electoral college, Not the people. Now, it's just people who vote, so that's another thing. So just imagine where we have the Electoral Council President. There was also the same thing for the Senate.
Speaker 2:And there was a reason for that. There was a good reason in the Founding Fathers' minds for that. The House of Representatives was considered the people's house and the Senate was considered, like you said I don't want to say higher, but more noble or whatever the higher echelon. And they wanted to keep the balance so we'd never end up a position where it was mob rule. And so they wanted to balance out, have one house elected by the people and one not. But then, in more modern times, I want to say it's the 17th Amendment, you might have to correct me on that it changed it where all of Congress, both houses of the bicameral system of our Congress, are in fact elected by we, the people. And in modern times they would say that's better and it probably does work out better that the president gets to pick the repeats. But back in the day, like I said, it didn't work that way. So you're going to have to get along with them, whether you liked it or not.
Speaker 2:I never got to see the skit, but I remember the 2000 election and going to church the next day after snl and everybody was talking about how snl came up with a skit had, uh, bush and gore had to share the white house and it was a skit likened to the old sitcom of the odd couple of alex and oscar and feelings. I can only imagine how hysterical that would have been. I would have loved to see that skit and I've looked for it several times. I've never found it. But it's kind of what you're saying Like imagine them trying to share that one.
Speaker 1:Anyway, I'm going to have a lot of laughs, that's for sure, and maybe we will have better laws made. Because they are forced to compromise, they are forced to be very careful and more meticulous about what they want in the law, and that's why I push for balanced government. If I see two of those Republicans, I'm putting some Democrats in. Vice versa, two of those Democrats, I'm trying to put some Republicans in. We need balance. We need balance. We need balance. We have lost sight of that. I mean to your point. I mean it would have been great if each 50 states I think it was done like this back then, correct me if I'm wrong there, I didn't look this up that it would have had one Democrat, one Republican senator for all 50 states. I'm not saying that that would have been a great balance.
Speaker 2:I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard of that. I just always knew it was two senators for each state and then you're right, it has always been that way always based off a population which is gathered by the census and how many representatives each state is allowed, same for the electoral college. So I don't know, I really don't. I can't speak to that, but you may be correct.
Speaker 1:I think that's what electoral college tried to maintain that balance with two parties out there. But I could be wrong. That's speculative people, so don't say misinformation. I'm only speculating here Before you correct me with the chat. But to your point, with the 17th Amendment you are correct. That's what made the Senate a direct vote, popular vote, as opposed to having us the Electoral College.
Speaker 2:And even though I respected the founding fathers for the reason why they originally set it up in the original design, I inherently maybe because I'm an American in more modern times don't take issue with that 17th Amendment. I think it did bring it more towards we, the people. But I would and this is something I call it a constitutional needle in the haystack, because no one really talks about the Electoral College until they need to talk about it, which means the presidential election. And here we are again. I would like to get your opinion on something and then I'll weigh in on it. There are usually three camps related to Electoral College. Usually there's ones that say leave it alone, it's fine the way it is. There's usually the second camp of abolish it altogether, and there's a third camp of it needs to be amended. Where do you come down on that?
Speaker 1:Ah me, I don't. I'm definitely not the second camp, I don't think. I think abolishing it will cause total mayhem. The election will be just laying on California, new York, florida and Texas the whole of the Congress yeah, and that's where it's unfair. The election will be just laying out California, new York, florida and Texas. Texas yeah, the whole of the Congress. Yeah, and that's where it's unfair. And you know, states like Iowa, wyoming, even Delaware, rhode Island and I'm just like that on purpose because I'm trying to be fair Listen, republican, democrat, small states and big states yeah, they will have essentially zero.
Speaker 2:Which is the reason why the founding fathers came up with it, because they didn't want the bigger states to outdo the smaller states and it not to be mom rule. So yeah, I agree with you, I don't think we should get away with it. It was a funny story because, like you said, I'm usually pretty know my mind pretty well and you usually don't have to guess what comes out of this redhead's mind, because I'm pretty much going to speak in an outman's words. You usually don't have to guess what comes out of this redhead's mind because I'm pretty much going to speak in an outmanched words. When I was getting my grad work done in political science and American government, I usually have a pretty good certain opinion on how I'm going to come down and argue my papers. When I wrote them, I about made my husband fall out when I had to write the electoral college, I went in with a certain opinion.
