Signal-gate and The Evolving Dynamics of Political Messaging
This podcast episode elucidates the grave repercussions stemming from a recent breach of national security involving a group chat among high-ranking officials within the Trump administration. Bill Frye and Barrett Gruber engage in a meticulous discourse regarding the implications of this incident, which purportedly involved the inadvertent dissemination of military strategies related to operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen. They delve into the ramifications of such a lapse in judgment, scrutinizing the apparent incompetence exhibited by the administration and questioning the adequacy of responses from Democratic leaders. The conversation further explores the broader context of political messaging and the necessity for the Democratic Party to assertively counteract the narratives propagated by their Republican counterparts. Through a critical analysis of both parties' approaches to governance, the hosts advocate for a more coherent and robust Democratic strategy that addresses the pressing issues of today’s political landscape.
Visit ZJZ Designs for all your apparel needs! (http://zjzdesigns.com)
- Bill Frye | Linktree
- Barrett Gruber | Linktree
- The All About Nothing: Podcast | Linktree
- Soda City Comic Con in Columbia, SC - 2025
- Boardwalk Comic Con in Myrtle Beach, SC - 2025
- Coastal Comic Con in Wilmington, NC - 2025
Click here for Episode Show Notes!
Click Here to see available advertising packages!
Click Here for information on the "Fair Use Copyright Notice" for this podcast.
Mentioned in this episode:
2025 Best of Columbia Nomination
To nominate The All About Nothing: Podcast for "Best Local Podcast" in the Post & Courier's "Best of Columbia" 2025, follow this link: https://bit.ly/boc2025nom and write in "The All About Nothing: Podcast" in the "Best Local Podcast" under "Local Media!" Thank you again for your support! Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/reakt-music/deep-stone License code: WMUPIJHSJBXSRMV4
25 Best of Columbia Nominations
BIG Media LLC Copyright 2025
This Podcast is a product of BIG Media LLC and Copyright 2025 Visit https://barrettgruber.com for more from BIG Media LLC!
Transcript
The All About Nothing podcast may have language and content that isn't appropriate for some.
Speaker A:Listener discretion is advised.
Speaker A:Welcome nothingers, to the All About Nothing podcast.
Speaker A:This is episode number 249.
Speaker A:I am Barrett Gruber, joined by Mr.
Speaker A:Bill Frey.
Speaker A:Welcome, Bill.
Speaker B:Thank you.
Speaker A:It's good to have you in the house again.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, thanks for having me back.
Speaker A:Every time we do one of these show openings, it's gonna be different every.
Speaker A:Every single time.
Speaker A:Please subscribe and share the show.
Speaker A:That's how we get that's.
Speaker A:Please subscribe and share the show.
Speaker A:That's how we get new listeners.
Speaker A:Please also consider supporting the show financially by visiting theallaboutnothing.com and becoming an official member and proudly calling yourself a true nothinger.
Speaker A:We'll have more details on that at the end of the show.
Speaker A:If you can't do that, please give us a five star review a like and follow us across social media.
Speaker A:You can find all of the links@the allaboutnothing.com also check out ZJZ Designs.
Speaker A:Whether you're looking for the perfect graphic tee to show off your style or something unique to wear on any occasion, ZJZ Designs has you covered.
Speaker A:From bold design prints to creative prints, they offer a range of apparel that's all about making a statement.
Speaker A:And if you love standing out in a crowd, check out their collection today@zjzdesigns.com Trust us, you won't want to miss.
Speaker A:You won't want to miss what they have in store.
Speaker A:ZJZ Designs, where fashion meets fun, no matter the season.
Speaker B:There we go.
Speaker B:We got through it.
Speaker A:We did get through it.
Speaker A:So let's see, you were here, what, a couple weeks ago?
Speaker B:I think it's been two weeks.
Speaker A:It's been two weeks.
Speaker A:A lot continues to happen in the time between you being here and recording because we did have Brock on.
Speaker A:So he announced that Katie Sackhoff is the first guest.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:He has already told me that he's got lots of announcements to come over the course of the next couple months before we get to Soda City Comic Con.
Speaker A:You could check out details@sodacity comic con.com you can go back to check out episode 248.
Speaker A:No, 47.
Speaker B:47, I think.
Speaker A:Yeah, 247.
Speaker A:Where Brock also gave us some insight into everything that was the Coastal Comic Con and what Soda City Comic Con has got going on.
Speaker A:He has given me some inside information that I can't talk about yet until they finalize.
Speaker A:But it's.
Speaker B:Do I know about this yet?
Speaker A:Not yet.
Speaker B:Oh, I don't.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker B:I don't know about it.
Speaker A:It's some pretty exciting stuff, especially with Katie Sackhoff coming.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So it'll be interesting to see what all comes out of that.
Speaker A:You and I had a phone call yesterday where we.
Speaker A:Things got a little heated about.
Speaker B:Our.
Speaker A:Belief in the approach to how the Democratic Party is not taking advantage of some of the messaging that the Republican Party has out right now.
Speaker A:And we'll definitely talk about that here in a minute.
Speaker A:But the thing that seems to be really occupying the news, and of course, by the time this episode comes out, hoping, fingers crossed, that there are some investigations and maybe some criminal charges against some of the cabinet members and things like that.
Speaker A:But a.
Speaker A:We don't have a group chat title, do we?
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:If we were to have a group chat title, what would be the most appropriate name for a group chat title for, you know, between you, me, Zach, maybe some of the candidates that we could potentially talk with.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:On the spot, man.
Speaker A:Well, no, nothing.
Speaker A:Nothing would be more defining than Houthi.
Speaker A:PC Small group.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker A:That is.
Speaker A:That is.
Speaker A:That is the name of the small group on Signal app that was put together.
Speaker A:I'm guessing it was done by Mike Waltz.
Speaker B:That's.
Speaker B:That's what they're saying.
Speaker A:I think.
Speaker A:I think Mike Waltz was the one that actually put together this group group chat on the Signal app.
Speaker A:And first of all, let me just tell you, Signal professes that their app is secure.
Speaker A:It has end to end encryption, which means that the only way that you're probably getting into it is breaking a 256 or whatever bit encryption.
Speaker A:So not super likely.
Speaker A:But you also have to be aware of the people that you are inviting into the chat.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Which is not that hard to do, by the way.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker B:I've used the app multiple times.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker B:I don't know.
Speaker B:I do not understand how this happened.
Speaker A:I do.
Speaker B:I do.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:I think that it.
Speaker A:At some point we started.
Speaker A:We have an administration that selected officials that are incompetent.
Speaker B:Oh.
Speaker B:Oh, that part of it.
Speaker A:I think that's.
Speaker A:I think.
Speaker A:I think that's what happened.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker B:Okay, I'm with you there.
Speaker B:But the actual how of.
Speaker B:How do you mess it up that bad?
Speaker B:Oh, I don't understand.
Speaker A:I think the incompetence plays in.
Speaker B:Well.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So, yeah, including Vice President J.D.
Speaker A:vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, U.S.
Speaker A:national Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.
Speaker A:Not Tim Waltz, as I have actually heard in reporting people saying.
Speaker A:How does he go from being the VP candidate for the Democrats to being The US National Security advisor.
Speaker A:He isn't two different people.
Speaker A:It was on Fox News yesterday where someone kept saying, Tim Walls.
Speaker A:Tim Walls, Tim Walls.
Speaker A:And it's Mike Waltz.
Speaker A:They're spelled differently and everything.
Speaker A:I mean, two completely different people.
Speaker A:Tulsi Gabbard.
Speaker A:Also in there you had Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others.
Speaker A:This was a group chat that was disclosing decision making over a potential strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Speaker A:And at some point it then after, I guess a day or so, it turned into actual release of attack plans by the US Military.
