Latest / Before You Speak / Before You Speak | Episode 42 | Darlene Graham wins in SC and do we actually need primary's?
Transcript
- Elwyn: So she was asked about that. And, you know, on stage in front of cameras that were rolling and humans that were alive. She basically said, I don't really know much about foreign policy. I don't I don't I I'm not gonna answer that. Derek: What's up, y'all? Welcome back to the Before You Speak podcast. I am your host, Derek Peterson, processing the fire hose of my newsfeed with you know, this guy. Elwyn: This guy. Yeah, this guy's in a new this is Elwyn. I am c the fire hose of my newsfeed is coming to you from a different room. I'm upstairs today. Not not in a hot, sweaty office, not in my bedroom. I think my new my new shtick will be I'll do this from a different p place each week because I know how much you enjoy me setting up in a new place. It's a highly efficient use of time. Derek: The forty-five minutes of me the forty-five minutes of me sitting here watching you carry your computer to different rooms to can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? the I do like the lion with with glasses on behind you. I'm a big I'm a big lion fan. not Elwyn: There you go. Derek: only yeah, not only is it my sports team, I I fell in love with Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. Which is really just like the god figure of the book, but brilliantly written by C. S. Lewis, great story, and also made me love lions. they have a very father, father esque figure. And so all of my father wounds are f filled by lion stuff. Elwyn: Solid finish there. Lion lions are Derek: Thanks. Elwyn: unassailably cool. I mean, they really just are. But female lions, male lions, they're all they're all unassailably cool. Derek: they're they they're they're majestic. That's how I will put it. Elwyn: Yes. Derek: the well let's jump into it today. well start with Hakeem Jeffries and Jared Kushner meeting. so I heard this and at first my response was like this isn't that big of a deal. Like, why are people up in arms? And then as I started thinking about it a little bit more, I was like, actually. Kushner's not even part of like an official part of the administration. He's a Trump crony. And then when Hakeem Jeffries came out and said that the meeting was about affordability, that's when I was really like, okay, go fuck yourself. Cause why in God's name are you talking to Jared Kushner about the affordability crisis in our country? this and furthermore, that just makes me not believe you. Like there was something completely different going on in this meeting. Saying that it was the affordability crisis, I'm like, yeah, I I don't for an eye a second believe any of that. Elwyn: I I was I gave up immediately i mentally. I was like, well today is now Derek: Ha ha ha. Elwyn: I think the news broke on Sunday morning. I was like, all right, well, there goes today, 'cause that it it was just instantly exactly the criticism for Jeffries, which is that he doesn't he he's not suited to meet the moment. He doesn't understand what the Democratic base wants. The only reason that Hakeem Jeffries should be meeting with Jared Kushner is to deliver a stack of subpoenas. That's it. That's the o that's the only reason that he should ever be in the same room is to say, You've been served, motherfucker. Time to show up and testify. That's it. That's it. The whole even if, you know, it it's pretty clear if the Democrats retake the House, Jeffries will be the the speaker. I don't think No, it's vo it's voted on. But it doesn't Derek: Is that an automatic thing or is that voted by Elwyn: seem like you know, everybody was talking about that after this news of this meeting came out and Pretty much everything I heard was like, yeah, he's got the votes. He's gonna be speaker. you know, well, the job of the next speaker for me, a a you know, a deep blue, hardcore member of the Democratic base, is to start investigating the criminals and the corruption that are in power now. And Jared Kushner, you know, okay, he's not technically a part of the government, but that's only because Nobody in the government gives a shit about people negotiating on our behalf actually having an official government role or an official security clearance. You know, it's easier for them to to be corrupt if they don't have to jump through all those hoops and follow government ethics laws. So he's like top three people who should be investigated when this is all done, without without a doubt. Right? He's on the podium. So there's no excuse for Hakeem Jeffries to be speaking to him at all, ever. What a what a miscalculation. How is he that stupid? Derek: Yeah. I will be immediately emailing if Talarico wins, I would be immediately be emailing him and anybody that I can email to be like, this is not okay. Like this meeting feels like a preemptive strike on their part to essentially start the more corruption. Like, hey, we're gonna try to buy off more Democrats now to make sure that the shit that we're doing doesn't get exposed, which the only way to do that is to offer, you know, money and power or promises to some of these guys. So yeah, and I do not trust Hakeem Jeffries at all. trust him about as much as I trust Chuck Sumer Schumer. I really hope that they've that this is enough to try to push him out of that seat. meaning like that he doesn't get to be the speaker, but you know, I'm new to this politics game, Elwyn, so I don't know the logistics of all that and what it means to be next in line for the speaker of the House. But I can tell you right now, I don't think most Democrats are would be excited about that. Elwyn: No, I think in the field you're right. Like but I think in the actual House caucus, there's just still enough moderates for him to win the election f fairly easily, I think. you know, and the worst thing I think what something Democrats understand that Republicans have not is you really look like you don't know what you're doing if you if you have a big fight over the speaker position. Like you can go a couple rounds if there's a bunch of people in it, but when it starts to drag into like a couple of days, which it happened, I think four years ago. For the Republicans Derek: Yeah, I was gonna say that happened for the Republicans, right? Elwyn: Yeah. Yeah, it really starts to derail any chance you have of effectively legislating. But yeah, the so he'll be speaker, but the the whole goal is once you're speaker, what are you doing with the power that you now have? And I don't know if this is like an effort to buy Jeffries or not, but I certainly think that it's a it's an effort to say, Hey, if you're gonna be speaker, here's some ways that we might be able to work together that you know, my my My daddy-in-law will work with the Democrats on this, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that's just buying time. To me, that's just Kushner and Trump trying to buy time and say, okay, well, you know, don't investigate us or investigate us more slowly and we'll work with you on this shit. Nope. Investigate everybody right away and pass legislation right away. Right? We've talked about this, especially if they take the Senate. You know, if they take the Senate, pass anti-corruption rules, pass anti-insider trading rules. Pass a whole host of really obvious low