October 31, 2025 • 49 mins
BIN News anchors Nichole Deal and Mike Eiland join Host Ramses Ja to review the major news stories of the week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's been another busy news week and we like to
review the major stories of the week here on the
bi In. Today, we are joined by bi In News
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island to discuss this week's
major stories.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
This is the QR code.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And I am Rams's job. All right, Nicole Deal, Mike Island,
welcome back to the show. It is always too long
in between our little chats. Anything noteworthy to speak on, Nicole,
What have you been up to?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Well, I'm trying to hold it down here in Texas
is Halloween season, just got done with the state Fair.
Lots of fun stuff going on. Well that sounds good
and festive, Mike. How about you?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
Well, all is well in Ohio. I'm just getting ready
for the time change, which changes my life of course.
Yeah yeah, yeah, training for marathons and such. I'll switch
to the evening run since it's really dark in the
morning now, so I've got some nice fall runs ahead.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Okay, yeah, yeah, I'm very lucky folks in there Arizona and.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Hawaii.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We don't really pay much attention in the daylight saving
because our clocks never change. It's just just another day
for us. So yeah, I have to bear in mind
that switch because you guys have to switch though, So
I guess I'll mark my calendar or Chrys will keep
me honest with that.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
So anyway, let's get to the news, all right. First up,
next Tuesday is election day.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
And there's an important issue on California's ballot this year
that may impact how future voting maps are drawn up
around the country.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Nicole, let's get today's show started with you.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Tell us more about the Prop fifty measure on the
California ballot and its potential impact, and then Mike will
get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
All right, Well, buckle your seat belts, guys. It's kind
of long, but stay with me here. The redistricting efforts
across the country are centered around the twenty twenty six
midterm elections because the GOP is trying to protect their
very thin majority. So over the summer, at the behest
of President Trump, Republicans in Texas decided to redraw their
(02:10):
congressional maps to favor the GOP and you in hopes
of gaining additional seats in the House. So we all
know what happened there. The Democrats left the state for
a couple of weeks, but Eventually, Governor Rabbitt called a
couple of special sessions and then the new congressional maps
were approved. So what's happening now is frankly a by
(02:32):
product of what happened over the summer in Texas. It's
basically it's a clapback. That's what I'm calling it. Democratic
states like California and several others, but specifically California is
clapping back over the gerrymandering in Texas by redrawing their
congressional maps to increase their congressional seats in the House.
(02:56):
And that clapback was what's known as Proposition fifty. It
was created by the California Legislature. It has the approval
of California Governor Gavin Newsom, but in order for those
new maps to be adopted, California residents have to vote
on it, and that measure, Proposition fifty, is on the
(03:19):
ballot for next Tuesday. So right now, the California House
has forty three Democratic seats and nine Republicans, and if
Prop fifty is passed, it will put five out of
the nine GOP seats at risk, and that has the
potential to give California Democrats a bigger majority. And last,
(03:40):
but not least, it is important to mention that former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris are
both in support of Prop fifty.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Mike, your thoughts, Well, the registried thing and all that
seems like it's like, to Nicole's point, is going to
it's going to have a weird effect. It could be
extremely beneficial for Democrats, or it kind of in some
kind of weird way could backfire just somewhat. But there's
(04:13):
a lot of I like the Texas California kind of
I guess you can call it a collusion. I'm sure
if that's the proper word. I'll call it a merger
or some type of cooperative that's working together for them.
And I think Barack Obama and Kamala Harris I kind
of like them putting their noses in it. But to
(04:36):
the point of another story that's coming up, just the
Democrats position needs to change on certain issues to ensure
that this whole thing is going to work. We'll get
to that part later, but for my part, right now,
I'm looking anxiously to Tuesday to see how this particular
strategy works. It's a little confusing for voters, I think,
(05:00):
hopefully more well, I don't know what type of advertisements
going on in Texas and California to clue the voters
in on what's happening. We know what it is, but
I'm more concerned about the language that the voters are
taking in.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
You know, this feels a little odd.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Because there are a lot of us that really wanted
this system of how we determine who represents us to change.
You know, ideally it would be one man, one woman,
one vote. But you know, this is a representative democracy,
(05:50):
and so we have representatives that are elected to speak
for us. And jerry mandering has been a concern, particularly
for Black Americans.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
For decades.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
The thing is, the places where there's most likely to
be jerry mandering are places where there's a black population
where they can you know, crack and pack, right, and
that's across the South, and a lot of states have
(06:28):
been doing that for such a long time that for
them to further jerry mander their population, they're kind of
left with few options. Meanwhile, let's call them blue states
don't have the same history of jerry mandering, and so
(06:48):
there's a lot more potential there to jerry mander out
the conservative voices in more enlightened parts of this country.
And so this is a dangerous game for Republicans to play.
And I'm sure that they thought that they would be
up against the same old Democratic Party. Just get me
(07:13):
five more seats in Texas. It's their right to do it,
you know, this is the language they were using. And
then when California responded, and they're like, oh, well, okay,
And California still has more room to do more if
they so chose, but so many of the other states,
blue states, they have room to do the same.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
And this de.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Evolution of what should be our you know, democratic stronghold
is concerning, even though there seems to be more potential
when it comes to the more enlightened states. As I mentioned,
so in theory, the democracy would reflect the population and
(08:09):
not the wealthy, not the powerful. I remember encountering a study,
this might have been in twenty twenty that suggested that
a white male landowner in the state of Wisconsin had
like two and a half times the political influence over
(08:31):
the United States of America than a poor black, you know,
citizen in southern California. And the way that the power
was documented, how much influence they have. Like a place
(08:53):
like Wisconsin has two senators in so does California. Right
capacity to influence laws and regulations and legislation that affects
the entire country is more significant, And so I think
(09:16):
that this might end up getting us closer to the
reality where things are a little bit more balanced. It
won't get us all the way there, but you would
have thought that we would have been able to get
here by simply doing what was right, not by Republicans
and conservatives exhausting their options in pursuit of their greed
(09:39):
for power and the pursuit of silencing dissent or the
voices of marginalized people in this country. So I guess
by any means necessary.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Moving on.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Although the federal government remains shut down, funding for the
recruitment and training of new ICE agents continue. However, a
recently released report has raised concerns about the type of
candidates being hired for this job. Mike, this time, let's
start with you tell us more about this report, and
then Nicole will come you next.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Well, so to speak, things with ICE continue to get frosty.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Ices. The ICE is.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
The immigration and Customers and enforcement and they seem to
have a lot of money for this aggressive recruiting campaign,
and this, of course is in line with President Trump's
mass deportation agenda. But there's a lot of money floating
around to get these recruits but falling short on actual qualifications.
(10:38):
This is something not new within the administration. We're going
to find that Ice gravely disqualified to do a lot
of the work. We're going to see a lot of mistakes,
but they'll probably be protected as they go along. It
was a summer hiring search that happened, and I think
(10:59):
this money is pretty big, guys. I recall more than
one hundred and seventy billion dollars to expand the agency,
and that's going to be one of the most expensive
police agencies in the world. As it was described in
an article, a couple of hundred new recruits and they're
in training, the falling short of requirements, and that's according
(11:21):
to NBC. We're not talking about just the mental requirements.
