Latest / Before You Speak / Before You Speak | Episode 35 | Reagan VS Trump

Transcript

Before You Speak | Episode 35 | Reagan VS Trump · Before You Speak

• Derek Peterson: What's up y'all? Welcome back to the Before You Speak podcast. I am your host, Derek Peterson, just ⁓ processing the fire hose of my news feed like I do every week with ⁓ this guy over here. Elwyn: What's up everybody? I'm Elwyn. I am coming to you from ⁓ a utility closet in Iowa. Check it out. My my setup this week is elite, and the Fire Wills of My News feed is brought to you by whatever massive caffeine energy drink I've got nearby, because we are coming at you early. We are recording early this week. Derek Peterson: Ha ha ha. We are we are recording in the morning, which is a new thing for us. So ⁓ this could be like incoherently bad or relatively maybe it's better. I tick I typically identify as a ⁓ morning person. So we're we're we're about to find out if I actually the problem is is that my wife is deaf and so when we wake up and start talking, I don't actually use my voice for like thirty minutes to an hour until like things now. So Elwyn: I'm going. Derek Peterson: I'm like I don't these are like the first words I've spoken today. So we'll see how this goes. So ⁓ where do we want to start? ⁓ how about the housing bill that got squashed because ⁓ our president is trying to pass the SAVE Act, which just keeps getting repeatedly ⁓ shut down because it disenfranchises not just Democrats, ⁓ it disenfranchises a lot of Republican voters as well. What are your thoughts? Elwyn: Yeah, I the ha this housing bill thing happened last week is really pretty interesting. So the housing bill in question passed on a massively bipartisan basis, a a completely veto proof majority. It was like three hundred sixty to thirty-five in the house. Just wild in this day and age that an actual bill that actually does actual good ⁓ passes on that ⁓ with that wide ma majority. And I I'm not completely sharp on the details of it. I know that it it worked to sort of increase ⁓ the ability to build housing units. I know that it decreased it It went against like ⁓ private equity and private investment, buying up a lot of single family homes. It really hits on a lot of sort of good issues for American citizens in a time when housing is really deeply unavailable. So this was set to be a win for a Republican party that controls the Senate, the House, and the White House. And they had they pass it, they're all ready to sign it, they have the stage set up, the buntings, the pens, everything. He's ready for, somebody called it the EKG signature. They're all ready for this. And then like on his way to the signing, Trump says, nope, I'm not doing it. I'm not signing this thing. And you guys need to pass the SAVE Act. If you don't pass the SAVE Act, which restricts voting rights, it's a terrible voter suppression law. I'm not passing this very, very good law. And the Republicans kind of lose their minds at the president, particularly the Senate. Yeah, you know that that I think that's what makes this really interesting. The idea of Trump Being able to do something that's good for the American people and ⁓ deciding not to for some you know bullshit red meat you know voter suppression bill, that's not surprising at all. He that's what he does, right? He's not interested in helping actual Americans. But the degree to which the Senate lost their mind, they had a they called a meeting, I think that day or the next day, and he and Bill Cassidy, the rather spineless ⁓ senator from Louisiana, got into an out-and-out shouting match. You know, Cassidy's standing up screaming at him, Trump is screaming back. The body language from these people coming out of that meeting was awful. John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, he's like He's doing a master class in body language stuff because he's very tall. So he's just standing behind Trump as Trump is speaking and he's just making himself taller and straighter and not no expression. Trump finishes speaking, he goes the other way. Through and just hightails it the other way from the from the president of the United States. Right? Cassidy comes out. You know, Trump is like, ⁓ it was a good meeting, it was spirited. Cassidy is like, I was yelling at him, and he was yelling at me. And like you just don't hear senators talk about their president that way when their president Derek Peterson: Mm-hmm. Elwyn: President is in the White House, and you certainly don't hear Republicans talking about Trump that way. ⁓ so it's it's gonna be really interesting to see where this goes because I think the Republicans, the senators in the and the House, you know, they're correct. They're like, we got a win here. Like this was a win going to the midterms, ⁓ and we need a win. And they they blew it. Derek Peterson: Yep. But of course, yeah, of course. The ⁓ when something is actually going to get done that serves the American people, it gets blown up by that asshole who has one thing in mind. And th this is the thing that I continually go back to is like, okay, this there's something in the Save Act that is going to allow him to contest future elections. That like the the only reason he is fighting this hard for it is to protect himself and his family. This is the there are two things Trump ⁓ is made very clear to Americans at this point is that he doesn't give a shit about anybody else except for him and his kids and he's doing everything in his power to to basically leave them as much money and power as he possibly can when he's when he's toast and he and he's gone. And the it's the unfortunate thing about all this, because this bill actually is one, bipartisan and two, ⁓ a piece of legislation that would actually help Americans. Like and the interesting thing about this is that it's not ⁓ what I actually like about this is that it's not the Kamala Harris like buyer tax credits because the the when you give people money just straight out ⁓ what ends up happening is is sellers just raise their prices. It increases the the cost of everything. When you do what this bill was doing, which is actually trying to a limit ⁓ investor Owned properties and then two like eliminate red tape and ⁓ develop make it easier to develop the infrastructure for housing. Like all of these things are good things. This is this is the actual kind of stuff that we need happening, and the worst part about it is this stuff has to get passed, and you don't actually feel the effects of it for years. So, like this bill is a great thing, but we wouldn't actually see the benefits. This is one of those things that like Trump could have done, and probably the reason he doesn't give a shit is that. Like, you know, the next president can likely end up touting the benefits if this thing goes through because it's, you know, like a lot of what's going to be happening ⁓ as the as a ⁓ response to all of this we'll see in two or three years from now. ⁓ housing prices coming down, influx of ⁓ new construction, you know, less investor owned properties, like all that is really good stuff. And it's unfortunate that ⁓ you know. Where we find ourselves as a political pawn and a dumbass game again. ⁓ it's the same reason we don't have universal healthcare health care, same reason we had don't have ver universal child care. It's just dumb in infighting. Elwyn: Yeah, I mean I think I think it is important though to keep in mind there there's some this bill will be will become law now. Like this wo this wo bill will come into effect. ⁓ and I'll get back to that in a second. But I think you're right ⁓ about one thing. If there's anybody out there who still thinks that Trump is somehow interested in making America great again. You I don't know what planet you're living on anymore, and I'm not so sure how those people can be spoken to. Because it's abundantly clear that he's interested in suppressing vote, keeping himself and the people he chooses in power, and enriching his family. And Thomas Massey, the Republican congressperson who is got voted out in primary because he stood up against Trump, he said it after after it went down. He goes, Where's the election fraud? We control the House, the Senate, and the YS. What election was rigged? Where where was 24 rigged? Right? Yeah, duh. Like no no shit. Right? And Trump's response is, well, we won too big to rig. Give me a fucking break, man. You know, in 2020 you won the Senate and the House, right? Like you're winning elections if you still believe there's election fraud and if you still believe that Trump Is out for you, you have to pull your head out of your ass or just like go bury it in the corner of a yard somewhere and stop bothering the rest of us. But this bill will become law because what Trump is effectively doing is what's called a pocket veto, where once a bill gets sent up to the president, he has, I think, ten days to sign it. If he doesn't sign it, it becomes law automatically. Right? So what he's doing. Derek Peterson: ⁓ interesting. I didn't know that. Elwyn: Yeah, so what he's doing is he's avoiding the spectacle of officially vetoing the bill, which is a spectacle, right? Like that's a that's a statement by the president. I I don't want this bill. Right? He's avoiding that. So he's avoiding the embarrassment of standing up against it. He'll they'll still probably run on it, they'll still call it he'll still, I'm sure, call this a great legislative accomplishment, even though he didn't want to sign it. You know, but this bill will become law because it was passed by such a huge majority. He's just kinda saying, like, ⁓ screw it. I don't want to sign it. I wanna talk about the Save Act. It'll become law anyway and, you know, I don't have to embarrass myself with a veto. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Well and that I mean, that's good to know. That's I actually didn't know that ⁓ this was ⁓ like that it was gonna end up in law anyway. I thought he actually that it was like gonna get the ⁓ to be honest, I thought it was gonna get the full on kibosh because, you know, ⁓ that's usually what happens when any I mean th they've said repeatedly that this is this ⁓ this government has passed less legislation than I think any other ⁓ especially when you when you have all all the people. You have all the branches i in your favor and you've done virtually nothing with it, ⁓ which is bananas to me. And this could actually be the one of the few things that's good. So I mean, I'm hopeful as somebody that works in real estate, you know, like ⁓ housing is something that's near and dear to my heart. So I hope to to see this go through. What else do we need to talk about in the news today? We need to talk about well, Iran, ⁓ it's just that's just a ⁓ that's a Iran is now just ⁓ a lever for ⁓ the wealthy to ⁓ basically play on Calci and the play with the stock market, I feel like. So ⁓ I don't even know if we need to discuss Iran anymore. Elwyn: Yeah. Iran is is Sunday announced that you're meeting down for talks, so the market goes up on Monday. Monday you're traveling to the talks, Tuesday sit down, Wednesday somebody blows up a ship, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, everybody starts shooting at each other again and we still call it the ⁓ the the news still says the ceasefire is holding as as everybody's shooting at each other. And then on Sunday we say, ⁓ no, we're gonna pause fighting for a week so that we can make some money in the stock market on Monday morning. That's what Iran is at this point. Derek Peterson: That's easy. ⁓ which please God at some point we need to know exactly who's doing all of this trading ⁓ and making money on this 'cause that is the real levers of government that are pulling the strings on this war at the moment. do we want to talk birthright citizenship at all? 'Cause that ⁓ that's gonna come down today. Do you have any predictions on what the Supreme Court's gonna rule? Elwyn: Yeah, and I think we have to talk Supreme Court a little bit ⁓ just from yesterday and today. So today is the last day of June, which means it's the last day that Supreme Court is in session. So we'll get the birthright citizenship ruling in an hour. there's two or three other fairly big cases still to come out today. I forget exactly what they are. I think one of them has to do with transathletes. So what I think that the court will do is a little bit of what they did yesterday, they'll issue two Rulings that are just terrible for people and terrible for democracy, in my not so humble opinion, and then one that is completely obvious and you know comes down the correct way because it's so completely obvious, like birthright citizenship, and then all the fucking people in the media will spend a month saying, like, look, see, this court's not that extreme. They didn't overturn birthright citizenship, which would be the same as like holding up the 14th Amendment, going to National Archives, taking the 14th Amendment out of its case and tearing it up. That would be the equivalent of overturning birthright citizenship. It's not centrist to uphold birthright citizenship. It's ⁓ reading, it's third-grade level reading skills. You know, it's Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: So that's what I think will happen there. Yesterday there were two cases that came out that were pretty important though. One was A little technical because it deals with whether or not the president can fire the heads of administrative agencies. So think the National Labor Relations Board, ⁓ you know, the SEC. We when Trump came in, he immediately started firing the heads of all of those pe of all those agencies without any sort of administrative process. So a couple of them sued, and he also fired the one of the governors of the Federal Reserve. ⁓ so all those cases kind of got wrapped into one. There's a ninety year old president called Humphreys Executor, which ⁓ says that the president cannot just summarily fire the heads of independent agencies. They were appointed, you know, the these agencies were set up by Congress, whatever. Technical shit. So the Supreme Court said: you can fire anybody you want. President as the executive can fire the heads of any agency he wants, except the Fed. The Fed has to go through a longer process. So, what this means effectively is that every four years. You can have the a complete sea change in how these agencies do business. And that just doesn't work. Right? And they're gonna overturn more later. Some of the concurrences, particularly by Gorsuch, who hates the administrative state, the idea that administrative agencies have a lot of power. He's long on record hating this. He's gonna go further, and he basically said so in a concurrence. But you know, these agencies work by providing some stability and expertise over. longer than four-year terms. They work by knowing what pollution is and how to fight it, how how water pollution works when water flows underneath property lines. That's how this stuff works. And there's a compelling argument that they have a lot of power, sure, but they need some power in order to make the proper rules and regulations and in order to fine people who violate those rules and regulations. So by saying that a president can fire them, it just creates Chaos and it and it defangs these agencies. It's generally bad. Of course, the Supreme Court justices, like everybody else, have money in the stock market and 401ks, so they don't want to fuck with the Fed too much, so they can fuck with the Fed. So that's kind of by and large a bad ruling. The good ruling, and this is important, is on the mail-in ballot case. So I think it was Mississippi had sued, or some people in Mississippi had sued to overturn that law that said that ⁓ mailed ballots that are mailed and received after Election Day can still be counted. So that was challenged in court and that law was upheld. So now ballots that are received after election day can be counted. This was something that Trump really, really wanted to stop. Right? And this was a big pillar to me in sort of any type of we want to rig this election. Because if you say on one hand We're not going to count any ballots that arrive after Election Day. And on the other hand, you have a friendly Postmaster General who is kind of saying out loud that he's going to slow the delivery of ballots so that they arrive after Election Day. You have a problem, and it's a problem that becomes very, very difficult to message out to people. You have to send your election day ballots in like weeks in advance. So I didn't read this decision. It it was six to three. I think r no, it's five to four. I Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberals on it. So that's a that's a good decision. It's also pretty common sense. It's one where it it's the kind where, like I said at the beginning about birthright citizenship, the ballot is cast when you write it and stick it in an envelope and put it in the mail. Derek Peterson: Mm-hmm. Elwyn: To me, that is when the lever is pulled, when the screen button is pressed. You know, when you put it in the mailbox, you have cast your ballot. And in throughout law, throughout the law in this country, you know what the date that something is postmarked. Derek Peterson: No. Elwyn: is the relevant date, not the date that it's received. So this is kind of like it should be pretty black and white. That there's four justices who didn't see it that way is not great, right? But it should be pretty black and white. This is not like a, ooh, the Supreme Court isn't as bad as we thought. They're bad in all the ways that are shown in the in the administrative agency case. That, like the housing bill, don't take effect right away. It takes years to see it. It takes years to roll black roll back clean water. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: and clean air and vaccine mandates and ⁓ scientific studies about the health of drugs and pristone and all that stuff. That takes years to filter through, but it all starts with that ⁓ that executive agency ruling. So that's what came out yesterday. And today we'll get birthright citizenship and probably good and too terrible. Derek Peterson: Question Do you think any of these decisions are changed if we have a different president? Elwyn: Well, I think the v the mail and voting case probably are they changed. Derek Peterson: Like if Biden was still president, do you think do you think all these rulings are coming out the same as they are now if Biden is president? Or do you think okay. Like meaning like the the court system that meaning the Supreme Court is operating you feel like I mean, just with in general with who they are, ⁓ I did read something about, know, ⁓ Clarence Thomas being ⁓ in D C like walk like Elwyn: Yes. I I think Derek Peterson: near the congressional offices, like ⁓ walking like somebody interviewed like was like, Hey, what are you doing here? It's like walking around. don't remember if it was a verified account or not. But ⁓ I I'm just in general curious if you feel like the court is operating as it ⁓ would have no matter what, or if ⁓ some of these are changed the political climate is a little different. Elwyn: Yeah, I I think that the difference in the political climate is I don't think the birthright citizenship gets brought at all. ⁓ I'm not so sure the mail-in-ballot case gets brought at all. Like let's say in twenty twenty Trump loses and goes away. You know, we we're just not talking about him anymore. He's retires to an island in Albania. ⁓ Then I don't think some of these cases get brought at all. But the ideology of the justices and the corruption of the justices, particularly a guy like Clarence Thomas, that shit's said. Clarence Thomas isn't answering to Donald Trump, I don't think. Clarence Thomas is answering to ⁓ you know, Leonard Leo and Harlan Crowe, the people who are sending him on, you know, hundred thousand dollar junkets. That that's who he's answering to, and they're still there. So, you know, the the hacks will always be hacks. Derek Peterson: Yeah. That tracks. Well, ⁓ is there anything else you wanted to jump into on the news today or ⁓ should we ⁓ get into our I think most I mean there's a lot of stuff going on. I mean Netherland Netherlands lost to ⁓ to Morocco last night in penalty kicks. That sucks for you. Sweden's gonna lose like six to nothing today to France, so there's ⁓ we got that going on. So Elwyn: Was that it? I think that was it, right? There's a lot. Ha ha ha Derek Peterson: My our only our only hope left is the US, bro. ⁓ And in World Cup. That's not a good thing. You've got a Erling Hadglin shirt already. The ⁓ Yeah. And I'm mad that he ⁓ you know, isn't playing for Sweden. ⁓ I wish he was Elwyn: I would have been wearing my I No, I'm I'm Norway. I'm Norway also. My daughter's boyfriend is Norwegian. At noon I'll be doing the Norwegian row. Let's fucking go. That guy's that guy's brilliant. Derek Peterson: I wish he was the correct ⁓ you know ⁓ what's it called? What's the ⁓ Norwegian or what's the ⁓ what's it Scandinavian? The whole area? ⁓ my geo I wish he picked the correct Scandinavian country. but he didn't. So, you know, fuck off early. ⁓ all right, well let's get into our topic today. So today we're gonna discuss a little bit more about ⁓ Elwyn: ⁓ yeah. Yep. Yeah. Dark's crying into a Swedish flag. Derek Peterson: I know, dude. It's ⁓ my my sports journey in life is just gonna be a sad one. ⁓ never winning anything at any time. The Clippers, the Lions, Sweden, the US soccer team. Yeah. Go ⁓ University of Texas women's volleyball. Ooh, my champion's right there. Well ⁓ okay, so today we're gonna discuss more kind of like this path down Elwyn: There you go. Derek Peterson: Memory this walk down memory lane of like, okay, ⁓ what were there's kind of this idealism around the the Reagan era of Republicans. ⁓ and so I we kinda wanna ⁓ just look at what that era actually looked like and have Republicans actually changed up to this point or have they just continued to kind of reveal their politics in ⁓ just more in depth to us as as time has gone on. So well let's start there. What what do you think the dif biggest differences between the Reagan era Republicans and Republicans now would be? Elwyn: ⁓ coherent political and value system. Full full full stop. You know, like you know, Reagan and you can you can see this in the never Trumpers who are who who worked in Reagan's administration or who were prominent in in the eighties and and going forward in the nineties and two thousands, you can see this kind of Derek Peterson: But Elwyn: know, th their heads continue to explode a little bit ⁓ they're looking at everything that they knew, everything that they believed being a conservative Republican meant, ⁓ A strong foreign policy built around protecting democracy around the world, ⁓ and and you know, long sort of long arms of of military power, ⁓ to s protect the United States interests, to protect the world interests, to protect capitalism and democracy, ⁓ strong anti-communism, which Which, I mean, communism is not so in vogue anymore. ⁓ but like that was a hallmark to Reagan, like that that value, ⁓ strong capitalist tendencies, right? So strong conservative, sort of moral majority type things, right? Reagan was not huge on anti-abortion, but you know, it's all part and parcel with this, and just kind of value driven strength, I think. You know, cut taxes economically was of course one of the big ones. Deficit spending. They don't talk about that one. But deficit spending was a big one for Reagan. Okay? Cut taxes for the rich, deficit spend for the military. you know, but consistent over over decades and clean and clear and you knew what who you were talking to if you were talking to a Reagan era Republican, a conservative Republican in the nineties or two thousands, and now, you know, w Who knows? You you said it before. This Republican Congress has passed the fewest bills of any Congress, I think, ever. ⁓ certainly if you looked at it like by population and and the amount of people that we have and things that should actually be legislated. This Congress is doing nothing. Right? ⁓ because they have no values. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Well and this Yeah, this housing bill that they that they're that they're pushing through, I mean this is a very that's that's really rooted in repo a lot of Republican values. You know, like there's there's something that there's a lot there that I think that, you know, the Reagan era administration would would see a value. Do you think ⁓ do you think the Reagan that Reagan would even recognize like if he came back in time, like would he recognize the Republican Party as it is today? Elwyn: No, and there's kind of like a common thing that you'll hear that Reagan wouldn't get elected, that he couldn't win an election as a Republican in today's ⁓ in today's Republican Party. And Certainly on the policies, y I think you have to agree with that. ⁓ you know, if you just took Reagan policies from the eighties and mapped them onto today, you had Amnesty for illegal immigrants. ⁓ that's a non starter right away. ⁓ you had I don't know if the Brady Gun Control Act was passed. I don't remember if it was passed in his term or not, but they were certainly talking about it. That's an absolute non starter nowadays. ⁓ you know, not going all in against abortion. Non starter. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: these days. You know, so he he's far too moderate for this for today's Republican Party. Could he, on the strength of his personality, win an election? Like would it be interesting to see him and Donald Trump both raised in television, raised in you know visual media, raised in speaking plainly and messaging very well to people, raised in kind of quips and one-liners that take people down. you know, Reagan in a more optimistic way, Trump in, you know, just a bullying nasty way. Would it be fun to see those two go at it on a bait debate stage? Yeah, absolutely. Like, could Reagan take Trump down the way he took ⁓ Walter Mondale down, right? And it there there's like in our lives there's like three famous debate moments in presidential debates. And one of them was Reagan said to Mondale in nineteen eighty four Reagan was the oldest guy ever to run for president. Until Trump and Biden ran in 2024. You know, he said, I'm not going to make an age age an issue in this election for political gain. I won't use my candidates, my opponent's youth and an experience against him. And, you know, Mondale, Mondale's laughing at the line, everybody's laughing at the line. Mondale said later, after he got demolished, 49 states to one, ⁓ that he knew in that moment on the stage, he was like, I'm done, I lost. Derek Peterson: It's clever. Yeah. Elwyn: You know, so could Reagan do that to Trump? It'd be fascinating to see, but on the politics, Reagan doesn't make it out of the primary. Just on the politics. Not not today. Derek Peterson: Yeah, 'cause I was reading that i ⁓ he so like i i immigration obviously is a huge one, right? And so ⁓ it from what I've read and obviously I was I was born in eighty two, so ⁓ I don't remember any of the Reagan era personally. But the ⁓ that there was upwards of like three million immigrants that he was pushing to get citizenship to, but ⁓ while at the same time trying to increase border security. So like this is This is like what Reagan was doing was actually I to me feels like the more common sense thing around immigration at this time. Look, our country was founded on immigration, people moving here from all over the world to create a better life for themselves. Obviously, now the world has changed quite a bit. So like coming into America and and what immigration actually looks like might be a vastly different than it was, you know, in the you know, nineteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds when people were coming over on boats. I completely understand that. But at the same time, like the people that are here and have been working for years and years and years should have a very easy path to citizenship. If you've already proven that you're a productive member of society and just trying to like like that that is a should absolutely be rewarded with citizenship in my opinion. And while at the same time, you know Increasing security and ⁓ slowing the flow of immigration, I and maybe this is just me, but I feel like that i is more of a common sense thing. I don't know if it's I it feels partially bipartisan too. I mean, I know there's a lot of progressives that are like, No, open borders, anybody should be able to come in and I I haven't personally met too many of these people, but Elwyn: Mm. Derek Peterson: For for the most part, I feel like, yeah, like most people will look at it and they're like, Yeah, dude, if you're here being a productive citiz citizen already, you should have a pathway to citizenship and while at the same time, we should probably make it a little bit harder to become a citizen. Like ⁓ or to get into the country. Elwyn: Yeah. No, I think I think you nailed it, right? Like that approach is a common sense, humane and fair approach that says on the one hand Politically, I believe we need to have stronger borders. We need to make it more difficult to get into this country and to become a citizen. That's a political stance that is well known on to be a Republican conservative stance. Liberals tend to be a little looser on that. ⁓ you know, and that's that's a political debate that gets had, that gets litigated in elections. But humanely, you're exactly right. People who've been living in this country for 15, 20 years, and yes, folks, paying taxes. And buying goods from American businesses and contributing to the American economy, those people deserve a pathway to citizenship. They deserve to not live in fear that ICE is going to come barreling through their door at three in the morning just because, because of something that they did 15 years ago to provide a better life for their family. And in the offing, they've provided help to the United States. That is a humane policy. That mixture of increasing border strength while providing A humane path to citizenship is good policy. When Reagan took office, inflation was like 14 or 15 percent. It was bonkers, and interest rates were already fairly high, right? He said, and you know, the first thing he did was raise interest rates in order to crush inflation, right? And he said, We're gonna go into a recession, and we went into a recession the first couple years of his term, right? But he was willing to do that thing. Derek Peterson: Who Elwyn: In order to unlock what at the time, ⁓ you know, I don't think it's still the same, but what at the time, because of extremely high upper taxes, right? They were 70%, the top tax rate was 70% when you took office, lowered it to 50 right away. At the time, that was in fact stifling innovation, it was bottling up the economy, as were the high interest rates and the high inflation. He said the only way, he listened to his people, to Paul Volcker, who said the only way to. Crush inflation is to raise interest rates, but inflation must be crushed. So he did it. Derek Peterson: Mm-hmm. Elwyn: Right? And he did it, you know, the the whole boring taxes, trickle down economics. Like, okay, we've learned that that doesn't work. That's the that's the consistent policy bent, though. That's where the the Republican, the conservative economic policy is consistent. Right? And it doesn't like that part of it doesn't work. But we know that they're always gonna scream that it does. Great, fine, let's have that political argument, let's litigate that every two years, every four years. Right? Now, what it We're investing in NVIDIA, we're lowering taxes for the rich, we're are we raising interest rates or are we lowering interest rates? What is you know, Trump doesn't seem to know what he wants. At the one point, he's had he's happy with high inflation, but he wants to crush inflation. Who the fuck knows what Trump wants? We need to open the news every Sunday night to figure out what he's doing to manipulate the market to figure that out. So, you know, throughout Reagan's presidency is a fairly consistent political compass that just doesn't exist in the Republican Party. party today because it's one guy. It's it's which way it's he's a weather vane. Trump's just which way is the wind blowing? That's the way he's pointing, and the rest of the Republican Party has decided to line up underneath that weather vane. Derek Peterson: Yep. Well, let's talk a little bit about ⁓ like let I mean, in essence, ⁓ foreign policy and trade around like the difference between what was going on, like what Rick Reagan believed, which was I mean, free trade essentially, ⁓ my understanding was the economics behind it was yeah, like pushing for ⁓ more trade, free trade with other countries, whereas, you know, the Trump ⁓ we which we're all very aware of. after last year going through countless numbers of just random tariffs thrown on every country at any point, which is kinda like there's this ⁓ it feels like the difference was the Reagan era very much understood that our economy became more robust by our engagement with the world. And it feels like the Trump era is more focused on America first, like let's try to bring manufacturing back here. Let's Like stop trading with the world and just focus on our own. What are you what's your take on all of that? Elwyn: Yeah, I think it's it's another good place to highlight in this case the sort of v again, I think, the lack of nuance. Right, v a nuanced approach versus a not nuanced approach. Now it's important I think to recognize that in Reagan's era, the fight internationally, the foreign policy fight, was not really on trade. It was communism versus capitalism. It was the evil empire, Soviet Union versus the United States. That and that's what the whole world knew it to be. There was no question about that. That that was the fight. but I think Reagan understood. That tariffs are a nuanced policy tool that can, in fact, be used, right? Tariffs to protect American industries. Are