hanging fruit stuff that is gonna make a ton of sense to the population. It's gonna keep you in you know, on positive net approval, and it's gonna force Trump to veto it. You know, you you have the power, use it. And to me, this is just like back back room, smoke filled room bullshit that Kushner and Jeffries are are doing, and Jeffries is just absolutely misreading everything, every signal. That there is when he takes that meeting. Derek: Yeah, I I feel like that's been since I've we've started doing this and I've been paying more attention. I feel like that's been my read of Jeffree since he feels like he's honestly just Chuck Schumer 2.0. It's like I'm I'm just waiting for him to send a strongly worded letter to somebody. I'm like, man, can we get these guys out of here? Like they the fight is not there. Like we like we're experiencing the worst corruption we've ever seen. And not and it's Clearly having a a material impact on every American now. You know, like the the debt being over 40 trillion now. Like there there's a lot of economists that are saying like that we're not coming back from this. Like once it gets over tw 40 trillion, like this, this is like trying to get our debt under control becomes exceedingly more and more difficult the higher it rises. And you know, so and I don't even I don't even know what all the negative outcomes of that ultimately become outside of us. you know, being owned by, you know, foreign entities to some degree. but yeah, like I just another case of Democrats not meeting the moment, establishment Democrats really just misreading the room and it's getting really fucking old to to be honest. So Elwyn: Yeah, and and this r the this room was in like the the letters the size of the top line of the eye chart. Like, bro, do Derek: Yeah. Elwyn: not go have a fucking back office meeting with Jared Kushner. What are you doing? Are are you paying any attention at all? Derek: The fastest way to piss off everyone right now. everyone. Elwyn: Everyone. Everyone. Derek: The so next up on our agenda here is so meta just reached a 17 billion dollar settlement with over social media harm. So today meta platforms agreed to pay 17 billion to settle to settle a landmark multi-state lawsuit alleging Facebook and Instagram. were designed to addict children and illegally harvest their data. man, I I could not agree more. And this is this is one of I think, you know, thousands of lawsuits that are coming up against Meta right now and social media. What what's your what's your read on this? Elwyn: So I I I all I knew of it was the headline that I saw earlier today. Does it force them to change what they're doing? Derek: No, of course it doesn't. I would Elwyn: Then Derek: be shocked if anybody even ever sees a penny of that settlement anyway. All these guys are Trump, all these tech bros are Trump cronies. and if it does go, it'll go into some slush fun for whatever states they're they're in. So, like, I mean, the the overall harm of what social and to be honest, it's not even just kids. Like, this shit's addicting for us. Like, it's hard to even watch a TV show now without You know, picking up my phone and looking at it halfway through, just out of habit. we are processing more information and I don't think we're better for it. You know, like there there are some positives to social media. Don't get me wrong. news travels so quickly, but I don't know that we were prepared for this level of information and trying to process. what information is valid and not and what we should care about and not. It's just it's overwhelming all the time, it feels like. And I can't imagine what it's like for teenagers, which is why I don't allow my kids on it. Elwyn: Yeah, I mean I I do my kids are on it. probably probably the wrong the wrong thing. But like just yesterday I was talking with Willow about you know what's going on in the Middle East and she was telling me some of the stuff she sees on TikTok and I was like, No, you understand like that that's an algorithm that's being put out to you. I was like, Here, type in this and see what you get and hey, look at these comments and you can see what people are saying and there's vile shit out there. There's just vile shit being said on social media. But you know, what's 17 billion dollars to meta? Is that a week worth of revenue? Is it less? You know, and even if it Derek: Yeah. It's nothing. Elwyn: doesn't go to the tech pros, what's it gonna go to split seven seventeen dollars for a billion users if you happen to answer the email that you're you might be part of this class action settlement? You know, w if in the apps it's it there's really no difference in function. Between this type of settlement and a settlement against Purdue Pharma for OxyContin. If you're not pulling it off the shelf, if you're not making sure that it isn't continued to be used in the same way that brought rise to the lawsuit in the first place, then you haven't changed anything. You've just for for forced an incredibly rich company to write a check that in a few days is gonna be, you know, re recouped. Derek: Yeah. They should be forced to cover the every ISD shortfall across the country, budget wise. That's what they should have been forced to do. although in red states, they don't give a shit. They're they want the shortfall to like to be honest, I I they're killing public schools here. Abbott has been doing that forever. And I I think the budget shortfall is all I think it's all bullshit. I I think our we were in a surplus like four or five years ago. where because property taxes went up and then quickly reverted back. I'm like, this is just mismanagement of money, reallocating funds, moving, you know, the voucher program, decimating what we were actually using school funds for and where it goes. So yeah, I'm I'm over all of that. But like, yeah, I mean, the the reality is is like so many schools are underfunded. So these school boards should be the ones that get these payouts to to actually keep kids, you know, Huh, buses, sports, things that cause you not to be on your device. Well, buses maybe not, sports for sure. Elwyn: Also, I mean like I've heard a friend a friend told me that like you can't go on UPorn or Pornhub in Texas because of a a law that they have that, you know, for Derek: Was it me? Elwyn: yeah, probably. you know, it's like the the the harm of the of those websites is such that you know you you just can't the those sites pulled out of most I think more than half the states in the in the country. Well why can't that why can't that block Be put in place for some social media stuff. You know, why why can't we do something about this? Other countries have, I think Australia did, France did, although their age ban on social media, I think, just got overturned. like Derek: Mm. Elwyn: yesterday. So that's that's a work in progress. But like, no, this settlement is just I'm sure Zuckerberg was like, cool, I'll write the check. You know, it's a it's a big number, but You know, are there revenues in the hundreds of billions? You know? Trillions? Is there Derek: Yeah, I'm interested. Elwyn: revenue in the trillions? Derek: I think the val the company valuation's over a trillion now. But the yeah, I mean we'll we'll I like I agree. I think the only thing that this does is it potentially opens the door for other lawsuits to