Speaker A:Pete Hegseth was actually putting that information into this group chat to disclose what was the plan was when the attacks were going.
Speaker A:And then I think sort of giving play by play information on the actual rundown of the attack.
Speaker B:Did you see the messages that were shown today?
Speaker A:I did.
Speaker A:I don't even.
Speaker A:Oh, my phone's right there.
Speaker A:I just realized my phone's actually recording.
Speaker B:I did that every time last time.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker A:And I printed something out.
Speaker A:So basically the reactions.
Speaker A:So before we get into like the whole thing of it, I'm enjoying the reactions to it the most.
Speaker A:Oh, for sure.
Speaker A:I don't know that the Democrats.
Speaker B:Are.
Speaker A:Doing as much as they could be in retaliation or reaction to what the Trump administration, cabinet members and others in this group chat are.
Speaker A:I don't know that they're doing it as well as they could be, but there are some that are doing it very well.
Speaker B:Of course, Bernie Sanders, not a Democrat.
Speaker B:I watched him do a.
Speaker B:Who was it he was speaking to?
Speaker B:God.
Speaker B:He.
Speaker B:He did a.
Speaker B:He did a good comeback part of it, but other than that, I have not heard anything.
Speaker B:Yeah, Chuck Schumer said one thing and I'm like, this is a pretty big embarrassment for an entire administration.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:The fact that.
Speaker A:So, okay, so Democrats aren't responding to it as well as I'd like to.
Speaker A:I wish that they had the comedic timing that say a Jimmy Kimmel or a Stephen Colbert has.
Speaker A:They have done it very well.
Speaker A:Um, but state run media, so your Fox News, New, your newsmax, that sort of thing, they are reporting on it in at least a couple different ways.
Speaker A:Two in particular being that this isn't really that big a deal.
Speaker A:Yeah, that seems to be their, their main go to is this really isn't that big a deal.
Speaker A:And also what is seeming to be the reaction is that they are perfectly fine with the fact that they are going to continue to use signal as one of their communication means.
Speaker B:Which is also another issue with it not being so like signal, again, secure app, but also you need to have every message vetted.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You can't let the US Government officials use an app that we're using like that.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Use a government specific thing.
Speaker A:So in a normal situation where let's say the Secretary of Defense is receiving actual up to date strike information, that information would be specific to a scif, a secured information like block.
Speaker A:And what that is is an actual room where to enter into the room.
Speaker A:You have to take off your watch and leave that.
Speaker A:You have to leave your phone.
Speaker A:There is no communication devices allowed into this room.
Speaker A:And then the room is also built in such a way that it's almost a Faraday cage.
Speaker A:Like information can't come out of it that isn't hardwired into it as far as back and forth.
Speaker A:So an example is when Black Lives Matter protests were going on outside of the White House in Lafayette Park.
Speaker A:Donald Trump abandoned the White House into allegedly into a secured bunker.
Speaker A:That secured bunker is only receiving and transmitting information communication through hardwire because it's a secured facility.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So essentially what happened, Mike Waltz invited Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the editor in chief of the Atlantic.
Speaker A:These.
Speaker A:He's, he's the guy that decides which art.
Speaker A:He's ultimately the decision maker on what articles get published into the Atlantic magazine.
Speaker A:Goldberg, in an article from the Atlantic says, I got added to the group, a signal group.
Speaker A:And I'm going to read this verbatim from the actual article.
Speaker A:It says, you know, a text message chat group called Houthi PC small group, PC I know from covering White House issues, you know, principal committee, basically the top leaders of the cabinet departments generally associated with national security issues.
Speaker A:And then a message from Mike Waltz talking about how he's putting together this PC small group to talk about the Houthis, because something's going to be happening over the next 72 hours.
Speaker A:That's when I sort of think.
Speaker A:I mean, honestly, the first thing I thought was, I'm really being spoofed.
Speaker A:Like somebody is, this is a hoax.
Speaker A:This is a state or non state actor.
Speaker A:Probably non state actor looking to entrap, embarrass, whatever word you want to use.
Speaker A:A journalist.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Now that is Honor, who is a reporter for the Atlantic who was interviewing Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker A:One of the recipients in the chat was actually currently located in Russia at the time that these were going down, that these messages were being sent out.
Speaker B:And that was announced today, right?
Speaker A:Last night.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Again, I still feel like there should be a bigger reaction by Democrats.
Speaker A:By Democrats for sure.
Speaker A:Cuz to Play it.
Speaker A:You know, there's a couple House representatives, one of them today, and he's pretty well known as far as like being fairly quick witted and responding to the Republicans in committee when they say something absurd or he brings in things from potentially like websites or tweets and such.
Speaker A:But he pulled out a very large post board that had the fist symbol, the United States flag emoji, and then fire, which apparently was one of Mike Waltz's responses.
Speaker A:Responses to the.
Speaker A:I guess the attack being successful.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Wow.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:I.
Speaker B:There's nothing.
Speaker B:The defense.
Speaker B:It's crazy to me to hear all the defense parts of it.
Speaker B:It's like Trump is just like, he messed up.
Speaker B:Oh, well, it's not that big of a deal.
Speaker B:Meanwhile, the exact same thing.
Speaker B:Not, not the exact same thing, but the accusations he made against Hillary Clinton.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And hammered on that for four to, well, really eight years at this point.
Speaker B:Just same thing.
Speaker B:Oops.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Nothing needs to happen.
Speaker B:It's just a small little thing.
Speaker A:The fact that, Yeah.
Speaker A:I mean, basically Trump's initial response to it was, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker A:And how could you, as the president, not have knowledge about something like this?
Speaker A:Something about the fact that your administration, your Cabinet secretaries, have played a role in what is ultimately the disclosure publicly.
Speaker A:I know they were in a group chat, but having Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic in that group chat to me, makes it public.
Speaker A:I realized that Jeffrey Goldberg sat on this information until well after the attacks.
Speaker A:That.
Speaker A:And he was going to respectfully not release a lot of the information until they attacked his, his, his character.
Speaker A:They attacked his, his experience.
Speaker A:And the fact that, you know, one of the, one of the things Pete Hegseth came out, and I'm going to paraphrase it, was that this is, you know, this is a reporter that is known for fraudulent reporting.
Speaker A:And he said things that.
Speaker A:Jeffrey Goldberg has always been a bad reporter and things like, you know, so ultimately just attacking his character, attacking his decades of experience in reporting.
Speaker A:And I found it completely appropriate for Goldberg to come out with literally just screenshots from the conversation.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:He was just like, you're.
Speaker B:You're saying I'm lying, but this is it.
Speaker B:That's all.
Speaker B:That's literally all he did.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And man, they're hammering on every single.
Speaker B:Well, again, it's either they're trying to hammer this guy or act like it's not a big deal.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Ridiculous.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:If you are a Republican that voted for Donald Trump and you voted.
Speaker A:Understand from my perspective, I'm going to look at you and say, you voted for this.
Speaker A:This is exactly what you voted for.
Speaker A:You voted for a level of incompetence that is going to continue to have these sorts of situations occur.
Speaker A:And while I certainly understand and respect that there are some people, I don't respect it.
Speaker A:I say I take that.
Speaker A:I take that completely back.
Speaker A:I don't respect the fact that you are so entrenched in your party politics that you can't see that Donald Trump, who, who was an inept president the first time was going to be an inept president his second time.
Speaker A:That you can't look at what is happening now being a direct result of the incompetence of Donald Trump and the incompetence of the people that he chose to run these cabinet positions because they just are yes men to Donald Trump.
Speaker A:They, they don't have the experience.
Speaker A:And there was no merit involved.
Speaker A:When you select someone like Pete Hegseth, who was the weekend anchor for Fox and Friends morning show, and even before his, I guess his being sworn in as the Secretary of defense, has a history of drinking and womanizing and just misogyny and just absolute lack of work ethic almost completely.