We're talking about physical requirements as well, and some of
them are failing things like open book tests and several
were dismissed for criminal backgrounds. We're going to see a
lot of this. Maybe it doesn't matter in this particular agency,
(11:46):
but I think they just want to be big in
number and beg in a show of force, and I
think that's what this is more about. Rather they whether
they're fully qualified or not. A show of force and
a fight against crime. It's supposed to make people feel comfortable,
whether they're you know, really you know, up for this
(12:06):
job or not. So we're going to see. I think
they're aiming for hiring ten thousand ICE agents by twenty
twenty six. Oh, they're going to double their footprint. So
it's it's overwhelming. This is something that waits to be seen.
Can't say a lot ahead of time. This is one
of those wait and see type of things. We know
(12:28):
how it's coming in, but how it's going to pan out,
that's going to be another story.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Nicole, Well, my first question is are these people being
properly vetted or are we just rushing them through a
system just to, you know, to Mike's point, make a
show of force. I think, and Mike Mike touched on this,
but I think it's very important to mention, you know,
(12:54):
President Trump approved one hundred and seventy eight thousand, no.
One hundred seventy eight million, no one hundred and seventy
eight billion dollars to expand ICE to make it one
of the most expensive police agencies in the world, and
Mike already mentioned that, So I'm almost positive that some
(13:14):
of that money could have gone to city, county and
state agencies for policing. You know, they're they're all of
these particularly democratic and more urban cities that we're sending
the National Guard into and we're having to pay for that.
Taxpayer dollars is paying for all of this. So some
(13:36):
of that money could have gone to city, county and
state agencies to help them who are already over overworked, underpaid,
et cetera, or have higher crime rates in those cities.
Some of that money could have gone for that. One
hundred and seventy eight billion dollars is a lot of money,
But anyway, the irony of that money being spent on
(14:00):
ICE recruitment, to me, is twisted. The US spending all
of this money, all of this time, all of these resources,
and all the manpower to vet Americans to go arrest
people that are reportedly in the country illegally, and like
Mike said, their recruits are failing their drug test, they're
failing their background checks. They're being flagged for safety concerns
(14:25):
that are coming up on their background checks, and ironically,
these are some of the exact same issues that we
are trying to arrest illegal immigrants for. The agency itself
is even offering sign on bonuses up to fifty thousand
dollars and not in addition, but and student loan forgiveness.
(14:48):
So I just this just doesn't make sense to be
if we have one hundred and eighty seven billion dollars
to spend at our disposal, why are we using that
money to vet Americans and hire more agents. Couldn't we
we maybe use some of that money to vet the
so called illegal immigrants. Could we use some of the
(15:08):
money for that and speed up that process and have
a better process of them getting visas and things of
that nature. Or maybe we could use it to create
a comprehensive roadmap to citizenship. We could use some of
that money to create bipartisan, strategic and measurable type of
initiatives to fight illegal immigration and protect our borders. You know,
(15:32):
this is just an ongoing problem. Illegal immigration has been
a problem for decades and decades. It's being highlighted by
the current administration, but you know, we have to do
something about illegal immigration, but I just don't see this
as the right solution.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
You bring up an interesting point, Nicole. I recall having
this chat with our listeners a few days ago where
we had to come to terms with the reality of
our situation. Either we want immigrants contributing so that they're
(16:17):
not just taking resources quote unquote, which they don't. They're
not entitled to those resources if they're not citizens. But
this is the narrative, right, So we either want them
to contribute or we don't want them here, right, And
this is kind of the two camps that many of
(16:38):
people who have a very strong stance in opposition to
immigration in this country will have. So on the one hand,
if you think that immigrants are not contributing, and you're
absolutely right, then we need to make a pathway to
(17:03):
citizenship easier for these people. People don't understand, especially people
that don't live in border states. They don't understand how
challenging it is, how expensive it is, how fragmented the
processes to becoming a citizen of the United States in
(17:27):
states like Arizona, states like California, where people historically have
come and gone, where this land where I live was
effectively stolen from Mexico.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
All the people just naturalized US citizens.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
They're still Mexican, right, they still have that ancestry, but
now they're US citizens. Well, they still have family members
that are south of the border, right. And for years,
just because this was American soil, because it was stolen,
(18:05):
didn't mean that the people here could not go and
visit their family members across the border. Arizona became a
state not quite one hundred years ago, and it wasn't
until maybe thirty forty years ago when people started really
taking the border seriously as a political issue. And I'd
say in the past maybe since two thousand and one
(18:29):
September eleventh, so called that the past twenty five years,
I'll be generous, that the border became something that people
really started paying attention to. But you know, there's family
members that are still on the other side. People would
drive back and forth. I mean, just because September eleventh
(18:51):
happened doesn't mean that your cousins and your sister and
your grandparents or whatever aren't still in Mexico. And so
it's not unusual to encounter people that were born here
but have family there. It's not unusual to encounter people
who were born here, born there, but raised here and
(19:15):
live here and made a life here.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
And so.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
For people that have been pursuing their citizenship. I've said
it many times on the show. Every four years there's
a new administration, new rules, setbacks, challenges in court, et cetera.
It's a very expensive process. A lot of times you
need lawyers. You need to pay lawyers over and over
again for new things that come up, new changes in
(19:43):
the law, new setbacks, new challenges to your application, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
For some people who takes decades.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
So making that process easier would result in people paying
into the system. That again the opposition feels like folks
aren't paying into but you can't work unless you pay
into that system, unless you're working under the table, in
which case you can't pay into it, but you also
can't receive any benefits from it. Some people just pay
into it and can't receive benefits. But the other side
(20:11):
of it is that immigration also brings to this country
some of the brightest minds around the world, people to
function in capacities that our population cannot support. We just
don't have the brain power in the numbers necessary to
maintain our position on the global stage, and so far
(20:33):
as business is concerned, and so far as innovation, and
so far as military strategy, weapons, things like this, that
we need to kind of maintain our global dominance, and.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So we do recruit.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
This is why we have so many international students that
go to college here. The hope is that they will
stay here and make a life for themselves in this country,
supporting US institutions, private or public institutions. And so if
we don't want immigrants at all, then we risk losing
(21:11):
our standing on the global stage. And this is something
that people need to come to terms with. As far
as ICE is concerned, you could not convince me that
it is anything other than Trump's gestapo.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
It is the secret police.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
It is a private, well funded branch of the government
now that does the bidding of the president.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
For the party that espouses states' rights.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
There's a stunning silence coming from them with ICE overreach,
with JB. Pritzker in Chicago suggesting that ICE agents could
be arrested for breaking in the law. Steven Miller pushes
back against that, saying that you will not be arrested
for carrying out your federal responsibilities. And federal agents can
(22:12):
break the law, and indeed do their federal prisons for
folks that do. And if you don't break a federal
law and you break a state law, you can be
imprisoned by the state. You owe the state back that time.