succeed and get settled since there's a a basis for it now. But you know, we'll see what happens. Elwyn: So their revenue last year was 201 billion in 2025. So a little less than 10% of their annual revenue. So about a month. Like, okay, it's a it's a decent check. He had to swallow hard probably to write that check, but they'll write it off. They'll it'll like fuck up their share price for a day or two, and then they're done. Like the other thing about these suits is usually these settlements cover a lot of stuff, and they're the c to the company's perspective, now they're done with this. And to investors and shareholders, like they're done with this. And it's a it's a great deal for them, almost always, if they don't have to change actually the way they're doing business. Derek: Yeah. agreed. And the lawyers, you know, that that settled this, they're Elwyn: Yeah, they get a lot of money. Derek: they're about to retire. Those guys. Elwyn: Several times over. Derek: Yes. okay, so let's let's talk Lindsey Graham's sister, because this is I mean it's just the Republican Party just never ceased ceases to amaze me. Elwyn: Yeah, so Lind Lindsey Graham's sister, Darlene Graham, she she was appointed to fill his seat when he died, and she made it through the initial primary election into a runoff, which was last night, and she won the runoff against the other Republicans. So she'll be the Republican candidate for Senate for his seat in November. in a debate a couple of weeks ago, she gave what has to be the single worst answer any politician has ever given in public ever in the history of politics, where she was asked, you know, a question about Taiwan and China and the South China Sea and you know the the import of that in our foreign relations. And you know, China and Chaiwan, there's a lot of that's that's very that's disputed territory. China believes Taiwan should be part of China. Taiwan Feels it should be independent. And we've historically backed Taiwanese independence and tried to manage all of that very closely. And, you know, the there's enough people, and Lindsey Graham was probably one of them, because he never met of war he didn't like, who could see that as being the flashpoint for an actual conflict between the United States and China. So she was asked about that. And, you know, on stage in front of cameras that were rolling and humans that were alive. She basically said, I don't really know much about foreign policy. I don't I don't I I'm not gonna answer that. I don't I don't have an answer to that question. You know, I don't I don't know I don't know anything about it. Next question? You know Derek: Which I think the next question was about foreign policy as well. And she talked, she said Elwyn: Yeah. Derek: like something, yeah, I don't know much about that. I'm not gonna speak to that, which is just it we are becoming incre like this is the shit that has to change, right? It's we are becoming a soci or our our government is becoming more narcissistic and so sociopathic because Everyone that we elect is a narcissist or a sociopath because all these people just care about being famous more than they actually care about doing the job. Like this is like politics was historically boring and the people that were in it were, you know, lawyers and people that had political science degrees and like had studied this stuff. Now we're getting like some dead guy's sister and like, you know, reality show TV hosts and you know. Elwyn: Yeah, I don't I don't even think this one goes into narcissism or or thirst for power. I think this is just, you know, the the question to me for South Carolina is do we have any standards at all for our senator? For the one of two people who represents us, one of a hundred in the country, who sits in rooms, passes laws about every issue that we have. Do we have any standards regarding baseline intelligence and or knowledge about the issues for for someone to be elected to this role? Any at all. You know, I don't know if she's stupid. Okay, maybe she's not stupid, but she is obviously completely unqualified to be a senator. Right? Like it's obviously that so you know, do we hold our elected officials before we elect them to any standard whatsoever of intelligence and knowledge about the issues that they're gonna be legislating? And look that You don't have to know all the national security ins and outs of the South China Sea, because there's probably a bunch of shit that Lindsey Graham knew from being in the Senate for 36 years that she's not gonna know. But you have to know what it is. You have to know where where it is, who those countries are. You have to have kind of a baseline understanding when an interviewer asks that question what they're talking about, right? Like a and be able to answer it like that. And she wasn't even able to answer it like that. And she did a rehab tour on Sean Hannity the next night or two nights later. You know, and he said he asked her about it and she was like, You know, Sean, I'm not a politician. I I don't know about that stuff. I just haven't studied about that stuff. I just really think that, you know, I'm I want to do the best job for South Carolina and boys shouldn't be playing girls sports. Literally. Literally her pivot was to tr you know, trans women and sports. And I was like Derek: That was the coaching. Yes, zero. Dude the Elwyn: This takes no thought. Yeah, this this takes no thought. Right. Th this is the people listening are so fucking stupid that if you pivot to this completely unrelated and completely unimportant in in the grand scheme of things issue, you're you're in the clear. And having heard all that for two weeks, the voters in South the Republican voters in South Carolina were like, Cool, she's our gal. Derek: Dude, I'm so over this. I'm so over the trans sports conversation. I was listening to Breaking Points a little bit this morning, and they were they were lambasting El Sayyid for his response to Jesse Waters asking him basically if he was circumcised when they were asking about like you know transgender you know people transitioning and people in sports. And I'm just like, man, this conversation and and The weight that people give it when the amount of people it impacts. And don't get me wrong, like I am, I'm I'm fully support trans people and they're right. And I don't, I don't understand what that lifestyle is like to be born into a body that you didn't feel like was representative of who you are. That is a struggle that I will never understand. And so I can try to empathize with that. But I can also use common sense in knowing that there's such a small population of people that are dealing with that that we should be focused on our government and our policy should be written. And this is just part of government. Like, yeah, it fucking sucks that you can't make laws to benefit every people group in all circumstances all the time. Because what you pass for one person may not work effectively for another. That's a shitty thing, but it's a reality of life. And the truth is, is like this. This kind of politics, this what do they call it? Like the social bullshit like Elwyn: Culture war. Derek: culture war. Yeah, the culture war politics. Like this this is the kind of stuff that I'm just like, man, this is what got us here. We're so focused on the wrong things that