Speaker A:And you can't look at that and say, maybe that's not the right decision.
Speaker A:There's 15 or 16 generals that won't retire from the military for another probably 10 or 15 years that you could have chosen as a defense secretary that would have ultimately been loyal to you, at least would have been loyal to the office.
Speaker A:There are so many people you could have selected that would be loyal to the office.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:And I don't know how they're gonna keep going with this for the next week or two.
Speaker B:Like, I don't know if he's gonna be let go or resign and someone else steps up.
Speaker B:Would they be even worse?
Speaker B:Will they have two swastikas on their chest?
Speaker B:I don't know.
Speaker A:I bet he doesn't resign, and I bet Donald Trump doesn't fire him.
Speaker A:I think what may happen is Mike Waltz may fall on the sword because ultimately he's the one that included Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker A:But I.
Speaker A:Based on.
Speaker A:So maybe it was Mike Waltz that started the group chat.
Speaker A:And ultimately it was, it was their.
Speaker A:It was his decision to do this in a, an application that is not, you know, again, end to end to end encryption is not the same as total security.
Speaker A:Like, I wouldn't, I would never send my Social Security number from my imessage account to somebody else's imessage account because despite its End to end encryption.
Speaker A:It's not Fail safe.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:I just can't understand it.
Speaker B:Yeah, it was really just a mess up.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's it.
Speaker B:There's nothing else to it.
Speaker B:It's on its face.
Speaker B:That's all it was.
Speaker A:And honestly at this point, I can accept that it was a mess up.
Speaker A:I can accept that it was a screw up.
Speaker A:It's the emboldened sort of sense of accomplishment some of them seem to have about this that makes it seem like they don't recognize, like, I feel like Mike Waltz is the only one of all of them that has at least publicly acknowledged that this was a mess up.
Speaker A:Yeah, I would have expected a statesman like Rubio, and I'm using statesman very loosely, but I would, I would have assumed that Marco Rubio at some point here soon, recently would have stepped up and said it was inappropriate.
Speaker A:I recognize that.
Speaker A:And that's why you don't see a whole lot of Marco Rubio in, in that text chain for sure.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So go ahead.
Speaker B:Oh, no, that's pretty much.
Speaker B:Yeah, it was just that on its face.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So from the Atlantic article, and this is, this is another article on the Atlantic.
Speaker A:The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plan.
Speaker A:So this is, this is essentially what Jeffrey Epstein came out with his own article about all of this.
Speaker A:He said, I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual National Security Advisor and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine or Iran or some other important matter.
Speaker A:Two days later, Thursday at 4:28.
Speaker A:So this is 4:28 or Thursday.
Speaker A:This is, let's see, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th.
Speaker A:This is the 20th of March.
Speaker A:He said, I received a notice that I was to be included in a signal chat group.
Speaker A:It was called the Houthi PC Small Group.
Speaker A:A message from message to the group from Mike Waltz reads as follows.
Speaker A:Team establishing a principal sick group for coordination on Houthis, particularly over the next 72 hours.
Speaker A:My deputy, Alex Wong is pulling together a trigger team, a tiger team at Deputy agency Chief of Staff level, following up on the meeting in the Situation Room this morning for action items.
Speaker A:And we'll be sending out that later this evening.
Speaker A:The message continue.
Speaker A:Please provide the best staff point of contact from your team for us to coordinate with all with over the next couple of days, over the weekend.
Speaker A:Thanks.
Speaker A:The Terms Principles Committee generally refers to a group of senior most national security advisors and officials, including the Secretaries of Defense, State and Treasury, as well as the Director of the CIA.
Speaker A:It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that I had no intention of being involved in this.
Speaker B:So I bet.
Speaker A:So what is.
Speaker A:If you were, if you were to, let's say you were just walking the streets and the reporter were to ask you your reaction to all of this, based on your knowledge, what would, what would you say to that reporter?
Speaker B:Just, it's the, it's just the.
Speaker B:It's almost like a political cartoon.
Speaker B:I mean, it's just so clearly written as, just.
Speaker B:It's like jokes are writing themselves at this point.
Speaker A:Oh, yeah.
Speaker B:It's just so blatant.
Speaker B:So I'm lost.
Speaker B:I don't know.
Speaker B:It's like I just can't.
Speaker A:It's extremely difficult to find a footing in this situation without it falling into, is this the real life?
Speaker A:Like, is this what is actually happening?
Speaker A:Because when I look back at other politicians, other, I guess, situations that have occurred under other administrations, one of the ones that I go back to in the most recent history is Donald Trump with the COVID pandemic and just the amount of mismanagement that occurred during, during the beginning phases of that, I still don't feel like we actually reached a level of competence in respect to how the administration itself handled the COVID response until really maybe about the time that we had a few drug companies with vaccines that were in test.
Speaker A:And at that point it felt like, yes, I think the Trump administration finally recognizes the severity of this and, and that they're responding to it in the right way.
Speaker A:But it wasn't until they had the, I guess, the practical response to it with a vaccine, and I'll give Trump his credit on this, the COVID response, as far as the vaccine, because if it weren't for warp speed, I don't know how long it would have taken before a vaccine, because, I mean, I don't know this for certain and I'd have to look it up.
Speaker A:But, you know, the polio vaccine was in development for more than a decade before people were actually being saved by the vaccine.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:And this was the first time we used mRNA, which is, you know, the process was faster because we actually used that.
Speaker B:Yeah, We've just improved the efficiency of vaccines over time.
Speaker B:Did Trump himself have anything to do with it?
Speaker B:No, no.
Speaker B:It was the doctors.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker B:Scientists.
Speaker A:No.
Speaker B:That he tried to also demonize afterwards.
Speaker A:And we had a Democratic controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled House that were willing to pass bills.
Speaker A:Now, Trump signed them, but we had bills being created to pump as much money into the research and the speed at which those, you know, those companies needed in order to be able to come out.
Speaker A:Now could they have done it themselves?
Speaker A:Yes, 100%.
Speaker A:Could Pfizer and Moderna have, have financed the whole thing themselves and received grace and applause from the American.
Speaker A:Yeah, they could have.
Speaker A:But no, they're, they're our, our, our pharmaceutical companies work off of the government teat as well.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker B:Oh, for sure.
Speaker A:So our conversation yesterday, it gets me really frustrated when I start to think about how poorly the Democratic Party is communicating its message with the voters and how, look, the Democrats, historically, at least over the course of the last 40 years, have been the party that has been the one that has been more financially responsible.
Speaker A:We have seen balanced budgets and even more trimline budgets.
Speaker A:President Biden saw a deficit reduction in his first year of like $1.4 trillion.
Speaker A:But that, that was of course the result of, in his first term there was less money, I guess, or maybe it was his second term.
Speaker A:His first term was not, but his second term we saw a reduction in the deficit.
Speaker A:And that was because, and I'll credit the fact that we are coming out of the pandemic and it was going into an endemic.
Speaker A:And he benefited from the fact that there wasn't as much money being spent.
Speaker A:The stimulus packages had already been spent.
Speaker A:So he benefited from that.
Speaker A:The third year of his term we saw that deficit go down again.
Speaker A:And then in the fourth year we saw again the deficit drop.
Speaker A:Democrats typically come in and clean up the mess that Republicans create.
Speaker A:I look at George W.
Speaker A:Bush and Barack Obama that I think that's one of the best examples.
Speaker A:And that's because we, under George W.
Speaker A:Bush, we saw a Republican Congress allow for the reduction in regulations against the baking industry that allowed for these, these hyper crazy mortgage sells.
Speaker A:Basically people were buying houses that, oh yeah, couldn't afford them.
