Charlamagne Critiques NLP and the Cost of Thinking While Black

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Native Lamb Pod is the production of iHeartRadio in partnership
with Reezing Choice Media. Welcome Home, y'all, Episode one O
two of Native Lamb pot where we break down things
that are all political and dip into the culture and
boy ol boy, did we set off a discussion this week?
We are going to get into all of that on

(00:21):
this episode. I am your co host Tiffany Cross here
with Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum and Bacari Sellers. Bakari, we
are told is having some technical difficulties. You guys know,
he's a very hard working trial attorney. He's in trial
at the moment, so he joins us on this podcast
from his office and he is having some technical difficulties.

(00:41):
So we have seen him, we've heard from him, and
he rumor has it he'll be making an appearance on
the show eventually once he gets his dial up fixed.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
I think that's his dialupe.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Beyonce would never have done.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Okay, Well, while we wait on Bakari, what are we
getting into on the show today?

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Angel what you got?

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well?

Speaker 4 (01:00):
If we move beyond to beef, I think that we
really need to talk about another beef that I have
and the beef that I have is with the way
that Donald Trump continues to use this government as a
bank account, rolling bank account while everybody else is frozen out.
So he's asking the Department of Justice for restitution for
crimes he says he doesn't he didn't commit.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Wow, Okay, I have thoughts on that, Andrew, what do
you got?

Speaker 5 (01:24):
I hear that Mayor Brandon Johnson of the Great City
of Chicago issued a different kind of challenge during this
No Kings set of protests over the weekend, and I
actually wonder if we have as a community the stomach
for it. We're here about that and hopefully get into
a little conversation.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
All right, Well, Butcari wanted to talk about something with
the Congressional Black Caucus, So if we have time for that,
we might have to do that on a mini pod
next week. But I know he did reference that, and
I want to get into this what's going on with
snap benefits. I think that'll probably come up in your conversation.
And I know, Angela, you did a whole on the
government shut down. I just want to tell people what's

(02:04):
happening there, and I want to stress that we this
week have certainly heard from a lot of you. We
looked at all your comments, and so we're going to
be joined by Charlemagne the God Lenara McKelvey, host of
the Breakfast Club, who had his own thoughts about what
we shared and quite frankly disagreed with the discussion and

(02:27):
wants to come on and join and share his thoughts
on what anti intellectualism is to him. And so I
think that will be a very spirited discussion. So stay
tuned for that conversation. But for now, let's kick off
the show. I oh, I think Beyonce is in the building.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
AOL, AOL dial.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
Up, get fixed, Bacary, Like, what's going on?

Speaker 6 (02:49):
Man? Look, this is called this is called Orangeburg, South Carolina.
We welcome to the.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
Technological Okay, Well, we just went through our rundown on
what we want to talk about. And I know that
you had mentioned that you wanted to talk about something
with the Congressional Black Caucus. I wasn't clear, So you
should tell the viewers.

Speaker 6 (03:05):
Yeah, No, I mean I think that people need to
understand that the Congressional Black Caucus is at risk. I
think that you know what's going on with the rulings
in the Supreme Court and what you're seeing throughout the South.
Many of your CBC members are at risk of having
their seats either squashed, cut in half, or disappeared. So
it's something we need to raise awareness about, you know what.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
And that reminds me.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
We did get a really great viewer question on section
two of the Voting Rights Act, so I'd love for
you and Andrew to weigh in on those.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
For now, I have to.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Tell you, I'm really concerned with Donald Trump asking for
restitution from the Department of Justice.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
Can you explain to people exactly what that is.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
Explain it to me like a five year old, because
I'm still.

Speaker 4 (03:50):
Following well for those who had forgotten, because there it
feels like we've lived a decade in the last ten months.
Donald Trump, before he was elected president in twenty twenty four,
was charged with ninety one different counts, different felony counts.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
They ended up dropping three.

Speaker 4 (04:06):
It was reduced down to eighty eight and he was convicted.
I think it was it was it thirty two felonies
on the state level. Now he's saying because all of
the cases that were that were mounted against him, brought
by the federal government, brought by the Department of Justice.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
They were thrown out. He now wants restitution. But see
here here, here's how it goes.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
Friend, Just because the case was thrown out doesn't mean
that it was a malicious or selective prosecution. It was
thrown out because you're lawyers, not you, Tiff. I'm just
looking at you, Tiff. But his lawyers said, you know
what we're gonna challenge forget civil immunity. We're gonna go
for criminal immunity for anyone who served as president. That

(04:52):
means that you cannot be liable, convicted, charged for any
criminal rondoing if you did it under the auspices of
be being president of these United States. So the charges
that he no longer faced federally were because they could
no longer bring those cases because he's now criminally immune.
That's what the Supreme Court decided. So he said, let

(05:13):
me take it a step further with my white privilege.
Let me see if since I was never tried, or
since the cases were thrown out, can I get you
to run me my money that's not mine? So he said, tif,
you pay it to this taxpayer bucket. I want your
money to come to my pockets now and pay two
hundred and thirty million dollars of restitution for these charges

(05:37):
that I wasn't convicted of. Again, not because he didn't
do it, just but just because he's immune.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
He's trying to see.

Speaker 5 (05:43):
How far he the judges to the Supreme Court that
decided imune.

Speaker 4 (05:47):
Yes, that's true as well what he did, that's true
as well. But the thing that is yes, no, but
it's but it's true as well. And I think the
other thing that's important to understand is the Florida judge
who he did appoint also Andrew not just the Supreme
Court justices, but Eileen Cannon said they that they've made
two separate claims. No, they've I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.

(06:12):
I'm looking at the wrong thing. They that they've made.
In the case of mar A Lago Judge Eileen Cannon,
who ruled in favor of Donald Trump on some very
controversial issues. The one thing that Judge Cannon, who he appointed,
did not rule on was that the search of his
mar A Lago compound was improper or violated his rights.
So let's say that there was some wrongdoing which would
be the reason for restitution.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
There was none, and so he just says, let.

Speaker 4 (06:36):
Me just see if because there's a gray area or
a place where it's silent, I can now recover something.
He claims that what he would do with the money
is that for that east wing that he's now torn down,
he's over there destroying the White House and Kseyawn missed it.
For that east wing, I'm going to use that money
to build out this grand ballroom that the country so
desperately needs in the middle of a shutdown.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
This sounds like, man, he's not planning on leaving the
White House with maccari. Let me ask you, how likely
is this to happen? Like, do we think that he
will actually get two hundred and thirty million dollars of
taxpayer money and restitution based on what Angela just said?

Speaker 6 (07:13):
He should not. Angela highlighted something that was very important
about the reasoning, the legal reasonings why he should not
and the indictment to regurgitate a little bit wasn't tossed
out because of some finding of malicious prosecution. The timeline
goes the indictments were actually just and prudent based upon

(07:33):
what the prosecutor believed. However, subsequently, the challenges to presidential
immunity were made to the Supreme Court and that expanded,
and I think that timeline is very important. And so
you know, it becomes a weird question. So does he
pardon himself? Is that necessary to happen? The conflict is inherent,

(07:58):
But as we know, the conflict of interest is now
or bothered this White House because ultimately, and this is
why I'm hesitant about saying no to the question that
you asked Tiffany, Ultimately, the decision made about who's going
to pay out that Tort Claim Act is going to
come from the Department of Justice, where we see there
is no separation. There is some unique case law over

(08:19):
who can bring a tort claims a case which is
what this falls under, is called the Federal FTCA Federal
Tort Claims at case. And you know there are intentional
acts that you can file a case against the federal
government for you can just actually file a notice and
those cases can be resolved on the basis of that notice.
And so I really don't know this is this like

(08:41):
many other things we deal with, this unprecedented novel ground.
But if there was some level of ethics, the answer
would be no. And this would be something that you
probably wouldn't even bring up right now if you're a
president of the United States. But I wouldn't be surprised
if you got a check written on the backs of
tax pack.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
Everyone's seen Andrew.

Speaker 5 (09:01):
Yes, he's gonna get the money, just as he achieved
the prosecution of the people he told the US Attorney
General to prosecute. She turned around and she prosecuted them.
I don't think there's any with the respect to all
the legal leaf. I don't think that there is any
respect towards the law whatsoever. And I don't even believe

(09:23):
that there's any respect towards the process. If the president
tweets that he ought to get his money back from
his appointed attorney general for cases that, in his words,
should have never been bought and that he was never
found guilty of, and of course you've heard the reasoning
as to why those things didn't need to play themselves out.

(09:44):
I think he's going to get exactly what he asked for, period.
And he's telling the American people that he's going to
achieve these things, and he's so gratuitous with his winnings
that he's going to put it right back in the
American government on an expense the American people didn't ask for,
were not budget through the budgeting process, but that we're
decided by the president. And I think he's going to

(10:04):
get him and I think he'll get his money back
to and if you should choose to redivert that two
hundred and forty million back to his own pocket at
some point, I'm sure he'll figure way to make that
happen as well. I think this is a White House unconstrained,
the president, unconstrained, the Attorney General unconstrained. I just hope,
and I hope, and I hope, and I say this
with the beliefs that it will happen, that there'll be

(10:26):
a day after Donald Trump, and if the people who
then have executed and excavated and worked around and buried
underneath the laws will know that those laws will be
back to haunt them one day too.

Speaker 4 (10:39):
I just want to say one other thing that I
think is if we're in b I see you, and
I will yield in just a second. Donald Trump is
maintaining that any decision about whether or not he gets
restitution or not will be based upon or This means
that the decision will absolutely come across his desk, so
he thinks that Pam BONDI will decide is the decider,

(10:59):
and then he will sign off on it. The one
flag that I have is that DJ is saying that
they will defer to the career prosecutors at DJ. The
problem is they're firing those, so he just will hire
new you know, a career folks. And now I think
that's the other problem. Yeah, I know you're about to

(11:20):
say something, you know, Yeah.

Speaker 6 (11:22):
I mean, I have a really unique relationship with Merrick Garland.
But this is when the criticism of Merrick Garland comes
into play full front of.

Speaker 3 (11:30):
You should have him come on the show.

Speaker 6 (11:32):
I think, I mean, I think I will. Merrick Garland
is a unique figure because I've actually seen him work.
I worked diligently and closely with Merrick Garland and the
biggest civil rights case that I had, Merrick Garland had
to literally go over to the FBI building and meet
with Christopher Ray at the time so that they would
settle the Mother Emanuel case. It was eighty eight million
dollars paid out to one of the most violent civil

(11:54):
rights cases we've ever seen in the history of this country.
I saw him spend time with those families. I saw
him move mountains to make justice work. But then, you know,
the flip side is you see what happens when justice
moves too slowly and when justice has what is somewhat
of a level of cowardice when it comes to taking

(12:15):
on those who need to be prosecuted. Because if Marion
Garland prosecuted Donald Trump the way we see other dignitaries
and other countries prosecuted, we wouldn't be here, Which brings
me to my second point, which is Democrats are going
to have to have the courage in twenty twenty eight
to run on the fact that they are going to
prosecute those individuals who profoundly flaunted the law and not

(12:36):
do what democrats do, which is just to say America
wants to turn the page, let's wash our hands at
this and not mention it. And so I think they
looking back at history is that great is a great
metric for looking forward at what we should expect from
our especially people running for president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (12:53):
It's just frightening to me.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
I you know, America introduced that the ridiculous term banana
Republic because it was really you know, making fun of
Latin countries for corruption, but when you look at how
they've handled their corrupt leaders. Argentina prosecuted their former president.

(13:16):
We saw the same thing in Brazil at Bolsonaro. And
to look at this happening here in America. For us
as black folks, I think we've always viewed it as
a very corrupt country. We've never looked at this government.
It's something that was on the up and up. But
to see it so brazenly and blatantly taking place before
our eyes, I just I still question every single day,

(13:36):
six months from now, what will I regret not doing today.
You know, we are seeing a country that arrests his
political enemies. We are seeing a country that calls for
the killing of people who host ai videos of him
literally taking a shit on protesters while wearing a queen tat,
not a king, not a king's crown, a queen crown.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
So I you know, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
I'm just very distraught seeing these things take place before
our eyes every single day.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
It's incredibly frightening.

Speaker 5 (14:10):
Andrew, I mean, the only surprise here is that he
waited this long for the grift. You would have thought,
being Donald Trump, being Donald Trump, that he would have
went for the money first. To be quite honest with you,
I never thought that him trying to make himself whole
from the legal cases that he well earned in this

(14:32):
country was going to be so delayed. I really thought
that it'd be in the front door. He would excuse
himself the charges and get his money, rather get his
money and maybe then excuse himself for the charges. But
one thing that I think the American people know to
be clear about this man is he is very clear
on the grift. He is always coming for the money.