we're yeah, we're worried about trans kids playing in sports. Meanwhile, the president is enriching himself by billions of dollars while giving out contracts. And starting wars in other countries. Like, come on, like these two things, like like there is a world where we can address all of this, but like the fucking house is on fire. Like, stop trying to clean the windows, you know? Elwyn: Yeah, I I thought El Sayed's answer there was particularly terrible, and that's why he was getting flamed for it. But I don't understand after two years of this why Democrats don't have a better answer to that question. And you know Derek: That is a that that was my takeaway from that conversation. I was like, how in the fuck Elwyn: Yeah. Derek: do are you guys not answering this question the right way? Elwyn: You you you go on Jesse Waters, he's asking that question. It's all they have, right? And Derek: Every time. Yeah. Elwyn: like I don't understand you know, if you're El Sayyed, do a fucking Google search, find out how many trans kids are in high school and in Michigan colleges for whom this issue applies. And when you find that the number is less than ten and probably less than five, there's your answer. You know, Jesse, you're talking about something that affects that that handle that is around six people an issue that's around six people in the state of Michigan. This is not an issue. This is like top 50 when we talk about the corruption, the criminality, the lack of affordable health care, the lack of affordable housing, the declining job market, the declining wages in this country, the assaults on free speech. You could if you're El Sayed, you just hammer all the important issues and you say, this just isn't In the top 20 issues facing Michiganders today. You know, well, well, you're not answering the question. That's right. I'm not answering the question. Okay, when this becomes relevant and important and not just something that you throw out as a culture war, then I'll answer the question and I'm going to vote no on any proposed ban because I think it is a waste of time. The implementation and time spent debating any of this stuff is a waste of time. And that's why I'm going to vote no. Derek: Yeah, a thousand percent. And it's n like look we figured that out in what two minutes. So all of these Democrats that are fumbling over these answers, like, come on, like you know that this is the issue. I mean, it's the one thing in the all of the Greg Ad Abbott ads that are running right now, it's the they are the worst ads. They literally have nothing to talk about other than we're gonna try to keep DSA policies out of Texas and you know We're going to audit the data centers that we just let all of them into our grid and then we're gonna fight to keep boys out of girls' sports. It's like, are you joking me? And for Texas, that number has to be extremely low because I'm gonna guess most trans par like parents that had a Elwyn: Leave. Derek: leave. I I'm gonna guess that they're already gone. So like they I would not be shocked if that number is like almost nil here now. So But well let's move on to I wanted to read this because since last week the Supreme Court made a decision on the mail-in ballots. So on Monday, the Supreme Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to move ahead with his exec executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear about how much this administration can implement that before the midterm elections. It was signed in March, and Trump's executive order directs the federal government to compile lists of eligible voters and orders the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to those the people on those lists. under the new rules, states must submit voter lists to to the Postal Service for every mail ballot, with each ballot tied to a unique barcode containing the voter's name and home address. and then lawyers in democratic states have sued to block the order. Arguing Trump's lack of authority to change election regulations, which is true. Execu executive power should not reach that far over state juris jurisdiction, while a federal judge in Boston froze the directive pending the Supreme Court's final action. So any any additional thoughts from last week as we are getting more information on this stuff. Elwyn: Well, so just the the legal ruling from the Supreme Court's a little it can be a little tough to follow. So I'll sort of here here's what I have been able to divine from it. The executive order, as you said, r requires the Postal Service to come up with a rule to implement it and you you hit the the key points. And what the Supreme Court basically said was because they have not yet come up with the rule. They were not going to, they couldn't continue the injunction that a lower court had put in place against the rule. So they're basically saying, well, we're not there yet, you know. so the the Postal Service can continue to work on finalizing the rule, in which case the rule will then be challenged. And Katanji Brown Jackson, who wrote a dissent for the two other liberals on the court. She called them right out on it, which is like, guys, the it doesn't the executive order itself is plainly unconstitutional, right? The the constitution is very clear that states set the time, manner, and place of elections. States control elections. And that includes how mail-in ballots are handled. States set their own rules about how mail-in ballots are handled. We talked last week about the Postal Service being this intersection where the state and the federal Powers meet, but that doesn't give the postal service, the federal entity, or certainly the president, the ability to control how states handle what they want mail-in voting to look like. That belongs to the states. And it's completely clear. There's no there's no precedent that says otherwise. There's no case law that says otherwise. There's no compelling legal argument that says otherwise. The emergency hours powers act wouldn't say otherwise. Like it's very, very clear. That states are that elections are locally controlled. So her point was no, we should just we're we're 70 days out from the election. I think less, right? I think we're 67 days out from the election. Her point was end this now so that states aren't trying to figure it out. Now, the executive order itself demands that the Postal Service have this rule in place 60 days before the election. So they're running out of time to finalize their rule. Derek: Yeah. Elwyn: but I'd be surprised if they if they didn't have one. But I I wanna I wanna reread what you read, okay? So that we Derek: Okay. Elwyn: can talk about like 'cause we're gonna talk about elections and voting generally, okay? So I'm gonna reread it, but I'm gonna make some changes. sign in March, President Trump's executive order directs the federal government to compile lists of eligible citizens and orders the sheriffs of each state to deliver or sell guns only to people on those lists. Under the new rule, states must submit submit Lists of eligible gun owners to the federal government and FBI for every gun sold or gun permit sought, with each permit tied to unique barcode containing the potential applicants or the applicant's name and home address. Derek: Slam dunk. I mean, yeah, that's ex it Elwyn: Two two constitutional rights. Derek: and people would be losing their damn minds if that's what had come down the pipe. You're a thousand percent correct because yeah, it's it's there's this narrative. It's so we live in an upside down world. This narrative that you know voting is taking place in you know, there's this. fraudulent voting happening all over the world or all over the United States. meanwhile, we actually have tracking data about how many kids are killed with guns and how many people are killed with guns every year. and we're we're arguing over the thing that actually no evidence supports the fact that any election has been lost because of fraudulent voting. I don't think there's one that's actually been altered, right? Elwyn: No. Well th there's that one primary in the Republican in North Carolina. Republican. Derek: that's right. The Republican. And it was done with mail and ballot ballots, right? Elwyn: It was voter registration lists, I think, and and absentee ballots, something something like that. Derek: Something like that. But it there was a clear paper trail of them basically saying, do this, right? Which is it's just insane to me that we're here and we're we're fighting these fights. But I think the the only positive that I I see through all of this is that, you know, like slowly it feels like people are waking up to this stuff and starting to see like I more and more, you know, like it's interesting to read the comments on some of the Texas posts specifically, like. Normally when you when Abbott posts something, you know, there's all these Republican comments supporting it, like, great job, Abbott. things like that. And on Instagram particularly, Facebook is still heavily like supportive, but Instagram you you almost see nothing in support of anything that's said. So it does feel like at there's moments that there's the tide is shifting a little bit still, but goddamn, like come on, y'all, like this is question for you though. and this this is I don't want to derail us too far, but in the event that clearly the Supreme Court right now is is politically motivated and doing things that I think normally a Supreme Court would not do. and I think in general now they may be operating out of fear as well, because there is more and more talks about the sub changes to the Supreme Court when all when all this kind of settles. What would like how difficult would it be to add seats to the Supreme Court? And what would that process actually look like if we did it? Like how how do the how do we appoint do does the president will the presidents essentially have the power to appoint every single new seat if we expanded the court to I think you said thirteen would be or what is it, eleven, thirteen? Elwyn: thirteen. So I mean it would be done by legislation. The number of seats nine is not set in the Constitution at all. So Congress could pass legislation that a Democratic president would have to sign, giving them the power according to however the bill is written, to appoint seats, and they might not say I dunno I can't see the Democrats being so bold as to say our president gets to appoint four new justices, although they should Derek: They absolutely should. Yeah, they they absolutely should. Elwyn: Yeah. Yeah. but no, the it it's it's legislation. It's can you get enough Congress critters to want to vote for that? And I don't know that you'll ever get any Republicans to vote for it 'cause they'll see immediately what this is. so you'd need a a healthy enough Democratic majority to to fight that through. One that's one that's willing to fight it through. The The reason I say thirteen is a number is when the number of seats was set at nine back a couple hundred years ago, there were nine federal circuits throughout the country. There's different district courts and cir circuits. There's thirteen of them, or twelve of I think. Eleven plus the DC circuit, or twelve plus the DC circuit. no, there's thirteen, that's why it's thirteen. and each Supreme Court justice each year would have to, they they would call it riding circuit. They would have to get on their horse and go sit and hear cases in their circuit. You know, so if you were the Supreme Court justice in charge of New Orleans in 1873, you had to get out there to New Orleans and hear some cases in New Orleans as part of your job. So it seems to me to be historically consistent. To pass a bill that says the number of Supreme Court justices must match the number of federal judicial circuits. You know, so you don't set it at 13, you set it to match the number of federal judicial circuits, which happens to be 13. But then, should that law pass, let's say in a perfect world, that law passes and it's 50 years later, in order to change the number of seats, you have to change the number of federal judicial circuits, which is a much, much more difficult thing. It's legislation again, but there's a lot more cost because you have to, you know, build different courthouses, you have to appoint more judges, you have to re-jigger everything, you have to buy new stationery for everything. You have you know, there's just a zillion costs associated with expanding the number of circuits. So that's how I would do it. you know, but it's not a constitutional Derek: Yeah. Well and that's Elwyn: amendment or anything like that. Derek: Yeah. And of course the Democrats won't because they have no balls. So like but I can tell you right now, if the roles were reversed, Mitch McConnell would have already done it. We'd have three if if the Democrats were in power, Elwyn: Dead dead Mitch McConnell. Derek: dead Mitch McConnell, still don't know where he's at. and he's yet to he's yet to surface. God dude, it's this is so weird the times we're living in. and still no proof that he no one has posted Elwyn: Still no proof of life. Derek: No proof of life, and they have not seen any like PT or anybody caught on video going in and out of his house that says they're doing therapy. This dude is either in a coma or he is already under the ground. and we are just not being told. But let's pivot here. It's Elwyn: They hate us. Derek: it's so true. Let's I want to spend a a little bit of time. W we had talked, so we're talking in general about codifying norms, and one of the things that ha we haven't talked a lot about that I think deserves a little bit of our time is the primary process. this has come up a number of times in the last few years, including last year's presidential or two years ago, when Biden was running, we didn't have a Democratic primary. And then when everybody realized he couldn't form sentences anymore, that we just kind of threw Kamala into that seat, which in hindsight was probably the worst thing we could have done to her political career. as well as, you know, actually running somebody that could beat the monster that's in power now. So what are your what are your thoughts on the primaries? And is the system broken and is it something that needs to be fixed or, you know, we good? Elwyn: Yeah, I mean I I I think the system is broken. I don't know how to fix it, and I don't know that there's a better system. Right. So the idea is, of course, that voters of a party, and in some states they're open primaries where you don't have to be registered to a party. Texas isn't is an open primary state. We can vote in any primary that we want. Derek: I think