Latest / Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast / The HIgh Price of Saying What You Think

Transcript

The HIgh Price of Saying What You Think · Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast

0:10
For On Air Across America News, I'm Alex Ross, and this is your
0:14
morning update. President Trump says every
0:18
American adult would receive $5000 if Republicans retain
0:22
control of Congress in November. Trump calls the proposed payment
0:26
a dividend. He did not provide a detailed
0:29
funding plan, and any federal payment would require
0:32
congressional approval. The Census Bureau has proposed
0:36
excluding undocumented immigrants and some temporary
0:39
legal residents from the population count.
0:42
The proposal is open for public comment and has not taken
0:45
effect. United States Southern Command
0:48
says an American strike killed three people aboard A vessel
0:51
suspected of traveling along a Caribbean drug trafficking
0:54
route. The government has not publicly
0:57
released its evidence or identified those killed in the
1:00
NFL season opening game. Seattle defeated New England 13
1:05
to 10 Wednesday night after trailing 10 to nothing.
1:09
Sam Darnold left with a hip injury during the opening
1:12
minutes of the game. Drew Lock completed 16 of 22
1:16
passes for 187 yards and a touchdown in relief.
1:21
Seattle intercepted Drake May on New England's final three
1:24
possessions, including Josh Job's end zone interception with
1:27
21 seconds remaining for the On Air Across America network.
1:32
I'm Alex Ross. The world is a complicated
1:38
place. Fortunately, Dave Bowman has
1:41
opinions, some informed, some inconvenient, and a few that may
1:45
require supporting documentation, history,
1:48
politics, and the absurdity of modern life.
1:51
This is the Dave Bowman Good morning, good evening or good
2:00
afternoon, wherever you are, whatever you do.
2:02
A lot of things happening in the world today, most of them far
2:07
beyond our control, you might say.
2:09
So perhaps it's time we took a pause and thought about life and
2:12
thought about the laws of free speech, money.
2:19
Don't even know where to start on that one.
2:23
What else we got going on here? Oh yeah, we got the polyamory.
2:29
Yes, polyamory. Don't touch that guy.
2:33
I'll just try to hear me out for a little while on Texas Show
2:38
209565, Dave, 209-565-3283. Working on getting that to be a
2:43
live telephone line. Once we start live streaming,
2:48
we'll be able to do that. I've got to set up how we're
2:51
going to do this. So the problem is home school
2:57
bed wife that works nights. So in the last 10 minutes I'm
3:03
getting ready to start the show. I get can you do this right now?
3:08
Can you do this right? I had to look for a job for bed,
3:11
a job app. I'm I'm not making this up.
3:13
Part of his schooling is he's working on job stuff.
3:16
And so I had to help him go find jobs listing and stuff like
3:22
that. So, and I got up at some point
3:26
in exactly 10 minutes and 22 seconds, you'll see me send a
3:29
text because I got to make sure he gets somewhere on time and
3:35
I'll be here. Just the kind of stuff that
3:38
happens, you know, it is what it is, right?
3:44
It's the one year anniversary of the assassination, and I don't
3:47
know what else you would call it of Charlie Kirk.
3:50
It was, as I recall, it was quite the day.
3:55
I, the text I sent to Bill and Rod was, whoa, Charlie Kirk was
3:59
just shot. And of course, at that point we
4:02
hadn't actually seen it, didn't know anything about it.
4:06
Look, I, I've said this before, I was not, and I remain not a
4:12
huge Charlie Kirk guy. I, I didn't follow TPUSA, didn't
4:17
really pay much attention to what he was doing.
4:19
I knew who he was, but I just, I, I don't know that I wasn't
4:25
interested. But I've said this before, I
4:28
find people that disagree with me on things far more
4:30
interesting than people who are in lockstep with me.
4:33
And, and, and I, so I tend not to pay attention to them.
4:37
So I hadn't really paid attention to them.
4:40
Frankly, I didn't even know he was married at that point.
4:44
And and the subsequent issues with this all have become, I
4:50
guess, more interesting to me than than than anything else.
4:54
There is a local Facebook page here called Fun Things in
5:00
Seattle or Seattle. Fun Things.
5:02
I don't know, that is celebrating the one year
5:06
anniversary of Charlie Kirk's death with some.
5:09
I would call them rude, but they're certainly they're
5:15
certainly the kind of thing that if you looked at it and you're a
5:17
Charlie Kirk person, it would piss you off.