(14:52):
Always follow the money with the man. He's coming for it.
This is not an afterthought for Donald Trump. This was
probably a before thought that somebody convinced him to integrate
a little later into the game. But he was always
coming for the pocket.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
Oh well, we have we have a lot to get
to on the show today, and we still have our
conversation coming up with Charlemagne and God. So I want
to close us out on this. But I have to
say I've been looking at some of the archives of
interviews I did five or six years ago, and it's
amazing what we knew about Donald Trump then. And it
feels like America has failed an open book test.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
We knew then that he was corrupt.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
We knew then that in the first few months of
the administration his family made over eighty billion dollars off
a grift on the government. So it's frightening to see this.
But I always like to make sure that we include
our viewers. You for watching and listening, so thank you
for sending in your videos. And we have one question
now on section two of the Voting Rights Act, so

(15:44):
let's get to that.

Speaker 7 (15:47):
Hi, Native Lamb, my husband and I just said us
watching the episode, the latest episode one oh one, and
we're trying to figure out his voters at voters Section two.

Speaker 8 (16:03):
He broke it down for me, gave me a better
understanding vot he thinks.

Speaker 9 (16:08):
But we just want to.

Speaker 8 (16:09):
Make sure that we understand correctly why the Supreme Court
is hearing this case and how will it affect the
black community. So you can break it down for us
and lamor lamess terms, that would be amazing.

Speaker 5 (16:26):
I don't know if it's a good guest or not,
but it looks like she and her husband in the
middle of a workout and they're discussing our show. As
I want to appreciate them for working us into that
and this is not different, Bacardi, than what you were
mentioning at the at the earlier part of the show.
You know, Section two is the part of the Voting

(16:47):
Rights Act where essentially it allows for communities of sort
of shared interests to be able to make the choice
of their choosing. And to put that another way, it's
one of the few ways in which the the Constitution

(17:07):
and its subjugate amendments along the way allows for people's
race to really be considered in there and in its representation.
We know already through the weakening of Section two that
the that the Court, at least as it's made up
right now, is permitting gerrymandering or at least lines to
be drawn, congressional lines to be drawn based off of

(17:31):
how a party can gain political advantage. But it has
come short of allowing lines to be drawn that basically
allow for uh communities of color and communities of shared
interest to be chopped up, to be reduced, to be

(17:51):
manipulated in such a way that they lose representation or
access to representation and its seats in Congress. And I'm
getting why this is actually so difficult for a lot
of people to understand. And I didn't have to look
any further than thinking about the state of Florida, wherever
the last several years, Ronda Santis has basically gotten rid
of black access seats all around the state of Florida

(18:14):
and Central Florida and North Florida, made attempts in South
Florida where previously these were seats were unambiguously held by
black elected officials who won them through a court's consent decree,
a court's instruction that these seas be created. Donald Trump
Junior or Ronda Santis has decided summarily to go through

(18:34):
and redraw these lines, splitting black people out of the district,
creating districts that are more super white with shreds or
shards of black people represented in them, where the end
result is that you cannot elect a black person to
Congress based off of who gets to vote in those elections.
So where we now find ourselves is that because this

(18:55):
has happened in so many places, think about the states
of Mississippi, of Alabama in some cases, the attempts that
are being made in Georgia, but all over the South
where you have black folks who are I don't know,
a third of the population that come close to forty
or fifty percent of the population of a place, but somehow,
when it comes to their congressional representation, of six seats

(19:16):
that are available to that state, only one of them
has a Black representative in them, even though black people
are more than forty percent of a state's population. You understand,
the point that we're trying to make is that you
can have enough black people in a state to create
a significant minority, but those votes are never enough to

(19:37):
create I don't know, out of a state of six seats,
two or three of those seats being Black access seats.
So this is not a crisis for a lot of
people in America anymore, because they have had to live
through instances where our seats have been slowly but surely
taken down, and, to Begardi's point earlier in the show,
eventually going to be taken out such to the point

(19:59):
that we may not even have a representative congressional Black
caucus in the US Congress anymore.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
That's what I wanted to ask Andrew, So sorry for interrupting,
but you're kicking it right over to Bikari Bakari. I mean,
was that the point that you were making is that
what you mean that we could literally be looking at
no more Congressional Black Caucus, which I would imagine potentially
means no more tricoccus, no more k pak, no more cecio.

Speaker 6 (20:24):
I mean, I mean, I use some some sensationalistic language.
I mean, but the number of black members will go
down exponentially. I mean you'll be talking about districts like
I think the sixth Congressional district in South Carolina, where
I say it is probably the best example. After Jim
Cliburn leaves. You can maneuver that district in places that

(20:46):
you know that district is now twenty five percent black,
and there there's an argument that you know, it makes
other districts more competitive, but what we do know is
that that would be one less CBC member, and you'll
see that happen throughout the South in particular. And then
you know, just to add a little cruelty, which sometimes
that is the point, you just put two black people
in one district and make them negroes fight it out.

(21:08):
And that is happening, if I'm not mistaken. In South Florida,
it's actually w Washman shows and a black Yeah debut
Watchman shows and what's my other member's name, But it's certainly.

Speaker 5 (21:20):
What's happening in Texas. It's definitely worth what's happening in
Texas right now?

Speaker 9 (21:25):
Yeah, yeah, exactly exactly.

Speaker 6 (21:27):
So you're seeing those things, and yes, I shout out
to watching the show, I appreciate you. But those are
those are the results of the actions that are taking
place right now, I could.

Speaker 4 (21:36):
Say, quickly, very quickly, I just want to emphasize the
difference between Section two and Section five, which we no
longer have. Section two was preclearance, states that had a
pattern in practice of discrimination had to submit their plans,
their voter plans ahead of time to get approval, and
Section two now rest on the burden rest on the

(21:57):
voter to prove that they were deprived of this of
being able to exercise their franchise and being able to
elect a representative of their choice. There was a three
part test in the Gingles case that Janey Nelson shout
out to Jenney, we already talked to her last week,
referenced in her oral arguments last week. I won't go
through that three part test, but that is also available

(22:18):
for people to understand.

Speaker 3 (22:19):
So now all of the.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
Burdens for black folks, brown folks who want to see
themselves protected, voting rights protected, they have to rely on
Section two if the Supreme Court doesn't also gut that,
which is it is looking like?

Speaker 1 (22:31):
And Jennae Nelson, of course runs the NAACPLDF and as
a black woman who argued before the Supreme Court, antiplated
a great interview with her. If you haven't seen it,
you should check it out.

Speaker 5 (22:40):
Only one it out, okay? I haply saying that the
government right now would be the agency that has the
grounds for legitimacy to bring these cases to the court
on behalf of the voters. That is the piece that
the US Supreme Court delayed taking additional action on the

(23:01):
supp If the course should come to the conclusion that
the government is the only entity that can argue that
a state is out of line with any with any
how do you say failty to the law, then if
we were relying on Donald Trump's judiciary to bring that case,

(23:21):
those cases would never come Why Because Pambondy in this
case has decided against the standard government position. She's now
on the other side of the government's.

Speaker 4 (23:29):
Arguments state governments. Andrew, just for clarity, is the state governments.
They're bringing it, and we're also up a crete there.

Speaker 5 (23:35):
All I'm saying is that the federal government's previous position,
all the way up until Pambondi's administration here was always
on this was the government's position, wasn't upholding these respective
standards of the law. If their position now is to
collapse those to say, the state government is right to

(23:56):
have no argument on the other side, and then the
states and then the West Supreme Court says that these
cases cannot be bought by interest groups anymore, like the
like Janey and what she's doing at the Legal Defense Fund.
If they no longer are a party to this, who
is going to bring the legal cases on our behalf?

Speaker 1 (24:13):
Yeah, exactly, that is a question, right, Okay, Andrew was
always profound. So I hate to cut you off because
I wanted to hear what you had to say, But
because our show is so so packed, I do want
to shift us along because I'm coming right back to you, Andrew,
because on the other side of this break, Chicago Mayor
Brandon Johnson has quite the charge for society.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
We're going to get into that right after this. Stay tuned.

Speaker 10 (24:49):
My ancestors as slaves can lead the bravest general strait
in the history of this country. Operations we can, Gooby said,
today people people well people to people people relations. We

(25:21):
are makeupations to boss to live on because of this generation.

Speaker 5 (25:37):
Are you letting to take it to a book to
the snake?

Speaker 3 (25:42):
He ain't net a lampid.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
My name is Andrea.

Speaker 11 (25:45):
I am originally from Cleveland, Ohio, but I've been living
in Fort Worth, Texas for the past almost ten years,
and I wanted to pick y'all brains about Mayor Brandon
Johnson's call for a general strike during the No King's
protests this past Saturday on October eighteenth. I think that

(26:07):
that was a very bold move by an elected official,
especially during the times of like this administration. And I
also think that him calling for the general strike on
a national stage, even though a general strike is nothing new,
it's not a new concept, but I think he's probably

(26:30):
one of the few elected officials who has called for
a general strike to meet this moment. Also, I think
that in this moment, as Bakari and Tiffany had the
conversation that during the one hundredth episode about the relationship

(26:51):
between black men and black women and how Bakari stated that,
you know, black men don't really get a chance to
breathe and lead. I feel like think this is a
perfect opportunity. I feel like Mayor Brendan Johnson has put
the call to action out and I think it is
a perfect opportunity for black men to meet the moment.

Speaker 2 (27:14):
I think that's you, Andrew.

Speaker 5 (27:15):
Oh, well, there's the resident black man not meeting moments.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
Now what that meant?

Speaker 5 (27:22):
I take her at her words, and I appreciate everything
she had to say and the question the framing. I
appreciate also the seriousness by which she interpreted the mayor's comments.
I don't think it got covered in real broad swaths
of American media that a general strike had been called
for by the mayor of Chicago. It's one of the

(27:42):
largest municipalities in the country. He sits at one of
the most powerful purchases of political power, and he did
admonish us to hold corporations accountable for their complicity in
the moment. I thought it was powerful. I honestly, I
wish that it was accompanied by more fanfare, that more
people said what a thing was similar to what this

(28:06):
viewer did. I question if the American people are prepared
to demonstrate the kind of appetite for resistance that we
say not just in a weekend's protest, but in a
day in and a day out, weekend, week out, month
and month out, resistance toward putting our financial dollars behind

(28:29):
a system and behind a set of systems and corporations
who have fallen fidal to this autocratic form of government,
who basically saying we're okay with this so long as
we keep making money, or we're okay with it so
long as our deals toward consolidation of company X and
Y still go forward. Or you saw with Salesforce, one

(28:52):
of the most impactful companies in this country, the chairman
of their foundation board back up, and basically, I don't
recognize Benioff, don't recognize the person who I thought I
was in good company with accomplishing good things for the
American people when you agree with the President sending the
National Guard into the excuse me, into the city of

(29:14):
San Francisco. So I'll just double down on compliments for
Mayor Johnson on his call, and I would just hope
similar to how we've seen our brother in Atlanta helped
to to to that's Jamal Bryant. That is to create

(29:34):
a framework around what protests out to look like, what
impact ought to look like. That there's some people who
are part of that movement who are willing to put
pen to paper to sketch a to sketch a resistance
and what that resistance looks like. That might help to
build the appetite amongst American people to say, you know what,
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is,
where my where my street shoes are, and say I

(29:57):
can protest not just for days resistance, but I can
protest for the next foreseeable future so that we can
still have the democracy if we can keep it.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
Angela, what do you?

Speaker 6 (30:09):
What do you?

Speaker 2 (30:11):
I have so many questions I want to hear you.

Speaker 3 (30:12):
At thoughts fars Well, just a few things. The first
thing is, you know, since we.

Speaker 4 (30:19):
Talk about black intellectualism at least over the last couple podcasts,
I've been thinking a lot about the approach. We've talked
before about Congressman Rangel saying whether or not we took
the right path and in our liberation from economic roots
versus social roots. We think about the beefs that is,

(30:40):
like we didn't create beefs y'all believe that, believe it
or not, between Booker T. Washington and w E b
DU Boys or w E b DU Boys and Marcus
Garvey and all of the others Jay Z and oas right,
all the others that have existed. And I think that
what comes to mind is that ultimately most of us,

(31:01):
I say, ninety five percent of us agree that black
people need to be free in this country.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
We often disagree on the means. And I was looking at.