Speaker 2:It's the only time out of high school undergraduate graduate, I've ever changed my mind on a paper. When I started a paper and then when I came down to the end of the paper, when I went into this paper writing on the Electoral College, I was at the camp it doesn't need to be changed, the way it's supposed to be in the story. At the end of the paper I came to a different opinion. I came to an opinion. I never want it to be abolished. That's not going to change. That's not a negotiable for me. I don't want to abolish it because I agree with you and I agree with the founding fathers. That was the whole reason for it and it makes sense and it does keep this country balanced and not, you know, given to one versus the other. And I'm fine with it if it never changes. But I would say that I could see it needing to change and I won't go into all the particulars because I'd have to look at the paper because it's been long since I wrote it. But there's generally five different proposed plans of how to amend the electoral college and they're complicated and technical for this conversation and I'd have to look at it because it's been a while since I laid my eyes on it. But the one I do know about is what's called proportionate. And so by the end of the paper, when I'd done all the research and read all the things I had said that I had found myself in new territory of changing my mind on a research paper, which that's good research, because that's what it's supposed to do. You're supposed to either prove it or not prove it, or come to a different conclusion and keep you honest that way. But I decided by the end of that research paper in grad school that I would vote, be okay with amending it to what's considered the proportionate plan and what that basically means is. For anyone out there who wonders what the crap I'm talking about, we'll take an example of California or Texas or New York, I don't care.
Speaker 2:As we have already said, in the Electoral College you have what's matched to what represents this country. Let me give you a little history on the Electoral College, because you're going to see this play out in about 70 days and it's going to matter because you have to read the map. Basically, we have 100 senators, so there's 100 electoral votes that mirror that. We have 100 senators, so there's 100 electoral votes that mirror that. There are 535 representatives currently in the House of Representatives, which makes for 535. So you have 535 votes in Electoral College. Dc gets three, so that makes of 538 delegates. Now, if you divide that into two, it's 269. So you need a tiebreaker. So that's why you always hear around the presidential election, the magic golden lottery ticket is the 270. We need that 270, that big number of 270. That's what that's all about. So what that means is, when you look based off of the census, when we gather how many people live in what state, it's decided how many, just like when the House of Representatives, each state is allotted so many representatives, so are they so many delegates in electoral college? To culminate to the 538 that we just spoke of, whatever your amount of delegates are, whatever the majority, now there are some exceptions that are of big concern in our country.
Speaker 2:Did the Electoral College ever really have to be bound by going with what the popular vote said? Yes, they do in most cases, in most states. Historically, that's what they do. So let's say you pick a state I don't know Texas, florida, new York, whatever it is I know, and last time I heard California. I don't know, texas, florida, new York, whatever it is, I know and last time I heard California has 55 votes in electoral college. Florida has 25 or something like that, maybe 28 now New York is close to that. Texas is 38, last I heard. As it stands now, in its current form.
Speaker 2:There is a point to this. I promise Each state, electoral votes are all or nothing. They all go to the candidate that the popular vote spoke for. So if Texas votes Republican, then that means all the electoral votes in Texas are going to go towards an electoral college, towards a Republican candidate, california. If they all vote Democrat, they're all going to go Democrat. So that's why it means all of nothing. All of nothing. Now, what the proportionate proposal would be should there ever come up to an instance where it would be presented a proposal for a many electoral colleges. It would be more proportionate, meaning, let's say, in Texas, 60% votes Republican, 40% Democrat, and that means to mirror that in the popular vote when we as a people, american people, cast our votes for who we want to be president. The electoral candidates would not candidates. Electoral delegates in the electoral college would proportionately represent Texas and there would be out of the 38, 60% of those delegates would go for the Republican candidate and 40% of the 38 delegates would go for Democrat.
Speaker 2:I'm not a math person. You figure the math of what that would be, how it would actually look in an electoral college if it was done that way. And so for me, when I did that paper in grad school, it showed me a method and form of an electoral college that would mirror the we, the people's, actual voice and position. And so I say that is a better way of managing the electoral college. If it never changes, I'm fine with it, because I'd rather protect the electoral college and its integrity and entity than mess with it and abolish it altogether. But should it ever be amended, then that's what I would vote for. But I am fine with keeping it, and that's where I stand on it. And this matters because it is in fact how we get our president. So for anyone who says, yeah, that's not important, it is a standoff, equivalent beyond important, equivalently in our country, every four years, of when we get our president.