you do have to pick one side or the other, right? Like you can't vote in both primaries, you just have to pick which one you're going to vote for. Yeah. Elwyn: Right. Yes. I think you identify like which one you're voting in when you go to vote. Like which pri which primary you're voting in. Derek: Yeah, I think that's what happened last year. Yep. Elwyn: But you don't have to be registered to a party in order to do that. so it's kind of the same as just going in and selecting candidates, you know, without without making an identification. you know, so it seems to be on its face a pretty fair way to for people who are most invested in a political party to choose the candidate that's going to stand for general election against the other party. But there's some pretty serious issues with it. Among them, it attracts the most extreme people in the party. You know, I don't did you vote in the primary? Derek: I did. I voted y yeah, Elwyn: Yeah, good for you. Derek: I did. I voted for I I voted for Talo Rico. that was the thing that got me out. partially because I've been Elwyn: Was this the first primary you'd ever voted in? Derek: No, I voted in a couple now. But I think I voted I voted for who wait, was Beto running against Elwyn: Beto ran against Cruz and ran against Abbott. Derek: But who who who was he facing in the primary? But didn't didn't he face somebody in the prime Elwyn: I don't remember. Derek: I'm trying to remember who he faced in the primary because I think I think that I'm in Texas, I think I voted in that primary. But yeah, I mean, Crockett I I to be honest, I was annoyed that I had to vote in that primary as much as I because I would have loved to see Crockett run for Senate and you know, Talerico take Abbott out. But and I think that that I think that realistically, if you have those two on the ballot together, I think Texas actually turns blue this year. Elwyn: Yeah, I'm so maybe, I don't know. But the you know, we saw it with the Tea Party. you know, back in twenty ten, the guy who was third in line in the Republican side, Eric Cantor, who was, you know, news media darling on all everybody knew who he was. He lost in a far right primary to a guy named Dave Bratt, who served like three terms before he lost. you had a couple others. AOC was a primary win against an established, you know, sort of twenty 20-year, 10-term or 12-term Democratic congressperson. So only it it tends to be more extreme. That primaries tend to be more extreme than general electorates, right? The the people voting in a primary are the people who are deep into politics. They're following who they are, they know who they are, they want to vote for who they are. Well, those folks also tend to be strongly opinionated and in a lot of cases simply more extreme on the left and the right. So as a result, you get these more extreme candidates running in the general election, you know, because that's who won the primary. And I don't know that that's good for actual legislation and consensus building when you get into Congress or when you get into the Senate. the problem is, you know, what's the alternative? Like Plattner in Maine is an interesting story, right? He won the primary. He won the primary by a lot, but he was very clearly a flawed candidate. So now you had in the primary all this meddling by the cent by the mainstream Democratic Party, the Democratic Party machine, trying to get him to lose the primary, which probably only helped his chances. So now you lose faith in the in the mainstream party and you feel like they're working against you. It's why Bernie bros hate the Democratic Party so much, because they did exactly that in 2016 in the primary. So more voting is pretty much always better, I think. but only if enough people do it that you wind up with representative candidates. And I don't I'm not sure that the primary system brings us representative candidates anymore. you know, would Derek: Yeah, I Elwyn: would a smoke filled room have been have yielded Troy Jackson instead of Graham Platiner in Maine? Derek: Mm. Elwyn: Probably. Derek: Yeah, I mean, the I've never thought about that, but you're you're correct. Like the because we end up getting the more most extreme on both sides. I mean, we're watching this over and over again, right? we're watching the MAGA, you know, Republicans win primaries across the country because we see Trump touting and you know, the ones that they lose, it's hilarious. But the ones that they they they've been winning more than they've lost, right? So you get these people that are way farther extreme on that side and way more disconnected from the the rest of the what used to be the Republican Party, which now is slowly I feel like falling into a third category, like independence. You know, like people that I can would claim to be Republican prior to all of this, but can't follow the the boot licking of just whatever Trump says goes. So like it it's kind of this interesting dynamic, but My my opinion has always been the same in that we want to incentivize our political candidates to write and produce policy that benefits the most people. And so in doing so, you know, like that it it forces most people to the center, which is what we would want, right? So if you if you take away you know, like we've talked about this before, like When we talk about the electoral college and and certain things, if if presidential election was just popular vote, that changes a lot of things because that president now has to actually reach for votes on the other side. You get you it you get less extreme candidates because you're not fighting for just a few places that are swing states, knowing that everything else is taken care of. You actually could lose in normal states if if your policies don't actually benefit those people. And my my take on all of this has been that is like, how in the fuck can we get back to a place where the policies are what were are driving the candidates, not the personality, which is what we're the hell that we're stuck in at the moment. Elwyn: Yeah, and when you have to win a primary, you know, we hit on this before, like something like the the trans folks and sports issue is perfect for a primary. It's absolutely perfect for a primary, right? Because if you have to win a primary and you find some irrelevant extremist position that is is more appealing and palatable to your primary voting base than your opponent. That's what you're gonna lean in on. That's what the commercials are gonna be about. That's what the news coverage is gonna be about. That's what you're gonna run on in the general because it's kind of hard, it's hard to make a clean pivot. You know, so now you have all the discourse shifting kind of as a result of the discourse that's needed to win a primary. You know, and and you have you've certainly seen this with Trump and the Republicans, where if they're not far enough to the right, they're terrified that there's gonna be a primary against them. And that he's gonna back the primary opponent. And he's starting to lose more without a doubt. But you know, for a lot of years, that was it. If you had Trump's backing, you were gonna win. If you didn't, you were gonna lose. So could you go far enough to the extreme right to make sure that you had his backing? You know, is that might be happening a little bit on the