And so I see this sort of tug of war
taking place. But ICE agents definitely feel fortified, and I
(22:33):
think that the recruitment of ICE agents I think reflects
the sentiment of the people that sign.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Up for it.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Sure, there are people who would love a fifty thousand
dollars bonus, would love their college debt wiped away, But
at its core, you have to be willing to get
out there and play what patriot. You get a gun,
you get a mask, You get to go out there
and tactical gear and wrestle people that you've been taught
(23:01):
to hate for whatever reason to the ground and arrest them,
and you get to feel like you're doing right by
your country and by your president. But on some level,
every single person that does that knows that that's what
they're doing. And the opposition, the pushback. It does not
make sense for people to suggest that all of this
(23:21):
pushback comes from Antifa and paid agents by the deep state,
Democrats and so forth. These are actual human beings living
their lives, that live in the building that you just
rated to pull some old lady out at three.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
In the morning.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
They're not paid agents, they're not Antifa, none of that.
That's not real. It's not real. Antifa is anti fascist,
and your behavior is fascist behavior. So even if it
was real, they would be justified. But it just simply
isn't It is a narrative that comforts white Republican voters
(24:00):
because they need an enemy, because staring at the enemy
that they see on the TV feels cruel to them,
so they need another narrative that is more palatable for
them to process. I think it's just very telling that
seventy five percent of the males in this country would
not meet the qualifications for ice. They wouldn't meet those
(24:23):
qualifications anymore than this US population would meet the qualifications
for inventing some new technology or of whatever it is
that we need in the private sector to remain to
remain a global powerhouse when it comes to business.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
We just don't have what it takes. I do, but
we as a country don't. Hey, what's up? This is
Ramsy's jaw and.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
I am q Ward, and we're inviting you to subscribe
to Civic Cipher, we social justice podcast right here in
the app.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
We pride ourselves on creating a show that busters allyship,
empathy and understanding, all the while conduct journalistically credible research,
featuring influential, noteworthy guests, and empowering historically marginalized communities.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
The African proverb reads, if you want to go far,
go together. So we are asking you to search for
and subscribe to Civic Cipher.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
That cibic cip h e r right here in the app.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Bin News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island are here
with us discussing this week's major stories. All right, as
kids and adults alike gett into the spirit of Halloween
this weekend, one child in Pennsylvania found something beyond spooky
mixed into her Halloween candy. Nicole, let's go back to
you tell us more on this story, and then Mike
(25:40):
will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Well, the parent of a five year old went to
a local parade, and of course at these events you
are having people toss candy and those types of things,
and some vendors there. Well, when they got home later
on they found a KKK flyer in his daughter's candy bucket. Apparently,
(26:05):
an organization called the Women of the Ku Klux Klan
in Meccan's Mechanicsburg excuse me, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania admits that they
were at this annual Halloween event in they passed out
flyers while they were there. This is disturbing. First of all,
(26:25):
Halloween events, particularly a parade, is for kids.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
You know.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Of course, the adults are there and we're taking our
kids there and we dressed them up in their costumes
or whatever. But they're there with their you know, pumpkin
baskets and whatever, you know, to get the candy right.
So the local KKK entity that did this had to
know that kids were going to be present. They did
(26:55):
release a statement saying, in part, children are precious and
and are not to be used as ponds and blah
blah blah blah. Anyway, the Women of the KKK are
defending their actions and calling the distribution a patriotic movement
and claiming its mission is to support our family, our community,
(27:17):
blah blah blah. In response, the Mechanicsburg Chamber of Commerce,
which actually are the ones that host the parade every year,
they released a statement and they said, any message or
organization promoting racism, intimidation, or discrimination stands in direct opposition
(27:38):
to the values of our community. We celebrate the rich
diversity of our residents and strive to ensure that everyone
feels safe, valued, and welcome. The bottom line for me
on this is this is just deplorable. I mean racism, hate, intimidation, bias, discretion, domination.
(28:00):
You know, it goes by a lot of different names.
It just has no place in our society and our politics,
and our schools and our communities, and certainly certainly not
around children at a parade.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Mike, Well, Nicole, to your point, yes it is. It
is deplorable. But this is the way of the world
right now, as long as it's in the name of patriotism,
a patriotic movement, as long as it supporting our family
and our beloved country, as long as it has those
(28:37):
components in it in the message than these groups such
as the women of the KKK, feel emboldened, and a
lot of groups like that are feeling more emboldened because
the courts are stacked with people that will be forgiving
of this type of thing. And see it as a mistake,
(28:59):
but we see their patriotism, we know they love their country,
we know they're supporting families and community. So they really
didn't do anything wrong, but it was a mistaken really
shouldn't be done, you know, completely unacceptable on those terms.
But Veterans Day is coming up, and I was at
a Veterans Day parade a couple of years ago in
(29:20):
Nashville where I saw similar messages on flags, and I'm
thinking that they're using community gatherings to get their message out.
This is a marketing ploy. That's why you use Halloween parades,
and this is not the first one where this Halloween
parade that something like this has happened, and Veterans Day parades,
any type of assembly of people, this is a marketing ploy.
(29:44):
So that's why they chose to operate in that because
they knew children would be there, but their message was
more directed as an adult. It could have been an
adult that just slipped the card in child's Halloween bucket,
had nothing to do with the organization, could be someone
who's supports it, you know, and maybe thought it would
be fun to put it in a kid's candy bucket
(30:05):
or something like that, and that's probably what happened in
this case. But yeah, prepare for more of this at
gatherings where you have, you know, families together in the
name of patriotism, supporting your family and community and our
beloved country.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
You know, Mike, I think it might be right, man,
It might be the case that this simply slipped into
a child's Halloween basket accidentally. If I'm being fair and
sharing my honest thoughts, Yeah, it's more likely than not
(30:50):
that that is what happened. But because we're talking about
the Ku Klux Klan, it's not possible that they didn't
put this into that basket themselves. It doesn't feel like
behavior that is beneath them.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
It just.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I would need more children's baskets to be able to
confirm it fully or feel like it was confirmed enough
for me to say that indeed, this was the behavior
in which they were practicing. So I don't understand why
the ku kuks Klam even exists at this point, Like
(31:41):
why are they still doing this? Why are they still
trying to recruit or spread a message, because it would
it would seem as though they have everything that they
could ever want, have all three branches of government there
is no more diversity, equity, inclusion, or firmative action. The
(32:02):
interests of white Americans are well protected. The interests of
everyone else are in a perpetual state of at minimum
being challenged, but in many instances actively being eroded.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Or dismissed.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
And the fact that these people are still out with
the rah rah, I think it illuminates a point that
we made.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
We read a writing.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
From Joy Read recently where you know, she says, the
right is angry. They're always angry. They were angry when
you know, they had to give up their slaves. They
were angry when they had to allow black peop people
to vote. They were angry during the Civil rights movement.
They were angry, you know, all these points throughout history, right,
(33:07):
They were angry when Obama won, they were, you know,
just angry, angry, angry, angry, and now that they have
everything that they could ever possibly want, this is, for
all intents and purposes, a white country. Every single person
in any position of power protects the interest of white
people full stop, White men in particular, first and foremost,
(33:31):
They're still angry, and they still do things like this.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
This, of course is an example of the far right.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
But I think that the far right and the right
kind of blurring lines increasingly. Nazis and KKK and you know,
regular well intentioned Republicans. You got to overlook a lot
of stuff, and you got to bear in mind that
the interests of those people. The country that you voted
to live in is the same country they voted to
(34:02):
live in. Right, They all want the same thing, and
it is decidedly anti black. But I think that the
conclusion of what Joy stated, which I think will make
sense for this story, is that the reason that they're
(34:24):
still angry, that it's most likely more likely than any
other reason, is because they want us to love them.