5:19
There's no two ways about that. And because of that, the
5:22
reaction, of course, they're getting the reaction.
5:24
They want their attention whores and they know that that will
5:27
spin you up and spin up conservatives.
5:29
And so it's become a big flame war on on Facebook.
5:34
The bigger question, of course, about the the one year
5:37
anniversary isn't so much that kind of thing.
5:41
It's whether or not our culture, which is dependent on free
5:46
speech, it really is. Can that survive if people
5:51
believe that expressing the wrong, whatever that means,
5:57
political opinion will bring professional punishment, maybe
6:02
of an official investigation, public exposure or even physical
6:05
danger. The principle must be protected
6:10
that objectionable speech from both sides is free speech.
6:15
The fact that I don't like something doesn't make it I
6:20
don't know what's the word for it, you know, bannable
6:23
actionable speech. FIRE, which is a free speech
6:30
group on on campuses and the like, has, has recently done a
6:35
survey in which they surveyed students on campuses and more
6:41
than half of the students on campuses around the country
6:45
considered the discussion of that assassination, discussion
6:50
of it merely talking about it openly and honestly to be,
6:57
quote, difficult. Of course, the question is why
7:01
does it become difficult? Is it banned?
7:08
No, I mean, at least not in theory, right?
7:13
It's being chilled by something else.
7:16
That chilling effect isn't that the speech has been prohibited.
7:20
It means that the expected cost of speaking becomes so high that
7:25
people begin to censor themselves.
7:28
You ever done that? Have you ever said to yourself,
7:30
you know what? I, I feel passionately about
7:33
this, but I'm just not going to talk about it because if I do,
7:36
it's going to piss off Uncle Ted or it's going to cause a family
7:40
argument. In some ways, that's even worse
7:47
than banning speech, isn't it? If we make speech so
7:50
controversial that if, if, if I know you're going to say
7:54
something I don't like, I'm going to make you miserable.
7:58
I am going to professionally affect you somehow or another if
8:03
I could or, you know, get get the police involved or whatever.
8:08
He, he started in an argument, she started in an argument.
8:11
Whatever you want to do with that.
8:13
Or more importantly, physical danger becomes a threat.
8:18
The the expression of this kind of speech and this this idea
8:24
that that I'm afraid to, it can't be openly discussed really
8:29
causes people to conclude in their head.
8:31
Look, nothing good can come from saying what I really think.
8:36
If you really, if you think back to Rush Limbaugh in the earliest
8:40
days of Rush Limbaugh, what was the thing that caught attention?
8:42
My own father said this to me and in fact, I think it was the
8:45
title of his book or the implication of one of his book.
8:49
I finally found somebody who's saying what I think.
8:53
I'm not alone. That was because of a chilling
8:57
effect on speech. It wasn't banned.
9:01
There was nobody saying you couldn't say these things.
9:03
But the most effective censorship doesn't require
9:07
someone to confiscate the printing press.
9:10
It simply teaches people that using free speech will cost them
9:14
too much. It'll cost you your job or your
9:16
promotion or your your girlfriend or whatever.
9:20
In other words, it's right out of 1984 folks, This is the idea
9:26
behind the thought police. Yes, in in 1984, there's a
9:29
little more, you know, gravitas to them, but reality is they
9:35
want you to stop thinking. That's, that's the whole point
9:37
of the, of the, the new speak dictionary.
9:40
Remember that the new speak dictionary starts out like 3
9:42
inches thick and now they've got it down to two inches thick.
9:45
And next year it'll be down to 1 inch thick.
9:46
And pretty soon it'll just be a couple of pages.
9:48
And it isn't because they don't want you to know those words.
9:52
It's because if you don't know those words, you won't even have
9:55
those thoughts. If we chill the speech to the
9:59
point where you don't even have those thoughts because those
10:01
words simply don't exist, we've unexisted them.
10:04
You won't be able to do things. You won't even have those
10:07
thoughts. When we look at censorship,
10:12
there's there's three different things we want to talk about
10:14
here. Government censorship.
10:16
This is the state prohibits or punishments protected
10:20
expression. Theoretically, you can't do
10:23
that. Theoretically the state cannot
10:25
do this. This is one of the consistent
10:28
arguments that we constantly have where the state is trying
10:30
to do things. We saw this in Seattle last week
10:33
with the the professor who got the $600,000 settlement, so
10:36
forth and so on. The The second one is the
10:39
institutional coercion. A university or employer uses
10:42
disciplinary action to enforce ideological conformity.