Speaker 4 (31:13):
Stuff on the General Strike and like, why wb DU
Boys says that it was enslaved people and their general
strike that really resulted in our emancipation, and so have
we since. And I had thought about it because of
what Brandon said at the top of his remarks, which
was like, it was our ancestors and the general strike
that led to our freedom. So I was like, I

(31:34):
know that from somewhere, and then I was like, Oh,
it's w B DU Boys, who I just so I
happen to talk about. But the thing is in Black
Reconstruction in America, he has an entire chapter on the
General Strike. And I wonder, if we don't take this
moment you keep saying to if we need to go
back and read books, but read the book for how
it applies in this moment. What is the lesson that

(31:55):
we can learn the call to action from the various
scholarly pieces that exist, and if it's quotes from people
who didn't necessarily write books, but they were an essential
part of different movements and movement building. What is the
role of the black person in labor, you know, not
just the person in black labor leadership, but the actual
dues paying labor union members.

Speaker 3 (32:16):
Educator, Yeah, what's the role of all of us?

Speaker 4 (32:19):
The commentator, you know, the influencer, who's the creative content producer,
whatever it is.

Speaker 3 (32:25):
What is the role that we must play in this moment?

Speaker 4 (32:28):
And if we are to strive towards a general strike,
do we have commonality around understanding for what that means
at that point? That's not just a boycott of a
business and withholding your dollar for Black Friday or Christmas Eve.
Now we're talking about workers saying if you don't respect
my labor, I don't respect your business and I'm not

(32:50):
going to go. Do we feel that our people are
willing to sacrifice their paycheck they're going to work?

Speaker 3 (33:00):
Is a strike?

Speaker 4 (33:01):
Right like it is saying I'm withholding my labor. I'm
not just withholding my dollar and supporting your business. I'm
saying that since you don't respect my personhood, you also
are not going to be a benef You're not gonna
be gonna be a beneficiary of my labor. I'm going
to deprive you of that because now we're at a
crossroads where, you know, it's not just about democracy anymore,

(33:23):
it's literally about my ability to survive in this space.
It is dangerous, it's as risky.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
Well it sounds even privileged that that would even be
a question.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
Well, but you know, but I think that W. E. B.

Speaker 4 (33:34):
Du Bois at the time would argue it was not
privileged for enslaved people to withhold their labor. It was
a matter of survival. And so then the question becomes,
are we at that type of crossroads where now our
labor and are withholding that labor as risky and as
sacrificial as it is, is that the only way that
we'll truly see liberation in this country?

Speaker 6 (33:56):
Well? WB.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
De Boys was also criticized at the time. I mean,
he you know, and this is of course post slavery,
where he, you know, was leading a cause and always
thought that there would be a path in this country
where black folks could be accepted. You know, he was saying, like,
no black people. He wasn't saying withhold your labor. He
was saying, go participate in this system, go fight in

(34:16):
this war, because then if you do that, you will
they cannot deny you. They cannot deny your citizenship, they
cannot deny your equal rights. Of course, he later changed
that changes, right, Yeah, he changed his attitude. But I'm
just saying at the time when he was saying that
there they had be for real, and Marcus Garvey said
of w E B du boys, this is the white

(34:37):
man's nigga.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
Y'all listening to you.

Speaker 1 (34:40):
And so I just think at this time I would
have a hard time telling somebody, yeah, withhold your labor
and don't get that paycheck, you.

Speaker 3 (34:48):
Know, because that's the very thing Brandon is coming for.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
I agree, this is why I have questions about it.
And so I'm just trying to think realistically, what does
it look like for us to not only withhold our labor,
because now we're talking about with hold our participation in
this white constructed society, and so any and anytime I
think about that, I think, Okay, we build our own communities,
we live off the grid, you know, we grow our

(35:12):
own food. And when that has happened, they've come and
destroyed our communities. They've literally burned them down. At me,
just Tulsa, I mean, we can go over more than fifty.
You can look up the Red Summer of nineteen nineteen,
which predated Tulsa, of course, and look at all the cities,
all the white violence, all the despotism that we've survived.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
So again I would ask us, is this a time
to flee?

Speaker 1 (35:36):
That doesn't to me that is perhaps an act of violence,
or not an act of violence, an act of resistance.
But I really stay well, I was to teeing that
up to get Andrew's perspective on this, only because for me,
I only have me, you know, like I do have family,
but what I don't have is a spouse and children,

(35:59):
school systems to worry about. I guess health care. Health
care isn't an issue for me, but like healthcare systems,
not just for myself, but because other people. I will
you say that what does that really look like? And
that is a real last question, and how and Andrew
you're in Florida, You're in the belly of the beast, Like,
at what point or I don't know, just your thoughts
on all of it. I was gonna say, at what point, Well.

Speaker 5 (36:17):
Rebirth the beast. Yeah, the parents of the beast. We
are the beast.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
Some people say he is a dick of the country,
but that's another Well, you know, there's that.

Speaker 5 (36:27):
So, first of all, I do think the amount of
racial consolidation around this idea, in order for success to
be had in all, you know, points across this land
would be significant. White people would have to find themselves

(36:48):
as at risk as many of us find ourselves at risk,
I think to participate. I wonder whether or not the
appetite for that exists, and I mean for a general strike. Right,
So we're talking about at all levels of society, largely
against the owners, right, the same owners who helped us
develop these narratives of these very meaningless, bifurcated meritives, narratives

(37:13):
on the workplace that put black and white people and
black and white bodies at strife toward each other. Anyway, Right,
I'm gonna give you a title and a promotion without
any financial increase, just so that we can keep the
turbulence between blacks and white so that we can be
sure that you'll never find the same side with each other.
You'll never end up fighting on the same side, because

(37:33):
we've now created a level of difference between you, and
that difference now will always exists. So are folks who
are who were susceptible to that kind of divide before?
Are they going to be equally as succeptable to it?
Are they willingly? Are they going to be willingly able
to walk away from their jobs, their workplaces, and the
places that they patronize frankly out of solidarity with the

(37:59):
kind But they don't see it as the country right
now because they only you know, because but for their
favorite late night comedian, they hadn't seen themselves in the
crosshairs of its.

Speaker 2 (38:08):
Impacts talk about it.

Speaker 5 (38:10):
So are they now willing to see themselves truly in
the crosshairs of the impact and are now willing to
lay their bodies on the line? And I mean their
physical bodies. I don't know how we get a general
strike that is successful if once again it relies on
black and brown bodies to lay themselves at the sacrifice

(38:33):
of everything horrible that happens in society and whatever little
good that they are able to extract from society so
that everybody else gets to be the benefactor of their
of their sacrifice.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
I do well really quick. I just want to say, Andrew,
we're not making you the sole black man here. As
you guys know, Bakari joins this podcast while he's in trial,
so he had to run to court, but he will
be joining us for our interview with Charlemagne and the God,
which is coming up right after this segment, So don't
go anywhere. I just wanted to let folks know why
Bakari wasn't weighing in. He had to run, but he's
coming right back for that important conversation.

Speaker 4 (39:07):
I think the other thing that we might need to
consider is, like you know, just like anything else, is
just focusing on not leaving the country, but on this
general strike concept. There is something to be said about
the privilege piece that you mentioned. And one thing that
I would love to see My dad has been saying
this for years and every time something goes down, particularly

(39:29):
in athletics, my dad is like, I wish the players
would do X, Y or Z. And one thing that
comes to mind here is It would be incredible, Like
the NBA.

Speaker 3 (39:39):
Just opened up.

Speaker 4 (39:40):
It's a preseason over game opener, you know, just a
couple of days ago. It would be dope to see
entire teams say, until my personhood is respected, until my
community's respected, until democracy is no longer compromised.

Speaker 3 (39:54):
I don't have anything for you.

Speaker 4 (39:56):
And what would it take to organize players around that,
Whether it's the NBA, the MLB, or the NFL, what
would it take for them to say, like at a
pivotal moment, whether it's a season opener, it is right
before playoffs start, like until we get some things done.
And I wonder really if they know their power or
if they could if they're willing, like we keep saying,

(40:18):
you know, it would be a sacrifice for maybe these
hourly wage workers. I know it would be sacrificial as
well for players who support their whole families. But I
don't know where the buck stops. No pun intended, right,
It's like it has to stop somewhere. So if the
Miszoo athletes could come together, the football players and say
we're organizing with other students on campus and administration at

(40:41):
Maszoo until you hear what they're saying we can't play
for y'all.

Speaker 3 (40:46):
It turned immediately.

Speaker 4 (40:47):
I think there's so much of what we're fighting against
and protesting and people are carrying signs and banners and
bullhorns for that.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
If a few of the elites, yeah, and by that I.

Speaker 4 (40:58):
Mean people who actually made it's a professional leagues said
we're not going to do this with you until you
respect us in this way. I think that could be
well a general strike that that could at least kick
it off.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
Can I ask you then, because we've had this conversation,
how do you square that with Because somebody could argue
Jay Z's partnership with the NFL, he's providing entertainment for.

Speaker 2 (41:21):
This, like does like how do you square that with?

Speaker 11 (41:24):
Like?

Speaker 1 (41:24):
Does he have a role to play in saying because
he said we're beyond protesting. You know, that was part
of the discord I think was he and Colin Kaepernick.

Speaker 3 (41:31):
A small clip of what he said.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
He said beyond kneeling, and I think he was talking
about I think he said right after that that it's
time to stand up and take us right.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
But his intention was we were beyond what Colin Kaepernick
was doing. He was trying to take the next step.
In conversation with Colin Kaepernick, he has had pushback on that,
of course, But I wonder as we talk about that,
the people who are in a position like that, should
they be leading an effort to get athletes to stop
playing or leading an effort to provide aner tayment for

(42:00):
the Super Bowl delivering a political political message. And it's
not either one and again or both in I agree,
and I think that what I'm saying is what we
keep doing.

Speaker 4 (42:10):
And I really think this is where we shoot ourselves
in the proverbial foot. We keep trying to get one entity,
one person of influence, one person of power, to be
all things to all of us, and I don't think
that's their role.

Speaker 9 (42:23):
There.

Speaker 4 (42:23):
The people who would most likely be the most influential
with athletes to get them to sit down are the
veterans in the league. Are the people who they like,
the people who are the old heads in the league,
like they're yeah, they're they're veterans.

Speaker 3 (42:37):
So, but I'm not talking about I see what you
think they're They're not.

Speaker 4 (42:41):
They're no longer out of the military. I'm talking about
people who are old. And then also the people who
have tried it. It's been so long, but it would
have been like a Muhammad Ali. There are a lot
of folks who went back to learn from Muhammad Ali.
It would have been a Jim Brown before he changed.
I said, before he changed, what would have been those folks.

(43:01):
It's the it's the the John Carlos Is and the
Times Smith. Why did you take this approach? And what
did you sacrifice in doing that? And can I stomach that?
Am I brave enough to do?

Speaker 11 (43:12):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (43:12):
I've seen by the top one percent ever, and certainly
not one towards the success. This is This is why
coon tycoons tycoons of industry, is why Henry Ford decided
that his best tactic was going to be to separate
the proletariat, to put one man who feels equal next
to this the other man that feels equal. Because in

(43:34):
my experience, having you know, watched these things, I don't
know that there's a lot of common cause between me
and the top one percent of athletes in this country
or the top earners who are largely who largely constitute
the who largely make up the players of the National
Basketball League. But I'm actually also not looking for enemies here.

(43:55):
I think we want friends on all sides.

Speaker 3 (43:58):
Andrew, can't you see where.

Speaker 9 (44:01):
It could drive?

Speaker 3 (44:02):
Just let me just let me just ask you this
really quick. Can you see where the.

Speaker 4 (44:06):
People who are the players are more like the laborers
and the owners are more like the heads of corporations? Well,
they are, they are they literally they literally have unions,
not at all.

Speaker 5 (44:19):
Because regular people are usually unionizing over the ability to
put food on the table from one check to the next.
And I think when you sit at this is why
you know what folks are like? Well, what about athletes
such and such and such, And why wouldn't he be
against a ross holding a fund raiser for Trump because
he would be a guest and invited guests at such

(44:39):
a dinner. Because that's the that is the strata in
which people roll. And I just don't think that our
shared race can can, can can can any longer be
a topical connection between uh us as a group of people.
We we are not we are not advocating for the
same things in the tax bracket because we're not in

(45:00):
acted by the same things in the tax bracket. The
reason why I can see that fifty cent comes down
differently on his politics toward a bush or toward a
Trump and then where I could ever come down, it's
because we don't. Our pocketbooks don't look the same, our
checks don't look the same. And I think power corrupts absolutely,

(45:22):
and in this day and age, power is in so
many ways interpreted by your money, not by who you
can call them the cell phone necessarily, but by how
much money you have. That that's the trading card, that's
the currency. I think we have better if we could
get over this big issue of race. I think our
better cause is going to be toward the man or

(45:43):
the woman I'm standing next to earning similar amount to
being separated by superficial differences that are no differences at all,
and for them to wake up and realize that the
same enemy we're trying to withhold our services from are
the same ones who have their foot on your neck too.
And I just think it's harder for wealthy people to
see that with other wealthy people. I think it's an easier, easier, common,

(46:08):
a common reframe that working folks see in other working people.
But you know what, can I failed at this Booker T.
Washington failed that all of those who tried to move
this argument to be one of economics have almost always
failed at this, largely funded by the big pooh bahs

(46:29):
who have made the issue about race right. Every time
we talk about money, they want to talk about race.
Every time we have a share ground, they want to
change the narrative to one that's more superficial in nature
to keep us from grasping at the thing we know
we share.