And I think this is the point you were making.
They want to appear patriotic, they want to appear as
decent people. They want love too, so they want to
(34:47):
actively discriminate. They want to relegate the rest of us
to second class citizenship status if they could. They want
us to serve them, their white country. It wouldn't be
dignified to have white people serve them, so they would
want all of us to do the serving, and they
(35:09):
of course would take good care of us, right, but
as long as we stay in our place, and they
want us to love them while licking their boots, and
only then will they no longer be angry. And so
that hope of theirs is that's never going to be
(35:31):
a reality. But it just means that they're always going
to be angry, and we're always going to have to
question stories like this. Are they is the ku kutz
Klan putting flyers into little kids candy buckets? Despite Trump
(35:51):
being their president and them having a majority, and you know,
the House of Representatives in the Supreme Court can't rule
it out, all right. For our final story this week,
it focuses on a new survey involving public perceptions of
the current state of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Mike chairs thoughts.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
On this story, and then Nicole will tap in with
you before we close out.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Well, there's a poll that says the percentage of Americans
who believe the Democratic Party is out of touch has
increased by double digits over the past ten years, seventy percent,
indicating the party is disconnected from the issues that matter
to voters. I would like to know the percentage of
who are Democrats and Republicans thinking this. I wouldn't be
(36:35):
surprised if a large percentage of Democrats think that their
own party is out of touch with what's going on.
It appeared to be that while Democrats were in charge,
we're in the White House. We for a while, and
this was only for a small period. It seemed like
(36:57):
the only thing we were doing as Democrats were changing
names of buildings and taking down statues, and the focus
should have been on more the crime reduction and secure borders,
things like that. Those things were said, but they weren't
(37:18):
as pronounced as it is now. What was happening now
is pretty much over the top. But I think there's
local police departments could have been probably strengthened to keep
law and order in that type of thing. But the
article that I read said to win elections, Democrats need
(37:41):
to make the following changes. First, we need to focus
more on the issues voters do not think we prioritize enough.
And I approached that earlier, the economy, cost of living, healthcare,
border security, public safety, all those things, and focus less
on things that maybe are a little bit more controversial
(38:03):
and maybe seem far left. You know, climate change. We
talk a lot about democracy, abortion, identity and culture issues.
All those are important, but it seems like that was
the only thing that was being talked about and acted
on at the time, And I think that if the
cost of living and health care and border security and
(38:25):
all that were acted on versus talked about a lot,
I think that the shifting of what the Democratic Party
is the relevancy is to society would be a lot different.
But if the Democratic parties make it a prioritize, make
prioritization of things like protecting social security and medicare, lowering
(38:49):
everyday costs, things like that that people think about every day.
When you wake up, you're not thinking about abortion, and
you're not thinking about some other things. You're waking up
thinking about how where your next meal is coming from.
You're thinking about your own job security, things like that,
and the economy and how much things are going to
cost me and how I'll be able to live my life.
(39:12):
Those are things that should be talked about when you
turn on your radio in the morning, and that should
be the message coming from the Democratic Party. Things like that,
the everyday issues, not that the other issues are necessarily peripheral,
they're important too, but the things that you think about
(39:32):
and talk about every day as an individual or as
a family, those are the messages that should be coming
from the Democratic Party in order to see a shift
in the perception of what the party is about and
going forward, you know with that. So that's my take
(39:52):
on that.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Nicole, Well, that's a hard act to follow.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
Mike Islan very well said, I agree with several points
that you made there. Yeah, just to kind of retract.
The poll highlights a growing perception, if you will, among
voters that Democratic leaders are just not adequately addressing the
concerns of working class folk. And I think that this
(40:23):
poll and others like it, this is not the first one,
and I think it's important that Democratic political leaders are
hopefully reading and hearing and seeing what we are with
some of these polls and the reaction of working class Americans.
(40:44):
I mean, seventy percent is a big number that you
cannot ignore. But again, this is just one poll. So
I think there are major issues. One of them we've
already talked about, like immigration. There's certainly issues with crime, inflation. Uh,
and of course there's there's this racial undertone that is
(41:07):
more prevalent now, like Rams' has so eloquently described. I
think the only thing I'll say is just I think
it's a critical moment in US history. Right now where
Democrats have to kind of take a step back and
(41:30):
reassess their values, the core values, and and reassess their
platform and representation if they want to regain public trust.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Well, thank you both for laying that out.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
I think that there's definitely lee, there's always something to learn.
I don't I can't say that anything that either of
you said is wrong, but what I'm going to say
is going to sound like a defense of Democrats, and
(42:21):
I think that they deserve a defense. So seventy percent
saying that the Democratic Party is not in touch with voters.
That seems like a big number, But I want to
add to your point, Mike, that it the number for
Republicans is sixty five percent, which is not seventy to
(42:45):
be fair, But it's not like ten, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
Like it's voters in general.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
I feel like politicians are out of touch, Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
And then.
Speaker 1 (43:01):
I think it might have been like five or ten
years ago the numbers were switched. It was seventy and
sixty five or something like that. Actually, I think Democrats
actually did better, but the Republican Party is further away
from their voter base then people might expect. With that said,
(43:27):
there's a lot of people who are very vocal in
support of what Donald Trump is doing. But you know,
I think people recognize that. A lot of voters, I'll say,
recognize on some level that mass deportation efforts doesn't really
change how much money they make. And I think at
(43:48):
the end of the day, that's what most people care about.
As far as Democrats being out of touch with voters,
every single topic that we've touched on today and many
others are critical to not just voters but to the
(44:08):
United States of America. It's fair to say that, yes,
some people care about this more than that. Some people
care about, you know, money more than climate change or whatever.
But it's Democrats that have a holistic view of this country,
(44:30):
and I think rightfully so. To have progressive politics, you
need to be forward thinking. And forward thinking requires planning
a reversion or conservative politics that takes you backwards. You
kind of already know the road back there. When you're
moving forward, you're charting new territory. So you have to
anticipate what could go wrong, what could go right, and
(44:54):
navigate things that have not been explored before. So I
think that the philosophy as part and parcel to the
Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
You have to be mindful of things that you have
not seen and planned for them.
Speaker 1 (45:15):
I think that really the most toxic element in the
overall equation is the Maga movement. The Maga movement that
responds to the whims of the president is the reason
that we don't have a border deal. We've talked about
this on the show before. When Joe Biden had a
bipartisan border deal in place that was set to get
(45:35):
voted on, and Donald Trump, in the eleventh hour made
the phone call I've said it before, saying, hey, don't
vote on this border deal. I want that border to
be weak so that I can win a campaign against
Joe Biden. So all the Republicans said, all right, you're
our Jesus Christ, So we won't vote. And that bill
never got passed, and so we were stuck with a
weak border. That's not Democrat's fault. That's Donald Trump's and
(45:58):
the Mega Movement's fault. Democrats, of course, get blamed for it,
and that's the way the narrative got chronicled. Kamala Harris
ran a campaign and she was vulnerable because the border
was weak. Donald Trump, that was a brilliant play on
his part, because the reason the border was weak is
because of Donald Trump, not because of Kamala Harris, not
(46:20):
because of Democrats. And you can see this time and again,
rinse and repeat. Conservatives made the first move in exploiting
the weaknesses and the loopholes in our democratic system for
their benefit, costing the people. The people had to sit
(46:41):
through a weak border so that Donald Trump could get
back in office and do what he's doing now, which
is not deporting the worst of the worst, just getting
everybody out of here so that things look like what
he wants it to look like. But again, who's going
to work these farms, Who's going to pick the fruit
(47:02):
that ends up in the grocery stores. Who's going to
run the Hyundai plants where they employ thousands of people.