10:46
I guess that's technically more what they did to this professor
10:48
with his land acknowledgments. And of course, then there's
10:53
social consequences. Other people criticize, boycott,
10:57
condemn or ostracize the speaker.
10:59
Remember last week we were talking about the tap rooms down
11:02
in Tacoma where they made a donation to a political action
11:05
committee to get rid of the the income tax, the unconstitutional
11:11
income tax here in Washington. Vote yes on I-69 I 6:45 and they
11:16
boycotted them. Didn't matter that it was just
11:19
about the tax. They turned it into everything.
11:21
The activists intentionally turned it into anti LGBTQ plus
11:26
issues. Only the first category actually
11:29
prevents a First Amendment question.
11:32
A private employer actually does have more authority over
11:35
employee speech than a public university or government.
11:38
A public, a private employer can say to you, hey, you can't do
11:42
that. You can't discuss these things
11:45
and can, you know, encourage you not to do those things on
11:48
Facebook and not be violating your First Amendment rights.
11:51
But all three of these things can discourage expression and
11:56
have a chilling effect on free speech.
11:59
They create that cultural chilling effect without really
12:03
constituting A constitutional violation.
12:06
Criticism, by the way, is also speech.
12:08
I get criticized all the time. The answer cannot be to give
12:12
speakers immunity from disagreement or reputational
12:14
consequences. The real concern arises when
12:17
criticism becomes intimidation, official retaliation, doxing,
12:24
threats, organized efforts to make lawful political expression
12:29
professionally impossible. We've, we've seen this here even
12:34
in Washington state where we are being doxed based on public
12:38
records of political donations. Now, look, I don't give money to
12:40
politics anyway. I, I just don't.
12:42
It's just my, my problem with giving money to politicians is
12:45
it just encourages them. And I don't want to do that.
12:48
But if I did, it's none of your damn business who I gave it to.
12:53
And the idea that you can go into a public record, pull it
12:55
out and use it to attack me is problematic.
13:01
I guess theoretically I could do the same in return.
13:04
But reality is probably you probably didn't make any.
13:07
So because they don't work and they're not employable anyway,
13:13
the broader concern in the broader campus environment is
13:19
much deeper. Can you talk about things like
13:24
Donald Trump, the Israeli, Palestine, Palestinian conflict?
13:30
Can you talk about Charlie Kirk's assassination without
13:33
necessarily feeling that you're going to get shouted down?
13:39
50% of the people who were interviewed in this accepted
13:44
blocking access to speech, and 30% accepted using violence to
13:49
prevent speaking that they disagreed with.
13:53
That's insane you disagreed with it, but you're willing to use
13:57
30% of you're willing to use violence to stop someone else
14:00
from speaking? Those numbers are important.
14:06
Now look, it's a poll. Who knows?
14:10
Rankings surveys like this depend on their methodology, so
14:13
it may not necessarily be realistic.
14:17
Participating in institutions may not necessarily be the right
14:22
ones. It could even be the wording of
14:24
the questions. I'm not a huge fan of polls, as
14:27
you know. The problem is that it only
14:31
covers a small fraction of American higher education.
14:35
If you went to Liberty University, you might get a
14:37
completely different outcome of those.
14:41
But even with those qualifications, the willingness
14:43
to prevent other people from hearing an inviting an invited
14:47
speaker reveals A fundamental confusion, doesn't it?
14:52
Protest is protected expression. Physically preventing an
14:56
audience from hearing someone is suppression, and a university is
15:01
supposed to be where we teach students how to examine the
15:04
argument, expose its weaknesses, and answer it.
15:07
That fails when students learn that feeling morally certain
15:11
releases them from any obligation to debate.
15:16
If you think you don't have to argue things because you can
15:21
just intimidate someone else into into not doing, not saying
15:26
something that you don't like, we can't function that anymore.
15:31
Not as a free society. When one faction treats murder
15:35
as a punchline, which is what's happening on this this this page
15:39
in Seattle, the other responds by writing off that entire
15:44
generation saying, well, they're hopeless.
15:46
We can't we, we can't save them. What then?
15:52
It's both sides, too. By the way, in Ohio, there was a
15:56
professor by the name of Stephen Brown who in one of his classes
16:01
made a comment. Now, the comment was stupid.
16:04
It was inappropriate, and most importantly, it was wrong.
16:08
He compared the Republican Party and the federal immigration
16:12
enforcement of ICE to the Third Reich.