Speaker 9 (46:44):
The most that can.

Speaker 1 (46:46):
I just say, this is why I love our conversations
because we all have very different perspectives. I don't know
that I have a perspective here, but I'm curious about
you all's perspective because I'm looking for guidance here.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
This is not an area where I can lead.

Speaker 3 (47:00):
You know, I'm not either. I'm trying to figure out out.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
But you say that, but you do.

Speaker 1 (47:04):
I think you do have like charging orders like you
do say like here's what I think we should do
when people ask me.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
I try because the things haven't worked.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
But even even having an idea like here's what we
should try, I think that is something that's needed. Andrew,
you have like very clear positions on this. So I
just love when I get to listen on this podcast
and learn something. So I really learned from you guys,
I'm sorry, but Cary has to run the court. But
he's literally running back right now because it is time
for us to move along and finally get to that

(47:33):
conversation that we've talked about all show. Charlemagne the God
is going to join us for this conversation to talk
about anti black intellectualism and get his take.

Speaker 12 (47:57):
I define an intellectual not based on how much a
person knows, but I define an intellectual as someone who
has a tremendous desire to know, someone who's incredibly curious,
someone who loves the question. And there are these curious

(48:20):
people with tremendous desires to know, who are incarcerated, who
are houseless, who are in c suites, who are in universities,
who are dropouts, they're everywhere. And these people who are
everywhere I define as intellectuals. And I define a black
intellectual as not only a black person with a tremendous
desire to know, but a black person who is seeking

(48:43):
to acquire knowledge for power. Not knowledge for knowledge's sake,
but knowledge for power's sake.

Speaker 9 (48:50):
Man, that was powerful.

Speaker 6 (48:51):
I mean I think that I think we all agree
he is the definition of an intellectual. And none other
than Ebram Candy. Shout out to my brother for always
speaking truth to power. Speaking of someone who I love
and a door speaks truth to power. Always very very curious.
We have none other than Charlemagne, the god I think Angela.
You call him by his full government, but I call

(49:13):
him Charlemagne. That's what we call him down in Monk's Quarter,
That's what we call him up and down twenty six.
So Charlemagne, welcome to the show, my brother. How you feel, Cary,
what's up, my brother?

Speaker 9 (49:21):
How are you? I just heard your name. I was
with us ce Sue Williams earlier. He said your name.

Speaker 6 (49:27):
Cecil Williams for y'all who don't know, is one of
the greatest civil rights photographers that we've ever seen. I
challenge everybody to google see Sir Williams and then check
out his museum. He had the legendary picture he just
walked New York Fashion Week and he has the picture
of him drinking out of a whites only water fountain.
And since we're doing something right here, make sure y'all
go and contribute to Cecil Williams Museum in Orangeburg, South Carolina.

(49:50):
It's those type of artifacts of relics of our community
that we need to make sure we support.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
So can I Saycary, that's all that, Michael, Harriet's uncle,
all related to everybody and probably cousin.

Speaker 5 (50:07):
But oh man, lucky to have you brother.

Speaker 3 (50:16):
Well, so we had that much time.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
So we we love you.

Speaker 4 (50:19):
You know that we're nice to you. We're gonna keep going.
So you are here because we had a very interesting
exchange on our show last week and also over the weekend,
true to normal sibling chatter, we had conversations about you know,
where you thought we were right, where you thought we
were wrong. And I think really what it gives us

(50:41):
the opportunity to do is to back into uh, you
know device that exists across our community, from gender to
class to degree attainment to you know, who gets to
speak for who and what why you get to speak
for that person. And so I just thought it would
be a good thing to have you come on talk

(51:02):
about some of what you're hearing, some of what you
felt listening to our show, listening to the response on
Joe Budden's podcast on the other side of what was
a disagreement with Mark and Flip, and would love to
hear your thoughts on that and in broadening the conversation.

Speaker 5 (51:19):
Wait wait, wait, wait, wait, are we not going to
let the record reflect that we were just a peaceful
place for people to talk before Bakar joined this show, Yeah,
started fighting with everybody on every block. I just think,
you know, for historical record, we should put a pin
in it.

Speaker 3 (51:35):
I agree that is not misinformation. We got more fights everywhere,
and we fight each other.

Speaker 6 (51:41):
B way to go.

Speaker 3 (51:43):
Now you want to talk time out.

Speaker 6 (51:44):
I just I just have to clarify the record as
we are doing this. I don't talk trash about people individually,
except even A because I go out too much in
these streets and I don't want to bump into people
in one of the dark corners in one of these bars.

Speaker 9 (51:56):
I'd be able to get hit in the back of everybody.
I love everybody.

Speaker 13 (52:01):
Go ahead, No, I mean, you know, sometimes I don't
even like to have a private conversations publicly. But you know,
when I first saw you know what y'all talked about
last week, I hit Angela and I was like, I
want to talk about what y'all was just speaking about,
not saying I want to talk about it on the show,
I said, I just want to talk to you personally.
And then you know, when I when I saw what

(52:23):
you know, Joe Budden said about it, I agreed with Joe,
you know, I felt like, you know, it came off,
you know, very elitists, you know, very Jack and Jill,
you know, very you know, I got my nose up.

Speaker 9 (52:36):
At these these negroes over here.

Speaker 13 (52:40):
And I don't think that, you know, you make any
you don't make any scribes and connecting community by by
by doing, by doing that conversation and the way the
way that it was done.

Speaker 9 (52:50):
You know, I feel like, you know, whenever there's UH,
instead of.

Speaker 13 (52:54):
Calling people out, sometimes you should, you should call people
in and and you know, the whole conversation around who's
an intellectual and who's not intellectual. My biggest issue with
it was, well, damn, you know, a person who's an
intellectual should look at the whole context of a situation
before they have a conversation about it. I feel like,
you know, Andrew said one of the strongest points last
week when Andrew was like, I don't watch the show

(53:16):
enough to have an opinion about it, you know, and
then he said, and then he said, but I trust Mark,
you know, being marked not to be in spaces where
you know, he knows he needs to be in. And
as I'm listening to the combent, I told Angela that
even when she told me that y'all wanted to talk
about it, it came up as a topic of discussion.

(53:37):
I said, well, make sure you watch the whole thing
in context before you just watch a clip of it
and then you know, speak on it for the next
twenty or thirty minutes, because to me, that's what an
intellectual should do, right, Like, that's what an intelligent person
should do. An intelligent person should get the whole context
of something before they comment on it, instead of watching
like two or three minutes or something and then actually

(53:59):
taking to clip out of context. Because if you watch
the clip in context, Mark was actually wrong. You know,
if there's a right or wrong in this situation, Mark
was actually the one who was who was wrong in
that situation, so much so that he even came back
and apologized, you know, the next week, and I just, yeah,
I just did the conversation just really just it just
kind of made me feel a way, like, damn, like

(54:22):
that's how we look at each other as black can.

Speaker 4 (54:25):
I tif I want you to go here because this,
this is TIFF's conversation. But I do want to oh no,
but this was Tiffs's idea. Tiff is ready to claim that.
And we're fine. We all weighed in, we all said
what we said. But I have a quick question for you,
and this is a focus group for this podcast. How
many of you all were in Jack and Jail? Raise

(54:46):
your hands? How many of you all or have any
sorority or fraternity affiliation? Raise your hands? How many of
you all are in the Links? I quit, I was
in the links. How many of you all are in
the Bulet? Raise your hands. I'm doing that because Andrew

(55:07):
was the most relatable person to them, per their own commentary.
And Andrew's the only one who was into Bulet. We
are not even into Bulet, so we get label for
stuff that we're not even in.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
But tipy, I didn't. I didn't hear Charlemagne say that.

Speaker 9 (55:18):
He didn't.

Speaker 3 (55:19):
He said Jack and Jail of y'all?

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Yeah, I I I yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
But I want to say, uh, just to set the
record straight, because I hear what Charlemagne is saying, and
I think a lot of comments echoed that my personal
background aside, I want to say that as a journalist,
before I bring up anything on this show, I want
our viewers to know I have indeed done my due diligence.
So I didn't just watch the clip. How I prepared

(55:44):
for that segment. I didn't pay for Patreon, but I
did read the transcript of what happened. I even understood
the word in question that was tricky was a lude.
I understood that the conversation was about payment discrepancy. I
spoke to Mark before I did the segment. I looked
at literacy rates before I.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
Did this segment.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
I watched a few clips or not clips with segments,
different segments from Joe Budden's podcasts before I did this segment.
And I will say I stand by what I said.
My perspectives and opinions don't sway in the winds of
public opinion. Sometimes the cheese will stand alone. I do
think there is very much a toxic landscape that is

(56:24):
fueled by a lot of podcasts, Bros. But I definitely
agree with you, Charlemagne. Before you have an interview with anybody,
before you sit down and speak on something, I would
advise anyone to be well informed. Rather it's politics, sports,
anything like that, and so I don't think.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
That the issue was that.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
The collective was not well informed. I don't think that
was my perspective. I think the issue that a lot
of people felt is they felt attacked. And so I
want to be clear that I wasn't saying who wasn't
intellectual and who was not. My perspective was there is
an anti intellectual movement ravaging the black community. I also

(57:05):
want to be clear that I was not saying that
no one should talk to Flip or Joe Budden. Certainly
somebody should, someone should be reaching out to them. That's
not my ministry. Things I care about are the incarcerated
and puppies, most importantly pitbulls. I don't like that tens
of thousands of them get euthanized every month. It breaks
my heart. I think about the incarcerated all the time.

(57:28):
I don't want our Black men and women in prison
thinking they're forgotten about. I think it's a bit arrogant
to me to say Angela Bakari Andrew y'all should be
talking to the incarcerated. That's not their ministry. But if
Angela feels like no, those are the people, or U Sharman,
if you feel like, no, those are the very people
I want to be speaking to. Then, by all means,

(57:48):
go do that. I'm saying, it's hard to fill a
cup that's already full. So if I'm telling you something
and you're insulting me from my intelligence, I don't need
to be where fools gather. So I stand on what
I say said. I'm not disrespecting any of them, but
I just want to be clear our viewers know. I
never come on this podcast ever without being very well

(58:09):
informed and researched and fact checked, and FactCheck is not
a thirty second Google search before I come on this show.
It takes a lot of work to prepare for anything
I introduce, and I would hope that we all do that.

Speaker 9 (58:21):
Well.

Speaker 13 (58:21):
If it's interesting you say you like talking to the incarcerated,
Like who do you think they incarcerated or are listening to?
Like they incarcerated are listening to things like the Joe
Budden podcast, Like they're listening to, you know, places like
the Breakfast Club, Like that's who they're actually tuning into.
I know because I go speak at the jails. I
was at right gu Island a couple of weeks ago
with Shaka Sin Koor. You know, I know when you
know these brothers from Rikers Island are writing into the

(58:44):
breakfast club and telling me, like you know, what they
like to listen to, what they like to read. So
if you are trying to reach the incarcerated, you got
to go where the incarcerated is that.

Speaker 1 (58:54):
I go directly into the prisons as well through a
teaching program and also through a journalism program I've talked
about here. Prison journalism is a project that I support.
So I'm not necessarily trying to talk to Joe Budden
to talk to the incarcerated. I'm trying to talk directly
to the incarcerated.

Speaker 3 (59:12):
I don't want to air.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
Out anybody's business, but I got people in my immediate
family who are the incarcerated, which is another thing I
think it's important for people to understand.

Speaker 11 (59:21):
I am not.

Speaker 1 (59:23):
I don't think that intellect has anything to do with degrees, pedigree,
how much money you make, because I saw a lot
of comps they all make more money than you. I
know a lot of rich fools, and I know a
lot of degreed idiots. I've sat across from tables of
CEOs who I did not find terribly intelligent. I went
to school with a lot of debutantes that I don't
find terribly intelligent. It's not ass to them, but I

(59:44):
wouldn't necessarily put them in that category either. I think
it's important. I just want people to know I don't
come from I wasn't born with a silver spoon in
my mouth.

