Hokey Pokey Politics
Can people with opposing political views remain friends? Find out as we discuss the political issues of the day.
Hokey Pokey Politics
#3 - Political Waves and Celestial Ambitions
This episode highlights the possibility of maintaining friendships despite differing political views in the aftermath of inauguration day. We discuss accountability in government, the ethical standards of the judiciary, the mismanagement of natural disasters, the implications of DEI initiatives, and the impact of trans participation in sports, all while emphasizing open dialogue and understanding.
• Personal reflections on post-inauguration sentiment
• Accountability of politicians in fulfilling promises
• Ethical dilemmas surrounding Supreme Court decisions
• Mismanagement of natural disasters and climate responsibility
• Challenges of balancing DEI efforts with performance standards
• The contentious debate over transgender participation in sports
Thanks for listening! Share with your friends! Leave us a Review, Comment, or Topic Suggestion.
Visit our website at https://www.hokeypokeypolitics.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61572103964237
Instragram: https://www.instagram.com/hokeypokeypolitics/
X (Twitter): https://x.com/HokeyPokeyPltcs
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HPPPodcast
This is Hokey Pokey Politics, where we believe politics shouldn't ruin relationships. We are two people with opposite political views, proving that it's possible to disagree, discuss and still get along. Welcome to the program. Three, two, one. Welcome to the show. Welcome to the show. It's post-inauguration day. You're on camera. Get the cue cards.
Speaker 2:We're professionals, we are professionals.
Speaker 1:It is post-inauguration day. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2:Hokey Pokey Podcast, episode three it is a great day for America.
Speaker 1:It's a day.
Speaker 2:I'm going to say it again Do it. We have been un-Bidened by what has been.
Speaker 1:And it's still the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
Speaker 2:I love it and it's so true and it's so amazing.
Speaker 1:Amazing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, of course, only the future will tell.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, here's the thing Again, 2016,. I was in the same boat the next day. It's like, well, it is what it is Hope to God in four years. I really wish I liked him. I hope I like him in four years. That would be phenomenal. Four years from today, I'm sitting here. I'm like man, I'm going to miss him. I want that. Like that would be amazing.
Speaker 2:Yeah well, you're one of the few, if not the only, person on the left who feels that way. Everyone else literally thinks the world is going to end. Oh.
Speaker 1:I think it very well could in the near future. In what way that's so?
Speaker 2:ridiculous. He's just he. You're the first person who has said to me there's not one person that controls the government, there's not one person who can do you know that much damage. And then this guy gets in and all of a sudden it's literally the end of the world.
Speaker 1:So initially, four years ago, I would have told you that one person cannot change this country. There's too many amendments and constitutional rights and everything that you're not going to be able to get one person to dismantle it. No-transcript Court, and the Supreme Court says yep, that's not what the intent was, because he's already bought and sold the Supreme Court, so he just found a way to subvert the entire Constitution.
Speaker 2:He's bought and sold the Supreme Court 100%.
Speaker 1:That is classic you have, and I'm not saying it's just on the right.
Speaker 2:You know it's true, it really is Trump derangement syndrome. I was willing to say that that wasn't a thing, but listening to you, talk.
Speaker 1:I'm convinced now that it actually is. You have Supreme Court justices who go on billion dollar yachts with people that they are filing or adjudicating cases for and then they're not going out and saying, hey, yep, by the way, I did take, I did take some money, I did take a free vacation from this guy who I'm also right now issuing an opinion on something that directly helps that person, like that is. That is a huge ethical issue and we can't do nothing about it because the Supreme Court can't be held to any ethics. So is he bought and sold Absolutely, and it's not a derangement syndrome. He picked people for the Supreme Court, which it's a political move. It's a smart move. You pick young people who are going to be there for a while, who agree with your policies. The problem is nobody in the Supreme Court should be biased on what the Constitution says. The Constitution is what it is, but they want to ad lib to everything and say, well, that's not what the intent of the forefather, come on.
Speaker 2:But what's funny is you sit here and you say that as if it's the right. Only that does that.
Speaker 1:No, I started that conversation saying it's both sides I mean the right's not doing it right now.
Speaker 2:No, I don't believe they are.
Speaker 1:They've got what six, seven of the justices in their pocket.
Speaker 2:Well, they've got five and a half.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah, because of Roberts. Yeah, yeah. So they've got five and a half out of nine and they have overruled past law already?
Speaker 2:No, they haven't. They have overruled past law already? No, they haven't. But it's also not. It's a constitutional. You know they're not subverting the Constitution. They have a different. You know the Constitution is being interpreted by these justices and it's being interpreted by their worldview. The left interprets it by their worldview.
Speaker 1:The right interprets it by their worldview. And I'm saying why is it? It's the law, it is the Constitution. There should be no worldview. I should not be able to look at a justice and say I know exactly how they're going to vote on this.
Speaker 2:I agree with you, but the problem is that there is room for interpretation. That's the issue. The issue is that that's their whole job is to interpret what the Constitution, what the laws actually mean. And there shouldn't be an interpretation. I agree with you, but there is. That's part of the problem.
Speaker 1:So, since there is, shouldn't they be bound by some sort of ethical rules? Yes, all the way around, like they should. In my mind, at this point, they're no different than a politician, a politician in left and right. Both are bought and sold by the lobbyists, by the unions, by the corporations, by who that's just. Money is in politics. It's here. It's not going anywhere. Until we figure out a way that you decouple the money from politics, you're going to have this issue. You're going to have somebody who says hey, I'm Elon Musk and I'm going to win this election by giving you $40 million or whatever it is, just so that I can help you win, so that you can push my agenda.
Speaker 2:All right, I'll give you a win here, because you know what bothered me about the inauguration yesterday? It was when Trump stood up and said we are going to put human beings on Mars First of all. Why would we spend money to do that? Right, because Elon wants it.
Speaker 1:I'm well aware.