a good idea when properly levied. You know, but Trump, of course, he just doesn't understand nuance. He's just like, boom, tariff everybody. I don't care what it does. I don't even understand how tariffs work, right? They're paying for the tariffs. The other countries are paying for the tariffs. He doesn't simply, on a very fundamental level, doesn't understand how tariffs impact the American people or how they work. ⁓ Whereas Reagan understood how tariffs work. He understood that it might be inflationary. Within a certain industry, but you need that, you're willing to offset that. You're willing to take that risk in order to protect an entire manufacturing sector. Right? If you want to protect the American auto workers, you might need to tariff foreign steel a little bit so that domestic steel can still be used, so that more production comes in domestically. Right? And that will in turn affect and protect American companies and the American auto industry. You know, Reagan, I think. Understood that. Reagan was not a fool. You know, I think people look back at Reagan, you know, because of his voice and because of his, you know, just down home way of talking, you know, and because he was kind of, you know, not a great actor. Right? I think people are like, ⁓ Reagan, he was he was kind of stupid. I I think Reagan was really quite savvy. You know, he he had a very firm moral compass. He knew exactly what he believed in. He kept that as his guiding light. time and he knew how to you know use levers of power, how to employ strength when strength was needed, but also bend when bending was needed. You know, it's in one of the things that I listened to about him, you know, he really hated direct confrontation. He he was not somebody that really liked to Derek Peterson: Mm. Elwyn: get in and and fight all the time, but he was certainly willing to do so. And I think that's where you get kind of nuanced immigration policy. Where he's like, do I need do I need to dig in on not giving these people a pathway to citizenship? No, I don't want that fight. I I I'm I don't want that confrontation. I'll give that because I'll take the what I'm getting on the border. so I think you know, foreign policy ⁓ you know, when it comes to economic foreign policy, again, I it's just kind of nuanced and in the time tailored for what we needed. We needed to expand international ties, we needed to globalize the economy that was going to happen no matter what right so when that's gonna happen you gotta get in on it Derek Peterson: Yeah. Well, and I was gonna say, do you feel like the that you know, did globalization fail working Americans? Was that the like 'cause I mean that that's clearly seems to be the rhetoric that the current administration, current Republicans are using to try to drive manufacturing back to the US, is that this didn't work. Which for somebody like myself, this is all we've ever known, right? And so for you sitting there telling me it worked, I'm like, I feel like America has been pretty prosperous since I've been an adult. You know, like and and in that, you know, like American businesses have flourished flourished for the most part. I feel like this might be the hardest econom economic time ⁓ I've lived through as an adult. And maybe it's just because I'm older and I make more money than I used to and I care more, but ⁓ it definitely feels like things are more challenging now than they've ever been. So d do you feel like globalization failed Americans and that the trajectory trajectory we are on that they're pushing us towards is the correct one? Elwyn: ⁓ I don't think I say globalization worked. I I think it was going to happen. Right? I think that it was pretty clear that tying the tying the economy of the world together more was going to happen. You know, technology was such, the internet was coming online by the 90s. You know, certainly in the 80s, I think people knew about it. People in the technology industry kind of knew what was coming. I think globalization is Derek Peterson: Like is there a world I was gonna say like is there a world where like Apple is is manufacturing iPhones from the start in the US? Is like is that is there is there a w yeah, ⁓ 'cause some of this stuff I look at and I'm like, yeah, there's no way. Like it that would s ne it doesn't like so the things that a lot of people point to is like this needs to change. I'm like, I don't know that it would have ever been different in the first place. Elwyn: No. Right. I dun yeah, I don't know either, but I think there is a com like, manufacturing in this country is Down and going further down, right? We are we have transitioned away from a manufacturing economy into almost purely a service economy. And that's dangerous. Manufacturing is stable. There's a stability ⁓ to man to a manufacturing-based economy that supports well beyond a a factory, right? It supports delis pizzerias and movie theaters and shopping malls. ⁓ so you know the the amount that we've moved away from manufacturing, I Think is alarming for sure. Do I think do I think that you know we would ever be labor was always going to be cheaper somewhere else? So I think in retrospect, and this is pretty off the cuff, so I could be completely wrong, globalization but with an eye towards protecting American industry as it's happening. you know, towards government policies that protect and support American industries as we're globalizing, I think is what was needed. And I think the tariffs are a pretty good ⁓ a pretty good analog to that because you know if you want to put tariffs on everybody in order to drive manufacturing back to this country, which is what Trump said he wanted to do. Okay, great. Like top line title page of the paper, that's not a bad title, but you must put in place economic policies that support The factories coming back. You have to get tax rates. You have to make sure that the workers are paid enough to live in this country. You have to support the building and make building easier. Right? There's a million government policies that have to go into place in order to entice those industries back. You can't just say we're gonna make it super duper expensive to ship goods into the United States, and that by extension is going to force industries to come back in because, well, probably they'll just wait. Until we have a new administration and they'll wait three weeks and see Trump taco out of half the tariffs and see that they don't have to do anything at all. Certainly they're not going to make billion dollar investments if they don't know what the president is doing. So is globalization has it helped the United States on balance? On balance, I think what we've done. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: is we've been sold a deal that says globalization is gonna take away your manufacturing jobs and in exchange you're gonna have a sixty five inch TV that you're gonna buy for three hundred ninety nine dollars on a Fourth of July sale. And it's gonna be a really fucking cool TV. And you're gonna lie in bed watching a really cool TV and pitch of a movie theater in your in your bedroom. And we love that in this country. You know? We have made that deal over and over again. So you know, but is it is it good for the health of this country? I think we're finding out a little bit now. We could do better. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Yeah. ⁓ I agree. That's a that's a complicated question and probably one that we could spend an hour on in and of itself because, you know, like when we talk about industry, yeah. I mean there's that's something we sh that definitely needs to be talked about more is you know, the future of America, what is our what is our exports? Like what are what what's our value to the rest of the world? ⁓ how do we keep our economy up and running? Because, you know, exports are also a critical part of all of that and I think one of the US's biggest exports in historically was higher education, meaning, you know, we had a lot of people from all over the world coming here for our universities that were paying ridiculous amounts in tuition compared to, you know, what local people would do. And we were getting the best and brightest of America's, you know, people or the world's people coming to America, ultimately most of which who ends up who end up staying here and starting businesses, and we're we're kind of fucking that up right now too. So ⁓ it'll be interesting to see what happens you know, moving forward. ⁓ Elwyn: But I think that's another thing that Reagan would have agreed with you 100% on is bring he you know He Reagan is the guy who's who termed make America great again. Right? This is not a Trump phrase. Reagan said it all the time. And I think Reagan would have said, bring the smartest people from any other country that want to come here. Educate them in our excellent top-of-the-world universities. And they're gonna stay. And they're gonna start companies like they did in the United States. Right? We make America great again by bringing in the best and the brightest from other countries. Countries. And by the way, at the same time, we make those countries more dependent on us and we take their brain power out and we bring it here. It makes us stronger in every single way. I think Reagan and conservative Republicans, you know, they would have been like, yes, yes, this is outstanding. This is not just great. This is how we, you know, retain American superiority for generations to come, instead of shitting on it. Derek Peterson: Yeah. It di it's foundational in almost any every other aspect of life we get this, right? Just for some reason, because this administration is racist and hates people from other places, for some reason, we just don't get it. But it look at like sports, for example, the NBA, dude, you're they're they pull the best players from all everywhere in the world. And what does that do? It hamstrings all the rest of the world. All of their best players are here playing in the NBA. So, you know, the European leagues are are second if at best to whatever the NBA is. There is a clear champion when when you win an NBA title, there's a almost a consensus. You could put that team up against any other team that the world could put together, ⁓ and they're going to win because we already have the best in all of the world here. And so the the concept is used in just about every other industry or and just about every other facet. ⁓ and the US is currently, it feels like trying to blow that up because I mean historically that's what we've done. They I think they said like almost fifty percent of the of the S P five hundred has ⁓ an immigrant ⁓ founder or ⁓ immigrant that was ⁓ very early on and like higher up in in the start of most of these companies. So You know, like it we've benefited from this, ⁓ and it just feels like I I don't know, I guess the question would be like can America still lead the world while trying to put America first? ⁓ and I I just don't know that that works. Elwyn: Yeah, I mean I i the way the way putting America first is defined today, I mean look, I think we probably have such a huge institutional advantage. ⁓ China would be the the the risk, you know, and and they are importing the scientists now, right? They they are giving out the research grant money. They are doing the thing that they need to do to create soft power. So in this way, you know Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: We'll always be somewhat dominant, but you know, after Reagan we had twenty, thirty years kinda at the top of the mountain by ourselves. ⁓ and it's not you know, we were starting to lose that before Trump, right? It's I think we have to be honest about that. Right. So that's not just we can't just shit on Trump for that. But you know, that the NBA is kind of an interesting analogy as you were talking about it. I was thinking it's like, okay, develop the best products domestically. Right? Develop Larry Byrd and Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. And unleash capitalism with that on the rest of the world. Unleash Michael Jordan. Right? Globalization, right? Happened really during Jordan's era. Unleash him on the rest of the world. And what do we get 20 years later? We get Dirk Nowitzki, we get Victor Wimanimo, we get Jokic, we get all these international players who are all coming here, who are all selling tickets, who are all selling merchandise. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: Who are packing fan ⁓ stands of fans who are buying beer, who are being sold by vendors. Well, not anymore, who used to be sold by vendors. Okay? That would be where globalization is bad, right? The not having vendors anymore. But yeah, like that shit worked with Reagan. And like, look, I'm a Democrat. I think I would have to, as I learned more and more about Reagan, I would have to be like, I don't agree with, you know, I think he gets away with a lot of shit because he was successful. Right? But there's no question that he he and prevented deficit spending as we know it today. Right? In his first two years in office he tripled the the size of the deficit. And, you know, so that we could build up a robust military and so that we could support the defense industry. You know, like that's that's a net bad. Derek Peterson: That w that was the I was gonna say that was the start of to be honest, I mean the defense budget. The this is ⁓ this is what Republicans tap into and this is probably my my biggest issue is just it's everything is fear based and all of this money goes towards defense and making the villain out of brown and black people and they buy into it hook line and sinker and all of our dollars go to these people. So if you are a defense contractor or you are working in government and you have a connection to it, or you just work close enough to know what companies to invest in and what companies are about to get the contracts, ⁓ you are you are well to do. And it feels like I I think this conversation for me felt like you you kind of nailed it early on in that ⁓ the the biggest difference I feel like, and obviously I wasn't ⁓ coherent enough as a child to know what the Reagan era was actually like. But it's values, right? I just miss having politicians that stood for something, even if I disagreed with that thing that they stood for, rather than somebody that was liter like you can just see is out for their own selfish ambition. Like everything if you just look at what's going on in the current administration, it's just ⁓ almost everything that's happening has zero to do with the ⁓ the public interest and has everything to do with benefiting Trump, his family, and the people around him, ⁓ and making keeping money and power in their pockets and it just and somehow they've convinced half of our country that it that's the best thing for everybody. So kinda makes me wish I had ⁓ I had been able to convince everybody in our country that the best thing was to, you know, for me and my family to be doing well. You know, just send us all the money. Elwyn: Yeah. Yeah. I mean I that's right. No, I think Reagan, you know, y you You go out with friends, you know, and then I'm thinking about deficit spending here. The analogy I'm making here is gonna be like to to the defense industry and deficit spending. You know, you go out with friends and you know, you have your first couple drinks and you get that nice buzz and you're just feeling great, right? Like you're you're rolling, the food's coming to the table, everybody's laughing, it's a beautiful evening, everything is fucking great. Right, that was kind of Reagan, the Reagan era. We that was the buzz. Right? But everything's everything is so fun, you just keep ordering those drinks. You know, you order another round after another round after another round, then you get a shot, and the next thing you know, everything is not so great anymore, and you know, you're you're curled up at at home at two in the morning. Right? I and I think that's kind of where it went. The pendulum swung so much, like, my god, this works. We're all rich. The country's doing great, we're the world superpower. Do it more. Spend more. Invest in defense more. Get another round of drinks. Order the shots. And then you wake up one day and you're like, fuck, our deficit is an incredible hangover. We have a deficit spending hangover in this country. So I think Reagan, you know, that it's okay to have those couple of drinks, but mature, you know, at some point you have to grow mature enough to learn. Here's what comes next. I got I got two paths in front of me. Right. One leaves a great memory and I can come back and do this again and I know how to do it every single time. The other is a fucking disaster. And I don't know if it's a disaster, that's a wrong word, but the other's a mess. And certainly when it comes to deficit spending, we're in a mess right now. And you know, one of the lasting legacies of the Reagan era, I think has to be the acceptance of deficit spending in the Republican Party, which is just an irony that is amazing to me because they win