16:14
He said it would he? He actually said they were the
16:17
same thing. They were synonymous.
16:20
The he was investigated for that.
16:24
Now, the investigation found that the professor had actually
16:28
presented opposing rhetorical positions as part of a classroom
16:31
exercise. But instead someone had reported
16:36
him for saying this and he was investigated.
16:39
And that might cause a professor to go, well, I can't say that.
16:45
Why would we do that? Look, if someone says to me that
16:48
the Republicans are the same thing as Nazis, believe me, I
16:51
got a lot to say in reply. I have a hell of a lot to say in
16:54
reply. You've heard me say it.
16:57
Until the Republicans and Donald Trump are marching people out
17:01
onto a frozen river, making them leave their shoes on the shore
17:05
and marching them out onto the frozen river and then shelling
17:07
the river so that they all drown, they're not Nazis.
17:11
So stop it. You don't know what you're
17:13
talking about, but if our answer to ideological conformity is a
17:18
government enforced counter ideology, what are we doing?
17:23
We're preserving the machinery and merely changing who operates
17:26
it. That's all we're doing.
17:29
Laws can restrain government censorship, but they can't
17:32
produce a culture of intellectual freedom.
17:36
Universities and indeed publics must adopt A virtual viewpoint
17:43
neutral rule. We have to defy we we, I'm
17:46
sorry. We have to defend people who
17:49
disagree with us and we have to punish actual disruption rather
17:53
than controversial opinions. University of Washington last
17:58
week cancelled a speech by Hassan Piker.
18:01
I applaud them for doing so. Not sure that they understand
18:05
why they did it. They shouldn't have invited him
18:07
in the 1st place is my thought. But then again, is that really
18:12
free speech? Maybe they should have invited
18:13
him and allowed people to protest.
18:18
They weren't going to do that because then they'd they don't
18:20
want that either. We as conservatives should
18:24
defend the same liberty for a left wing professor, an anti
18:28
Israel professor as much as that disgusts me, or someone who
18:32
speaks disgracefully about Charlie Kirk as they demand for
18:34
themselves. Instead of going all over the
18:36
Internet and trying to get this page shut down for its position
18:39
on Charlie Kirk's assassination, maybe we ought to have something
18:43
better to say in return. The key to free speech is not
18:47
silencing other people. The key to free speech is in
18:50
fact better speech and more of it.
18:54
But for some reason, and I don't know what that reason is, we
18:59
just don't seem to want to do that, do we?
19:02
We'd rather just tell the other side to STFU and then we get mad
19:06
when they tell us to do the same thing.
19:08
Stay with us, we'll be right back.
19:33
It may be politics, it may be history.
19:36
It may begin with either one and somehow end with submarines.
19:40
This is plausibly live with Dave Bowman.
19:48
Welcome back. I'm Dave again.
19:51
The text number 565 Dave 209565 Dave 3283.
19:57
So if you picked up your bingo card at the beginning of the
20:00
month or the beginning of the week and said what, what, what
20:03
would be on this bingo card? That would be absolutely, you
20:06
know, on a calci bet would actually make me some money
20:09
because there's no way that would ever happen.
20:13
City of Seattle, 15 miles from here, is exploring a proposal,
20:20
not making this up, folks. This is what they are doing.
20:24
A proposal to expand Seattle's civil rights code.
20:29
Not unusual in a liberal city. Stay with me though.
20:33
This civil right code expansion is to protect quote sitting
20:38
down. I hope you are.
20:40
Pansexuality, asexuality, consensual non monogamous
20:48
relationships and multi generational households in
20:55
employment, housing, public accommodations, licensing, parks
20:58
and policing. It would not good news require
21:04
employers to provide benefits to multiple partners, but it would
21:08
perfect quote UN quote civil rights, whatever that means to
21:15
them. Now, of course, in a world where
21:21
LGBTQ plus AI stuff is is is rampant and of course Seattle is
21:26
one of the leading edge places for that.
21:29
And the Seattle is actually talking about spending $300,000
21:35
to provide. Is it more than that?
21:36
It might be more than that to provide services, quote UN quote
21:44
to trans refugees, people, trans people who are fleeing from
21:49
oppressive environments and coming to Seattle and and they
21:53
don't got jobs or housing or anything else.
21:55
So the city of Seattle is saying, well, please come here.