Speaker 2:It was really disappointing to me that he would get the support of Elon Musk and one of the first things he would say is we're going to put human beings on Mars. I don't want my tax money spent for that Right.
Speaker 1:Small government. We want small government. I'll give you a win there, yeah.
Speaker 2:That bothered me yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean. And that's the thing, and I think that's where people lose in politics is. You know, I'm a big Obama fan. I didn't agree with everything he did at all. There were times I was like, dude, you are wrong, like this is dead wrong. What are you doing? You know? Or why didn't you push this? You had the ability, you had the house in Congress, why didn't you shove something through? And it's like everybody treats this like it's sports team right, you know they treat it like it's the chiefs and, oh my God, they're winning.
Speaker 1:No matter what, they're my.
Speaker 2:No, they can mess up and you can hold them accountable for messing up and I think that's why you and I are able to do this, because, I mean, I didn't like obama one bit, you know that, right, but I've defended him on some stuff.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. You said, you know, he did this right or he did that right.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm not saying he did anything right, but what I, what I will say is I've had, I've had friends, you know right, that said well, he said this. And what bothers me about that is people on the left and the right, they all do this. They go, they take some little snippet and they go well, he said this, okay, but what was the context?
Speaker 2:And it's very easy to Google the full transcript of everything the president said. So that's what I did and I Googled the transcript and I lookedled the transcript and I looked at the words and then I put it in the context and it wasn't what he Did. He say the words yes, was that the intent and the meaning behind the words in the full context? Absolutely not. And so to criticize someone for some little snippet that's taken out of context is just dumb, right, and it's what divides us. Yes, and it's so stupid, right? I mean, you're wonderful about adding meaning or taking out meaning from what people actually say. Oh, come on, you know you do it to Trump all the time. I'll say he said exactly, yeah, but that's not what he meant. That was a dog whistle, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 1:What did he mean yesterday when he said Elon knows the most about the computers, elon knows the numbers, elon knows the voting machines, elon is the best at that and we won in a landslide. Did you hear that? His pre-inauguration? I didn't. I didn't hear it. Oh my dude.
Speaker 2:I mean he literally was to interpret it on the spot, I would say that he had elon making sure that there was nothing nefarious going on behind the scenes. Okay, that's how I would interpret it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but I don't know, I didn't hear yeah, I totally meant to send you that last night. Yeah, but like the problem was, is finding the entire speech, not just the snippet right is the problem, because it was an hour-long speech yeah, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2:Like it's out there, it's out there quite honestly, I looked last night.
Speaker 1:I was looking for a transcript of it, yeah, because I wanted to read exactly what was said, and I was just like well, and there's.
Speaker 2:The issue is that most people don't want to. They want a 15 second soundbite.
Speaker 1:They want a 15 second interpretation of that soundbite from whatever you know platform that they agree with, yep, and they don't want to do any more than that right, yeah, I, I can remember in the show house of cards they've got I can't remember what her name is, but the wife is up on the stand and they're just, they're just badgering her and they're asking about military, military, this military, that, and they are off point. And her response is and she's talking in context of this particular issue the military is irrelevant. But she said the words military is irrelevant, right, and that's all it took, right, oh my god. She said the military is irrelevant, like how?
Speaker 1:dare you yeah, it's exactly. I mean a lot of that happens on both sides it it's like no question, it's all about the soundbite.
Speaker 2:By the way, I know her name's not Jenny in the show, but she played Jenny in Forrest Gump.
Speaker 1:Oh, she did yeah. Yeah, she's still alive. I thought she died in Forrest.
Speaker 2:Gump? Oh, she did. Oh really, we're terrible. We're laughing about a Mother's Day. So yeah, it wasn't my best day. Carrie Underwood was pretty amazing. I didn't watch her. I didn't watch a bit of it. So she went out there and she was supposed to be. Did her lips look like ducks? Yes, God, why I know.
Speaker 1:Stop changing your face. Your face was stunningly gorgeous, I agree.
Speaker 2:And she looked like she just had a fresh round of Botox. For that event, they were maximum puff and that just. You're right, she's a beautiful woman, don't do that to yourself. But she's singing America the Beautiful. She's supposed to be singing with the Air Force, I believe orchestra. There was some technical glitch. She rocked it acapella, and I mean she rocked it.
Speaker 2:She stood and I mean she rocked it okay yeah, she stood there for about 20 seconds and then just went well, if you know it, join in with me, oh. And then just belted it out.
Speaker 1:Okay, she does have an amazing she, oh, 100 like. And to think that woman was like a, a waitress or a bartender, yeah, and goes from that to this Like holy cow.
Speaker 2:And of course, her decision to participate in the inauguration from the left was atrocious.
Speaker 1:I mean Absolutely atrocious. Yeah, I lost respect for her, of course she did.
Speaker 2:Of course she did. You know it's amazing watching the tide shift though I don't know if you've noticed this, but the tide is shifting and it's shifting hard. To what? To to the right. I mean, have you watched bill bill maher lately? No, I mean, that guy is as far left as they come typically. Okay, he is skewering the left right now for for DEI, for transgender ideology, gender ideology as a whole. You know Snoop Dogg 2016, 2020, made a video of himself assassinating Donald Trump, threatened anyone that he knew that would support Donald Trump or play at any of his events. He played at this inauguration, I know he did. I mean the Titus Mark Zuckerberg. You know Zuck is moving that way.
Speaker 1:Hold the phone, did you notice? And I don't know if you were one of them. Amelia was not, I was 100%. I jump on Facebook and I see a photo of Vance, vice President Vance, and you know it's America's back. And I didn't think anything of it, just kept scrolling, assumed it was a sponsored ad or whatever. And then I see the one for Trump and I'm like, okay, whatever. Then I see somebody else be like have you guys? You guys noticed that you're automatically following these two. I go to both of their pages and I'm following both of them. Vance's is a brand new account.
Speaker 2:On Facebook On.