elections every Four years running on saying that we need to curtail the deficit. You know, it's like, no, you guys started it and you continued it and you continue to make it worse every single time they have power. And I think that is you you can't really talk honestly about the Reagan era. I think, you know, for all he did in ending communism and winning the Cold War, he gets an incredible credit for that. For all he did in bringing the America out of the malaise of the 70s, he gets an incredible amount of credit for that, and he deserves it. But it has to be offset by things like the acceptance of deficit spending that still exists in the Republican Party, particularly today. Derek Peterson: Yeah. That sounds about so basically what I heard from all of that is that just we currently have the spins and we're lying on the bathroom floor and like every like five minutes or so we're like sitting up, throwing up again into the toilet and then laying back down in hopes that it'll stop at some point. That's kind of ⁓ that's what I took away from all of that. ⁓ Elwyn: And you know you know who's who's coming to help us, who the the kind spouse is coming to hold our hair back is? The the Democratic Socialists of America Derek Peterson: No, who is it? Yes. Which which I'm slowly starting to realize I align with more and more on a lot of things. Not everything, but a lot of things. I'm like, ⁓ that's gonna be hard to explain to people in Texas. the All right. Well ⁓ who are we telling to shut the fuck up today, Owen? Elwyn: Well so I I I think we both wanted to talk about the DSA a little bit, which is why I I shoehorned that in there. ⁓ and it's going to segue into my shut the fuck up segment a little bit. ⁓ so I'm I'm gonna try and cook for a minute here. Derek Peterson: Are you telling the DSA to shut the fuck up? ⁓ okay. Elwyn: I am not. I am not telling the DSA to shut the fuck up. ⁓ so the DSA, Democrats Socialists of America. Last week there was a primary there were primary elections in a bunch of states, including New York. And in New York, there were three pretty big ⁓ there were three candidates that were endorsed heavily by Mamdani. And I don't know if they were all upsets, but at least one of them was a pretty big upset, and that was Brad Lander beating Dan Goldman. ⁓ but all three of these candidates are they would call themselves Democratic Socialists of America candidates. Now, Bernie Sanders, also DSA guy, right? Like this is not a super fringe thing to be called a DSA. It happens to have this big scary word, socialist, in it, right? Which just that's gonna freak people out until it doesn't, I guess. But I'm gonna leave Israel stuff aside for a minute. That is important in these elections, but it's a whole other subject, ⁓ and it'll just take too much time. What these people are running on, they're running on universal health care. Right? They're running on abolish ice, which we can get into and talk about. They're running on rent controls. They're running on fighting inflation. They are running on government-backed policies that make the lives of individual people better. And now it's very important when we have this conversation to remember that these people won in New York City. Okay, they did not win in upstate New York. And what is needed in a city like New York is different than what's needed in In rural counties outside of Rochester and Buffalo. But there is a heavier hand of government that I think people in cities accept because trash pickup is a bigger deal, right? Potholes and bus lanes are a bigger deal in cities. But what they're running on is we need health care in this country. We need universal health care. We need some sort of socialist-style health care, not Venezuela socialists. European style socialism healthcare. They're running on we need policies that fill potholes. We need childcare that allows that is paid for, that allows people to go to work. They're running on universal pre-K so the kids can start learning earlier and the parents can be freed up to go get a job because you need a job to pay your high rent and to pay your incredibly high health care. And these policies resonate with people because people are struggling. And the DSD. Is the only group of people who is out there right now speaking clearly about universal health care, about fighting rent prices, about housing controls and bringing down the price of housing. And the people are listening. And they're voting these people in because in New York City, where they've had six months of a taste of it, and they've got a guy Mamdani who is doing shit, right? Who is leveraging leveraging government to Derek Peterson: Mm. Elwyn: To help people, it's working right now for them. Right? So the idea of the word socialists, like, well, what's a democratic socialist of America? If you're living in New York City right now, a Democratic Socialist of America is someone who gets more bustlings put in place so you can get to work on time easier, who fills potholes so you can drive to work without blowing up your tire, who is has gotten ⁓ universal pre-K in with the state so their kids can go to school earlier, who's fighting for child care, right? Who Has gotten landlords to who's gone after shitty landlords who don't make repairs, so the heat got turned on in the winter earlier, who got the streets cleaned from major snowstorms very quickly and without incident, who is up in front who's who's celebrating the nicks in bars, who's jumping into pools in his suit when the when the community pools opens. You're now right now The people are looking at a DSA mayor and they're going, This guy wants to help the people and he is actually helping people. And as a result, they don't care so much about you know what he says about Zionism and Palestine and Israel because the heat is on in their house. Right? And they don't care so much, like social Venezuelan socialism is bad. ⁓ socialism, they're like, I'm fucking warm. You know, the landlord fixed my leaky faucet. Right, the potholes are fixed and I can get to work on time. Tell me again why this is so bad for me? Like like I'm not sure I follow. And the Democratic Party is freaking the fuck out about this. Right? Jamie Harrison, the senator, the sen the failed Senate candidate from South Carolina, ⁓ he was like, you know, if you don't want to stand for democratic values, then don't run as a Democrat. Don't use our resources. Speaking to these people, James Carvel said outright, These guys are not part of my party. We're not I'm not in the same party as them. And it's like, man, you have to ⁓ open up your your minds a little bit because it's not like the the more you push these people out The worse it's gonna be. And the Republicans are gonna fight this on fear. They're gonna fight it on, you know, these people have Arab names. A lot of them are Palestinians, or they have Palestinian heritage, or they're Arab, and they're gonna say socialism, and they're gonna say, you know, they're just gonna say this this is a toehold. They're gonna say Muslim Americans, you know, they're gonna they're gonna go after this pretty hard, right? I'm not advocating for this. They're gonna say Muslim Americans have always wanted to take over this country, and this is. Derek Peterson: Yeah. Elwyn: The toehold. Them winning primaries is a toehold to a socialist Muslim takeover of the United States. And we can't let that happen. And that's the line that they're gonna say. This party is too extreme. That's how extreme they are. They're now an extremist Muslim party. And what the Democrats, in my estimation, have to do, and this is where I'm gonna get into the shut the fuck up a little bit, is I'm sorry, the fucking Democrats are extreme, we're extreme. Tell me about January 6th, motherfucker. Who tried to overthrow a free and fair election? Who has tried to take over the government? Who put Elon Musk in power to take over the government? Who is openly corrupt dealing with in Middle Eastern countries while we're navigating a a fucking war that you started, $300 billion in construction money you want to give to Iran, to a r a regime that you said you wanted to overthrow. The democratic socialists on universal health care are fucking extreme. Shut the fuck up, Democrats, and screen that from the rooftops. We are not the extreme party. The democratic socialists on universal health care are fucking extreme. ⁓ Shut the fuck up, Democrats, ⁓ and screen that from the rooftops. We are not the extreme party. The Republicans are mandating Bible readings in fucking schools