Speaker A:And while that's great for the housing market, it is not great when it comes time for people to actually pay for their homes if they can't afford because the interest rates start to creep up and creep up and they can't afford their mortgage payments.
Speaker A:Then you have people not paying for their homes.
Speaker A:Those homes go into foreclosure, people wind up losing their homes to foreclosure.
Speaker A:And the banks don't have any real interest in holding onto these homes, so their values drop.
Speaker A:And we saw the stock market collapse under George W.
Speaker A:Bush and under Obama.
Speaker B: He had to deal with the: Speaker A:Financial crisis, which, you know, George W.
Speaker A:Bush basically stuck it to Obama and it was all timing, but Obama had to come in and the first thing he had to do was here is basically A trillion and a half dollars that he handed over to the banking industry to keep them from failing.
Speaker A:And I still think that was a mistake.
Speaker A:I understand that we have banks in this country that are too big to fail.
Speaker A:I don't believe in that.
Speaker B:It's a hard one because I don't know, the bailout, it was.
Speaker B:I don't know if I hate it, it's a bad move.
Speaker B:But also, what else could he have done?
Speaker A:Yeah, no, I think his hands were tied.
Speaker A:That was the only bill that he was gonna get out of Congress was to bail the banks out because banks have lobbyists.
Speaker A:Those lobbyists have their pockets in our Congress's back pockets.
Speaker A:So that was the only bill that Congress was gonna give us.
Speaker A:But other countries did it differently.
Speaker A:Ireland literally bailed out the people that owned the mortgage that were paying on the mortgages.
Speaker A:They paid.
Speaker A:They bailed out the mortgages or the mortgage hold.
Speaker A:Not the banks, but the people.
Speaker B:The people were stuck with the.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A:Which ultimately fixes the banks too.
Speaker A:Because if you.
Speaker A:Now if those people.
Speaker A:And I get it, it costs a country a lot of money to do something like that and it's very socialist.
Speaker A:But if you bail out the people, the people take that money and they pay for their homes.
Speaker A:If they pay off their homes completely, that's fantastic because then they have money in their pockets to put into the economy.
Speaker A:So Reagan's trickle down economics was by every economist that's ever looked back on that in history has acknowledged that there has never been a situation where pumping money or allowing for tax breaks on the highest earners, the corporations, that money doesn't trickle its way down.
Speaker A:The only way to really inject money into an economy to have a lasting effect is to pump that money into the lower class and move that money up through the system.
Speaker B:It's just so much easier than it.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, it's way easier.
Speaker A:It's a very simple solution.
Speaker A:And if we do wind up in a recession under a Trump administration, I know it's gonna be.
Speaker A:They're gonna give more tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations with the idea that those companies will then create jobs.
Speaker A:They're not.
Speaker B:We're even seeing it in South Carolina right now with the flat tax thing.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker B:That they're trying to pass it.
Speaker B:I know they had like a press conference on it today.
Speaker B:Same thing.
Speaker B:Trying to make a flat tax across the board, making millionaires and billionaires pay the same price.
Speaker B:As someone who works on minimum wage, or sub minimum wage for that matter.
Speaker A:I am absolutely not Against a flat tax as long as it is a, it is a percentage across the board that you cannot, that you cannot get out of unless you meet a certain criteria.
Speaker A:And that criteria has to be a bottom level criteria.
Speaker A:If you, if you fall under this line, then the tax has less implications on you than someone who is well above it.
Speaker A:You can't give people tax breaks just because they, they, they reach a certain threshold.
Speaker A:Charitable donations I get.
Speaker A:But you know that, that to me is just a, that's, that's writing something on a piece of paper and then handing it off and saying, yes, I did this.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:To me, to me it sounds more reasonable to do a, some sort of exponential tax though, based on every level you hit, based on the class that you're in.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker B:So I, for me, it would make more sense if you have a billion dollars.
Speaker B:You're paying a way higher tax.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:All that.
Speaker B:Than any other class or ranked below you.
Speaker B:And like, if you make less than the median or the median amount of money, I don't even think you should pay taxes on that money.
Speaker B:Yeah, just that's, that's my opinion.
Speaker A:No, and I agree with you.
Speaker A:I think, I think that we talked about this yesterday.
Speaker A:I think that if you meet.
Speaker A:That our federal government needs to come up, our Congress needs to come up with a tax code that acknowledges that there are people that make a certain amount of money, that they receive the standard deduction every single time they file taxes.
Speaker A:And that standard deduction itself almost always brings back all of the taxes that they paid.
Speaker A:So every single bit of the taxes that they paid into the federal government over the course of their employment for that year, they wind up getting back.
Speaker A:And if that historically proves to be a certain income level based on the number of deductions you have, or I'm sorry, the number of dependents that you have, then we need to have a system that acknowledges that.
Speaker A:Let's say you have a family of five and you make $160,000 a year, then you don't even file taxes.
Speaker A:There's no reason to file taxes.
Speaker A:The federal government already knows how much you make.
Speaker A:Your employer reports that to them.
Speaker A:That money gets pulled out of your paycheck and sent to the federal government already.
Speaker A:So if you have, so if you're already underneath that threshold, then you don't even file taxes.
Speaker A:You just get a check from the Federal Government on April 15th or whatever after, and that money comes back to you.
Speaker A:Now, yes.
Speaker A:If you have other income that you earn or you have other situations, then you can Certainly file those.
Speaker A:But in this day in technology, I don't think there's no excuse for us not to have the ability to add that information securely to our federal government account under our Social Security number, I guess.
Speaker A:But the system could be made much simpler.
Speaker A:I think we are one of the only advanced nations in the world that still make citizens file taxes.
Speaker A:Other countries, they get a letter in the mail when it's tax time saying this is how much you owe or this is how much you're getting back.
Speaker A:They do that work.
Speaker A:Because again, software, technology, we've already gotten past this.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:No, it would not be that hard.
Speaker B:It is just.
Speaker B:It is.
Speaker B:Again, we talked about it yesterday, two party system, the mindlessness of the Democrats and they're bought and paid for and Republicans are just doing the thing they want to do.
Speaker A:The Democrats have to attack the Republican message for the ineptitude of serving the people of the country in a bad.
Speaker A:And one of the examples that I had was, if DOGE is finding fraud, where is the DOJ investigations?
Speaker A:There have to be investigations at this point.
Speaker A:If Elon Musk and his team at DOGE are going in and actually finding legitimate fraud, fraud is criminal.
Speaker A:Criminal fraud has to be prosecuted.
Speaker A:The government's role, and I said this before, government's role is to positively impact the lives of people here legally based on the Constitution.
Speaker A:So the Declaration of Independence, which, by the way, is now on display in the Oval Office.
Speaker B:Yeah, thank God we finally got that done.
Speaker A:At least Donald Trump made a show to a Fox reporter of the fact that they have now hung the Declaration of Independence in the Oval Office.
Speaker A:And during the interview, he made it seem like he's pretty sure that's the real Declaration of Independence.
Speaker A:It's not.
Speaker A:That will never come out of the National Archives.
Speaker A:It's not even on display in the Smithsonian.
Speaker A:It is not.
Speaker A:There we have the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Speaker A:They are on display.
Speaker A:It's not the real ones.
Speaker A:Those are not real.
Speaker A:Because if they were to display the real ones, regardless of all of the technology that we have to protect them from the environment, whether it's UV light, dust, air, it wouldn't make any difference.
Speaker A:They would deteriorate.
Speaker A:It's on parchment, but we should.
Speaker A:But under the Declaration of Independence, which is literally hanging in the Oval Office, which I don't believe Donald Trump has read, we all have as citizens of the United States as legally being here in the United States as citizens or asylum seekers, whether you're here on a visa, we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker A:And I think that that is fundamentally the only thing that our federal government should be concentrating on.