Democratic side as well. You know, can you go, can you pitch far enough to the left? I mean, I'd argue that pitching to universal healthcare is not some like incredible yanking of the steering wheel into fascist, communist, Marxist socialism or whatever it is we're calling universal healthcare these days. you know, but that is kind of like that's developing right now, on the left, where you have El Sayed winning the primary over Haley Stevens and Angie Nixon in Florida over Alex Windman. Derek: Yeah. I mean, I think you see, I would say centrist Democrats are coming more and more around. I mean, Obamacare was essentially the step first step towards, you know, Medicare for all, right? It was not that, but it was an attempt to get us closer to that. The hope was I think that we could build on that, which moderate Democrats were all about it. But you're I think going moving towards I mean On the left, you have people saying things like defund the police and you know we shouldn't have prisons and things like that. That's the that kind of rhetoric, but I don't know that that rhetoric lands the same or it doesn't. It doesn't land the same at all as what the right has, which is you know, throw a lim every immigrant in a cage. Like there's there's a there's a general like hatred that like is the underbelly underbelly of repu the Republican Party right now. And if you align with that hatred, like if you hate minorities, you hate trans people, you hate a certain group, you unify behind that more than anything else. It it feels like it's and I don't know that the left, my hope is is that the left does not develop that because that kind of I mean, that's what got us to where we're at. Elwyn: Yeah, mean, Chris Van Holland, senator from Maryland, who is, I think the odds on favorite to be the next sort of top dem in the Senate. you know, where if they win in 2026, Schumer I don't think Schumer's winning the Senate majority position again. Chris Van Holland seems to be the guy who's got the most backing. He was asked about the DSA, and his response, you know, they were like, Does the DSA belong in the Democratic Party? And his response was yes, as part of the as part of the democratic conversation, as part of the process to craft good policy, they belong in this conversation. Like, yeah, that's exactly right. That, you know, talking about as part of that conversation, the hope, my hope, and it seems I I think this is not not wishing, not wish casting too much, is that the defund the police shit goes away. Right. Derek: Yeah. Elwyn: Where the rest of the Democrats are like, no, guys, yeah, we heard you. You won. Wonderful. Sorry. We're not voting for the write the bill. We're not voting for it. but universal healthcare, like, ooh, let's all get together and write that bill. Let's let's figure out how to do this. you know, I think that's what he's referring to, and that makes sense. And that is a different reaction than what we've seen historically on the Republican side, which in 2010 was, you know, don't tread on me, lower my taxes, no taxes, the I shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all. It started with taxes, you know. Then death panels when Obamacare came out and all all this just the the the swing is so wild, on that side, you know, and that's who then wins. Where the Democratic extremists that are running in primaries are advocating for universal health care. The Republican extremists that are running in primaries are screaming that universal health care are death panels and that women's sports is being chewed up and spit out by some amorphous blob of apparently hundreds of thousands of trans men who used to women who used to be men taking over women's basketball and and invading their locker rooms, which is simply not happening. so there is this difference, but the primary system feeds it all. you know the the I know you were like we talked about 18 months ago before we started this. And I remember you were like you were pissed about how Kamala Harris was given the candidate's role. Derek: Mm-hmm. Elwyn: Right. And I don't think it was until I heard until you brought up how mad you were where I was like, yeah, okay. That's that's valid. That's a thing that exists and and there's merit to it. so I think primaries are important because people need to have a voice, but if that's the case then we've got to get more people voting in them. Derek: Yeah. I I I would agree. I think there is a there is a problem and maybe the solution is more parties. Like I mean, we've talked about this before too. Like the the it seems like the Republican and Democratic Party have successfully snuffed out most attempts to start multiple parties. you know, there's the Tea Party, but it's has has anybody ever been elected in a serious position from it? I'm not sure. I know that like Ross Perot was pretty close, right? Elwyn: I mean, yeah. Well, that was Tea Party was post Ross Perot. Tea Party is never Derek: it's post ri Elwyn: was never an official party. Derek: Okay. Was it but so Ross Perot was just an independent? Yeah. Okay. I mean, yeah, that that's the that's the part of it to me, like and may and maybe there's a world where we we diversify that way. But yeah, I mean, if Elwyn could write the law, is there a is there a law that you would put in place to secure or to change primary voting? Elwyn: I might do there th I don't know if I have enough conviction behind any of this to write the law, but I I thought it was interesting how Maine handled Graham Platiner dropping out. because when Plattiner won the primary, he won with a lot of votes. I think he got the most votes by a lot that any primary candidate had ever received in Maine. So there was this real real concern. There there was this real obstacle, landmine hidden out there, which is exactly the same as the Kamala Harris Joe Biden landmine, which is okay, this guy is now dropping out pretty late in the process. We have a bunch of people who voted for him in a primary. We don't have time for a full new primary. What do we do? How do we honor those people's votes and select a candidate? And they kind of had a big old convention with six hundred something people and you know, di weighted by population, but not by popular vote. Like they they weren't assigned from Platinum's votes or anything like that. But it was open enough. You know, everybody knew everybody could appl anybody could apply to be a delegate to that convention at the county level. and a lot of people did. And you knew who the delegates were. And I believe that the The deliberations were public, you know, so and there were there were at least regular reports coming out of it about what was going on. So I think that was like open enough that it represented the will of the Platinum voters. So is there a way to have some layer of folks? I mean, we are a constitutional republic, right? We hear that we're not a democracy, we're republic. It's same fucking thing, okay. The difference is that in a constitutional republic you just elect representatives to speak on behalf of the people. Could you add another layer of that when it comes to selecting candidates? Maybe. You know, maybe. It's it would certainly be a way to vet candidates. Derek: Yeah. There's a I there's a world where that would yeah, and there's a world where that actually works in the favor