Who's going to run them? Immigrants we need them, And
with Donald Trump deporting people and immigrants being afraid to
move here to invest here, it's like these people shooting
(47:22):
themselves in the foot. Unfortunately, at this point they can
no longer blame Democrats. And I think this is the
real showing of what Republicans are as a brand. Donald
Trump will continue to lie and say the economy is
doing great when it isn't in his estimation, Saying something
over and over again makes it true, and a lot
(47:44):
of people will follow in his footsteps. But the truth
is the people on the ground, their material reality either
stays the same or gets worse, while Donald Trump and
his cronies line their pockets. Now, last thing I'll say
is that it is true that Democrats.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
In recent years were.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
The party of poor people, working class people, and now
they're the party of rich people, you know, But I
think that that is because the party has more appeal
to the enlightened, and Republicans have indeed become the party
(48:31):
of the working class. And of course they have their
rich base as well. But there is a segment of
the population that is vulnerable to people that will do
things for them specifically, and Donald Trump sort of filled
that void. I think that that deserves to be said.
As as I mentioned, Democrats have a lot of shoring
(48:51):
up to do, but it's not all bad, and Republicans
don't have it figured out. As illustrated by the versus
sixty five number, neither party is really doing as great
as they'd like to. So I'll leave it there, and
with that in mind, thank you both very much, as always,
for your time and your insight. Once again, Today's guests
our Bin News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Iland. This
(49:15):
has been a production of the bi In. Today's show
was produced by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts you'd like
to share, use the red microphone talkback feature on the
iHeartRadio app. While you're there, be sure to hit subscribe
and download all of our episodes.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
I'm your host Ramsey's Jaw.
Speaker 1 (49:29):
On all social media, and we'll be hosting another episode
of Civic Cipher this weekend.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
I'm a station near you.
Speaker 1 (49:34):
For stations, show times, and podcast info, check Civiccipher dot
com and join us Monday as we share our news
with our voice from our perspective right here on the
QR code
It's been another busy news week and we like to
review the major stories of the week here on the
bi In. Today, we are joined by bi In News
anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island to discuss this week's
major stories.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
This is the QR code.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
And I am Rams's job. All right, Nicole Deal, Mike Island,
welcome back to the show. It is always too long
in between our little chats. Anything noteworthy to speak on, Nicole,
What have you been up to?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Well, I'm trying to hold it down here in Texas
is Halloween season, just got done with the state Fair.
Lots of fun stuff going on. Well that sounds good
and festive, Mike. How about you?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
Well, all is well in Ohio. I'm just getting ready
for the time change, which changes my life of course.
Yeah yeah, yeah, training for marathons and such. I'll switch
to the evening run since it's really dark in the
morning now, so I've got some nice fall runs ahead.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Okay, yeah, yeah, I'm very lucky folks in there Arizona and.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Hawaii.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
We don't really pay much attention in the daylight saving
because our clocks never change. It's just just another day
for us. So yeah, I have to bear in mind
that switch because you guys have to switch though, So
I guess I'll mark my calendar or Chrys will keep
me honest with that.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
So anyway, let's get to the news, all right. First up,
next Tuesday is election day.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
And there's an important issue on California's ballot this year
that may impact how future voting maps are drawn up
around the country.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Nicole, let's get today's show started with you.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Tell us more about the Prop fifty measure on the
California ballot and its potential impact, and then Mike will
get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
All right, Well, buckle your seat belts, guys. It's kind
of long, but stay with me here. The redistricting efforts
across the country are centered around the twenty twenty six
midterm elections because the GOP is trying to protect their
very thin majority. So over the summer, at the behest
of President Trump, Republicans in Texas decided to redraw their
(02:10):
congressional maps to favor the GOP and you in hopes
of gaining additional seats in the House. So we all
know what happened there. The Democrats left the state for
a couple of weeks, but Eventually, Governor Rabbitt called a
couple of special sessions and then the new congressional maps
were approved. So what's happening now is frankly a by
(02:32):
product of what happened over the summer in Texas. It's
basically it's a clapback. That's what I'm calling it. Democratic
states like California and several others, but specifically California is
clapping back over the gerrymandering in Texas by redrawing their
congressional maps to increase their congressional seats in the House.
(02:56):
And that clapback was what's known as Proposition fifty. It
was created by the California Legislature. It has the approval
of California Governor Gavin Newsom, but in order for those
new maps to be adopted, California residents have to vote
on it, and that measure, Proposition fifty, is on the
(03:19):
ballot for next Tuesday. So right now, the California House
has forty three Democratic seats and nine Republicans, and if
Prop fifty is passed, it will put five out of
the nine GOP seats at risk, and that has the
potential to give California Democrats a bigger majority. And last,
(03:40):
but not least, it is important to mention that former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris are
both in support of Prop fifty.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Mike, your thoughts, Well, the registried thing and all that
seems like it's like, to Nicole's point, is going to
it's going to have a weird effect. It could be
extremely beneficial for Democrats, or it kind of in some
kind of weird way could backfire just somewhat. But there's
(04:13):
a lot of I like the Texas California kind of
I guess you can call it a collusion. I'm sure
if that's the proper word. I'll call it a merger
or some type of cooperative that's working together for them.
And I think Barack Obama and Kamala Harris I kind
of like them putting their noses in it. But to
(04:36):
the point of another story that's coming up, just the
Democrats position needs to change on certain issues to ensure
that this whole thing is going to work. We'll get
to that part later, but for my part, right now,
I'm looking anxiously to Tuesday to see how this particular
strategy works. It's a little confusing for voters, I think,
(05:00):
hopefully more well, I don't know what type of advertisements
going on in Texas and California to clue the voters
in on what's happening. We know what it is, but
I'm more concerned about the language that the voters are
taking in.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
You know, this feels a little odd.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Because there are a lot of us that really wanted
this system of how we determine who represents us to change.
You know, ideally it would be one man, one woman,
one vote. But you know, this is a representative democracy,
(05:50):
and so we have representatives that are elected to speak
for us. And jerry mandering has been a concern, particularly
for Black Americans.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
For decades.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
The thing is, the places where there's most likely to
be jerry mandering are places where there's a black population
where they can you know, crack and pack, right, and
that's across the South, and a lot of states have
(06:28):
been doing that for such a long time that for
them to further jerry mander their population, they're kind of
left with few options. Meanwhile, let's call them blue states
don't have the same history of jerry mandering, and so
(06:48):
there's a lot more potential there to jerry mander out
the conservative voices in more enlightened parts of this country.
And so this is a dangerous game for Republicans to play.