Speaker A:Everything that comes in under those three, those three basic privileges of being in the United States, everything should fall under that.
Speaker A:Life could include security, so defense and health.
Speaker A:So we have the right to life.
Speaker A:So we have the right, I break it down into these things and this is what Democrats need to focus on, is how they are going to protect our lives, our health, our security, how are they going to protect our financial stability, you know, our ability to have good paying jobs that are going to securely and progressively move into the future.
Speaker A:That should be part of the Democrats message.
Speaker B:And it's such an easy message.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:So it's right there.
Speaker B:They keep saying we don't have a message.
Speaker B:They 100% Democrats have a message, but a lot of them are not saying it again because they're, they're bought.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Paid for and lobbied.
Speaker B:And it's, it feels like all hope is lost.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:All the time.
Speaker A:Another one of the things I do want to talk about the federal government, specifically with their attack, Trump's administration's attack on the Department of Education.
Speaker A:These are the things that the federal government actually has for the Department of Education.
Speaker A:These are the things that they actually provide.
Speaker A:So the Department of Education at a federal level sets educational policy.
Speaker A:So the Education Department helps shape national education policies and guidelines through individual states and school districts, maintain control over curriculum and teaching methods.
Speaker A:The federal government has no impact on curriculum ever.
Speaker A:Doesn't the states make that decision?
Speaker A:And then those decisions filter down to actual individual decisions, even down to your teachers.
Speaker A:So the federal government doesn't play a role in that.
Speaker A:That's too big of a thing.
Speaker A:Distributing federal funds.
Speaker A:So it manages federal financial aid programs like the Pell Grants and student loans, funds K12 and higher education initiatives and supports special education programs.
Speaker A:So they take care of the funding that all of the public school education programs have across the country.
Speaker A:Enforcing civil rights laws, which the Trump administration has definitely said that they have a vested interest in trying to eliminate.
Speaker A:So the Education Department ensures compliance with federal anti discrimination laws in schools and institutions receiving federal funds such as Title IX and IDEA or idea, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Speaker A:They are also responsible for collecting and analyzing data.
Speaker A:It conducts research and gathers education related statistics through agencies like the nces, which is the National Centers for Education Statistics, to guide policies and improvements efforts.
Speaker A:And then lastly, the last thing that they're most that a federal government's Department of Education is in charge of is supporting schools and teachers.
Speaker A:So they provide resource grants, professional development opportunities and help schools and educators improve teaching qualities and student outcomes.
Speaker A:That is it.
Speaker A:The biggest thing is that the Department of Education creates a, and enforces a level playing field for every student in the country, regardless of how it is that they learn.
Speaker A:That has to be taken into account.
Speaker A:Things like making sure that if a student has any sort of special requirements, those schools have the funding to be able to provide that level of education for students, whether it's your children or my children or whomever it is, to create a balanced and level playing field for students.
Speaker A:That is all they do.
Speaker A:Which primarily is around the money.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Pell Grants.
Speaker B:I mean, again, like if you're a Republican and you have grandchildren or children even, or you're a Republican, you're going to college.
Speaker B:You could not, I personally could not, could not have made it throughout college any, anytime without a Pell Grant.
Speaker B:I had to have it through my entire, really four and a half years.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Four and a half years at usc.
Speaker B:I literally could not have made it without it.
Speaker A:And, and, and that is, that is money.
Speaker A:You don't.
Speaker A:Pell Grant is money you don't have to pay back.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:You get it from the federal government.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:It's not a loan, it's a grant.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Do you meet the requirements and they say we're going to help you through college.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And they do.
Speaker A:It doesn't pay for all of it.
Speaker B:No.
Speaker B:No.
Speaker B:It does not pay for all of it.
Speaker B:No, it's not a.
Speaker B:That's why scholarships are also very important.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Also psa.
Speaker A:If you're watching this right now and you're thinking, I'd really like to go to school, I'm really hoping there's gonna be a Pell Grant.
Speaker A:Definitely take advantage of the Pell Grant if you can.
Speaker A:If it's there.
Speaker A:Also, corporate scholarships.
Speaker A:Every year you can go to any public library and find a book about this thick that has literally every single corporate scholarship that is available for that year.
Speaker A:And sometimes it's as simple as just writing a five paragraph essay to a company that has money set aside through charitable donation.
Speaker A:They have this money set up in their budget to give away this money.
Speaker A:And all you have to do is just fill out, you have to do a five paragraph essay, send it to them.
Speaker A:Granted, it might only be $200, it may be 500, it may be more.
Speaker B:It builds up for sure.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:That's, that's what I did my entire life.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:It was, I, I got pill.
Speaker B:I was doing another half semester.
Speaker B:So it was like over what I had.
Speaker B:So I couldn't receive life right up after four years.
Speaker B:And then you get.
Speaker B:I don't know if I can be talking about all the things I got, but essentially I was like, oh no.
Speaker B:Without scholarships and stuff, I to be out, which I was already applying for scholarships, doing stuff.
Speaker B:And two, two or I think it was literally two of them was all I needed.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Like just push me over and you.
Speaker B:It's so easy to apply at usc.
Speaker B:There's a website and email that goes out every semester.
Speaker B:And there's.
Speaker A:Perfect.
Speaker B:Here's a whole list of things.
Speaker B:Apply for everything you can.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:And I would apply for like 15.
Speaker A:I did 80.
Speaker A:I would.
Speaker A:I would mail out 80 essay.
Speaker A:I would find.
Speaker A:I would find 80 different corporate scholarships that looked like the type that would probably receive the least response.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:Or I do them.
Speaker A:I do.
Speaker A:To the ones that had a.
Speaker A:They had a lower return as far as the value of the scholarship.
Speaker A:So it made.
Speaker A:Some of them were 150, some of them were like 350.
Speaker A:I think the biggest one I did was like a 750.
Speaker A:But I would stay.
Speaker A:I would search in that range and then I would find the ones that either had a high number of applicant acceptance and reward or I would find the ones that were the least likely to get a high number of applicants to apply for them.
Speaker A:And because I no longer had life scholarship, I would do that.
Speaker A:And over the course of the 80 some odd applications and essays I sent out, I get responses from like 12 of them.
Speaker A:I would get acceptance and rewarded from like 12 of them.
Speaker A:And that would pay for all of my schooling.
Speaker A:And I would actually have enough to pay for even books.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Oh, me too.
Speaker B:No, I actually made rent with my last scholarship.
Speaker A:Take it from us.
Speaker A:They're out there and they are available.
Speaker A:And if you have kids that want to go to school or if you want to send your kids to school, corporate scholarships are the way life scholarship, Pell Grants and corporate scholarships.
Speaker A:You can make college affordable.
Speaker A:You absolutely can.
Speaker B:Really helps with it though.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:To be very clear, for me, it helped a lot.
Speaker A:So I did ask ChatGPT, what were the messaging.
Speaker A: epublicans or independents in: Speaker A:So it's not just necessarily about just voting for Democrats because that's not what it is.
Speaker A:I maintain that Democrats in my generation are better at governing, in my opinion, based on the fact that they do typically do better with budgets, they do better with social issues, they do better with the economy.
Speaker A:But I also recognize that being hardlined to a specific party, especially recognizing things like Schumer.
Speaker B:Nancy Pelosi even.
Speaker A:Yeah, the fact two of the biggest leaders.
Speaker A:Two of the biggest leaders, but two of the oldest leaders and two of the leaders that.
Speaker A:Two of the Democratic leaders that have even acknowledged.
Speaker A:Nancy Pelosi stepping down, away from the leadership position, but then running again for her seat, Schumer being the minority leader for the Democrats now for the last several Congresses where the Democrats haven't held on when they were in the minority, Chuck Schumer to me, is the most wishy washy Democrat, the most likely to comply.