in Texas. The Republicans tried to overthrow an election to this day. Appointments people who are appointed by Trump cannot admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. The Republicans are mandating Bible readings in fucking schools in Texas. The Republicans tried to overthrow an election to this day. Appointments people who are appointed by Trump cannot admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. In every single hearing, Democrats ask, did Joe Biden win? And every single hearing, they say, well, he was president. They admit it. We're extreme. ⁓ Shut the fuck up. We are not the extreme party. The extreme party, the party that wants to overthrow democracy, is the party that has already tried to do it. The party that just lost in the Supreme Court mailing ballots, that has already tried to do it, and that continues to find efforts to try and it again and again and again. That is the extreme party. Democrats, fucking talk about that. Universal health care is not extreme. Universal health care Is employed in every developed country in the world, and every developed country in the world has better house health outcomes than we do here. We have the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. We imprison the most people in the world, right? We have the highest diabetes, the highest cancer. Our health care sucks in this country, and universal health care is extreme. Government trying to help people is extreme when we're faced with a party that openly and Obviously tries to overthrow democracy and voting and elections every single turn that just tried to veto a a housing act so they could make voter suppression the norm with the Save Act and Democratic Socialists are extreme. Shut the fuck up calling these parts of your party who are speaking plainly and clearly about issues that actually matter to people extreme. and point the finger at the people who actually are extreme. God damn it! Why is this so hard to do? Shut the fuck up and do it! Derek Peterson: I mean, I feel like we should just turn it off there. I mean, I don't even know if anything else needs to be said. You are not wrong at all. And the reason I'm aligning myself more and more as a democratic socialist. There's still things that I you're you're a thousand percent correct. The Elwyn: The the the caffeine kicked in at the right point, I think. Derek Peterson: The the extreme we need to talk about in this country is is the extreme that's we see happening that's to the detriment of people regularly. ⁓ if it's extreme to be for ⁓ supporting working class Americans on the regular, shut the fuck up. ⁓ the like if that's what you feel like is extreme, like ⁓ and I will start turning off more and more podcasts with people that are that are shitting on These like I mean I you're already starting to hear it. The divide in this in with Democrats is, you know, and this Mamdani Mam Dani's, you know, three people have already gotten half the Democratic Party talking about ⁓ a divide and you know how extreme some of these people are and you know all of this. And it's like, yeah, go fuck yourself. Like let's if this is the this is the necessary process. And the truth behind it is too, sometimes you need somebody extreme to get elected in the other direction. And then it's typically reined in. Like, you know, like there's gonna be certain things like universal health care, universal child care, like ⁓ you know, all like there there are so many things that ⁓ like that are going to be helpful while at the same time you can rein in like, you know, being still being strong on the border, right? Like you can you can still like Creating a pathway for citizenship for in immigrants while being strong on the border is a good balance for immigration. And yeah, it might not be what a democratic socialist stands for, but in the overall scheme of things, if we're getting a bunch of other shit done, ⁓ you know, better infrastructure, universal health care, universal childcare, things that are going to just benefit the the working class people of America, like that's a win. So they can all Elwyn: Yeah, why why is it so hard to invite the DSA in and say, Look, You we're gonna throw the full weight of the Democratic Party behind a whole shit ton, behind like eighty percent of your platform, because things like universal healthcare we stand for and frankly abolishing ICE is quite popular, like we can get behind that. But we are not with you on defunding the police. Right? And like you can bring the bills and and but we're not gonna give it the full throated support. But we are gonna we are gonna platform so much of what you stand for and and then the DSA has gotta like, Great, look, we're gonna stand there and we're gonna scream about you know these. Derek Peterson: Yes. Elwyn: things that you don't like and you can't tell us not to. But why is that bargain so hard to make when the biggest issues are issues that the DSA is right on, that the Democratic Party should stand for, and that voters want? I don't under s I I honestly like I'm not I'm sure it's naivete on my part. I'm positive of that. But I I just don't understand why you know Jamie Harris and James Carville aren't like having meetings now going like alright, hey, you guys were right about some shit and we're listening. So how can we make this work for the party as a whole? Because I can tell you that you're wrong about some things. Right? That some things defund the police is not gonna work. We learned that already once. Like so we need to move away from that. But you're right about a lot of things and we didn't see it and and we're embracing you. Derek Peterson: I I'm with you. And if there's one thing that they should i it I mean, this is historically just what the Democratic Party does, right? To be honest, the Democratic Party since Obama, like Obama like the even what happened in twenty twenty, Biden got in office more ⁓ because people didn't want to vote for Trump again. than I think people were actually voting for Biden. And so the Democrats have walked into power in a number of in a number of situations. And in large part I feel like this is why. It's like you are not backing the right shit. And when you've had power, you have not wielded it for the American people. You have not gone through like you know the the Obama was the last person to do it. And it was still a freaking fight for to get Obamacare passed. And when it finally got through You know, like it it once it was up and running and everything actually started to work, it was it was great. It was fantastic for a lot of Elwyn: My my biggest criticism on Obama is that he didn't go far enough on health care. You know, that that he he did it Derek Peterson: Yeah. My biggest criticism on all of them is that they didn't see the shit that was coming. That they didn't fight that they that they did not play politics to the same level that Mitch McConnell was and and the Republicans at that era that that that they did not fight harder to get shit done. Yep. But good. 'Cause he can't even I don't even know if he can open his eyes half most days. So like I mean Elwyn: Yeah. Mitch McConnell, by the way, not running for reelection. Yeah, I'm ⁓ amazed I I'm amazed he's not dead. Derek Peterson: Yes, I've the fact that that's even a question is is ⁓ or is is ridiculous. I'm not running ⁓ because I can't form words anymore. So you know like god damn. ⁓ well what are we talking about next week, Elwyn? Elwyn: Yeah. And then it took until like last week for him to announce it. Yeah. do we want to keep going back in time? We do like LBJ that was probably before Reagan. That was probably the one before that was the Civil Rights era. That was the that was the southern strategy. That was the Democratic Party losing the southern states forever. Derek Peterson: Yeah, let's do it. I think that ⁓ the ⁓ so LBJ and the ⁓ the the Democrats losing the southern states for good until until Tal until Taller Rico until Talo Rico comes back and beats the beats the ⁓ pedo supporter that is Ken Paxton. Elwyn: Cool. Yeah. Yeah, what was it, the new the new New Deal or yeah. That's right. I've got I've got by the way you'll find this funny, I've got th therapy in nine minutes and I'm still fucking I'm still zinging from my shut the fuck up, I gotta somehow like bring it down, I gotta like meditate. R Rob Robert's gonna be like, holy shit Derek Peterson: Yeah. Coming in hot. Well the the ⁓ well I'm looking forward to next week. We'll ⁓ see everybody then. Have a good day. Elwyn: Coming in hot. It'd be good.