And I'm sure that they thought that they would be
up against the same old Democratic Party. Just get me
(07:13):
five more seats in Texas. It's their right to do it,
you know, this is the language they were using. And
then when California responded, and they're like, oh, well, okay,
And California still has more room to do more if
they so chose, but so many of the other states,
blue states, they have room to do the same.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
And this de.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Evolution of what should be our you know, democratic stronghold
is concerning, even though there seems to be more potential
when it comes to the more enlightened states. As I mentioned,
so in theory, the democracy would reflect the population and
(08:09):
not the wealthy, not the powerful. I remember encountering a study,
this might have been in twenty twenty that suggested that
a white male landowner in the state of Wisconsin had
like two and a half times the political influence over
(08:31):
the United States of America than a poor black, you know,
citizen in southern California. And the way that the power
was documented, how much influence they have. Like a place
(08:53):
like Wisconsin has two senators in so does California. Right
capacity to influence laws and regulations and legislation that affects
the entire country is more significant, And so I think
(09:16):
that this might end up getting us closer to the
reality where things are a little bit more balanced. It
won't get us all the way there, but you would
have thought that we would have been able to get
here by simply doing what was right, not by Republicans
and conservatives exhausting their options in pursuit of their greed
(09:39):
for power and the pursuit of silencing dissent or the
voices of marginalized people in this country. So I guess
by any means necessary.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Moving on.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Although the federal government remains shut down, funding for the
recruitment and training of new ICE agents continue. However, a
recently released report has raised concerns about the type of
candidates being hired for this job. Mike, this time, let's
start with you tell us more about this report, and
then Nicole will come you next.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Well, so to speak, things with ICE continue to get frosty.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Ices. The ICE is.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
The immigration and Customers and enforcement and they seem to
have a lot of money for this aggressive recruiting campaign,
and this, of course is in line with President Trump's
mass deportation agenda. But there's a lot of money floating
around to get these recruits but falling short on actual qualifications.
(10:38):
This is something not new within the administration. We're going
to find that Ice gravely disqualified to do a lot
of the work. We're going to see a lot of mistakes,
but they'll probably be protected as they go along. It
was a summer hiring search that happened, and I think
(10:59):
this money is pretty big, guys. I recall more than
one hundred and seventy billion dollars to expand the agency,
and that's going to be one of the most expensive
police agencies in the world. As it was described in
an article, a couple of hundred new recruits and they're
in training, the falling short of requirements, and that's according
(11:21):
to NBC. We're not talking about just the mental requirements.
We're talking about physical requirements as well, and some of
them are failing things like open book tests and several
were dismissed for criminal backgrounds. We're going to see a
lot of this. Maybe it doesn't matter in this particular agency,
(11:46):
but I think they just want to be big in
number and beg in a show of force, and I
think that's what this is more about. Rather they whether
they're fully qualified or not. A show of force and
a fight against crime. It's supposed to make people feel comfortable,
whether they're you know, really you know, up for this
(12:06):
job or not. So we're going to see. I think
they're aiming for hiring ten thousand ICE agents by twenty
twenty six. Oh, they're going to double their footprint. So
it's it's overwhelming. This is something that waits to be seen.
Can't say a lot ahead of time. This is one
of those wait and see type of things. We know
(12:28):
how it's coming in, but how it's going to pan out,
that's going to be another story.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Nicole, Well, my first question is are these people being
properly vetted or are we just rushing them through a
system just to, you know, to Mike's point, make a
show of force. I think, and Mike Mike touched on this,
but I think it's very important to mention, you know,
(12:54):
President Trump approved one hundred and seventy eight thousand, no.
One hundred seventy eight million, no one hundred and seventy
eight billion dollars to expand ICE to make it one
of the most expensive police agencies in the world, and
Mike already mentioned that, So I'm almost positive that some
(13:14):
of that money could have gone to city, county and
state agencies for policing. You know, they're they're all of
these particularly democratic and more urban cities that we're sending
the National Guard into and we're having to pay for that.
Taxpayer dollars is paying for all of this. So some
(13:36):
of that money could have gone to city, county and
state agencies to help them who are already over overworked, underpaid,
et cetera, or have higher crime rates in those cities.
Some of that money could have gone for that. One
hundred and seventy eight billion dollars is a lot of money,
But anyway, the irony of that money being spent on
(14:00):
ICE recruitment, to me, is twisted. The US spending all
of this money, all of this time, all of these resources,
and all the manpower to vet Americans to go arrest
people that are reportedly in the country illegally, and like
Mike said, their recruits are failing their drug test, they're
failing their background checks. They're being flagged for safety concerns
(14:25):
that are coming up on their background checks, and ironically,
these are some of the exact same issues that we
are trying to arrest illegal immigrants for. The agency itself
is even offering sign on bonuses up to fifty thousand
dollars and not in addition, but and student loan forgiveness.
(14:48):
So I just this just doesn't make sense to be
if we have one hundred and eighty seven billion dollars
to spend at our disposal, why are we using that
money to vet Americans and hire more agents. Couldn't we
we maybe use some of that money to vet the
so called illegal immigrants. Could we use some of the
(15:08):
money for that and speed up that process and have
a better process of them getting visas and things of
that nature. Or maybe we could use it to create
a comprehensive roadmap to citizenship. We could use some of
that money to create bipartisan, strategic and measurable type of
initiatives to fight illegal immigration and protect our borders. You know,
(15:32):
this is just an ongoing problem. Illegal immigration has been
a problem for decades and decades. It's being highlighted by
the current administration, but you know, we have to do
something about illegal immigration, but I just don't see this
as the right solution.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
You bring up an interesting point, Nicole. I recall having
this chat with our listeners a few days ago where
we had to come to terms with the reality of
our situation. Either we want immigrants contributing so that they're
(16:17):
not just taking resources quote unquote, which they don't. They're
not entitled to those resources if they're not citizens. But
this is the narrative, right, So we either want them
to contribute or we don't want them here, right, And
this is kind of the two camps that many of
(16:38):
people who have a very strong stance in opposition to
immigration in this country will have. So on the one hand,
if you think that immigrants are not contributing, and you're
absolutely right, then we need to make a pathway to
(17:03):
citizenship easier for these people. People don't understand, especially people
that don't live in border states. They don't understand how
challenging it is, how expensive it is, how fragmented the
processes to becoming a citizen of the United States in
(17:27):
states like Arizona, states like California, where people historically have
come and gone, where this land where I live was
effectively stolen from Mexico.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
All the people just naturalized US citizens.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
They're still Mexican, right, they still have that ancestry, but
now they're US citizens. Well, they still have family members
that are south of the border, right. And for years,
just because this was American soil, because it was stolen,
(18:05):
didn't mean that the people here could not go and
visit their family members across the border. Arizona became a
state not quite one hundred years ago, and it wasn't
until maybe thirty forty years ago when people started really
taking the border seriously as a political issue. And I'd
say in the past maybe since two thousand and one
(18:29):
September eleventh, so called that the past twenty five years,
I'll be generous, that the border became something that people
really started paying attention to. But you know, there's family
members that are still on the other side. People would
drive back and forth. I mean, just because September eleventh
(18:51):
happened doesn't mean that your cousins and your sister and
your grandparents or whatever aren't still in Mexico. And so
it's not unusual to encounter people that were born here
but have family there. It's not unusual to encounter people
who were born here, born there, but raised here and
(19:15):
live here and made a life here.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
And so.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
For people that have been pursuing their citizenship. I've said
it many times on the show. Every four years there's
a new administration, new rules, setbacks, challenges in court, et cetera.