Speaker 1:And that's where I stand on that one I cheated with the calculator because I didn't feel like calculating my head, just being fully, just being really honest. So I'm a math genius. For a second I cheated with the calculator Takes you well because I don't feel like thinking Thank God for calculators. So let's just use a second. I cheat with the calculator, takes you well, because I don't play thinking Thank God for calculators.
Speaker 1:So, let's just use a math. That will be 23 delegates going to Trump and the rest of the 15 going to Hillary. I mean, you know, just Kamala. Oh, excuse me, I'm still thinking about 2016. Being obsolete, we've got to get it together. 15 goes to Kamala. Oh, excuse me, I'm still thinking about 2016. Yeah, being obsolete, we've got to get it together. 15 goes to Kamala, 23 goes to Trump. If you want to do a proportionate, you know, I'm actually open to it because I thought about this, I said yes, all or nothing.
Speaker 2:I think only two states got their weird special it's Maine that does it differently, and it's either Kansas or Nebraska. I get that mixed up. Nebraska, yeah, it's that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, nebraska, even though it's mostly Republican, there's always that one little special district that ends up Democrat, that one little annoying blue dot. Nebraska, if you're a Republican and if you're New Hampshire, it's always like that one red dot. Oh, you know I red. Oh my God, I'm mixing it up. No, no, new Hampshire is like blue. I mean Maine. Maine always has that red fit somewhere. I'm mixing things up, don't mind, maine, my brain is getting fried. But yeah, it's Maine. Yeah, you're right, it's actually Maine. Maine has that red spot that keeps it from being blue, even though I think it's a moderate state for the most part, I think overall, its politics is pretty moderate, even though it kind of favors them when it comes to the presidency. Yeah, but I think, um, yeah, I think, well, they got.
Speaker 1:Well, he's still got a republican and, uh, an independent. I consider him a democrat. Let's not be independent, agnes king, just be a democrat, stop with the bs. Yeah, you're fully on that label, you're, you're a democrat. You vote with democrats at least 80 percent of the time. Yeah, that's a tracking average, all right, but I don't want to make it by agus King Right.
Speaker 2:So he's independent, no-transcript, and moderates in the Democratic Party. It would almost be more accurate and probably make less money of the political party waters if we had a party of conservatism and a party of the liberalism instead of Republican versus Democrat. But and this actually makes an interesting point about what you were talking about earlier is when we are moderate and when we're independent. It could be argued and I've often thought this is what could be the American unicorn, because they're hard to truly find. You know how do you think about an independent voter? Yes, technically independent, in the sense they're not affiliated with any party, but I mean independent in the sense of they're not tied to any one thing that sways them.
Speaker 2:I think that would be an American political unicorn, because that's going to be hard pressed to find, because you can talk about nine different factors that go into voting behavior. But all of this political party stuff that we talk about and how our system is structured in election cycles, is it almost be argued that the more constitutional standpoint would be to be an independent voter? Because you will never see the verbiage or the terminology or the concept or the idea of political parties in the Constitution and, a matter of fact, numerous instances you can find quotes from our founding fathers that were very wary and leery of political parties and spoke out against it. They never intended that to be the way our country go and restructure in politics.
Speaker 1:I mean listeners, are you getting value out of this? Because this is knowledge you need to know, this is need to know. Even though I'm going to slightly disagree on one point, I believe the president election gets way too much attention. I wish there was a way that attention could kind of even out to focus on the senate and the house representative at least. And this is for the just make it kind of even out to focus on the Senate and the House of Representatives at least. And this is for the national, because they got different levels of media.
Speaker 1:Local media you cover their local politics. Okay, I'm not going to muddle with that, that's just logical to me. I just wish more local elections could get attention and keep it within the district and all that. But I think the president gets too much attention. I get it, but in terms of policy impact to Americans, I think state and local does that better For me. I just think those are the ones that need more attention. But that's just my opinion. I just think the presidency is overhyped. It gets a lot of people freaking, nervous and I would say sometimes it's for nothing, that's just me, it's my spicy take.
Speaker 1:You can either give me a thumbs up or a thumbs down. That's up to you. I welcome your opinion, stupid or intelligent. I don't believe in canceling you. I might call you out on the future episode to see what the public square thinks.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I don't.