21:58
And they do. So it's no big surprise that
22:02
they want to expand their civil rights codes to cover
22:06
pansexuality, which as I understand it, and I I'm not
22:11
going to sit here and tell you I have any experience with
22:13
pansexuality. Apparently pansexuality means
22:15
you will sleep with anything. And I do mean anything
22:21
asexuality, which I believe means you don't have sex with
22:25
anything. So we're going to expand the
22:29
codes to everybody and nobody and then you get this one
22:34
consensual non monogamous relationships and multi
22:38
generational households. What is a consensual non
22:46
monogamous relationship? I hear you cry because you have
22:50
to. Consensual non monogamous
22:55
relationships, of course, means living with your girlfriends
23:05
more than one. In other words, it's basically
23:11
polyamory. It's basically bigamy.
23:15
I mean, I guess I it's a non monogamous relationship, but
23:18
it's consensual so it's OK. What are they?
23:20
What's the other word they use? Thropples.
23:26
Adults are generally free to arrange their private
23:28
relationships however they choose.
23:31
Our objection is not my objection to that is not that
23:35
freedom. If you want to sleep with four
23:38
women or if you're a woman and you want to sleep with four
23:41
guys, or if you're a guy and you want to sleep with four other
23:43
guys or a girl, you want to sleep with four other girls.
23:47
Sorry, got distracted for a second.
23:49
If you want to do that, that's your business.
23:51
Have at it. But the decision by Seattle to
23:56
treat these relationships as, quote, an expression of sexual
24:00
orientation protected by civil rights law is moving beyond
24:04
government tolerance and providing a legal basis for
24:08
compelling employers, landlords, and businesses to treat chosen
24:12
relationship structure like an immutable personal
24:16
characteristic. And once you accept that
24:19
principle, it becomes very difficult to identify a logical
24:22
boundary on which voluntary domestic arrangements qualify
24:27
for a protected status. And if you can't identify that
24:31
boundary, where does it end? Where's the slippery slope?
24:38
Where's the bottom? This bill, as proposed, by the
24:43
way, creates a a a great deal of legal uncertainty, even though
24:47
it excludes some benefits. Supporters say, correctly, that
24:53
the employers would not be required to extend health
24:55
insurance leave or compensation benefits to multiple partners.
24:58
And while that matters, it doesn't eliminate the broader
25:01
consequences employers or landlords could still face
25:05
complaints over hiring, firing, discipline, workplace conduct,
25:08
occupancy of housing decisions. You have 9 wives in your in your
25:13
two-bedroom apartment. And terms such as consensual non
25:18
monogamy and diverse relationship structures will
25:21
eventually have to be interpreted by administrators,
25:25
hearing officers and of course judges.
25:31
I can't imagine in Washington state that would be a problem.
25:34
But instead what we're what we're doing here is we're just
25:37
creating another vaguely defined regulatory field in which
25:41
ordinary decisions may generate investigations and legal costs.
25:46
The only people benefiting from this is the lawyers.
25:51
And I, I guess more importantly, this bill, Seattle, what
25:57
Seattle's trying to do is chill free speech.
26:00
They're trying to use civil rights law, the point of a gun,
26:04
to advance a cultural judgement. Civil rights protections are
26:09
traditionally limited to serious barriers to participation in
26:13
public life. Is anyone saying to somebody who
26:17
is pansexual or polyamorous or asexual or living in a
26:23
consensual non monogamous relationship or a multi
26:25
generational household that you can't participate in public
26:28
life? Is anybody actually saying that?
26:30
I didn't think so. But this proposal uses that
26:34
framework to confer official recognition on to it.
26:37
And there's issues with that aren't there now including multi
26:44
generational households may address a legitimate housing
26:48
concern. Remember, housing in Seattle is
26:50
very expensive, although the market is crashing right now.
26:54
But if you combine those households with polyamorous
26:57
relationship, but it's it, it completely obscures the
27:00
important distinctions between kinship, caregiving, economic
27:04
necessity, and just flat out boinking each other.
27:09
Sorry, sexual partnerships. The city is no longer than
27:13
providing or preventing arbitrary discrimination, but
27:17
it's actually helping to socially redefine the meaning of
27:20
family and who's intimate through law.
27:26
Is that really what we want happening here?
27:29
There's another consideration in all of this and that's it.
27:33
It's one of those ones. I haven't really gone down the
27:35
whole thing yet on this and, and, and maybe I should, I don't
27:39
know. It's one of those things that
27:41
causes me concern. But we're starting to see, of
27:43
course, a great deal of immigrants and they're settling
27:49
there and there is some groups, there are some groups of
27:53
immigrants who tend to live like that.