Speaker 2 (59:56):
I am my family right now.

Speaker 1 (59:58):
I just I'm not of that world. And I don't
think you know what we called like elitism. I don't
necessarily think being of that world is a bad thing.
I don't also don't believe in putting people down because
you did grow up privileged, or because you did have
parents who have multiple degrees or money, that none of
these things.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
Makes you a bad person.

Speaker 6 (01:00:15):
To me.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
What I find frustrating is when you are not receptive
or curious. I don't need to talk to people wherever
you are, whatever your background is. If you're not receptive
or curious, then you are likely not my audience and
I'm likely not yours. I am curious about things. I
can learn from anybody, but I don't necessarily respect everybody's opinion,

(01:00:36):
and I don't think all the people say I respect
everybody's opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
You'se a lie, I don't believe that.

Speaker 9 (01:00:42):
Go ahead, can you?

Speaker 13 (01:00:43):
Can you be intellectually curious without respecting everybody's opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Yes, you're looking at somebody who's intellectually curious without respecting everybody.

Speaker 13 (01:00:51):
Because I consider myself intellectually and curious. So I'm the
type of person that I'm gonna hear you out. You know,
I may not want to hear you again, but I'm
at least take the opportunity to live listen to you
at least one time.

Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
No, there's a gentleman by the name of Corey. He
is a lovely person. He happens to be schizophrenic and homeless,
and he's in the front of my building, and he
has an opinion on everything. And I sit there and
chat with Corey sometimes just because he's so nice and
so sweet, and I give him bread because he lightly
feed the birds. I don't respect Corey's opinion on anything.

(01:01:23):
He got opinion on the financial systems and the banks
and all the things that he wants to tell me about.
I'm nice to him, I'm kind to him, I give
him bread. I would be lying to you to say
I respect Corey's opinion when I have interest you had to.

Speaker 9 (01:01:35):
Speak to him, you had to speak to him at
least one time to understand him.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):
Yes, I can speak to anybody. I'm never saying I
don't speak to anybody. But once I ascertain, oh, you
are not a curious person, once you are saying things
to me like you're using tricky words, and this isn't
just a center flipping that conversation, because I'm really trying
to broaden this out into anybody who's incurious. Once you
are clear to me that you are not curious about

(01:01:58):
what I have to say. And I would inter myself
when I would interview different like men on the street
interviews during the Obama race, and people would say the
most ignorant things to me, or when you would hear
lazy reporters go out to Trump rallies and they would say, well,
you know Obama gave Iran millions of dollars. You know
he's in cahoots with Iran and he's a Muslim. I

(01:02:20):
don't respect your opinion anymore now, like you sound like
a fool, And I'm giving you reason right there in
real time, challenging you. But I can't fill a cup
that's already for so now, No, I don't respect your opinion.
And Bacari said, this is South Carolina saying, but I
think all black folks say this. If I'm arguing with
a fool from a distance, you can't tell the difference.
I don't need to be where fools gather. If somebody

(01:02:42):
else feels called to say no, it is my ministry
to go inform, to go educate this.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
Particular group of people. I would never shit on that, Like,
that's just not even my way. I'm like, live and
let live go do it. That's just not what I
choose to do.

Speaker 13 (01:02:55):
I understand. I guess the issue comes in. I can't
believe I'm on here defending the Joe Budden podcast us, right,
But but I guess the issue is I don't think
fools go together at the Joe Budden Podcast, Like, I
don't think anybody I never say that for the record, Yeah,
I don't think anybody in that room.

Speaker 6 (01:03:10):
Is a fool.

Speaker 13 (01:03:11):
And I also feel like, you know, we should be
happy that people like Mark Lamont Hill want to be
on big black platforms. I think that's the biggest problem
I have right now, is that you know, we tend
to knock, you know, certain platforms when what we should
be doing is infiltrating those platforms.

Speaker 9 (01:03:30):
Like you know, I know everybody likes to you know,
go as Steven A. Smith.

Speaker 13 (01:03:34):
I want to see more black elected officials, more black politicians,
you know, uh, more black spiritual leaders, more black activists,
more black people with something to say about black issues,
go on platforms like Steven A. Smith, because all the
white elected officials are taking advantage of it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:50):
They're taking advantage of it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:51):
They're laughing at a fool that when people like about
because I think that's such an important point. White politicians
are going on there because they are elevating him to
a position and they only do this specifically in the
black community. They are elevating him into a position that
he did not earn. He is an expert in sports,
and so you will have white people all the time
pluck an entertainer, right, well, he whatever he expert in,

(01:04:15):
is not politics, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
Not policy, and.

Speaker 9 (01:04:19):
He has an audience.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
An audience does not equate to intellect, if we can.
I'm not saying that what you have to say about
about defendence, go ahead.

Speaker 9 (01:04:27):
Yeah, I'm not saying it does.

Speaker 13 (01:04:28):
I'm just saying these audience, these these black people who
have these large audiences. Instead of sitting on the sidelines
complaining about them having a large audience and who didn't
learn what how.

Speaker 9 (01:04:37):
About go on that platform and deliver some of that truth?

Speaker 13 (01:04:40):
Are some of that intellect that you have to his audience,
Like even if you sit around and you talk about
you know, you saying about the person that you that
sits outside of a stoop and they have a lot
of misinformation, are you talking about the people that were
saying the things about Obama? Those people will continue to
have misinformation if somebody doesn't go to them and inform them.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
But this was the point that miss, let me, let
me just respond, please, This is the point that maybe you, miss,
I'm saying when I'm trying to inform you, when I'm saying, no,
that is actually not true about Obama, and somebody say
yes it is because Okay, you are not curious at that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
You are not right.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
I can't feel your bucket is full. You don't want
to hear what I have to say. Number two, I'm
not complaining about anyone having a large audience. I'm complaining
about who his audience is. He has a large audience
of mostly conservative, white folks, and they are treating him.

Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
This is no.

Speaker 9 (01:05:33):
Tiffany.

Speaker 13 (01:05:33):
Do you have statistics that say Stephen A. Smith's audience
is majority conservatives?

Speaker 1 (01:05:37):
I do Nielsen ratings or his ESPN show. Nielsen Ratings
qualifies that.

Speaker 9 (01:05:41):
Well, no, that's the ESPN. I'm talking about his podcast
because most of the time of these funerals, I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
I don't know his podcast. I just know he built
his audience on a majority of white people. So I
don't and I would I would love to dig into
and I'm happy to come on here next week because
I would love somebody to prove to me that his
audience is a majority of black people.

Speaker 13 (01:05:58):
That's a feeling, but that's a fact. So does that
make you anti intellectual because you're spewing feelings?

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
You know, I'm gonna respond to It's literally five minutes
left in the conversation. I want to respond to what
he said. Weigh in, but I'm going to respond to
this he said, that's a feeling or an opinion. Not necessarily,
it's somewhat informed because if you look at who his audience,
how he built his audience, the suggestion that a majority

(01:06:25):
of his audience would be comprised of black people is
not a well informed one. It's it's logic to say
most of his audience are white people. Are you suggesting
that most of his audience are black people.

Speaker 13 (01:06:36):
I don't know what most of his audience is, but
I know I started, you know, reading steven A's columns
when he was writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, when he
was covering Allen obviously way back in the day, and
then I followed him the cold pizzin first Take and
everything else. I think that this new, you know, political
Stephen A with a conservative audience is relatively new, so
I would before these white people were talking about him.

(01:06:56):
It was majority black people in the barbershop that was
talking about steven A. But I'm just talking about the
audience in general. Like you said Mark la mont Hill
shouldn't be on Joe budden show, why you actually said
You actually said he should be on CNN.

Speaker 1 (01:07:11):
Yes, So that's the difference between saying he should not
be on Joe Budden. I'm saying he should be on
CNN because he should have never gotten fired from CNN.
If Mark is happy on Joe Budden's podcast, more power
to it. What I said was they lack an understanding
of Mark. I felt like he's disrespected on that podcast
based on clips that I had seen what Angela said,
and Angela caught a lot of strays for things I said,

(01:07:32):
so I wanted to be clear. What Angela reference was
a moment where they dismissed his humanity on that show
when he talked about his friends being killed in Palestine.
And I do think that is based on what I've seen.
I do think that is a consistent, consistent pattern where
I do feel like Mark is not necessarily well received there.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
But Angela once again, other people.

Speaker 9 (01:07:52):
I just I will say Joe did apologize.

Speaker 3 (01:07:57):
It's more than just you two in here.

Speaker 2 (01:07:58):
Just you got a hard out, but you get these
dudes in here.

Speaker 9 (01:08:03):
I know, but Joe is crazy, But Joe did apologize
for that moment.

Speaker 3 (01:08:07):
I get to all that if we sort I want.

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
We can continue, Charlene, and.

Speaker 4 (01:08:19):
To be continued, you trying to talk twenty minutes ago,
I got to like one, you got time got.

Speaker 3 (01:08:29):
That's crazy.

Speaker 6 (01:08:29):
I was just appreciating watching the mini pod that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:34):
I know, the Invisible Man, Robert's a good conversation.

Speaker 6 (01:08:40):
It was it was all right, the only the only uh,
My only criticism of us, I think as we approach
these discussions is that we are part of that intellectual
curiosity that we all must have. We must be able
to accept criticism without necessarily being defensive, and that being
our immediate posture to it. And one of the things

(01:09:03):
that I saw in the comments, and one of the
things that I saw when Joe Button was making those comments,
is we want to be individuals that people come to.
It's in our phrase, it's welcome home, that feel as
if there is a comfort level to come in to
our doors and hear the things we have to say,
and whether or not we're talking about it from a

(01:09:24):
respect perspective or intellect perspective. I think that throughout that conversation,
it's not that we can't sit out here and be like,
I'm sorry you felt that way, because that's like human
gut gas lighting. We have to acknowledge that there were
people who felt foreclosed from a conversation because of our tone,
ten or vocabulary. And how do we make sure that

(01:09:45):
these are some of the people that we do want
to reach, or at least I want to reach. That
may not be everybody's ministry, but I would like to meet.
I would like to have some of those listeners from
Joe that are like, you know, maybe maybe we can
come over there too, maybe there's an hour we can
spend there too, And that may never happen, but uh,
you know, that's just kind of my perspective on it.
And I feel like the only other thing that I

(01:10:07):
felt was like weird, and I know we don't do that,
and we fixed it, but I was glad that we
didn't necessarily stick with using you know that Joe Button
in the title and y'all had my face. It was handsome,
but we had like Joe Button in the title.

Speaker 3 (01:10:22):
On you get to that be don't be trying to
scoop me be.

Speaker 9 (01:10:25):
I told Angela that too.

Speaker 6 (01:10:26):
I was like, you know what I'm it was first,
but it was my face and I didn't know, and
I just felt like I just felt like, right, damn.

Speaker 5 (01:10:36):
Description, because I don't have no no problem.

Speaker 3 (01:10:38):
So we had our thumbnail.

Speaker 4 (01:10:39):
What but car is talking about is the thumbnail for
last week's show, said Joe Button's podcast and the dumbing
down of America and Bacari's standing there in the middle
getting the haze up.

Speaker 3 (01:10:49):
He did for another too much, so he was in
the middle of it, and I think that what what
we did wrong, and I do want to.

Speaker 4 (01:10:56):
I do want to apologize to Joe Button's cast, to
their team, to their production company for that title. I'm
an EP on this show and so I own that wholeheartedly.
We should have titled it differently. Maybe they wouldn't have
looked at it. But they they got us back. They
got the whole podcast taken down for copyright and fishment

(01:11:17):
because we actually used their clip. They only took that
clip out. It's still under challenge. We reposted it without
the clip, but I would just say to them, well played.
But I do apologize for titling the podcast.

Speaker 5 (01:11:28):
Maybe we should for that purpose though. I mean, the
conversation we had was about the dumbing down.

Speaker 4 (01:11:32):
But I think that what they took offense to is
that it looked like we were saying that they are
responsible for the dummy.

Speaker 3 (01:11:37):
Well, we all apologize, thanks Tiff.

Speaker 5 (01:11:46):
Well, I don't apologize one. I don't necessarily credit all
of us with wanting to be curious. I think we
have to declare that for ourselves and then act that
way if it's a true statement.

Speaker 7 (01:11:57):
Too.