Speaker 2:I think it gets a lot of attention because, one, it is the biggest election as the leader of our country, so it matters a great deal. But also, comparatively speaking, at least in the state that I live in, currently Louisiana, when we do representatives and we do senators, either statewide, on the state level or even nationally in Congress, the length of those elections don't run the way the presidential election runs. And it makes sense because only one state are voting for those. But there are so many moving parts to the American presidential election cycle because you have 50 states that have to vote for this. And that's why, as irritating and ridiculous as we all get done with it after 18 months, I would argue, the first six months is about negotiating and trying to navigate who's actually going to run and put their hat in it. And then you have that established and then you wait for the year mark and then okay, then it starts to get a little more serious and then it really comes down to the primaries, because it does take a lot to get 50 primaries done across a huge nation. I mean, it's just, I don't know. I mean I guess you could squeeze it in more quickly and we'd all be like, yeah, it's over, you know, but I'm tired of hearing about it. But I don't know how you logistically make that work smoothly, because then it really comes down to the next thing you have to pay attention to are the political parties, conventions, and then the real race start.
Speaker 2:So by that point we've already been dealing with this for 15 freaking months like enough already, people. Oh my gosh, it's over. We have to deal with this for another four years and plus not only that. So you're dealing with the amount that has to be done for a presidential election over 50 states and the length that it takes to do that, and you only do it once every four years, whereas opposed to I don't know about in the state level, because each state has their own rules for governors and how long they serve and their state representatives and blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 2:But with the federal Congress you have to do that literally midterms every two years, like you can't do a long and a half a year and a half long process cycle every two. I mean that's all we would do, like it doesn't work. So I think that has a whether it should or shouldn't be that way. I think that's a big part of the variable as to why it's that case and that makes it be that way. I think that's a big part of the variable as to why it's that case and that makes it be that way, whether we like it or not.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I know that, I just wish it was a bit faster, because it drags on and on and on.
Speaker 1:And to your end, let's bring back resilience. Oh, you need to be supremely resilient, especially when it comes to the presidential run the Senate. You need to be supremely reasoning, especially when it comes to the presidential run the Senate. You need a little bit of it. You get an associate house representative Well, half the time they're campaigning and only half the time it gets a legislative. So that was always a quick one. So that's why you'll feel so overwhelmed with the house representative especially. And then locally yeah, that widely varies. You check with your local station and your local website for that one. Okay, because I mean, yeah, I'll be. I know the New York state governor. They always start during the midterms, and so the next one is not until 2020. Nice, so, yeah, that's how I memorize my political cycles. Yeah, new York government always starts at the midterm and that's the only reprimand of the party, the one that has the president. That's what I mean by that, just to be very clear so yeah, I get it.
Speaker 1:I get it. I just wish it was a faster way for everybody does. You're not in the way already on that I wish we could paint this to state and local politics in their area, because the the participation rates or just the disparities is just great. I mean less than I have, less than half the list of three percent. Give a rat's butt about a state and then locally forget it. You're only missing like 2%, 10% You're lucky to get 10%.
Speaker 2:Which is really sad because it all impacts. You know, the micro affects the macro and the macro impacts the micro and usually out of the micro, like local politics and state politics, sometimes very much can impact the national politics. So it's true, but it's sad. And then something else I should have touched on earlier when you were talking about and I totally agree with you that we need to get more God into our country. There was an interesting thing Louisiana did this year. They made a law where the Ten Commandments have to be posted in all school and all classrooms. This year.
Speaker 1:I think was it where we went stable. Was that Oklahoma that was trying to do that?
Speaker 2:I don't know, but Louisiana did it and some teachers were happy with it and some weren't. I mean they were like, well, we have to talk? No, you don't, you're just required to put it on your wall, you don't have to point it out. So I don't know what they were upset about. But but whatever, I'm not in the classroom.
Speaker 1:Their jobs are hard Heathen, that's all, simple Heathen. But anyways, I could go to my spiritual rant about that. But I should be doing that, Me and my only thing is this is going to sound mildly, country, you know, I am a spiritual Christian. I don't believe it just should be forced. I think a bit of a government mandate will leave a bad taste in some people's mouths, but I just don't know how it can ever get mad, Because I do believe more God needs to be implemented. How can we implement out some kind of force?