Speaker B:Oh, 100%.
Speaker A:He's a gram now.
Speaker A:Yeah, it's Chuck Schumer.
Speaker A:So it's not.
Speaker A:I recognize that there are Democrats that are not going to.
Speaker A:They are not going to enforce or work towards creating a government that allows for Americans to have a pursuit of happiness, life and liberty.
Speaker A:They just aren't going to because they are so part of the status quo.
Speaker A:So the first message is that Democrats really need to get better about defending democracy and the rule of law.
Speaker A:Yeah, that is something.
Speaker A:So emphasizing the importance of free and fair elections, voting rights and the peaceful transfer of power.
Speaker A:That's the first point of that one.
Speaker A:And I acknowledge that.
Speaker A:I think that sometimes the messaging with Democrats is not correct when it comes to elections.
Speaker A:Free and fair elections doesn't necessarily mean that anybody can just vote.
Speaker A:You have to be a citizen in this country.
Speaker A:I acknowledge that.
Speaker A:I don't think there's anyone that would say that they don't.
Speaker A:Fortunately, throughout the course of the history of elections in the United States, the only people that vote in elections are citizens.
Speaker A:We have safety, I guess we have security measures in place to make sure that the people that are voting in these elections are legitimate.
Speaker A:And having been a poll worker, I know this to be a fact because I have had to look at people's driver's licenses.
Speaker A:I've had to look at their military IDs, I've had to look at their passports.
Speaker A:I have had to ask them, can you repeat your address?
Speaker A:Can you verbally give me your address?
Speaker A:Okay, yes.
Speaker A:And then them signing the oath, basically stating that they acknowledge that at this point they are fully responsible for their vote.
Speaker A:We do this as poll workers.
Speaker A:We maintain that security.
Speaker A:And I get offended when people talk about secure elections, because I know that I have worked through tens of thousands of people that are voting that we made me and the staff that worked under me made sure that every one of those people was voting and that if there was any argument there is a system in place for people to say, no, I'm supposed to vote.
Speaker A:I'm supposed to vote here.
Speaker A:There is a system in place where those people can then defend their right to vote in front of a board that renders a decision.
Speaker A:We have the security in place, but Democrats need to focus on the fact that there is security in place, not that we have to create a secure election.
Speaker A:So we have to create this fair system.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:And again, I still think the biggest.
Speaker B:And while all that's very true, the biggest thing I think that they're missing is focusing on the working class.
Speaker B:That's it.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Focusing on normal people, not people who are ultra rich.
Speaker B:Focusing on people who need social programs, who need food banks to survive.
Speaker B:Out in Colombia, there's people sleeping on the streets where in America there is absolutely no reason.
Speaker A:Oh, yeah.
Speaker B:For the richest country in the world to have people sleeping on the streets.
Speaker A:So that was, that was the second point was the economic, economic fairness and opportunity.
Speaker A:So we have to frame Democrats as the party fighting for the working class and the middle class.
Speaker A:Americans, not corporate interests.
Speaker A:Highlight efforts to lower costs.
Speaker A:That's health care, prescription drugs, housing and raise wages.
Speaker A:Contrast Democratic policies like infrastructure investment, jobs creation and tax fairness with Republican policies that benefit the ultra wealthy.
Speaker A:Just like you said.
Speaker A:And I've literally had this conversation now twice today about homelessness.
Speaker A:Homelessness in the United States is absolutely something that could be solved literally tomorrow.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Because there's only.
Speaker A: into: Speaker A:Now there are hundreds of thousands more additional that are either on the verge of homelessness or, or that just haven't been counted.
Speaker A:So let's say there's a million people out of 337 million people in the United States, actually.
Speaker B:340.1.
Speaker A:340.1.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:We're talking less than a third of a percent.
Speaker A:I mean, ultimately a minuscule number.
Speaker A:So if we look at the statistic that this, there are 1 million people, individuals that are homeless in the United States, then you look at the actual, the actual number of homes in the United States, apartments and homes that are currently unoccupied or currently bank owned.
Speaker A:The state of Florida alone has 2 million homes currently that are unoccupied, that are vacant.
Speaker A:We could literally solve the homeless problem with the state of Florida by the federal government spending less than $5 billion.
Speaker B:Not only that, not.
Speaker B:And this is, this is a point.
Speaker B:I'm sorry.
Speaker A:No, no, you're good there.
Speaker B:There's a.
Speaker B:I was looking at Matthew Desmond.
Speaker B:We talked about it yesterday.
Speaker B:Mark, author.
Speaker B:It blew my mind that in his book he mentions the.
Speaker B:If just the top 1% paid exactly what they owed without even raising taxes on the rich and getting rid of billionaires outright, you would raise enough money.
Speaker B:It is projected, if you wanted to end poverty, the actual idea of poverty in America with American citizens, it would cost about $173 billion.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:The money that you would bring in from taxing the top 1% of exactly what they owe right now is $175 billion.
Speaker A:That's insane.
Speaker B:You would have a $2 billion surplus to end poverty in America.
Speaker B:We could do it tomorrow.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:But Congress.
Speaker A:No, no, they won't.
Speaker A:They won't enforce it because the billionaires have the control.
Speaker A:The billionaires have the available liquid funding to support those politicians that are going to inevitably be candidates in a very short timeframe.
Speaker A:And that's what these politicians who then become candidates, again, are always focused on.
Speaker A:They are not all of them.
Speaker A:Not all of them, but for the most part, yeah, I would say better than 80% of them are almost always focused on.
Speaker A:I have to get reelected.
Speaker A:It doesn't.
Speaker A:And, but their head doesn't spin in the right direction because that reelection is determined by the voters.
Speaker A:But in order for the voters to know who they are, they have to get the money from these billionaires in order to fund their campaigns.
Speaker B:Which is why super PAC should just be completely banned outright.
Speaker B:If we could do it.
Speaker A:In my opinion, elections should only be publicly funded.
Speaker B:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:Large and small donations.
Speaker A:Yep.
Speaker B:That's it.
Speaker A:That's it.
Speaker B:You should not be able to do insider trading.
Speaker B:Nancy Pelosi, it's the biggest thing.
Speaker A:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:She's what?
Speaker B:She makes Democrats look awful.
Speaker A:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:Because she is.
Speaker B:I believe she's the number one insider trading.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:In the federal government.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:Why?
Speaker A:It.
Speaker B:I can't listen to any opinion that she has to say.
Speaker A:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:After that.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Especially when.
Speaker A:Especially when she talks about things like the level of wealth unfairness, the wealth gap.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah.
Speaker A:Every.
Speaker A:Anytime I hear her start talking about that, it's like you are literally the one in the House that for how long was she speaker of the House?
Speaker A: It was: Speaker A: It was in: Speaker A: I want to say it was in: Speaker A:She became speaker of the House.
Speaker B:I want to say even earlier.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, it was Bush.
Speaker B:I remember.
Speaker A:Yeah, it was Bush because he had the honor of welcoming the first woman speaker of the House.
Speaker A:But.
Speaker A:Well, either way, she was the speaker of the House.
Speaker A:She had control of a.
Speaker A:It was a fairly nice lead as far as Democrats.
Speaker A:They didn't need any Republican, really, assistance.
Speaker A:They could have passed bills that could have moved into the Democratically controlled Senate, or at least not the Democratically controlled, but at least the minority.
Speaker A:The way the filibuster thing works, everything.
Speaker A:It would have not been very difficult.
Speaker A:When Barack Obama came in, he had a House and Senate that were controlled by the Republican or by the Democrats.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Changes could have made Biden when he was elected, and he had for two years had Democrats in control of the House and the Senate.
Speaker A:And we still had Democratic leadership that would not put forth bills that would actually get rid of homelessness, create a universal healthcare system program.
Speaker A:And it's because the banking industry doesn't.