Speaker 1:Facebook. I am following both of them, and I have never once followed either of them.
Speaker 2:I don't follow either one of them, so put in President Trump, you get under the search and it'll say following or follow.
Speaker 1:Mine says follow. Okay, so you're not following. Now try.
Speaker 2:JD Vance.
Speaker 1:This is interesting. It was not that way for Amelia, it 100% was that way for me. I almost screenshot it.
Speaker 2:That's weird they must realize that you're slowly moving right. There they're.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm not following either one of them. They don't need you they.
Speaker 2:That's why they're like we already got this guy, you know uncle sam's got his thumb on you already.
Speaker 1:He doesn't. He doesn't need to indoctrinate you any further.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm optimistic, but I'm you know again, I'm not um, I'm cautiously optimistic because I tell you what I don't trust the government Right, no matter who's running.
Speaker 1:So I'm a little bit of a prepper. So I went and bought well, I tried buying about six dozen eggs because I was going to put them in the freeze dryer and have powdered eggs. Yeah Well, just for scrambled eggs and such. You just never know, it just sounds nasty, it does. Yeah, I mean, it's the same thing you get from, like the army.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean.
Speaker 1:Sure, but it comes out a little green, sometimes MREs. Yeah, I go through Schnucks and they go to ring them up and they only let me ring up three.
Speaker 2:There's a shortage of eggs.
Speaker 1:Oh, so you can only buy three eggs at a time. I'm like three dozen, not three eggs, you know what I mean. And I'm like okay. And then I get home and I'm sitting there thinking, well, I should probably wait anyway, because Trump's going to lower the price of eggs himself. I mean, he's going to go to Schnucks and he's going to get the new labeler maker out. He's going to put on there. He was at Hy-Vee this morning. He should be. He needs to be at every grocery store because he's going to lower prices.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Okay, I'm waiting.
Speaker 2:Patiently waiting. So it's interesting he can't lower prices because he's just one person.
Speaker 1:But that's what he ran on.
Speaker 2:But he can destroy the country because, even though he's just one person, he can.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's doomsday because he's president. He can unravel our fabric is what he can do, and he is slowly doing it. The fabric.
Speaker 2:We've been sleeping under the last four years. I hope he unravels and I hope he does it quickly. I hope he does it quickly and he's already starting to, which is great, right. We'll see.
Speaker 1:I hope I'm wrong, I hope all of this is dead wrong and I hope a year from now I am singing his praises and this show is just a right wing.
Speaker 2:What would that look like, though? What would that take?
Speaker 1:What would it take for me to For you?
Speaker 2:to sing his praises. What would you have to see?
Speaker 1:I want to see the economy come back.
Speaker 2:Yep, I want to see what does that look like?
Speaker 1:That looks like home interest rates that aren't in the sevens, because you're a realtor, something closer to five. Five is a good, solid number. Banks can make money. It doesn't gouge the owners.
Speaker 2:I agree. I think five to six is the sweet spot. Five is a fair spot.
Speaker 1:Just leave it at that, it's fine. You'll get people to move. And the thing is, inflation is obviously still a thing. I'm not, I have never been, under the assumption that inflation was caused by Biden or by Trump. I think initially for a short time after COVID, when there were supply chain issues. Sure, you're going to have issues at that point and you're going to have some inflation. Inflation after the fact is corporate profits.
Speaker 2:Well, inflation, I believe, is caused by printing more money all the time.
Speaker 1:That is definitely one way, Then we have to back it and then throwing that money all over the world, right.
Speaker 2:So that is definitely.
Speaker 1:I think that's the root cause I mean that lowers the value of a dollar which raises no question raises the cost of goods.
Speaker 1:The problem we have isn't that. I mean, could that be part of it? 100%, like no question? There is a solid possibility that there is a percent of the inflation that is caused by that. I think the vast majority of the inflation was corporate companies lining their pockets with profits, which don't get me wrong if you're going to put a TV out there or you're going to put some sort of good or service out there and you can get more money out of it and people are still buying it.
Speaker 1:Yes, it's inflation, but people are still buying it. You haven't hit the pressure point yet to make people pull back. So it's the same with eggs. If a corporation that has shareholders and their entire goal is to make profit, they're going to push that dollar until it gets to a price point that people aren't going to buy it anymore, and then they should pull back a little bit and be like okay, well, here's the spot that we can live with and that's, in my mind, what inflation is. And what we've had is we've had corporate profits push that to the limit and that's I get it, and I think they're going to pull it back and Trump's going to get the benefit of it.
Speaker 2:I so disagree with you in every way about that.
Speaker 1:What else could it be? Everything?
Speaker 2:that is made, except cars, which don't get me started. The price comes down when, over time, you can buy a 75-inch TV right now for like $500. When technology gets to that point, when those TVs first came out, they were literally five, six grand. Right Now you can get them for $500. Okay, that's not inflation, no, that is, that's rapid deflation.
Speaker 1:That is getting cheap labor in other countries to build it for you is what that is.
Speaker 2:If those companies, well, but that's another issue that's not. Yes, anybody who's in business is going to have their product made for as low as they can and still have good quality, okay, unless they want to be the guy who puts out the low quality version. And you'll always have that too, 100%. I mean, I'm not going to fault any company for doing that. Either a company. You know this, you have a company. Either a company makes a profit or a company dies, right, and to say, well, you make too much profit. Who decides that Right and who decides what is too much? I mean, that's not a world we want to live in. I don't think. If you make a product that people want and they're willing to pay you for that, how does that cause inflation to?
Speaker 1:go up. So that scenario right there. What can Donald Trump do in that exact scenario to make you lower your prices?
Speaker 2:He can increase competition. He can put in rules for lack of a better term that increases competition. We're talking about eggs.
Speaker 1:Let's go back to eggs, oh go back to eggs.