Speaker 1:To me that's the conundrum, Especially the more diverse, not just racially but also religiously. Forget it. Before it was like super majority Christian. And I'm not going to get down to the breakdown denominations. It's going to take forever to go through all that. You know there's Protestant Christian and there's Catholic, there's Methodist, all these other lovely groups. I say the denominations was the devil's greatest invention because it keeps all god-believing people separated. That's my thing, but I'm not going to get into. Oh, the Method, best way, all the protestant ways. Well, I think we all, we need to get back with the lord yeah, made for everyone, and this is actually something interesting.
Speaker 2:I remember seeing this as a kid. It's interesting. I just thought of this because we just got done with the summer olympics. I always found it interesting. I don't know if you ever saw these growing up. We had and we'd make them in VBS, vacation Bible Schools what we called power band salvation power band, where it would be like a brown band, like a leathery band, where you put six beads on it and it would represent the six different phases of salvation Black was for sin, red was for Christ's blood and then white being pure snow. And then I forget the order of the last three blue was for the living water, green was for the eternal life and yellow was for heaven. So you have those, whatever the last order of the three were, but the Olympic flag guess what?
Speaker 2:has all the same colors, and it's for the whole world so it must be yellow and green and so I always thought that was interesting as a kid, that a sport that's for the whole world mirrored what salvation was for the whole world. So my position yeah, I come up with weird patterns, um a little odd like that, and correlations, but, um, my thing is, yes, you have your own denominations and whichever one you pick, more paratea, but as long as we all agree to agree on the christian doxology and creed, then the rest is just religious gravy. Go figure it out for yourself.
Speaker 1:Yeah, fair enough because everyone's spiritual journey is unique and I think, denomination or not, I I think I know denominations water that down at least significantly. That is just me. If you just believe in God, you're connected with Him. Me, I'm personally a church hopper. I've hopped to a Catholic church. I've hopped to a Protestant church. One time I've hopped to a Methodist church. That's when we were the denomination thing. It personally, you return to me off sometimes because it just seems so. Some of it to me seems so outdated. It's a long Chris has a church license to. Even now. I'm Chris as the denomination, not God. Am I calling God an idiot? Right, that's right. So if, if you feel that way, that's up to you. Put in the comment section, expose your stupidity and let's see if the trolls will eat you alive. In the comment section. Keep it verbal, keep it wordy, don't make it violent if you had that's always back to politics, because I'm curious.
Speaker 2:If you had to predict if we voted tomorrow or a week from today because today is actually Tuesday, that's what we always vote in this country for presidents and election who do you think is going to come down to Like? What do you think is going to be the result of all this mayhem? Also, can you repeat that again? I said, if we had to vote tomorrow or next Tuesday, like if the election was tomorrow, what would you predict is going to be the result of the election that we have in 70 days.
Speaker 1:If the election was held today, based on looking at data statistics and my own prediction, despite what the media is doing, I still believe Trump is going to win, but by a small margin. Yeah, I agree, that's what I believe.
Speaker 2:I believe, if I'm going to win, but by a small margin.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I agree, that's what I believe. I believe, if I'm going to guess a electoral count which I could be off by a couple of digits, I would probably say he'll win by at least probably like close to 280, 290, that range.
Speaker 2:Well, the last time he won I think it was he got. The last one that put him over was Pennsylvania in 2016. I think he was at 320 or something like that. I don't know what it'll be this year, but I stayed up really late on the East Coast for that one because I was still in New Hampshire. I don't think I went to bed till like three till three o'clock in the morning that day and I may be remembering that number wrong because it's been eight years, but I don't see how it couldn't go that way. But you know, stranger things have happened in politics, and I you know they always talk about the October surprise. Well, we don't need any more surprises this election cycle. We have the summer surprises this election cycle. Okay, october, you've already been taken care of. You don't need, don't give us no more. Please, lord, have mercy. No, no more surprises. This is insightful. Thank you, october summer took care of you.
Speaker 1:You're done. I mean to Trump's credit. He predicted Biden was gone, I think a couple of weeks before even officially happened, although, he's gone, yeah. I said Trump is on to something.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:He's. Trump is on to something. He's going to be gone, especially that debate performance. I say yeah, I think the Democrats if they want him, because, like I said and I'm just going to say this real quick, I don't want to be too repetitive Trump never polled as good.
Speaker 2:After the debate, the writing was on the wall after the debate I mean you've been out like I was going to the polls.