Speaker 5 (01:11:57):
Typically, I'm never confused about what perspective you're coming from,
because you kind of stated very clearly every time you
say a thing, and it is often clear, I think
to the audience. You know how you'll have relatives or
uncles or friends who you're like, they don't suffer fools Like,
that's just not the uncle you're gonna go to to
bring up that kind of mess with. And I don't

(01:12:19):
necessarily take offense from that uncle. I just know what
I'm getting when I walk in the door, that that's
not the one who's gonna play with Nichols with me.
He don't believe woulden Nichols are wooden, and therefore we're
not gonna play a game with the where the where
the Nikels are wooden? Tiff, You're kind of that for
me as it relates to this show. And I don't
think you hold yourself out there as being something that's

(01:12:41):
you're not one either curious about the things that are
incurious to you. That's not to say you're not curious
about things, but things that you've determined to be in
curious to you. You don't want to go the next
layer layer. And if many of us are being honest,
there's some people we're not gonna waste time with or
issues upon because it doesn't say she had us in

(01:13:03):
any way, form or fashion. And I wish more of
us would frankly be honest about that part of ourselves,
Like I'm not going to feign curious. I'm not going
to and curious. I'm not going to feign interested and
what it is that everybody has to say because I'm
not that isn't necessarily my personal testimony. My personal testimony

(01:13:23):
is sort of closer to that, to that tank half
empty versus half full scenario. If you have room in
your brain, if you've got room in the conversation for
what I have to contribute, and I mean legitimately, then
I feel like this is a conversation I can stay
a part of. But if it becomes very clear to
me there's no room here for what I have to contribute,
no matter in what way or at what level of

(01:13:45):
substance I do it, then it's a waste of all
of our times for us to continue that going on.
I'm actually I didn't know we were at a war
of words with other podcasts till this morning. My brother
told me he's a subscriber to Patrina Patreon Patreon, and
he was like, I was about to cancel my subscription
if they were go come at you. And I was like,

(01:14:06):
who are you talking about, because I don't even know
who Patreon is. And then you know, we get in
the dialogue and he's telling me who is what, and
I'm like, yeah, we said something, but it was a
response to this. That and the third I say that
to say, I know, we feel like these things are
much bigger than what they really are in the in
the scale and in the frame of the world to everybody,
but it isn't that serious to a lot of people.

(01:14:28):
I hope we can keep this sort of at that level.
One of the most brilliant things I heard at the
opening of this topic was from Brother Abram ken Deing,
where he basically was like he considers the intellectual you know,
sort of the intellectual drivers and thinkers of our day,
to be the ones who are the most curious. And
I thought that was beautiful. And I think it's beautiful
to the extent that it leads to a pathway of

(01:14:50):
greater understanding. But I'm also not down for going on
the platform that's the largest I don't know that we
find ourselves in competition in those places, partly because I'm
not sure what made you the largest. I'm looking around
at some people's numbers. I'm like, well, God, who juiced
this machine to make this the outcome. I just think

(01:15:11):
we ought to go places that allow us to be ourselves,
that allow us to state truth. And yes, the truth
can be challenged, but it's still mine if I've expressed it,
and then that has some intellectual honesty that they're not
gas like men. I'm not gaslighting you to think that
the thing is when it really isn't. And if some
of those norms can be absorbed, then all cool, Great,

(01:15:33):
I'm taking this hot ass sweat off.

Speaker 9 (01:15:39):
I agree with the last thing you said, Andrew.

Speaker 5 (01:15:41):
I think that you know the one thing off and
Floyd in the summertime, I.

Speaker 13 (01:15:45):
Think the one thing that would keep me from going
to a place is it's not if it's not a
good faith conversation. Absolutely, that's the one thing that keep
me from going to a place. But you said something else.
You said, people that allow you I think was the
first thing you said, people that allow you to be
who you are.

Speaker 5 (01:16:00):
Yeah, that you don't have to change codes to like
show up.

Speaker 9 (01:16:03):
That that's on you.

Speaker 12 (01:16:05):
No, no, no, no no.

Speaker 5 (01:16:06):
What I mean by that is you're not welcomed and
you're not legitimated in the space unless you're splitting certain
verbs in that verbs, unless you're laying down lines, you know,
like you're laying down a track. And I'm just saying
to the extent that that is the environment that's created
or else you're debased or legitimized in the audit, in
the eyes of the people you're in discourse with. Then

(01:16:28):
it can't be an honest and intellectual conversation in my opinion,
like I can't, but you can't.

Speaker 9 (01:16:32):
Want me to.

Speaker 5 (01:16:34):
It's okay, beca you. If you express a different thought,
it's totally cool. All I'm saying is is I don't
want to feel outside of myself in order to enter
You're right, that is completely controlled by me, Charlemagne, whether
I feel in or outside of myself. I don't want
the pressure to be outside of myself in order for
me to fill at home in the conversation. And I
can be outside of myself, I can be in environments

(01:16:57):
that are completely different every day of the week. I've
done that. I've run for election in one of the
most incurious states I think out there right in so
many ways, so it's not unlike me to be in
those places. I've never felt the pressure, however, to show
up as something that I'm that I'm that I'm not.
And so so long as the conversation can stay legit

(01:17:19):
on those various planks, we're good to go. And if
they can't, I'm not likely going there anyway.

Speaker 6 (01:17:26):
I just I for me personally, I think that I
want to stand on something I said earlier, which is
that in a portion of being intellectually curious, is you
cannot be above reproach from criticism, understanding that criticism, and
at least at least sitting in it for a moment
to see whether or not it's something that can make

(01:17:47):
you better, or it's something you cast aside. Is it
constructive or is it destructive? But the other thing is,
and I think this is where I'm somewhat disagreeing with
with with my brother Andrew, is that I have this
unique belief that Andrew Gillam is the most talented political
communicator official that I've ever been around. And I say

(01:18:08):
that with a great deal of humility, because I think
I'm really really good at this right and Andrew. But
Andrew is the only person that I can say that
I've been around and be like, man, buddy better than
me at this, Like he gets it, he conceptualized it,
he puts policy, and he can go and articulate. And
that is one of the major reasons I disagree with

(01:18:29):
you in Tiffany's kind of a thesis here, because I
think we're missing the moment where it's incumbent upon us
to meet people where they are. We have a skill
set and this is not this is not some anti
intellectual putting us on another play, But I believe that
there is a skill set which is measured for this moment,

(01:18:49):
something that I don't even think that the Chuck Schumer's
and the King Jeffries, et cetera. Have, But for this
particular moment where we it's incumbent upon us in a
responsibility to meet people where they are, and we can't
disregard who those people are or disregard the platform upon
which we may meet them. And so I just feel
that to be a part of the responsibility, even with

(01:19:09):
the skill set and talent that I hold all of
you all up to have, but I just think that
was important for me to couch Andrew in that discussion,
so one he knows how I feel about him. But
to the reason that I say that, yeah, I get
it right. This shit may be hard, it may be uncomfortable,
They may not even give you the benefit of their humanity.
But oftentimes you're not even talking to that individual. You're

(01:19:32):
talking to that impressurable mind. That may be somebody that
you can change, even slightly, if it's a city council race,
or it's a proposition or whatever it may be. And
I think we miss that sometimes, understanding that, yeah, protecting
our piece is something we have to do, but understanding
your skill set, God's responsibility, the platform we have, I
would just say in synopsis, never be above reproach to

(01:19:55):
criticism and to you know, I think that we have
to accept the challenge of meeting people.

Speaker 9 (01:19:59):
With Are are we using the word intellectual wrong?

Speaker 13 (01:20:04):
Because because what y'all should be saying is academic, right,
Because intellectual is just to be able to think, reason
and understand objectively.

Speaker 1 (01:20:12):
Right.

Speaker 13 (01:20:12):
Like I think what y'all are saying is y'all y'all
are talking about academics like anybody. Joe is an intellectual.
Joe Budden is one of the most prolific rappers ever.
Joe Joe probably got a better macabulat.

Speaker 9 (01:20:24):
Than all of us. Stop card, Joe Budden can rap
his ass off.

Speaker 5 (01:20:28):
Now you're about to make this man hate me because
I'm about to be.

Speaker 9 (01:20:34):
Remember from the one song, But y'all remember Joe from
the podcast. I remember Joe from Rappings. But I'm just
saying why.

Speaker 3 (01:20:41):
Leonard think he older than us. Y'all just know him
from the podcast.

Speaker 11 (01:20:44):
I know him when he had.

Speaker 6 (01:20:47):
Because you and Leonard are the same age and the
rest of us are young.

Speaker 4 (01:20:51):
First of all, you're younger junior down Andrew, you've been
trying to get in.

Speaker 5 (01:20:58):
After that, I want to get back to quick, which
was simply say I haven't disqualified any platform. In particular.
I talked about a couple of planks that I need
to be in place for me to be anywhere, and
that's not to disqualify a place. And I and I
and I generically think that, yeah, it does require. All
communication requires at a certain level, meeting people where they

(01:21:21):
are if each side is going to be heard. I
just don't always. I don't always. That doesn't always equal
to me the glass half empty side of the equation
every time. Meeting people where they are doesn't require them
dumbing down or me smartening up necessarily. The way I
consider what it means to meet somebody where they are

(01:21:43):
is to see that their situation and circumstances might be
right just like mine, or it might be or me
maybe the up too, so opposite side of where I am,
and they still deserve what is a respectful exchange, you know,
off jump, I people don't have to use the same
vocabulary as me. For us, we meet met each other

(01:22:03):
where we are. We don't have to go to the
same schools. And I've never credentialed myself by education. I
think I probably carry the lowest amongst it, amongst my
siblings who have been educated, amongst my friend base who
have been educated, so.

Speaker 9 (01:22:17):
That you don't count anyway.

Speaker 5 (01:22:22):
On that point. So I don't think those are righteous
criteria in my opinion. I don't think your degrees are
righteous criteria for me. I don't think where your parents
come from, what was before and after your name or
righteous criteria for me. My criteria are much more a
humane and basic level of entry than that.

Speaker 4 (01:22:40):
So if we're saying, Leonard, you raised that you thought
we were saying we met academic when we said intellectual,
and I don't think any of us think that. Is
there a way that we're defining And I'm saying we
are very loosely because we all clearly have very different
opinions here, But is there a way that you're hearing
any of us describe or define intellectual that is striking
you as more actandemic?

Speaker 3 (01:23:00):
And if you can't explain that, that would be helpful.

Speaker 9 (01:23:02):
I mean, I think the whole conversation.

Speaker 13 (01:23:04):
But that's what's so interesting because Mark isn't on that
show to be an academic, you know what I'm saying,
Marcus on that show talking about pop culture, Marcus on
that show talking about you know, women like he's just
talking about regular things that they would normally be talking
on that show.

Speaker 9 (01:23:20):
And then when the conversation, you know, turns to something
that might be around.

Speaker 13 (01:23:24):
Social justice or you know, activism or you know politics,
then he comes in and he's Mark Lamont Hill to academic.
But I think a lot of us look at Mark
a certain way, and so you think that's what Mark
is doing on when it's not.

Speaker 9 (01:23:39):
That's why I say him and Flip can have that brotherly,
you know, kurk.

Speaker 13 (01:23:42):
Fuffle that back and forth because that's how they they
get down on the show, like they talk about things
that happen behind the scenes, they bring it to the
podcast and they're able to have those type of interactions.
But that wasn't an academic debate like to where where
Mark was using some you know, fifteen letter words and
Flip was confused about the words.

Speaker 9 (01:24:02):
That was that was just some nigga ship.

Speaker 1 (01:24:04):
Yeah, well we talked about that because I heard from
a lot of men who are Joe Budden podcast listeners,
and what they said to me, Leonard is there are
so few spaces for black men to gather. There are
so few spaces where black men can go and exhale
and be themselves. And what they said is, you know

(01:24:24):
that Mark Lamont Hill and Flip exchange is so common.
They're like Tiffany. That's happening everywhere across barbershops right now,
on street corners, everywhere. And the intimation was, and I
receive it, but the intimation was, you were weighing in
on something that you don't touch. You're weighing in on

(01:24:44):
a culture of that exists between black men that you
that's exactly what they said, I'm from we.

Speaker 4 (01:24:52):
Now apparently share a vagina, were the same person, and
why all of what Tiff said. I also said, they
can't even distinguish between the two us because they're like,
why y'all in the.

Speaker 1 (01:25:01):
Angel caught a lot of straits or things I said,
But I did receive what black men were saying, and
they were saying, like, don't you do some like, you know,
ignorant shit because they acknowledge, like, yeah, some ignoran shit
on that show, But so what is our ignorant shit?

Speaker 2 (01:25:12):
And it's for us?