Speaker 2:There's a supply chain issue and I don't know what it is, I don't understand it. There's a supply chain issue. You improve the supply chain issue you have I mean you know supply and demand. You increase the supply, you reduce the demand, the prices go down. Okay, I mean, that's basic, basic economics. Okay, how he does that, I don't know the intricacies of it.
Speaker 2:Okay, but he did it before. I mean, when he was president, before, before COVID hit, right before the COVID epidemic, everything was, I mean, they were almost giving eggs away at the store. Now, I don't know what the difference was, but I know when Obama was in office they weren't doing that, what the difference was, but I know when Obama was in office they weren't doing that. And then, when Trump was in office, two years later, you could buy a dozen eggs for what? 75 cents, I have no idea. Yeah, it was under a buck, I know that. And then gas was $2 a gallon and everything was cheaper.
Speaker 2:So I don't know the logistics of it. I'm not that smart, especially economically. He obviously does the logistics of it. I'm not that smart, especially economically. He obviously does, because he did it. I don't know what he did to make that happen. I just know it happened. I know that at that time my dollar went further and everybody was going to the grocery store and filling up their carts and leaving for a hundred bucks. Now you go and you buy two packs of meat and it's $50.
Speaker 1:So the story I'll bring up is it was 2012, 2013. There was a gasoline issue I don't remember exactly what it was, but gas prices went through the roof and gas prices were super high. So what grocery chains started doing is they started raising their prices because the cost of shipment was higher. So they raised their prices. They raised them to the point that there was a tangible pain where people stopped buying Jiffy peanut butter. Okay, so what Jiffy peanut butter did was they realized okay, we've got to keep our prices the same, but we've got to figure out how to make 20% more money. So what do they do? They put a larger bubble in the bottom of the Jiffy jar to give you 20% less product. Keep the product the same so that they make 20% more in money. Okay, and they're selling it now for, you know, $1.50. Gas prices drop. Do you think they lowered the price of their jiffy? Do you think they went back to a smaller bubble? No, no, they didn't.
Speaker 2:and that's the point that you're not going to get these corporations to lower their prices yeah, I get that. The potato chip companies do the same thing. You buy a giant bag of potato chips and half the bag is empty but you feel good because you're buying a giant bag.
Speaker 1:Phenomenal, phenomenal. I saw Doritos bag the other day. $7.67 for a bag of Doritos Yikes. Used to be like $3.95, $2.95. Yep, what on earth could Trump possibly do to Frito-Lay to make them lower their prices?
Speaker 2:I have no idea. I mean, we're going to-.
Speaker 1:There is literally I mean he ran on it is literally I mean he ran on it I'm going to lower your grocery prices. Your prices are going to be better. It's not the president's job. The president cannot dictate what a company's profits are and he can say I'm going to save them a bunch in taxes. And if you think for one second, they're going to look at you and be like I'm going to lower your prices. You're freaking high. They're going to take that money.
Speaker 1:They're going to profit it. They may buy another company. They they're going to take that money, they're going to profit it. They may buy another company, they may do something else with it, not just put it in their executive pockets. But what they're not going to do is they're not going to come in here and say you know what we're going back to $2.95 a piece, because we can.
Speaker 2:So let's revisit this six months from now, okay, and we'll see how the grocery stores are doing.
Speaker 1:I mean, that's biden, that's not trump, that's before prices could be changed. Those were printed the the week before I'm sure it's trump's fault somehow.
Speaker 1:No, it's definitely not biden's economy what I want to do is I want to look what it was at the end of Biden. Let's look at it. You could easily say, if prices were lower today, that they're lower because Trump did something or because companies are afraid of something with Trump. So prices today are, in my mind, irrelevant. What matters is a year from now, six months from now. That's what's going to determine if there's any changes Now. The other thing is do changes? Take a while, obviously.
Speaker 2:But six months from now, if it is lower, then all of the media is going to be saying it's because of things that Biden did on his way out the door.
Speaker 1:I mean, you know that's true. Could it be, though? I mean no, no, no, absolutely not. So it's all immediate.
Speaker 2:No, he has left us a giant pile of crap to unravel.
Speaker 1:Okay, okay, that's fair. I mean I don't agree, but that's fair. I know you don't agree, but you know facts are the facts.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you don't have to agree with facts. They still exist. Meanwhile, he's commuting the sentence of high-profile murderers and he's parting people that haven't even been charged or investigated.
Speaker 1:Man that's weird, because I remember Trump doing that on his final day too.
Speaker 2:I'm sure he probably did Kushner's dad, he did that for Well that guy was being investigated, and I don't agree with that one, right, I don't agree with that one.
Speaker 1:Here's the thing.
Speaker 2:Because when I read what he did I was like, no, that needs to be, but he's he's son-in-law, he's son-in-law's dad I understand.
Speaker 1:Why do the presidents have that power? Agreed, that is crap. Agree, every one of them. Yeah, they went through the judicial system. The judicial system determined that what they did broke the law and now you have the power because of who you are to say.
Speaker 2:I disagree you know we already have stuff right there. Yes, well it. We already have an issue in this country with people not having a lot of faith in the judicial system.
Speaker 2:Can't talk to that and I think that just clouds it even more. Right, it really shows that if you are among the elite of the political system, there is no accountability on either side. And that's what I always talk to, you know, even my friends on the right, when they're like, oh you know, this person's finally going to get it and this person's finally. And I always tell them, no, they're not Right, historically, they're not.
Speaker 1:There is no accountability for these people. They might spend 60 days in jail. They won't even do that. Yeah, but that's it.
Speaker 2:They might have an appearance before a Senate committee. That's as far as it's going to go. That's as far as it ever goes. Nobody at that level is ever held accountable, and I think that the average American citizen is tired of that 100%. And I think when these Now, okay, you can say look, he pardoned Hunter, he pardoned, you know. He pardoned Kirshner, whatever his name is. You know he pardoned this. He pardoned Millie, he pardoned Fauci, you know. Okay, but why are we commuting the sentence of people who have been tried and convicted of the most heinous crimes? You have just undone what all of those jurors spent all of that time deciding Right, you've just completely smacked them in the face. You've also got the family members, the family members, the community, I mean everybody who was involved. You've just slapped them all in the face. And for what? You're not even gaining anything by doing that. What was the point that one just confuses the hell out of me.