Speaker 1:He was playing by 7, 10 points. I mean, you may not like it, I was going to the polls. It was played by seven, yeah, ten points. Especially with the swing state variable, those are good margins.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, the American public may not have liked the writing that was on that wall, but they can't deny that it was in fact there, unless you're like, totally oblivious and under a rock. But whether you agree with the writing or the wall or not, the fact of the matter, it was definitely there. There was no denying there. It was inevitable at that point.
Speaker 1:So yes, I never saw trump polls go good. It never polled as good before. It was always at both 55. No, it was even 60 at one point. Is ooh, you sure y'all want to keep Biden? Well, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2:Right, I mean you're just going to do yourself, but you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1:The other thing I find Well, that's why I make this change, especially Pelosi, pelosi's, the one. I forced him out.
Speaker 2:I believe that that's my thought, pap, the writing was on the wall, Whether people liked the writing was there, and I don't know what else they could have done, because it would just put the nail in their proverbial coffin.
Speaker 2:But the other thing I want to know what I wanted to say, what we were talking about, I think what is interesting on the electoral college, because I tend to think of weird things and I wanted to see even though it does take 270, I ran the political, I ran the electoral college map because I was wondering if, because we talk about when we said, if it was just a strictly popular vote, california, texas, new York and Florida would run the country. Basically, now, this would probably be statistically, probably politically, historically, virtually impossible and never, ever happened. But as it stands, based off of the population of our country and how many delegates the Electoral College has, you can actually win a presidential election without California, new York, texas or Florida. Now you have to get all the other 46 states, but then the cumulative number of electoral delegate votes of the other 46 states, man is Texas, florida, new York and California would pull your 270. Now, would that ever really happen? Probably not, but it would be interesting to know.
Speaker 1:Well, that should be a special challenge with the election without the major four states. You have to you're going to have to get all the small states to agree, and of course that includes Washington DC, because that's the three. Otherwise it would be equally the same as Congress, both the upper house, the Senate, and the lower house, the House of Representatives. So yeah, I'll be a special challenge. I respect that president even more.
Speaker 2:I said, wow, you managed to outmaneuver the major four in terms of electoral power, I mean like I said, the odds of it actually realistically happening not, but it is interesting to think about that. If you took out of 538, you subtracted those four states and you saw the votes, where it would put you and you could do it. It would be hard-pressed, but it's still interesting to think about.
Speaker 1:I mean, what was the one that achieved near unanimous win? Oh, ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan, the only state was Minnesota. Yeah, the only state that's. Yes, new York was red, california was red. Yeah, okay it that way. Yes, new York was red, california was red At that time. I know you can't fathom that. It seems like it was eons ago.
Speaker 2:It was. I was technically alive when that happened, when I was two, so I definitely wasn't paying attention to politics, but I wish I'd been old enough to see it happen and pay attention to it, because that would have been incredible. I would have loved to have seen it. I don't know if we've had one.
Speaker 1:I mean I wasn't even thought of yet. I mean it would have been great just to live that moment, just to get a general feel how it was. I mean I'm never going to get the feeling as those who live there, so lucky for you, boomers. But that's like obnoxious millennial. That would have been so. That would have been so, so interesting. Wow, almost the entire. Oh, you watched, the DC was red too. Delaware red. Can you believe that? Oh well, that's practically impossible today. Yeah, so that to Delaware Red, can you believe?
Speaker 1:that oh well, that's practically impossible today. Yeah, yeah, so that almost happened. He almost won the entire country. Yep, I guess it's possible. That's all I'm going to say. I guess it's possible, but it's going to probably happen once, if it happens within our lifetime. Yeah, just once. That's why that would be insane if it happened twice.
Speaker 2:We'll see. If this's not one, that'll be insane. Map it twice, right. We'll see if this is the one, but we'll see what happens. In any case, no matter what it is, it'll be interesting to see what happens. But 70 days people, let's just be resilient and hang on 70 more days yeah, by the time this episode's out, the countdown already started.
Speaker 1:It's probably gonna be less than that with its day releases, but it's been great than before. I awkwardly wrapped this up because we had gone for a long time a lot of great stuff, a lot of wacky stuff as well, but I don't know me. I'm normally the 2020 election, I felt down about it, but this one, I don't know. I have a weird, weird feeling about this one and I'm not sure if it's positive or maybe I'm just curious.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm just if it happens and trump wins, let's just say he does. This will be the second time in American history that that'll be the case, meaning that you have a presidency that served one term, didn't win the following election and then came back and did it again, so he would make the second occurrence in our heads.