27:58
And is this normalizing that, making it a civil right to be
28:04
able to do that and to gain things for that?
28:08
I don't know. I haven't really considered that
28:10
yet. But some people are already
28:11
starting to say that's what this is really about because frankly,
28:16
nobody cares who you're sleeping with.
28:20
So, and certainly not in Seattle they don't.
28:22
Maybe in Salt Lake City they might, but Seattle they
28:24
certainly don't. We'll see what happens.
28:27
Wasn't on my list. I'll tell you then.
28:33
This is the show that puts the plausible in plausible
28:36
deniability. It's plausibly live with Dave
28:39
Bowman. Welcome back to ZAI Dave 209565
28:49
Dave Text machine e-mail. By the way, Dave at the Dave
28:52
bowmanshow.com. So I guess the president last
28:56
night, and I did not watch this because again, there was
29:01
football on and I'd much rather watch that.
29:04
I guess the president promised that if the Republicans maintain
29:08
the the Congress, he's going to give everybody 5 grand.
29:14
Now I've read two different stories on this.
29:16
One says $5000 to each citizen, which would be cool, and one
29:20
says $5000 to each adult. So I'm not really clear on what
29:24
what the difference is there, other than my son might, might
29:28
or might not get the five grand again.
29:34
I voted for Trump. I'd vote for Trump again if he
29:36
could run again. I, I, I, I like the guy.
29:38
I think he's yeah, I think he's funny.
29:40
I think he's, I think he's far more intelligent than people
29:43
give him credit for. And a lot of the things he's
29:46
doing are worthwhile. But on the whole, the Republican
29:53
Party has lost its freaking mind.
29:57
Congress has the authority to give dividends to the people,
30:03
not the president. Under what, under what clause of
30:09
the Constitution can the president just say here's a
30:11
$5000 check? He he can't, he can't do that.
30:18
And the idea that he would say that and the idea that he would
30:21
couch that in terms of a what essentially sounds like a bribe
30:27
bother me tremendously. Candidates routinely promise tax
30:32
credits, benefits, subsidies and rebates.
30:34
And I guess you could characterize this as a return of
30:38
tariff revenue rather than a personal reward for voting
30:42
Republican. But where's the legislation for
30:45
that? Trump did announce the proposal
30:49
in in in Dallas on Wednesday. I I guess that it was $5000 for
30:54
every adult. I heard it for every citizen,
30:56
but who knows? He conditioned that proposal on
31:00
Republicans retaining both chambers of Congress, which
31:03
means it sure sounds like he's buying votes to me.
31:08
And there is no plan. There's no detailed legislative
31:12
or financial plan of accompanying this announcement.
31:17
Is this, is this any meaningfully different from any
31:22
other campaign promise? I don't know.
31:26
Can you just use tariff revenue that way?
31:30
Can you just call the dividend when the tariffs are actually
31:33
taxes paid by the importers actually paid by the customers?
31:37
But and could you borrow another trillion dollars to finance
31:42
this? Does anybody understand we're
31:44
$40 trillion in debt? And it goes the the bigger
31:48
question is, if this was Joe Biden proposing this, how would
31:55
Republicans react? Come on, It's an honest question
32:00
and we all know the answer. Direct federal payments have
32:04
become a common emergency policy.
32:07
Unfortunately, COVID-19 pandemic, Congress authorized 3
32:11
rounds of stimulus checks, blah, blah, blah.
32:15
We have a long history in our politics of patronage, material,
32:18
election promises, but outright vote right vying.
32:24
Are we in danger here of converting citizenship into a
32:26
financial transaction? President says that if the
32:32
Republicans win, every American adult gets $5000, and I believe
32:38
that the the term for that may be subtle.
32:44
Sure seems weird to me, but what do I know I'm just a chat show
32:49
host in Silverdale, WA. It's I'm going to have to change
32:56
up how I start doing this. I'm going to have to start
32:57
getting up earlier because too many too many distractions going
33:02
on. But we got through it.
33:04
Take the time right now. Tell the people that matter in
33:06
your life you love them very much.
33:07
You would miss them if they weren't there.
33:09
So don't pass up those opportunities.
33:10
You don't want to have that regret plausibly live.
33:13
I'm Dave Bowman. We'll see you next time right
33:15
here on Plausibly Live, The Dave Bowman Show podcast.
33:18
Again, 209565. Dave, loving hearing from you.
33:22
See you later.