Speaker 13 (01:25:13):
And you know, no, I didn't look at it as
a gender thing at all. It was literally just just
a black Yeah, it was just it was just a
black community thing.

Speaker 5 (01:25:22):
To me.

Speaker 13 (01:25:22):
It was like, yo, man, if we're trying to build community,
and we need community.

Speaker 9 (01:25:27):
Now more than ever. Like, it's not even about knocking
the platform.

Speaker 13 (01:25:31):
I don't think you should knock the platform, but don't
don't knock Mark's role on that platform, because I think
Mark's role on that platform is very important.

Speaker 9 (01:25:38):
I think when you got there, when.

Speaker 13 (01:25:39):
You command the type of audience that you know, Joe
Budden has for all the type of issues that will
be you know coming up and have been coming up
over the last ten months, and we'll.

Speaker 9 (01:25:49):
Be coming up for the next few years. You need
somebody like him.

Speaker 5 (01:25:52):
And that just beef with our conversation about it was
I felt like we may have positioned marks like the
guy fighting out of the corner, you know, the keep,
and I was thinking, which is why I said, I
wish we could interpret what we think is being said.
And I think where we into the conversation was like
each of those men knew exactly what was being said,
what shot was being fired across which bow, and they

(01:26:13):
were prepared to meet each other at that respective place.
There were no fools, there were no there was no
confusion about the words exchange or anything like that. I
just felt like each man met the moment for for
what they had going on, for the exchange that was
going on. And I heard directly from a good friend
of mine, he's a lawyer. Came it was family home

(01:26:35):
company rescued me out of my corpse of a house
and basically was like, look, man, I'm just saying I
know it's something shit don't listening to. That's why I
listened to it. And at the same token, he's subscribing
to NPR every morning, and it's listening, you know, so
it doesn't even have to be a fight of amongst hedgemonds,

(01:26:55):
Like I'm listening to the smartest thing versus the thing
you're listening to. It's not how you got downe with
it at all. It was like it's some nigga ship
and I love it and that's why I listened to it.
But I love y'all too, and I listened to that
on the Native Lamp podcast. And that's the thing that
I guess frustrates me the most awesome. Yeah, every I
know y'all, single one of y'all. I'm here in the

(01:27:18):
corner like I don't even know what we signed up.

Speaker 13 (01:27:23):
Even when you look at even when you look at
the conversation that was happening, Look how the audience is interested.
There's people who listen to Native who listen to Joe,
people who listen to Joe who listened to the Native land.
So that lets you know that Joe y'all are not
far from each other in any way shape of fact.

Speaker 9 (01:27:37):
Thing that I think that was my money that was
that was you.

Speaker 3 (01:27:40):
Need to get the briefing on not cutting people off
in the middle of it.

Speaker 6 (01:27:44):
I mean if I if I don't cut nobody off, yeah,
it'll just be tiffing and Angelo over and talking about
I should want like.

Speaker 2 (01:27:59):
At that point, go ahead, Lena, you are the way.

Speaker 3 (01:28:02):
Listen, he has a heart out.

Speaker 1 (01:28:03):
Go ahead, Bakari, and then we'll go ahead, Bakari, and
then Leonardo closes.

Speaker 6 (01:28:07):
Now I just want to make sure. I want to
make sure that listeners know that I don't think we
say this and I definitely don't believe it that there
is a huge gulf between you know, what goes on
over there and where we are and if it is
a golf Hopefully the conversations we can have, we can
have them on a certain level, that we can bring
communities together in the spirit of welcome home instead of
drive people apart that that is the only thing that

(01:28:28):
frustrated me in reading the comments. I felt like we
put ourselves in a position to and it was you know,
when you drive people, when you when you jones people
like I was talking about pump pump, pump it up
and all that stuff. That's one thing, But to just
push people away from not having a purpose or seat
at the table, I think is another. And I think
that people felt that whether or not that was our
intention or not, that's literally all it was.

Speaker 13 (01:28:50):
It's just like the rhetoric seems like y'all were so
far apart, are you know, you know, y'all look at
them in a certain way, like, you know, kind of
looking down on them, And I'm like, no, we should
be looking.

Speaker 9 (01:29:01):
At each other, you know, eye to eye, because I
want to see everything.

Speaker 13 (01:29:07):
I want to see Mark Lemon Hill on Joe Budden,
I want to see Angela Rai on steven A because
I know, you know, whoever wants to go to these platforms,
whoever we on these platforms. I want to see Bakari
and steven A have a conversation, even though that might
not ever happen, Like it's the reason we bring, you know,
so many different voices on Breakfast Club. It's like, wherever

(01:29:28):
the audience is, let's amplify the people who have, you know,
something to say. Like it's just weird that you know,
everybody's drawing a line in the sand and we're being
so divisive to each other as a community. Because if
we're really trying to build community, let's build community for real.

Speaker 3 (01:29:46):
Yeah, And I think I think that we are.

Speaker 4 (01:29:48):
I think that we do also have to understand that
everybody plays a different part. So if Tiff is saying
this is my ministry over here, this is the thing
that I can do and I do well, then we
have to trust that somebody else can play their position.

Speaker 3 (01:29:59):
I really would like for us to get underneath this.

Speaker 4 (01:30:04):
Blanket labeling that we do of anti intellectualism, of elitism,
of the boulet, of the democratic shields, Like what is
beneath all of that?

Speaker 3 (01:30:16):
And can you really hear people for the distinctions?

Speaker 4 (01:30:18):
One of my favorite things about this show as long
as we've been on is that we there's always a distinction.
There's always a fine point that somebody offers where it
may even shift my opinion, you know, it really might.
I was glad when Leonard was like, I want you
to listen to the show.

Speaker 3 (01:30:33):
I promise you. I was like, I am not listening
to their show. I am not listening to it.

Speaker 4 (01:30:37):
I just knew they were gonna be it was gonna
be some craziness, and I am so grateful that you
pushed me to listen to the show, so much so
that I went into our chat dropped the show link.
It was like Leonard said, listen to this, here's the
time stamp. It changed my perspective a lot. On flip
it changed my person I could feel like I heard
the pain in Joe. It felt like, no matter how

(01:30:57):
high up you get, you never get the recognition you
truly deserve, which is amongst your people. And that's something
that whether we have the same degree, went to the
same school, live in the same area, or make the
same amount of money, that's something that we all should
be able to relate to as black folks. So I think,
if there's nothing else, if we know where our end
goal is, liberation for black people, even if our means
is different, that's the conversation I really want to have,

(01:31:18):
and it's the one that I've been in earnest having
for several months now since this terrorist cuts off.

Speaker 13 (01:31:22):
Imagine if Bakari and tiff never went on Abbey Phillips show.

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
Think get about that I'm conflicted about and we need
you in that space.

Speaker 9 (01:31:30):
You're great in that space.

Speaker 13 (01:31:33):
Because if you weren't there, how many things would just
go would just fly and people would probably just take
his gospel if Tiffany wasn't there to dispute it.

Speaker 9 (01:31:40):
If Bakari wasn't there to dispute it.

Speaker 13 (01:31:42):
Like think about Obama going on O'Reilly back in the day,
Think about John Stewart going on Fox News back in
the day. Imagine if people didn't go in those spaces
to combat some of the bullshit.

Speaker 9 (01:31:53):
I think that we need to be everywhere there's eyeballs.

Speaker 13 (01:31:58):
We need to be everywhere our people are listening, because
you know that truth does get the people.

Speaker 9 (01:32:03):
And you may not see it in that moment. Yeah
you might.

Speaker 13 (01:32:06):
You might be in that studio and feel like you
just wasted your time because you was arguing with somebody.
But think about the millions of people that are at
home watching. Are the millions of people that are at
home listening they're getting something from it. They're like, damn yo, Macari,
Really you know said some ship last night on seeing
in a Tiffany?

Speaker 9 (01:32:20):
Really doesn't it last night? On seeing it? And like
you need that?

Speaker 13 (01:32:23):
Mark sets in on Joe Budden podcast. I personally feel
like you you need that, and I don't think we
should we should knock it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:30):
Ever, Well, I have I have thought some questions on that,
but that's a conversation. I don't have to text you
about because I'm I'm I'm seriously conflicted about going on
that show. We've talked about it a little bit here, but.

Speaker 13 (01:32:42):
Angela stopped listening to Angela and it will probably be
she can testify.

Speaker 2 (01:32:46):
No, don't listen to me.

Speaker 4 (01:32:47):
No, I make my She's not intellectually curious about what
I have to say on this top.

Speaker 1 (01:32:54):
On this topic, Angela think we all need to be
on there or as a no go, So that's something different.

Speaker 3 (01:32:58):
I think Angela's was the agreement.

Speaker 2 (01:33:00):
Yes, but I have I have.

Speaker 1 (01:33:02):
Conflict about going on that show, Charla Mane, because I
think it is dangerous the way that they are platforming
literal white supremacists, and not everybody deserves my audience, not
everybody deserves my debate, and so it does feel icky
to me, Like I watch people on there when you
are getting to the point where you debate in slavery.
Something about that does feel beneath me. And I don't

(01:33:23):
think it's anything wrong with feeling that way, or even
somebody does think is wrong. Then that's just where I stand,
and I'm just on the wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
Side of you.

Speaker 6 (01:33:29):
But let me also let me also, I mean, it's
it's one of the only shows where you have whatever
however you want to describe people where you have that
cross section of individuals that are there. But also like,
we have to not come from a place where we
are foreclosing on platforms we won't go to like we
we have to. I mean, you're too talented. I mean

(01:33:52):
I feel like I said the same thing about Andrew,
Like we there. It seems like we we always come
up with a litany or list of like I'm not
gonna go there. I have, but we have to be
willing to take our talents in these spaces, not quite
come as you are a type of deal, but take
your talents in these spaces and be willing to Yeah,
have these discussions and realize that at the end of

(01:34:15):
the day, it's not about changing that person's mind that's
sitting at the table from you. At the end of
the day, it's about talking to the broader audience that
is thirsting during this vacuum for somebody like Tiffany Cross
and so I wasn't a part of those conversations. But
let me just ask you to, you know, politely, reconsider
that notion. Just if you're weighing as a balance, I

(01:34:36):
want you to reconsider it because the need is probably
greater than the can then the condemnation you may have
for the particular person you may be may be there with.

Speaker 9 (01:34:48):
I think.

Speaker 13 (01:34:50):
Tif gave the best example, Tiffany, you gave the best example,
that Slavery example. Imagine somebody wasn't there to combat that
because there are people peple out there who believe it.
There's people out there who actually believe what that young
lady said. It's actually people out there who think just
like her. So somebody has to be out there to
give the real information.

Speaker 9 (01:35:09):
That they're not.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
For platforming that person because seeing they should not be
putting them on. To me, that's where I began my
broadcast journalism career, and it is abhorrent to me to
witness them devolve into that kind of thing. It is
not actually healthy political discourse. It is a Jerry Springer
like segment where you literally will have a white supremacist

(01:35:32):
sitting across from somebody like me, or you'll literally have
Scott James regurgitating white supremacist attitudes, policies, politics, et cetera.
And I'm supposed to legitimize this point by debating him.
It's not necessarily you know, like I shouldn't be a
part of the debate. It is this news organization should

(01:35:53):
not be putting setting up that kind of conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:35:56):
I think that's a disgrace.

Speaker 5 (01:35:57):
I agree with you to this parameters. I don't don't
think this is pick on tiffany day, but I'll just
say definitely at the that and I said this to
you directly, that we have to check ego a lot
of times and a lot of these spaces and to
the if the most salient point, like echoing in your
mind is this person doesn't deserve me across from them,

(01:36:20):
I just say that's the wrong part of the that's
not a place to begin in the conversation.

Speaker 1 (01:36:24):
They may not stand down ten toes down. I don't
know why supremisist does not deserve.

Speaker 2 (01:36:29):
They don't deserve And as.

Speaker 5 (01:36:31):
You are, all I'm simply saying is is we have
to challenge our own ego and some of it. And
I don't think it's ego to not when we say
this person does deserve.

Speaker 1 (01:36:45):
To be, Oh, well, then I guess I got an
ego because that's me. That's that's where I draw a car.

Speaker 5 (01:36:50):
I don't want to deride it. I don't want to
really drive us down in the conversation. I apologize for
moving us that direction. This is meant and and and
real love for you, and not just for you, but
for all of us. Because I have to do it myself.
I'm like, I've debated at that level before, I've debated
above that level. There's no reason for me to have

(01:37:11):
a legitimate, a legitimate person who sympathizes with white supremacists,
as I said in the debate, one who if if
I'm not calling him it, the ones who are it
seem to believe they're in good company with them, So
so I get that. But there are people who are
legit moved by your words, who might be where they
are and the position of the debate simply because they

(01:37:34):
haven't heard the other side. That's all.