Speaker 1:So he just picked Grover Cleveland. He was the last one to achieve that.
Speaker 2:Exactly correct.
Speaker 1:See, we know our stuff that's pretty misinformation, all right, you See, we know our stuff, that's pretty misinformation, all right, you know, we actually do our best. She allows correction. I even allow correction because, as one of my second brand, if you want to call it or what I try to do is not to spread misinformation as much as possible. I think that's just very important, but without censorship.
Speaker 2:Right, exactly.
Speaker 1:I mean it's called. You could rebuttal and break evidence and make that. You know, if that person wanted to stick to being stupid, well let them. It'll be recording. That's evidence within itself.
Speaker 1:Okay, censorship is not the right thing. No, even even if I would have stood as a democrat even though I'm not I would have been very critical of that because I just think it's so, it's so anti-american, it is just very. Yeah, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't compute. The first amendment, you know, but you said, doesn't mean you're immune to consequences. Yep, so if you want to say, if you go to a predominantly Spanish neighborhood and trying to mock a Mexican, all you're going to do is laugh at you, call you gringo and stupid and just go on with their day. Yep, you're just going to be ridiculed. Okay, that's one idea of it. Or if they're really angry, they will I'm going to use the gang term. They will jump you, meaning multiple people are going to knock you down. Yep, yeah, so it's going to be you the idiot, one versus five of those people. So you know, just because you've got the freedom to speak, if freedom comes with responsibility, stop chasing this fantasy called unlimited freedom. It's not going to happen, okay.
Speaker 2:So the other thing, I will say yeah, regardless of what's come down on, as a member of we, the people, you must exercise your vote, your right to express your voice by voting in this election. Or I would say you don't get a right to gripe and complain because you didn't take the opportunity you had to say what you wanted, and that's what I've always said.
Speaker 1:I mean, come on, this is why I got a. That's why I got kind of like the Democrats and some Republicans that opened early voting. It's even less excuse now. Yeah, the early voting, take advantage.
Speaker 2:I like to vote on the actual day.
Speaker 1:Yup, and that's the preference. I mean I vote on the actual day because I don't know, it just feels it just feels right for me. But the early vote is around because it just feels right for me. But the Hurley vote is around because you know there's people that work and there are people that are going to be available on that day and you know I kind of disagree with what Republicans push back on this.
Speaker 1:Look, I know you're trying to preserve tradition and all that. I think we need to make this a little more accessible. That's always been my belief. Whether you're a Republican or Democrat doesn't matter to me. I just think I'm just trying to think about working people, people who are just so busy. You have to have more vote, more voicing. It's always been my thing. It's not about trying to favor one side or the other, it's just more accessibility. And at the same time, I'm going to bash Democrats, so I'll complain about voter accessibility. But yet you don't allow independence to vote in primaries. Calling you out on New Jersey Couldn't allow a vote in the general election. Other states have got closed primaries. Stop that. We've got to expand that even more. Whatever team that supports or supports voting, you're a hypocrite. You're damaging the state.
Speaker 2:It gets complicated because each state has their own. I'm going to try and keep all that straight, because it's so different with primaries everywhere you go and that's so confusing. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1:Any state that has I'm sorry, any state that has yeah, I'm getting passionate Any state that has closed primaries, just make them sign an affidavit so they want to duplicate a vote. If they do that, they should get consequences. Yeah, it's simple. Okay, that's why it's an affidavit. Alright, before I start turning this into a shouting match, I'm not shouting at the guests. If you want to misconstrued.
Speaker 2:I keep saying I know I understand You're bothering me, you're fine.
Speaker 1:This is for the listeners here that are not paying attention or acting conveniently stupid. I'm just shouting at the system and politicians who love to limit democracy. Even though we have a, I consider this a constitutional democracy. That's how we label it. Even though, yes, some people say a republic is a democracy, it's a bit of both. Before it was more of a republic. We're definitely hitting more. We're definitely hitting more towards the Democrat route. I mean, look what these amendments have done. They repealed the state Electoral College the 15th Amendment and when they're going to repeal the Electoral Council presidency, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon and I don't want it to happen.