Speaker 1:I don't get it.
Speaker 2:I mean, I can understand. Look, I think it's ridiculous, but I can understand him pardoning his son. If that was my son I probably would have done the same thing if I had the power to do it.
Speaker 2:You're going to do stuff like that for your family. I wish he hadn't. He promised not to about 400 times. He made his press secretary stand up there and say that it wasn't going to happen about 400 times. And then he doesn't. And we all knew he was going to do it. I mean, give me a break. And that one I can even say it's his son. What's he going to do? Is he going to let his son go to jail if he has the power to stop it? But I don't understand that one at all. I don't get it.
Speaker 1:No, I will forever wonder why. And is it a political thing? The thing is Biden, he's not in politics anymore. He's done Biden's on his way out. So you know, I don't know.
Speaker 1:My brain always goes to what's the root cause. Why would you want to do this? My brain always goes to what's the root cause. Why would you want to do this? You know, I don't think.
Speaker 1:I don't think most people deep down are conniving, you know, like politicians that are like oh, what can I do to ruin everything? Like I don't, I don't think there's evil geniuses out there. I think there are people that are trying to line their pockets. I think, and I think that happens. But I don't think Biden sat there and been like man. What could I do to really spit in the face of all these people? But what I don't understand is why you still did it Like. I don't think that's why I don't think it's like I want to screw these jurors and the family of this murdered person. Like I understand when there's weed charges and now weed is legal. But you went through the system and now you've got to be. You know your sentence is being communed because it's yes, it was illegal at the time We've changed our rules, it's not illegal now. If that happened today, you're not going to jail Totally makes sense to me 100%.
Speaker 1:Commute it. Whatever, that's fine. Murder is still illegal, like espionage. All of that is still illegal. So you say like, oh, the guy sat in prison and he got his doctorate. Okay, on our backs, we paid for it, congratulations. All these other people are strapped with college debt and this guy's getting a college degree in prison, I don't know. All right. We're agreeing too much on this topic yeah, sorry, we got to change it up.
Speaker 2:Change it up, makes the show less fun, yeah. So let's talk about these wildfires and the massive leftist failure that not only led to that, but also has it continuing in unprecedented ways. I don't.
Speaker 1:Because the left didn't sweep the forest, like Trump said.
Speaker 2:Well, that's actually true. They completely mismanaged their forestry not just their forestry but also within those areas, to the point where insurance companies were going to the state government and saying we can't insure these places because it is way too high a risk. This is an absolute fire risk. We will not take on that risk, we're not going to insure these places.
Speaker 1:These houses aren't in the middle of the forest, the big ones are no, I get that.
Speaker 2:The big ones are no, I get that.
Speaker 1:The Palisades yes, there's some palm trees and stuff.
Speaker 2:I get that, and there's even speculation that a lot of this was arson. I don't know that that's the case, but there's speculation that some of it is. No, it was either immigrants or homeless people that are setting fires and then they're getting blown into.
Speaker 1:You know they're getting blown by the wind. Yeah, definitely immigrants.
Speaker 2:Well, they found it. I don't know that. This again, I don't know that it's true, but I know that they did find an illegal immigrant who was setting fires with a handheld torch at one point. Whether or not that had anything to do with these fires, I don't know, but the speculation is out there.
Speaker 1:I mean, it could also be just hot, dry conditions.
Speaker 2:Well, but they also ran out of water and that's a direct result of Newsome opening up these dams because he wanted more salmon in the rivers and bragging about it when it happened. There's going to be so many salmon in the rivers for my grandchildren to look at, Right. And now they ran out of water. And then they had fire trucks from other areas coming in to try to help and they were putting them through a 45-minute inspection before they'd let them in to help. That's kind of weird, that's kind of dumb. Yeah yeah, that's a little weird. That's not just weird, it's really dumb.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I did like seeing Canada step up and bring some of their water tankers. Down with the airplanes and they were afraid to drop salt water on it at first.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what was? I heard that, but I didn't hear what the reason was.
Speaker 1:The salinity of the water will impact the future potential growth of grass. Oh, it absolutely will. Salt kills everything.
Speaker 2:My buddy works in the oil business and they use salt water for a lot of things. Salt water is a byproduct of fracking right. It's not even a byproduct. They inject salt water into the ground and then extract it and separate the oil from it, so they have tanks of salt water that they have to get rid of. If they spill any on the ground, they have to call the EPA EPA violation.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And they will use it, though if they have an area where they don't want anything to grow for years and years, they'll dump saltwater on it and nothing will grow.
Speaker 1:So that was their main concern is that when the houses do come back, they're not going to be able to grow grass.
Speaker 2:I mean that kind of makes sense, but at the same time you got to do what?
Speaker 1:you got to do to stop it.
Speaker 2:There's an immediate thing that needs to be dealt with. We can deal with the long-term later.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, it's like I can't think of a good analogy for it, but it's just odd, Like what if grass doesn't grow? Who? Cares at this point Get some AstroTurf, you've got a multi-billion dollar you still have a house to live in?
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah yeah, exactly, yeah yeah, it's not burned to the ground and you're not homeless. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think some natural disasters are just natural disasters, and I think this is one of them that is when you have houses that are packed in that tight in the dry conditions that you have.
Speaker 1:The houses that did survive were the ones that were made out of fire resistant materials, and maybe they're. The problem is is, as soon as you get into more regulation, you're going to get more pushback. But you know, maybe there needs to be some regulation in those areas when they're rebuilt, that there are some sort of fire suppressants or you know.