Speaker 9 (01:37:37):
That's it.

Speaker 5 (01:37:38):
They maybe where they are simply because they don't know
the fruits of the other side.

Speaker 9 (01:37:42):
And I gotta run. I gotta run. But I do
want to say one thing.

Speaker 13 (01:37:45):
Andrew said something on this podcast a couple of weeks ago,
and he said he never wanted to be blind sided
again about what the other side thinks in this country.
So therefore, when I see these people platformed on the CNNs,
you know the MSNBC's of course you see them on Fox.
I watched that because I too want to know what
other people are thinking. But I am very appreciative when

(01:38:07):
there's a Tiffany Cross, when there's a Bacari Sellers or
whoever to confront that.

Speaker 9 (01:38:11):
And I will end with this, are we better than
our ancestors?

Speaker 13 (01:38:14):
Because I know Malcolm X, James Baldwin, they publicly debated
the debated white supremacists all the time. They publicly confronted
white supremacists all the time, and they would smack them
down with their black intellect and they're black excellence.

Speaker 9 (01:38:27):
So wherever there's.

Speaker 13 (01:38:28):
White supremacy on cable TV, I want to see black
intellect and black excellence like the Tiffany Crosses of the world.

Speaker 9 (01:38:34):
And I'm glad and I thank you for your service.

Speaker 1 (01:38:36):
To be continued. This is a conversation that's ongoing. Thank you,
What are you got to You gave us way more
time than you had, so thank you Lenar for joining
the conversation. All right, well, we're moving us right along.
I think now we got to get into some calls
to action. We kept you all here for a long time.
It's a long show today, but we wanted to be
sure to address this issue because we did read a

(01:38:57):
lot of your comments and did hear from a lot
of you for laying in. So thank you all to
our viewers, and we also want to let you know
if you're watching this show or listening, at the end
of the show, we are going to play Angela Roun's
a professional development program of young folks, and she asks
them the way in with their thoughts on the whole
intellectual debate. So at the end of the show you'll
be able to hear their thoughts as well. But for

(01:39:19):
now we're going to move on to cause to action.

Speaker 5 (01:39:27):
Who cares about truth?

Speaker 6 (01:39:29):
On the last more than.

Speaker 1 (01:39:32):
Okay, we told you it was going to be a
spirited conversation and it certainly is. Thank you guys for
sticking with us on a long show today. I do
want to remind you that please tune into our mini
pod because we get to sit down with Ajaka Owen's mom.
She's the subject of a very striking documentary on Netflix,
The Perfect Neighbor. It was so striking it is number

(01:39:54):
one on Netflix right now. It is about a woman
who was murdered by a white woman who happened to
be her neighbor, and I encourage you all to watch it,
but please be sure to tune into Native Lampod's conversation
with them. And right now we have another that was
not my call to action. For the record, I have
another call to action, but I'm gonna kick it off
with my co host, Angela.

Speaker 2 (01:40:15):
You want to go first.

Speaker 3 (01:40:16):
Sure.

Speaker 4 (01:40:17):
My call to action is to talk to somebody you
don't agree with this week and really listen. I had
the opportunity to do that last week, and to listen
to a podcast that I don't normally listen to.

Speaker 3 (01:40:30):
It proved to be enlightening. So that is my challenge
to y'all.

Speaker 2 (01:40:34):
I like it, Andrew was yours.

Speaker 5 (01:40:37):
Build your things on things that last, Put your hopes
on things that last. Put all everything you're building on
things that last, because slippery is all of the ground.
And learn from the movements that have actually something to
teach us. There was a time in this country where
eighty percent of Americans believed in social security and retirement benefits.

(01:41:00):
There was a time in this country where eighty percent
of the politepole believed in workplace protections. There was a
time when eighty percent of this country was prepared to
go after big oligarchs and the wealthiest, consuming as much
as they could for themselves, and it was a widely
popular set of ideas, the New Deal, And when the

(01:41:21):
New Deal was popular, it was popular amongst over eighty
percent of Americans until those people realize that those same
benefits would be extended to black people. And that's when
the benefit, the support for those benefits dissipated. So check
out the sum of us. Read a little bit about
these parts of movements that I think we can build from,

(01:41:42):
grow from, learn what we can from them, and leave
the rest that doesn't serve us behind. Because our only
pathway out of this is going to be on the
ground that's solid and that gets shored up by our
continued activism in this space. At least that's what I believe.
I'll continue to believe that until a new belief takes over.

Speaker 2 (01:42:05):
Did you say, build your hopes on the things that.

Speaker 5 (01:42:08):
Last, Build build everything on the things that last.

Speaker 1 (01:42:10):
Build everything on it. I just want to get it
right from when I repeat it like it was my own.
Everything on the things that last.

Speaker 5 (01:42:17):
Dream, build it last.

Speaker 1 (01:42:19):
Build your hopes and dreams on the things that last. Honestly,
that's beautiful, Andrew, thank you for that. I do want
to share Bakari. So, Bakari has been going back and forth,
as I said, because he's in court, but he did
when he was running out, he did tell us his
CTA and it was really similar to yours.

Speaker 2 (01:42:34):
Angela. He said, I need no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (01:42:37):
He he just said, to basically approach conversations open. I
think it's all you know, all about our conversations that
we've had. So he kind of shared his ct and
his perspective and our conversation with Charlemagne. But essentially he
was saying, you know, be open to have conversations with people.
Show go to where people are even you know, no

(01:43:00):
matter what your preconceived notions about them. So sorry, b
if I have butchered your CTA, but next.

Speaker 2 (01:43:06):
Time, keep your ass here.

Speaker 3 (01:43:07):
Next time homework.

Speaker 2 (01:43:13):
But if I mess it up, you can correct me.

Speaker 3 (01:43:15):
Next week you can do a dis tape on social
media like you probably.

Speaker 1 (01:43:19):
Probably we sorry Beyonce from messing up as your backup dancers.
My ct A is this week in Minnesota, Texas, New York,
and Pennsylvania. Uh, they are looking at dwindling funds for
SNAP benefits and uh even Wick which which helps to
feed over seven million low income mothers and children. Those
funds are running low. SNAP is of course federally funded,

(01:43:43):
but it's administered by the states, and so the shutdown
impacts the people who get these benefits. So if you
are able to help in any way feed someone who
may not have their benefits, who may be too proud
to ask. You can anonymously leave a bag of groceries
on their door, mail them food. You can have food
delivered to them if you feel in fancy, Uber eats

(01:44:05):
them dinner for a week. Whatever you can do, even
if it's somebody you don't know, if you see somebody
on the news talking about it. However, we can help
each other in this time. I think it's so incredibly important,
and I'm cheating because I have another call to action.
I do want to tell our Native Land Pod audience
that Angela Rye turns twenty nine years old this week.

Speaker 2 (01:44:30):
She's celebrating forty six.

Speaker 1 (01:44:33):
She is turned at forty six this week, and so
we want to wish our dear sister a happy birthday.
I hope that you spend that day I don't think
you will, but I hope you spend that day doing
nothing in service to anyone but yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:44:48):
Like to go to sleep.

Speaker 2 (01:44:49):
Okay, is that what you're planning on doing? Sleeping?

Speaker 3 (01:44:51):
I do think so.

Speaker 4 (01:44:51):
And I was like, for my birthday, wish is for
Andrew to get well, because I'm watching him blow his nose.

Speaker 3 (01:44:56):
It's so nice.

Speaker 2 (01:44:57):
He's been sweating the whole show.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
Andrew's been fighting bickness since last week because the show.

Speaker 3 (01:45:02):
Last week, ever, he got well. Here's what you know.
I'm not gonna do my birthday be around Andrew because
I do not want whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:45:08):
Angel You need some rest, and Andrew and Angela you
need celebration. I will say, you guys know the Machetes
always we are a very giving, loving, supportive group of girlfriends,
and so you do. You have something coming your way
from us, But I won't say what it is. We
can talk about it later. But if you guys catch

(01:45:31):
this on numberfore Sunday, be sure to wish Angela a
very happy birthday. I will be tweeting out her personal
cell phone number so you can tell her directly. Stay
tuned for that. And as always, we want to remind
everybody if you like what you heard today, and I
really hope you did, because we've been Andrew's stripping.

Speaker 2 (01:45:48):
I don't know what's happening. He's getting undressed. I was
distracted though, like I saw Andrew stripping. I don't know
it's happening. But uh, we're here for it, Andrew, We're
here for it, not.

Speaker 5 (01:46:02):
Go straight.

Speaker 1 (01:46:03):
But no, that is why I know you said because
you've been hot and cold, Andela being rude talking about you.
If you liked any part of this conversation, truly, I
just wanted to say all of us really appreciated reading
your comments, hearing from you all, So please share the video.

(01:46:27):
Tell a friend about the podcast. You know, some people
were complaining, like, oh, you guys are doing this for clicks.
We talk about things of substance. You know, Angela had
a great interview with Jenny Nelson. Please, by all means
go flood that clip with comments. I don't know he's
going through menopause.

Speaker 2 (01:46:44):
He's like chill.

Speaker 5 (01:46:45):
Menopause shows up in all different phases. To be guilty.
But no, I was shaking my head your comment about
they're just doing that for clicks.

Speaker 1 (01:46:54):
I'm like, click for who We'll just we're saying like
we wanted more viewers, and of course we always do,
and that's that's why we show not by any means
and certainly not by being messy, but but having a
very healthy exchange of ideas and ideology, which we do
on this show every week about things of Stuffarence. Okay,
we got two minutes before we got to be out
of the studio, so I just want to tell everybody

(01:47:15):
that there are other clips and things that we would
love to have from this week that we discussed that
we would love to hear from you on. Feel free
to drop a video, drop a question, share the video. Also,
please check out other choices on Reason Choice Media. Our
girl Jamil Hill shout out to the Macheties, she hosts
Politics and Si Cup hosts Off the Cup and I

(01:47:36):
know it's the edition which we talked about Noah de
Borasso with the more you know, and please be sure
to give us a follow on all our platforms.

Speaker 2 (01:47:44):
We certainly heard.

Speaker 1 (01:47:44):
From a lot of you, so you just showed up
to make a comment on our alleged beef. We hope
that you will stick around for the substance that we
try to offer on this show every week.

Speaker 2 (01:47:55):
I don't know how.

Speaker 1 (01:47:56):
Many days there are until midterm elections, because at this point, Oh,
Angela's telling me there are three hundred and seventy six days,
which is almost a year. Isn't that crazy? Three hundred
and seventy six days left until midterm elections. I'm not
sure if we're gonna have free and fair elections, but

(01:48:16):
certainly now's the time to be informed and stay focused
on what's happening while we prepare for the worst to come.

Speaker 2 (01:48:21):
Thank you guys for joining us. We are your hosts.

Speaker 1 (01:48:23):
Bakari Sellers allegedly is somewhere fighting a good fight in
the courtroom. Andrew Gillam, who is going through the menopause
hot and cold. We send our prayers. Angela Rai, who
is getting ready to turn up for her birthday, and
by turn up, I mean turn it down, getting comfy
in the bed, relaxing. We're on down for what she
deserves it. And Tiffany Cross, thank you guys for tuning in.

Speaker 14 (01:48:44):
Welcome Home, Welcome Home to the Native Landing on the
podcast space Tess and for greatness sixteen minutes it's so hit,
not too long for the crazy ships. High level combo
politics in a way that you could taste it then
got chested. Politics touches you will and if you don't
touch it, so get invested across the t's and dop
the i's, kill them back to get them staying on

(01:49:06):
business with ride. You could have been anywhere, but you
truset us natively and podcast the brand that you can
trust you.

Speaker 4 (01:49:30):
Hey, everybody, So, because we had such a long, in
depth conversation today, we're actually gonna move some of our
viewers questions and comments over to our sub stack. We
invite you to continue the conversation over there, real or
perceived beef whatever. We're broadening out this conversation into what
it means to be an intellectual, what it means to

(01:49:52):
find common ground with all of us, so that we're
not excluding anyone. We are not engaged in the math
the power politics of subtraction or division. We are engaged
in additional multiplication and for that reason we want to
hear your thoughts. Go over and leave your comments, let
us know what you think, send us a video as
you normally do, and hopefully we'll see you over there

(01:50:14):
on substance.

Speaker 1 (01:50:15):
Native Landpod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership with
Resent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Hosts And Creators

Tiffany Cross

Andrew Gillum

Angela Rye

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Charlamagne Critiques NLP and the Cost of Thinking While Black