Speaker A:The banking industry profits over the fact that there is homelessness.
Speaker A:The healthcare industry profits over the fact that we don't have a universal healthcare system, that we don't even have the public option.
Speaker A:We don't have an option for a publicly run and controlled system.
Speaker A:A Medicare for all.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Which we're even trying to gut that.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Well, Republicans, I don't care what they say, they will always try to eliminate any sort of social.
Speaker A:Any sort of social programs because they view them as entitlements and no one except for them should be entitled.
Speaker A:That is always.
Speaker A:All right.
Speaker A:Third point is protecting personal freedoms.
Speaker A:This is something that Democrats fail on a lot emphasizing or they fail on the messaging of personal freedoms.
Speaker A:They need to emphasize on reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights to make personal health care decisions without government interference.
Speaker A:They can't.
Speaker A:I think part of the messaging when it comes to LGBTQ rights, the reproductive rights, the message that they keep trying to come across is we need to use federal government to ensure those rights.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:But there's so much focus, and maybe I don't know exactly how to fix that, but there's so much focus on those minority groups being singled out, as I guess we need to.
Speaker A:The Democrats need to be responsible for protecting them.
Speaker A:They have to be protected rather than just recognizing the equality that needs to be emphasized for the LGBTQ community.
Speaker B:Because equality and equity and really everything comes to it.
Speaker A:I think what happens sometimes in the messaging with it is that for independents and Republicans, if they're just continuing to hear over and over LGBTQ community, that I think that in that messaging, it becomes so focused on that as needing to be singled out, to be protected.
Speaker A:And I think that the messaging needs to be more in line with.
Speaker A:They are just.
Speaker A:Everyone is just as equal as everyone else.
Speaker A:And we are going to.
Speaker A:We're not going to just protect one group or another group that we need to.
Speaker A:We need to acknowledge that everyone is equal under the Constitution, and that's how they need to do it.
Speaker B:Exactly.
Speaker B:Which is, again, a little bit why, from what I've seen more so from the right, is that they're trying to create sort of this illusion of this culture war and stuff, while reality.
Speaker B:In reality, we're fighting this class war that is we have to all be together and stand together and say we're all created equal.
Speaker B:Black is black and white does not matter.
Speaker B:It does not matter.
Speaker A:Yeah, it is.
Speaker B:We are doing this for the embedderment of every human in America.
Speaker B:And it is.
Speaker B:They have not gotten that message.
Speaker A:No, no.
Speaker B:They just have not done it.
Speaker A:You got it.
Speaker B:We got to frame again, easy.
Speaker A:Yeah, we.
Speaker A:We got to frame the Republic.
Speaker A:We.
Speaker A:I keep saying, we Democrats need to frame the Republicans as the party of government overreach, banning books, restricting speec and limiting freedoms.
Speaker A:They need to position themselves as the defender of all personal liberty and bodily autonomy.
Speaker A:Yeah, that, you know, so that's point three.
Speaker A:All right, Point four, competence and governance.
Speaker A:So contrast Democratic governance, steady leadership, economic growth, and global alliances with Republican chaos and extremism.
Speaker A:Like you.
Speaker A:You have to go after that.
Speaker A:Yeah, have to go after that.
Speaker B:Just, again, is just the smallest example of the signal leak we have not seen.
Speaker B:We have not seen it.
Speaker A:Point to real accomplishments.
Speaker A:Infrastructure investments, lowering prescription drug costs and expanding broadband access highlight how Democrats prioritize problem solving while Republicans full.
Speaker A:Sir.
Speaker A:Focus on culture wars and division.
Speaker B:Oh, well, there you go.
Speaker B:So I already had it down in there.
Speaker A:Yep.
Speaker A:Number five, public safety and gun reform.
Speaker A:So this is one where Republicans generally, I think, generally misunderstand the intention of Democrats.
Speaker A:And a lot of it's because of how Republicans misguide their party in what it is that Democrats want.
Speaker A:So, I am a gun owner.
Speaker A:I am.
Speaker A:I am a legal.
Speaker A:I am.
Speaker A:I am a legal gun owner.
Speaker A:I am a responsible gun owner.
Speaker A:I have a concealed weapons permit.
Speaker A:I have gone through training.
Speaker A:I have used.
Speaker A:I have used my own time and money to practice in responsible gun ownership.
Speaker A:And usage.
Speaker A:I fully believe in the rights of individuals in the United States to own and bear arms, even though I certainly believe that that second amendment needs some updating.
Speaker A:But Democrats need to call out Republicans inaction on gun violence while pushing for common sense reforms like universal background checks.
Speaker B:And red flag laws, which is not that crazy of a thing.
Speaker B:Every time I the people talking about banning assault weapons, they never hammer home the fact they always say like oh the government tyranny, they're going to me.
Speaker B:Yet they support the military which could blow up their house from across the country.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker B:I'm not saying not to support the military, but also that is such a fallacy to believe.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, those two things exist.
Speaker B:And because you think that we need to have AK47s and AR15s in America.
Speaker B:Yeah, we, we saw after the sun after we, we had a law that banned.
Speaker B:Was it dropped?
Speaker B:Oh yeah, shootings in America.
Speaker A:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:Once the law sun set is shot up and has not slowed down.
Speaker A: Yeah, that was so in, in: Speaker A:One of them being that the assault weapons ban no longer allowed the import of assault rifles from outside the outside of the United States.
Speaker A:So we did not see any of these Ukrainian post Soviet Union states importing their Kalashnikovs, their AK47s into the United States.
Speaker A:That stopped for a full 10 years.
Speaker A:And when that stopped, we dramatically saw the usage of assault rifles drop, which by taking them off the streets we then also saw a reduction in the number of the.
Speaker A:It's basically the availability because when a crime is committed with an assault weapon like that, it's usually taken into the possession of whatever local law enforcement.
Speaker A:Sometimes those are turned over to the federal law enforcement.
Speaker A:Sometimes they were, they were taken and they were dismantled or they were destroyed.
Speaker A:But one of the, one of the things that that stopped happening was during that time period, sheriff's departments, local law enforcement weren't allowed to take weapons that had been seized in crimes.
Speaker A:After those crimes have been adjudicated.
Speaker A:In a lot of situations the local law enforcement was allowed to take those firearms and sell them back to the public for a profit or revenue for the local.
Speaker A:That stopped, that came to an end and so there were fewer guns on the street.
Speaker A:It wasn't just even just assault weapons.
Speaker A:We saw handguns that were no longer being reintroduced to the public through local law enforcement sales for revenue.
Speaker A:Also federal government under that assault ban also funded local law enforcement better.
Speaker A:Like you know, all of These things happened out of this one bill that was generally seen as a good thing.
Speaker A:There were Republicans that supported it.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So that was number five, public safety and gun reform.
Speaker A:The last one is rejecting extremism and division.
Speaker A:And I find that this one's a little.
Speaker A:A little difficult to do because it's hard to reject extremism without creating division.
Speaker A:So it says that Democrats need to frame the current GOP leadership as too extreme and out of touch with mainstream America.
Speaker A:I don't think that's too difficult.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:I don't know.
Speaker B:That is a trickier one.
Speaker A:Well, the only reason I say I don't think that's too difficult is because I think they also need to look at the Democrats and Republicans that are currently in leadership as being too.
Speaker A:When I say, like, Chuck Schumer's extremism, I don't mean, like, he's too far to the left.
Speaker A:I think it's the.
Speaker A:The.
Speaker A:It may be the lack of.
Speaker A:Maybe.
Speaker A:Maybe I'm.
Speaker A:Maybe I'm looking at it different, but Chuck Schumer's will.
Speaker A:He.
Speaker A:I don't know how to look at that because.
Speaker B:Because I'm.
Speaker B:I'm.