Speaker 1:I believe in revisions, revision, revision. I'm on the revision camp. I'm on the third door. I think the proportion thing is the best one I've heard. I agree it actually really represents what portion of the state wants this person. Oh, and the other thing for delegates, don't go rogue. Let me just give you a very simple example New Hampshire. They pick Kamala, usa to heck with the people's vote. I'm going with Trump, arrest that person, and this is never going to happen. But 100% of New Hampshire voters would work hard and one of them turned around and said no, I'm going for Trump guy. I think the people are stupid. No, arrest that delegate. Nope, just like that. I will put curse for those delegates who want to be rogue. You represent what the people really want. I think it's the best to do that. So I just want to emphasize I think that's to me. I'm definitely on that. On that champion no bosh, I will be clear.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I agree with you on that. Well, I will be voting on the 5th, as I should be, and I will be staying up until it's called, and I will have my notes in my phone, keeping up with the tally of the electoral college, and probably a beverage in my hand.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm personally thinking about just doing the same because I'm very, I'm very interested, probably going to stay up till midnight.
Speaker 2:I'll see what happens, yeah, and then I'll regret it the next morning when I have to be in the morning with the kids. But that's what I do.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I do. We both are politically dedicated. That's the cost. As much as you love it, but that's the cost. That's the sacrifice. If you want to call it that it's hyperbolic, I get it. We both know what we're doing. We know what we signed up for.
Speaker 2:I think my kids will be glad when the election's over, because that means I won't be turning on the news channel that I watch just about daily now during this election cycle. They're probably about done and ready for me not to be having my head poked out for politics so much right now.
Speaker 1:They're like yay, it's over. We should quit watching it. We'll get over it. I like to be informed. Yeah, kids. Well, when they grow up, I'm sure some are going to change their minds. Oh, I should be involved politically, I'm sure. Yeah, I just say I let them be kids. They can stay out of politics. We only need your vote until you're 18.
Speaker 2:And that's why I tell them this is a dictatorship until you're 18, because you don't get a vote anyway. Then it becomes a dictatorship. You don't pay the bills, you don't pay taxes. It's not a democracy in this house, not until you're 18, when you get this domestic dictator people.
Speaker 1:they go exposed, they don't pay taxes, they pay nothing. You gotta obey the mother. That's the reason why we have a family structure. If kids be rulers, I think it'll be anarchy. Okay, let's just be clear Anarchy, no leaders. All craziness, all mental illness, wild, uncontrollably. Okay If kids rule. Yeah, I know I'm bashing, I'm probably bashing your son or daughter or whatever gender you identify them as, but they should not rule, okay? I was highly conservative on that issue. Oh, yeah, no, they don't know what they're doing. They're lovely.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Nine percent of them are not made for leadership.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's why, on a parenting thing, I don't know why we get away from it or why it's considered such a bad thing because I said so and because I told you so that's the end of it. Those are very good health questions.
Speaker 1:Listen, you kids have it easy now. Okay, just enjoy it, right? So that's the. I was going to flip that. You kids have it easy now. Once you get out of adulthood, you're going to flip that you kids have it easy now. Once you get adulthood, you're going to wonder why mommy or daddy's around, why did he do what he did? You'll get it eventually. Now your baby brain can't process it, but you'll get it eventually.
Speaker 2:And that is why, at least in this household, I've always expressed the emphasis and value of being informed politically, because it's in politics, the policy decisions they make that you vote for, affect what you do in your adulthood, like what they do with your paycheck and how much they're going to take out of it, so that stuff matters. So that's why you need to pay attention and be informed.
Speaker 1:It's been great fun. No surprise there.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm always glad to have good, free, uncensored intellectual opportunities to discuss, regardless of what side people come down on to show people that's how it's supposed to be done, and I always appreciate the opportunity to have an amazing conversation with you.
Speaker 1:I always appreciate you, though, for sure, and you're welcome to return, that's for sure. But those of you who are divine, go out and vote.
Speaker 2:Go out and vote, people. That's my message.
Speaker 1:Go out and vote go out and vote, take advantage of early vote and if you want to keep it traditional, do it on election day. Do so. Just make sure you have your voices heard, stamped and counted. Whatever the heck you're doing, you're local, because everyone got machines and digital. Whatever the heck you're using, you're counted. Make sure it's counted. That's what I'm going to say. So, from wherever, whenever you listen to this podcast, you have a blessed day, afternoon or night.