It's a very expensive process. A lot of times you
need lawyers. You need to pay lawyers over and over
again for new things that come up, new changes in
(19:43):
the law, new setbacks, new challenges to your application, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
For some people who takes decades.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
So making that process easier would result in people paying
into the system. That again the opposition feels like folks
aren't paying into but you can't work unless you pay
into that system, unless you're working under the table, in
which case you can't pay into it, but you also
can't receive any benefits from it. Some people just pay
into it and can't receive benefits. But the other side
(20:11):
of it is that immigration also brings to this country
some of the brightest minds around the world, people to
function in capacities that our population cannot support. We just
don't have the brain power in the numbers necessary to
maintain our position on the global stage, and so far
(20:33):
as business is concerned, and so far as innovation, and
so far as military strategy, weapons, things like this, that
we need to kind of maintain our global dominance, and.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So we do recruit.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
This is why we have so many international students that
go to college here. The hope is that they will
stay here and make a life for themselves in this country,
supporting US institutions, private or public institutions. And so if
we don't want immigrants at all, then we risk losing
(21:11):
our standing on the global stage. And this is something
that people need to come to terms with. As far
as ICE is concerned, you could not convince me that
it is anything other than Trump's gestapo.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
It is the secret police.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
It is a private, well funded branch of the government
now that does the bidding of the president.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
For the party that espouses states' rights.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
There's a stunning silence coming from them with ICE overreach,
with JB. Pritzker in Chicago suggesting that ICE agents could
be arrested for breaking in the law. Steven Miller pushes
back against that, saying that you will not be arrested
for carrying out your federal responsibilities. And federal agents can
(22:12):
break the law, and indeed do their federal prisons for
folks that do. And if you don't break a federal
law and you break a state law, you can be
imprisoned by the state. You owe the state back that time.
And so I see this sort of tug of war
taking place. But ICE agents definitely feel fortified, and I
(22:33):
think that the recruitment of ICE agents I think reflects
the sentiment of the people that sign.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Up for it.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Sure, there are people who would love a fifty thousand
dollars bonus, would love their college debt wiped away, But
at its core, you have to be willing to get
out there and play what patriot. You get a gun,
you get a mask, You get to go out there
and tactical gear and wrestle people that you've been taught
(23:01):
to hate for whatever reason to the ground and arrest them,
and you get to feel like you're doing right by
your country and by your president. But on some level,
every single person that does that knows that that's what
they're doing. And the opposition, the pushback. It does not
make sense for people to suggest that all of this
(23:21):
pushback comes from Antifa and paid agents by the deep state,
Democrats and so forth. These are actual human beings living
their lives, that live in the building that you just
rated to pull some old lady out at three.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
In the morning.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
They're not paid agents, they're not Antifa, none of that.
That's not real. It's not real. Antifa is anti fascist,
and your behavior is fascist behavior. So even if it
was real, they would be justified. But it just simply
isn't It is a narrative that comforts white Republican voters
(24:00):
because they need an enemy, because staring at the enemy
that they see on the TV feels cruel to them,
so they need another narrative that is more palatable for
them to process. I think it's just very telling that
seventy five percent of the males in this country would
not meet the qualifications for ice. They wouldn't meet those
(24:23):
qualifications anymore than this US population would meet the qualifications
for inventing some new technology or of whatever it is
that we need in the private sector to remain to
remain a global powerhouse when it comes to business.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
We just don't have what it takes. I do, but
we as a country don't. Hey, what's up? This is
Ramsy's jaw and.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
I am q Ward, and we're inviting you to subscribe
to Civic Cipher, we social justice podcast right here in
the app.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
We pride ourselves on creating a show that busters allyship,
empathy and understanding, all the while conduct journalistically credible research,
featuring influential, noteworthy guests, and empowering historically marginalized communities.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
The African proverb reads, if you want to go far,
go together. So we are asking you to search for
and subscribe to Civic Cipher.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
That cibic cip h e r right here in the app.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Bin News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Island are here
with us discussing this week's major stories. All right, as
kids and adults alike gett into the spirit of Halloween
this weekend, one child in Pennsylvania found something beyond spooky
mixed into her Halloween candy. Nicole, let's go back to
you tell us more on this story, and then Mike
(25:40):
will get your thoughts next.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Well, the parent of a five year old went to
a local parade, and of course at these events you
are having people toss candy and those types of things,
and some vendors there. Well, when they got home later
on they found a KKK flyer in his daughter's candy bucket. Apparently,
(26:05):
an organization called the Women of the Ku Klux Klan
in Meccan's Mechanicsburg excuse me, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania admits that they
were at this annual Halloween event in they passed out
flyers while they were there. This is disturbing. First of all,
(26:25):
Halloween events, particularly a parade, is for kids.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
You know.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Of course, the adults are there and we're taking our
kids there and we dressed them up in their costumes
or whatever. But they're there with their you know, pumpkin
baskets and whatever, you know, to get the candy right.
So the local KKK entity that did this had to
know that kids were going to be present. They did
(26:55):
release a statement saying, in part, children are precious and
and are not to be used as ponds and blah
blah blah blah. Anyway, the Women of the KKK are
defending their actions and calling the distribution a patriotic movement
and claiming its mission is to support our family, our community,
(27:17):
blah blah blah. In response, the Mechanicsburg Chamber of Commerce,
which actually are the ones that host the parade every year,
they released a statement and they said, any message or
organization promoting racism, intimidation, or discrimination stands in direct opposition
(27:38):
to the values of our community. We celebrate the rich
diversity of our residents and strive to ensure that everyone
feels safe, valued, and welcome. The bottom line for me
on this is this is just deplorable. I mean racism, hate, intimidation, bias, discretion, domination.
(28:00):
You know, it goes by a lot of different names.
It just has no place in our society and our politics,
and our schools and our communities, and certainly certainly not
around children at a parade.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
Mike, Well, Nicole, to your point, yes it is. It
is deplorable. But this is the way of the world
right now, as long as it's in the name of patriotism,
a patriotic movement, as long as it supporting our family
and our beloved country, as long as it has those
(28:37):
components in it in the message than these groups such
as the women of the KKK, feel emboldened, and a
lot of groups like that are feeling more emboldened because
the courts are stacked with people that will be forgiving
of this type of thing. And see it as a mistake,
(28:59):
but we see their patriotism, we know they love their country,
we know they're supporting families and community. So they really
didn't do anything wrong, but it was a mistaken really
shouldn't be done, you know, completely unacceptable on those terms.
But Veterans Day is coming up, and I was at
a Veterans Day parade a couple of years ago in
(29:20):
Nashville where I saw similar messages on flags, and I'm
thinking that they're using community gatherings to get their message out.
This is a marketing ploy. That's why you use Halloween parades,
and this is not the first one where this Halloween
parade that something like this has happened, and Veterans Day parades,
any type of assembly of people, this is a marketing ploy.