Speaker B:I see him as such a moderate.
Speaker A:He.
Speaker A:I don't.
Speaker A:I don't see him as moderate.
Speaker A:I just.
Speaker A:I see him as someone that is.
Speaker A:Oh, no.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:I mean, as far as his politics goes, he is.
Speaker A:He is willing to cross that line at the cost of.
Speaker A:The cost of America, but he is.
Speaker A:I think, for me, it's too extreme to be willing to not fight for the ideals of the party that you're representing.
Speaker A:I see that as such a lack of responsibility or lack of.
Speaker A:In holding to the responsibilities you have as a leader in the Democratic Party as being extreme, like, he's too willing to jump ship.
Speaker A:I mean, look at this continuing resolution we just had that they absolutely could have.
Speaker A:And granted, I think it's a bad thing to have the federal government shut down.
Speaker A:I recognize that is not good, but there's no reason why the Democrats can't be louder about, hey, we got this continuing resolution that needs to be voted on.
Speaker A:Let's make this something willing, something that the Democrats would be willing to vote for.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Oh, and that's all it ever was.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You could have gone back and they could have fixed it, and they would have had again, the government would have shut down.
Speaker B:I mean, you know, it's been worse.
Speaker B:That's happened.
Speaker B:What, it shut down, what, over 40 days?
Speaker A:Oh, yeah, yeah.
Speaker B:With Trump around last time, I'm like, just do it yeah, that's all you had to do.
Speaker A:We already have federal employees that are not reporting to work because they work for the national park system.
Speaker A:They work for the Department of Interior.
Speaker A:And they're not reporting to work because they think they've been fired or they've been put on furlough because while Elon Musk decides, do we really need people sitting in the top of fire stations watching for fires in Yosemite or whatever, highlight their attacks on democracy, science, education and basic governance.
Speaker A:That should be pretty easy to do.
Speaker A:I don't think that's difficult.
Speaker A:Position Democrats as the party of unity, inclusion and problem solving.
Speaker A:These aren't absurd ideas.
Speaker A:And I have to think that there's someone in a think tank somewhere saying we need to put forth candidates that are gonna have the messaging.
Speaker A:All, all five, all six of these points.
Speaker B:Again, primaries.
Speaker B:That's it.
Speaker B:You've got to out primary a lot of these people.
Speaker B:You gotta see what they're doing.
Speaker B:People have to keep up with them.
Speaker B:And Pratt, I would love to see Nancy Pelosi, Primaried.
Speaker B:Oh, my.
Speaker B:Schumer, Most of the Democrats, honestly, that I see, if you see that they take.
Speaker B:I, I would, I would say I'm gonna try to vote for the people that take zero packs, but if I'm in a position where.
Speaker B:And this stuff is public, it's not like it's hidden anywhere.
Speaker B:If you're voting for somebody who has pack money that is over a certain amount, if you can't find someone that doesn't have them at all, look at their policies and think about it clearly.
Speaker B:And don't just vote for the same person over and over again.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's all.
Speaker B:That's all you got to do.
Speaker A:I think.
Speaker B:Also don't even, you know, Democrats in general need to probably break away from the Democrat.
Speaker A:It.
Speaker A:A lot of it comes down to actually having a higher voter iq.
Speaker A:It really comes down to voter.
Speaker A:Voter willing.
Speaker A:Willing to put forth the work to research who it is you're voting for.
Speaker B:Not, not even iq, but just critical thinking.
Speaker A:Well, yeah.
Speaker B:Yeah, sure.
Speaker B:Yeah, sure.
Speaker A:You know, the square plug does not fit in the round hole.
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker A:And a lot of these politicians are already that square plug trying to fit themselves into the round hole.
Speaker A:And they don't fit.
Speaker A:But we're still voting for them.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think, I think that's one of the biggest takeaways of this.
Speaker A:You got any other thoughts you want to express before we wrap it up?
Speaker B:So many.
Speaker A:But we'll save it for.
Speaker B:We'll save it for another Time.
Speaker B:I see we're running over.
Speaker A:Well, I think on that bombshell, then we'll go ahead and end it.
Speaker A:But I'm hoping that you all, you know, listening, viewing this, you take in this as the ideas of two people that are probably not going to run for office this next time around, but would really like for us to see people run that meet that mold.
Speaker A:Oh, did get notification.
Speaker A:David Robinson is planning on running again for 2nd congressional district.
Speaker A:And I think ultimately, I think that that is one of the things, I'll just say this to wrap this up, but I think that's one of the things that we have to see from good candidates.
Speaker A:And I think David Robinson II is a good candidate and I think that he would be a good representation for the 2nd congressional district here in South Carolina.
Speaker A:So we'll, we'll have him back on the show to design sess campaign.
Speaker A:And I plan on participating in his campaign as far as working with his campaign this time around.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:But because ultimately I think that it, it's never going to be accomplished.
Speaker A:It's rarely going to be accomplished the first time.
Speaker A:It really takes consistent running of candidates in order to start breaking down that wall.
Speaker A:And I think David Robinson the second is going to be a, I think he's, he has passion and he's got, he's got a message and ultimately, hopefully with influence from, you know, people like you and me, we can, we can help him to get that message out.
Speaker A:Yeah, I may be kind of recruiting you.
Speaker B:Yeah, I was, I was about to say, I was like, I don't know if I can endorse anybody, but we'll see.
Speaker A:All right, well, on that we're gonna end up this, in this episode, episode number 249.
Speaker A:Thank you, Bill for being here.
Speaker A:Appreciate it.
Speaker B:Thank you for having me.
Speaker A:Links to all past episodes, podcast platforms, merchandise and social media are available on our webpage, theallaboutnothing.com and if you think our financial model of giving away free content and entertainment is silly and you're in the giving mood, why not become an official nothinger and support the show?
Speaker A:Members get early access to this episode as well as exclusive content.
Speaker A:Visitors can head over to members.theallaboutnothin.com or you can find a link to our on our webpage.
Speaker A:You can also give a one time donation through the same link.
Speaker A:If you'd like to be a part of the show, you can call and leave us a message.
Speaker A: -: Speaker A:You can email the show at theallaboutnothing.com or you can join our Discord server.
Speaker A:There are links found on our webpage.
Speaker A:Thank you very much everybody for listening.
Speaker A:You all stay safe, be kind and keep your hands to yourself.
Speaker A:The All About Nothing podcast is a product of Big Media and produced and engineered by me, Barrett Gruber.
Speaker A:Thanks to Cake for our intro music Sick of youf Can Follow Everything Cake the band at Cake.
Speaker A:Thanks to Muff the producer for our Outro music.
Speaker A:You can follow muff on Instagram mufftheproducer.
Speaker A:You can follow me across social media by visiting linktree barrettgruber and you can follow Zach King on linktree aanzak.
Speaker A:Wanna support the show?
Speaker A:Visit our webpage theallaboutnothing.com and become a member.
Speaker A:There are several tiers available that give you early access to episodes as well as exclusive content.
Speaker A:To find links to our social media, podcast platforms and merchandise to support the show as well as past episodes, visit theallaboutnothing.com if you'd like to be a part of the show, you can email theshowthealaboutnothing.com or you can call our number and leave a message.
Speaker A: -: Speaker A:If the time between these episodes is more than you can handle, check out our sister shows what the Pod Was that?
Speaker A:With Carrie, Zach and myself.
Speaker A:Welcome to Wonderland with Amie, Politically Speaking with Erica, Kirsten and Emily and Black, White and Blue in the south with Dr.
Speaker A:Jamil Brooks and Bill Kimler.
Speaker A:Please subscribe and share this show.
Speaker A:If you're on YouTube, please subscribe and punch that notification bell.
Speaker A:Thank you for listening and hear us next week.
Speaker A:It.