of the majority of people. I could see that too. Like if you have a a large delegation, but it's not everybody, you you may get enough people in the room that are, you know, level headed enough to stay away from the extremes, which it would potentially not be a bad thing. My only thing is is that Now that we've seen the level of corruption that we've seen, I'm like all this fucking shit would get bought out and turn into corruption, people would be choosing the delicates some shitty way. Elwyn: Yeah, the reason that I can't like go all in on it is because what happened in twenty sixteen is the Democrats have this system of superdelegates, which you know, so people vote in the primary and and del regular delegates are assigned by percentage of vote in the primary, but then there's just these thousands of superdelegates which are totally connected party insiders, and that swayed it away from Bernie. Hillary and the Democratic machine went after those superdelegates to get them to pledge for Hillary and Bernie, despite having a great start to the primary season, it became clear that he wasn't getting the superdelegates. And the superdelegates have nothing to do with the democratic process. So, you know, is there a way to do that without having this kind of total backroom corruption, you know, glad handing going on? I don't know. I do think that we live in an age of incredible transparency, right? That we We can live stream everything. You know, we can we can start at the local the local precinct level and find delegates up up and up and up and up. but money in politics is a huge problem with it. I think the duration of the election cycle is a huge problem with it. Like we should federally fund all this shit, you know, so that no no people have to go out and get the private money. Derek: Yeah, you're not wrong. And I I think in the future that's you're I think that's something that should take on our focus is, you know, like how in the fuck are we in a situation where things can be more transparent than ever and they're not? and we're we're we're dealing with all this on I mean, I I that's likely why there's so many cracks in the pavement. but and why we're having these conversations is like now we can see it all and we need to codify this shit into law. Which is my hope for all of our future elected officials. So we'll we'll end our our conversation there, and tell somebody else to shut the fuck up. So Elwyn: Yeah, Itamar ben Gavir. It's time. Itamar ben Gavir. Itamar ben Gavir is the Minister of Security in Israel. He's like Derek: He's essentially Netanyahu's right hand man, right? Elwyn: Yeah, a and he is just a massive piece of shit. He he's just a massive piece of shit. So last week he gave an interview where he said something like he he felt like we should kill forty to fifty Palestinians for every Israeli that was killed. Like that's his ratio. He's in the past basically said everybody should be killed. Like when people talk you know, people scream the word genocide at Israel all the time. It's because of shit that guys like him say. Not guys like him. It's because of shit that he says. Cause he speaks like a genocidal maniac. and, you know, people in Israel I think are starting to get it. You know, at least the politicians, right? Where Neftali Bennett, who's one of the three guys running for running for the prime minister seat, he gave a speech and he was like, folks, we've lost the United States. Right. And it's like, yeah, bro, correct. Spout time someone over there said that shit. Okay, because it's true. and in response to that, a guy like Ben Gavier just goes off and says the most genocidal, terrible shit. He's he's walked past prisoners, including some Americans that were caught on some of these flotillas, and just like kicked them, pushed them down, laughed in their face. This guy is solely responsible. For a level of hatred and a shift in relations and and public perception that I'm not sure we've seen in this country in my lifetime the speed with which this has happened, with which a historic ally that wasn't really questioned as an ally has now become, you know, absolutely an ally whose alliance with we have with is in deep question. Whose alliance we have with them is swinging elections. And it's because of shit that this fucking guy says. and man, Itamar Ben Gavir, just shut the fuck up. You're you're causing so much harm around the world. And and I'm sure he sees it and just doesn't care. He's unfit for office. He's unfit for any position of responsibility. He's barely fit to be allowed to be around. humans at all at this point. So this week It's Morben Gavir. Shut the fuck Derek: Ciao. I'll take a fist bump Elwyn: Ciao. Derek: on that. The he's god, why why am I blanking on his name? He's the Trump administration's evil dude. What's his name? Bald guy? Stephen Miller. Yes. It's like Elwyn: Steven Miller. Steven Miller. Yeah. Derek: if and I do not think Stephen Miller would hesitate a second to commit genocide anywhere if he had the opportunity to do it. So that dude is Elwyn: You know, my my favorites my favorite Steven Miller clip is there's a video of when he was in high school and I think he was running for office for like high high school office and he was basically like, Why should we clean up after ourselves? We have janitors. Derek: That's you're like Elwyn: And it's you know, it's like the yeah. Derek: that is that's one take. Elwyn: Yeah. Okay, now we see where he came from. That that's a hell of a take, you know. Yeah, that's one take on it from from a high school kid. Derek: Hmm. I would hate of I would I would not have liked to see your apartment in college because it was probably a shithole. who's gonna clean up all this stuff? I'm not doing it. Like your roommates were pissed, bro. They they were not friendly to you. That is Elwyn: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure he had any friends, that's for sure. I I don't think that I've ever heard a news report with like, we're gonna talk with a longtime friend of Stephen Miller. Warf words that have never been uttered. Derek: Yes. I I'm I think you are correct on that. I would be shocked if he had any actual friends in real life. well, what are we talking about next week, Elwin? Elwyn: we can keep talking about like codifying norms. you know, things we didn't really talk too much about Derek: So the next step Elwyn: codification this week, but Derek: Yeah, I think the next step, we wanted to get into enforcement, which had a bunch of different legs to it. I'm trying to remember exactly why I wrote that down. I'll have to look it up. But basically enforcement of laws would be next up, which likely includes laws being passed. So We'll find I'm sure there's gonna be some shit that comes up this week that will inspire those conversations. Elwyn: Well, we can talk about Todd Blanche and we can talk about the the relationship that this country has with the Department of Justice and that the Department of Justice should have with an administration when it comes to enforcing laws. Derek: That sounds like right up the alley. So some DOJ discussion I think is gonna be I mean there's gonna be a lot of DOJ discussion in all of this. So well, to those of you that made it this far, our loyal listeners, thank you and see you next week, hopefully. Elwyn: See you next week.