Speaker 2:I mean, I, I don't know, I don't know the answer, but then you get into a natural disaster is a natural disaster, but when you've had years of people telling you, hey, there's a natural disaster going to happen if you don't take great steps to prevent it. Yep, and you don't take steps to prevent it. Yeah, right, you bear some responsibility, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean it's. It's terrible, Like I feel terrible for these people, for for for a lot of them, that they literally that is everything they have, that's gone. Well, I'm never going to champion somebody losing their home.
Speaker 2:Right, you know, I don't care who you are, I'm not going to champion you losing your, even if it's your, even if you voted for the people who implemented the policies that caused it to happen. Right, I'm not going to cheer when you lose your home. Yeah, yeah, right. You voted for people that you expected to do the right thing and they didn't. Right, whether they were upfront about that or not.
Speaker 1:So here's the thing, though like the right one smaller government. Yes, they want less regulation.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:But they also want the government to step in and regulate the forest cleanups and regulate how. You know what I mean? Like it's contradictive to what the right wants. So the right is they're looking back and they're saying you know, hey, I don't know that we need to give California any money for this disaster, because I think it's mismanagement and I think it's their own fault. But we don't want to regulate, we can't regulate them, but since they didn't do it, since they didn't do the regulation, it's now their fault.
Speaker 2:I don't know that you'd call that regulation.
Speaker 1:You know what?
Speaker 2:I'm saying I do, I do to a point. I don't know that that would be a regulation necessarily. They just, newsom, didn't want to spend the money to practice what has been pretty regular forest management for a long time. Okay, for those reasons. Okay, he wanted to spend the money on DEI programs. Oh, I mean, that's factual.
Speaker 1:Okay, I mean it's out there. I don't think he was like I'm not going to chop that tree up because I want to hire a game woman. No, he wanted the money for other things.
Speaker 2:Oh okay, he just didn't want to put the money there. He wanted it for other things. I mean, look at the fire department, look what's going on there.
Speaker 2:I don't know if you've been watching it or listening to it, but I mean, they've been using the funds for things other than making sure that they're the most fire-ready department that's out there. And really that's the problem with DEI. Is there is a purpose behind these organizations? Is there is a purpose behind these organizations? The fire department has a purpose and that is to put out fires as quickly as possible when they happen and to save people who might be caught in these fires as quickly as possible. That's the purpose, and so anything you do within that fire department should only be towards that purpose. It's the same with the military. The military is designed to, in the event of somebody trying to affect our government through violent means, to be more violent. That's the purpose of the military is to kill our enemies if it becomes necessary. So anything you do within the military, the readiness of that mission should be the goal.
Speaker 2:Police department, you know, enforce the laws Violently if you have to, unfortunately, but that's the world we live in. So anything you do, that should be the goal is to have the strongest, most capable police force you can, and DEI undermines that. That's the problem with it. I mean, they have their what is it? Their deputy, I don't know. Deputy commander, the second person in charge in the. Have you seen the video of her? You know where they ask her if she can carry a grown man out of a fire and she was like, hey, if a grown man's in a fire, that's his fault.
Speaker 1:Right, that's what she said. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2:She's on video saying I mean, he got himself into that situation, right, that's his problem. Okay, what? Right, that's your job. That's the whole reason the fire department exists is to help out in those situations. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So what prevents a government entity like that from getting a commander who is a you know, say he's a little, a little a lot to the right, Okay, and he just says you know what? I'm only going to hire 35-year old white guys with blonde hair and blue eyes. That's it. Never happened. Why? Why would it? Why wouldn't it If you don't have any kind of regulation for government backed jobs that you could not hire according to the population of the area? And I'm not saying male, female, I'm saying yes, there should be a strength test, yes, there should be whatever.
Speaker 2:You should be able to perform the task necessary. Okay, so if you take that which we have, that's in place. There's a strength test, there's an agility test, there's a written test to make sure that you have a simple competency. As far as you know, why is it okay, in the name of DEI, to lower those standards?
Speaker 1:That I don't necessarily agree with, but that's what you do. Yeah, but I think that is what the—and I'm not going to pretend, like I know. I think DEI is a very large blanketed term that I think started with exactly that. It started with what I was saying. It started with look, you need to hire according to the demographics of your area.
Speaker 1:If you have 13% African-American, you don't have 13 good, solid and I'll say African American for lack of a better term applicants and you've got to lower your standards to get one of them to fit. That's where I think the slippery slope comes in.
Speaker 2:I'm not saying we need to lower the standards, I'm saying I think the slippery slope starts with what you just said, that if you have a population of 13% African Americans, then you need to have a police force. Let's say, with at least 13% African American, why, why is that the case? Why don't you have a police force?
Speaker 1:that is 100% the best people you can get to do that job Because you have somebody that's hiring them that may or may not do that.
Speaker 2:The race, color, creed, orientation, whatever doesn't matter.
Speaker 1:Okay, so here's what I'm going to say Chatham, illinois, comes along and you get a black police chief and every hire he hires on after that is a black man. What do you think the right's going to do?
Speaker 2:I think they're going to question whether or not that hiring is fair.
Speaker 1:But if he can prove that it is. If he can prove, how can you say fair though, Fair to what? The standards?
Speaker 2:Fair to hiring the best people for the job. Okay, and I'm not saying they wouldn't be the best people for the job. I'm saying I think you would have to demonstrate that Okay.
Speaker 1:But if that case happened and you didn't have the ability to question it because you can't question authority, it is what it is I think the right would be thrown a fit, and I think that's what you have now is you have police forces that are in areas that are 13, 15, 20% African-American and their population doesn't equate to that. And maybe it's because you don't have the applicants that have the same standards, and if that's the case, then that's fine, but I think that's in my mind. That's where DEI sprouted from is. Look, we've got to include everybody, and that doesn't mean you have to hire a five foot nothing woman that can't pick up a 20 pound bag of dog food. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you've got to hire people that can do the job and if they can, it doesn't matter what sex they are, it doesn't matter what race they are, it doesn't matter what sexual orientation they are.
Speaker 2:It doesn't matter what race they are. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation they are, it doesn't matter any of it. What matters is can they or can they not accomplish the job? No, what matters is are they the best at doing that job? That's what matters.
Speaker 2:Okay, listen, if you want to run a property management company and you want to hire someone who and you decide, you know what, we've got too many men working here. I want to hire a woman, and you hire a woman, and maybe she's the second best candidate, I don't have an issue with that. Go for it. It's your company. You can do whatever you want. But when you're talking about the military, you're talking about the police, you're talking about the fire department. The military, you're talking about the police, you're talking about the fire department. You need to have the best possible people in that position and nothing else should matter. They have to be able to do the job, they have to be able to do it to the highest caliber, and that's all that should matter. And if you have to lower standards in order to make the demographics fit better the area that they're in, then you're weakening the whole purpose of the department.
Speaker 1:To begin with, we can't agree on things, but we're agreeing on it. I agree with that. You should not lower the standards. The standards are the standards.
Speaker 2:Right, but that's what's happening is, standards are being lowered.
Speaker 1:My last job quickly before we go. I worked at not last job, but when I was 20, I got on at Armor Foods Fort Madison, iowa. Very, very difficult place to get on. There's 3,000 applicants. It's one of the highest paid factories in the entire county and you know health care benefits, wages, pension, everything. So 20-year-old me, I go apply.
Speaker 1:They take it from 3000 people down to 200. They take those 200 people and they put them through a test and an evening at the college and it's a basic mechanical test and it's like you know, this year spins this way and this one goes this way. Which way does this year spin? And you just got to say what it is. And it's like you know this gear spins this way and this one goes this way. Which way does this gear spin? And you just got to say what it is. And then you know very basic, simple stuff Like this isn't rocket science by any means.
Speaker 1:From there they narrowed it down to a hundred and from the hundred they sent them to the doctor and you had to get a physical and during that physical you had to take a 35 pound barbell and hold it out in front of you for seven minutes and after seven minutes, the doctor would judge whether or not you had more stamina left in you. And the doctor came in. Of course I passed it and from there they narrowed it down to 50 from the best 50 that could hold this weight. And then they brought all 50 in and they set them down in a room not at one time but in groups and just set an issue out on the table and said here's the issue. We want you guys to fix it. And they just watched and it wasn't the people who you would think, who took charge. You know, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that. They weren't the workers. It was the ones that would contribute, but they would also kind of stand back and pay attention a little bit, which that was my style. I'm not going to be the one to step up and be like here you do this and you do that. They weren't looking for that, I didn't know that at the time.
Speaker 1:But from there they narrowed it down to 25 and they hired all 25. When I walked into that 25, there was one female out of the 25. The rest were all males and didn't think a whole lot of it. It's a hard factory, it's a tough place to work, but when you walk out on the floor it's 50% woman, but the new hires were all men. So we're working there six months probably and it turns out there's a giant lawsuit, national news lawsuit. This company is discriminating against women. They're not hiring them on. The company was forced to hire 25 or 30 of these women on who passed everything up until the weight test, and to this day I don't know that any of them were working there. There might be one or two, but the vast majority of them ended up getting surgeries because they got hurt.
Speaker 2:I was going to say workers comp claims yes, a hundred percent.
Speaker 1:And it was, but but so like in my mind, I see it a little differently, because there are some jobs where it's just not going to work out and the thing was it wasn't just women. If you were a four foot eight dude or a five foot dude, there was a hundred pounds. You're going to have a really hard time too, and you know it's not just this. Yes, it is. I'm sure if Amelia went there right now she's probably going to pass it with flying colors and she'd be just fine. But most people weren't that way, so like I. That's why I'm a little different on the DEI stuff, because I lived it and I and I got to sit back and see, and the women that were part of the lawsuit like I get it, like they were fine women. They didn't know what they didn't know. They were assumed. They assumed, hey look, the job isn't going to be that bad, it's not going to be that hard.
Speaker 1:Well, as soon as they started the, the, the job that was the weightlifting. They called it the smokehouse. That job is lowest seniority on the totem pole. Nobody wants that job. It's 110 degrees. It's miserable. You're just dripping in sweat all night long. You're covered in plastic because you've got hot dogs coming out and these 35-pound hot dogs are on a metal pole and you dump them down and you pull the skins off of them. 35 pound hot dogs are on a metal pole and you dump them down and you pull the skins off of them. It's very fast, very labor intensive, and it's just there's no, there's no rest. Well, that's where all these women went, because they're bottom of the totem pole. So then the question is are you discriminating? Are you doing this because of the lawsuit?
Speaker 2:And it's like no no-transcript other characteristics that you have no control over. For example, all I wanted to do all through high school was play basketball. My dream was to play college and eventually be in the NBA. My dream was to play college and eventually be in the NBA. That's all I wanted to do. That was my dream. That was my goal. I played basketball hours and hours and hours a day. There's just a couple of problems with that. One is I was never very good. I mean, I was okay for the area that I was in. Yeah, I played high school ball, but I wasn't at a level where I could compete in Division I, college or NBA. The other issue is I'm 5'8". It was never going to happen for me and that's not anyone's fault. It's not Michael Jordan's fault that he was 6'6". Most of his family, I believe, is under 6 feet tall. He's an anomaly within his own family. The guy was just a gift. He really was.
Speaker 1:He really was to all of us. I agree, I loved watching him play.
Speaker 2:You couldn't take your eyes off the man when he was playing basketball. He was incredible. I can't compete with someone who's six foot six, but I'm also not out here saying you have to, let me. That's the difference. You offer me equality of outcome, which is what we all should have right. Pursuit of happiness. I call that constitutionally. You offer us all that. If there are factors outside of anyone's control, like the fact that I'm only five foot eight, that prevent me from doing what I want to do, that's nobody's fault and it's not something anyone can fix. And if a woman can't pull herself over a 30-foot wall to qualify to be a Navy SEAL, that's not the government's fault. What if she can? Absolutely. If that's what she wants to do and she can meet all the standards, I don't know why she would want to do it. But if that's what she wants to do and she can meet all of the standards at the same level, go for it. What about females in combat? Can they meet the standards at the same level? Go for it.
Speaker 1:What about females in combat? Can they meet the standards? That's what I'm saying. I've said that all along too.
Speaker 2:As a man, I don't want to see women in combat. I just think it's. I do think there is a protective quality to men. I feel the same way about female cops. When you go into a situation. If you and I went into a situation as policemen, I know you have my back and you know I have your back and I know that you can bring equal violence to the situation if it's required. Equal strength, equal subduing tactics. I know that's the case. There's no question in my mind If I have a female with me, I'm going to not only feel the need to protect myself, but I'm also going to feel the need to protect her. And if I have to subdue someone, I'm not going to be confident that she's going to be able to give me the assistance I need.
Speaker 2:And you can watch that happen over and over again on YouTube. You can go to situations where there's a female and a male cop and they end up in a situation where they have to seduce someone and the guy is on top of this dude and he's trying to wrestle him and the woman is just kind of running around in a circle. And then backup comes, more guys come and then they finally get the guy subdued, whereas if you watch videos where it's two men, that guy is subdued Right, almost unquestionably. Yeah, that's the issue I have with it. Do I have an issue with a woman wanting to be a cop? Nope, and if she can meet the same standards as a male, go for it, right. But men still have a protective quality about them, so that part I agree with in that there are living through some of the CrossFit competitions and stuff.
Speaker 1:Out there there are women who could lift way more weight than me, that are way more athletic and that have way more abilities than I would. I'm not necessarily as concerned that they wouldn't be able to hold their weight, but the part that I do agree with probably isn't right, but is the male's desire to protect that may alter their mind or the way they do something which could harm the situation. You know what I'm saying. Like, woman's fully capable in this scenario. She's just as strong as him, if not more. But his thought process of oh man, I got to get between her and them, which then hurts the situation more.
Speaker 2:You know, that's where I could see, but finding a woman who is as capable and as strong as her male counterpart is going to be an incredible rarity. I mean, you know someone in your family that does CrossFit, who is a female? Yeah, I will wrestle her right now. Yes, and I am 5'8", 60 pounds overweight and out of shape? Yeah, and I will wrestle her right now and I will bet you $10,000 I beat her.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I wouldn't wrestle you right now though. So let's be real, let's be real.
Speaker 2:I'm just saying, yeah, you know there's a difference Speaking of CrossFit, and I'll let you say whatever you want, but I'll end on this. We were talking about the tide turning earlier. I don't know if you saw the news about CrossFit today. No, they did a complete 180 transgenders in competition. They've been championing this idea that men who want to be women can compete in the women's division. I did not know that. Yeah, and they just did a complete 180. They've completely banned it now.
Speaker 1:Okay, I mean.
Speaker 2:I don't know how do you feel about that? How do you feel about transgenders competing in women's sports?
Speaker 1:Males competing in women's sports. Males competing in women's sports. Genetic males.
Speaker 2:Transgender genetic males men who men who believe they're women competing in women's sports and winning. Yeah, I I mean yeah, that, that that I've I'm not a huge fan of I'm not a huge fan I'm glad to hear you say that because I know you've been talking about your daughter becoming the next Caitlin Clark Right, and imagine if she spent years and years and years and hours and hours and hours of trying to achieve that goal Right.
Speaker 2:And then she loses a Division I opportunity because a male pretending to be a female was a little bit faster than her and a little bit better than her and took her place.
Speaker 1:No, I mean, I think, is there a place for sports that are co-ed? Absolutely? If that's the rule, then that's fine. If it's co-ed volleyball, if it's something like, I'm fine If it is a, is it?
Speaker 2:co-ed though.
Speaker 1:What do you mean? Oh no, when you're talking school sports, when you're talking all of that stuff, it is.
Speaker 2:Aren't transgender men women, so is it really co-ed?
Speaker 1:I mean that's again now. That's where you're opening up a can of worms, because Isn't that what this show is about? I mean it, god, I still have a business.
Speaker 2:I get it.
Speaker 1:We can table that no it's important because I do agree, like there are, there is very few instances where I think I want my daughter going up against, you know, my daughter's girls baseball basketball team going up against a team from another town that was all born males who say they're women. Is that fair? No, that is not fair. It's not. You could lose Now. Granted, high school stuff isn't something that's generally going to follow you a long ways, but I thought women were just as capable as men.
Speaker 2:They can be in some instances. No, no, no, you can't put a caveat on it. Either women are as capable as men or they're not.
Speaker 1:I mean right now, when you Wait, hold on Back that train up. So we're on. No matter what, they're the same.
Speaker 2:Well, that's what the left believes is that women are just as capable as men.
Speaker 1:I mean women are just as capable in a lot of things. But that's why the left is allowing, but when it's physical.
Speaker 2:That's why the left is allowing transgender men to compete with women, because there's no difference between the two.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's a difference.
Speaker 2:I'm just telling you that your side believes that there's not. I don't know that that's true. Well, welcome to the Republican Party Bullshit. No sir, no sir. I think we've gone way too long. We have gone way too long. This is a good one, I think.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we'll have to cut it in half. Good topics Maybe carve out a few things that could impact my livelihood.
Speaker 2:Hokey Pokey Podcast, episode 3. Thanks for listening. I got into the thick of it. Follow us on all the socials, if we ever get those up.
Speaker 1:Oh, and I like I'm so upset at TikTok right now. I know you are Like I'm so just, I know you are.
Speaker 2:There's no reason to be. I meant to we should table that for the next episode, because I did mean to talk about that because, I saw your Facebook post I was like oh, here he.