(29:44):
So that's why they chose to operate in that because
they knew children would be there, but their message was
more directed as an adult. It could have been an
adult that just slipped the card in child's Halloween bucket,
had nothing to do with the organization, could be someone
who's supports it, you know, and maybe thought it would
be fun to put it in a kid's candy bucket
(30:05):
or something like that, and that's probably what happened in
this case. But yeah, prepare for more of this at
gatherings where you have, you know, families together in the
name of patriotism, supporting your family and community and our
beloved country.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
You know, Mike, I think it might be right, man,
It might be the case that this simply slipped into
a child's Halloween basket accidentally. If I'm being fair and
sharing my honest thoughts, Yeah, it's more likely than not
(30:50):
that that is what happened. But because we're talking about
the Ku Klux Klan, it's not possible that they didn't
put this into that basket themselves. It doesn't feel like
behavior that is beneath them.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
It just.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I would need more children's baskets to be able to
confirm it fully or feel like it was confirmed enough
for me to say that indeed, this was the behavior
in which they were practicing. So I don't understand why
the ku kuks Klam even exists at this point, Like
(31:41):
why are they still doing this? Why are they still
trying to recruit or spread a message, because it would
it would seem as though they have everything that they
could ever want, have all three branches of government there
is no more diversity, equity, inclusion, or firmative action. The
(32:02):
interests of white Americans are well protected. The interests of
everyone else are in a perpetual state of at minimum
being challenged, but in many instances actively being eroded.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Or dismissed.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
And the fact that these people are still out with
the rah rah, I think it illuminates a point that
we made.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
We read a writing.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
From Joy Read recently where you know, she says, the
right is angry. They're always angry. They were angry when
you know, they had to give up their slaves. They
were angry when they had to allow black peop people
to vote. They were angry during the Civil rights movement.
They were angry, you know, all these points throughout history, right,
(33:07):
They were angry when Obama won, they were, you know,
just angry, angry, angry, angry, and now that they have
everything that they could ever possibly want, this is, for
all intents and purposes, a white country. Every single person
in any position of power protects the interest of white
people full stop, White men in particular, first and foremost,
(33:31):
They're still angry, and they still do things like this.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
This, of course is an example of the far right.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
But I think that the far right and the right
kind of blurring lines increasingly. Nazis and KKK and you know,
regular well intentioned Republicans. You got to overlook a lot
of stuff, and you got to bear in mind that
the interests of those people. The country that you voted
to live in is the same country they voted to
(34:02):
live in. Right, They all want the same thing, and
it is decidedly anti black. But I think that the
conclusion of what Joy stated, which I think will make
sense for this story, is that the reason that they're
(34:24):
still angry, that it's most likely more likely than any
other reason, is because they want us to love them.
And I think this is the point you were making.
They want to appear patriotic, they want to appear as
decent people. They want love too, so they want to
(34:47):
actively discriminate. They want to relegate the rest of us
to second class citizenship status if they could. They want
us to serve them, their white country. It wouldn't be
dignified to have white people serve them, so they would
want all of us to do the serving, and they
(35:09):
of course would take good care of us, right, but
as long as we stay in our place, and they
want us to love them while licking their boots, and
only then will they no longer be angry. And so
that hope of theirs is that's never going to be
(35:31):
a reality. But it just means that they're always going
to be angry, and we're always going to have to
question stories like this. Are they is the ku kutz
Klan putting flyers into little kids candy buckets? Despite Trump
(35:51):
being their president and them having a majority, and you know,
the House of Representatives in the Supreme Court can't rule
it out, all right. For our final story this week,
it focuses on a new survey involving public perceptions of
the current state of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Mike chairs thoughts.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
On this story, and then Nicole will tap in with
you before we close out.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Well, there's a poll that says the percentage of Americans
who believe the Democratic Party is out of touch has
increased by double digits over the past ten years, seventy percent,
indicating the party is disconnected from the issues that matter
to voters. I would like to know the percentage of
who are Democrats and Republicans thinking this. I wouldn't be
(36:35):
surprised if a large percentage of Democrats think that their
own party is out of touch with what's going on.
It appeared to be that while Democrats were in charge,
we're in the White House. We for a while, and
this was only for a small period. It seemed like
(36:57):
the only thing we were doing as Democrats were changing
names of buildings and taking down statues, and the focus
should have been on more the crime reduction and secure borders,
things like that. Those things were said, but they weren't
(37:18):
as pronounced as it is now. What was happening now
is pretty much over the top. But I think there's
local police departments could have been probably strengthened to keep
law and order in that type of thing. But the
article that I read said to win elections, Democrats need
(37:41):
to make the following changes. First, we need to focus
more on the issues voters do not think we prioritize enough.
And I approached that earlier, the economy, cost of living, healthcare,
border security, public safety, all those things, and focus less
on things that maybe are a little bit more controversial
(38:03):
and maybe seem far left. You know, climate change. We
talk a lot about democracy, abortion, identity and culture issues.
All those are important, but it seems like that was
the only thing that was being talked about and acted
on at the time, And I think that if the
cost of living and health care and border security and
(38:25):
all that were acted on versus talked about a lot,
I think that the shifting of what the Democratic Party
is the relevancy is to society would be a lot different.
But if the Democratic parties make it a prioritize, make
prioritization of things like protecting social security and medicare, lowering
(38:49):
everyday costs, things like that that people think about every day.
When you wake up, you're not thinking about abortion, and
you're not thinking about some other things. You're waking up
thinking about how where your next meal is coming from.
You're thinking about your own job security, things like that,
and the economy and how much things are going to
cost me and how I'll be able to live my life.
(39:12):
Those are things that should be talked about when you
turn on your radio in the morning, and that should
be the message coming from the Democratic Party. Things like that,
the everyday issues, not that the other issues are necessarily peripheral,
they're important too, but the things that you think about
(39:32):
and talk about every day as an individual or as
a family, those are the messages that should be coming
from the Democratic Party in order to see a shift
in the perception of what the party is about and
going forward, you know with that. So that's my take
(39:52):
on that.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Nicole, Well, that's a hard act to follow.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
Mike Islan very well said, I agree with several points
that you made there. Yeah, just to kind of retract.
The poll highlights a growing perception, if you will, among
voters that Democratic leaders are just not adequately addressing the
concerns of working class folk. And I think that this
(40:23):
poll and others like it, this is not the first one,
and I think it's important that Democratic political leaders are
hopefully reading and hearing and seeing what we are with
some of these polls and the reaction of working class Americans.
(40:44):
I mean, seventy percent is a big number that you
cannot ignore. But again, this is just one poll. So
I think there are major issues. One of them we've
already talked about, like immigration. There's certainly issues with crime, inflation. Uh,
and of course there's there's this racial undertone that is
(41:07):
more prevalent now, like Rams' has so eloquently described. I
think the only thing I'll say is just I think
it's a critical moment in US history. Right now where
Democrats have to kind of take a step back and
(41:30):
reassess their values, the core values, and and reassess their
platform and representation if they want to regain public trust.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Well, thank you both for laying that out.
Speaker 1 (41:57):
I think that there's definitely lee, there's always something to learn.
I don't I can't say that anything that either of
you said is wrong, but what I'm going to say
is going to sound like a defense of Democrats, and
(42:21):
I think that they deserve a defense. So seventy percent
saying that the Democratic Party is not in touch with voters.
That seems like a big number, But I want to
add to your point, Mike, that it the number for
Republicans is sixty five percent, which is not seventy to
(42:45):
be fair, But it's not like ten, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
Like it's voters in general.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
I feel like politicians are out of touch, Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
And then.
Speaker 1 (43:01):
I think it might have been like five or ten
years ago the numbers were switched. It was seventy and
sixty five or something like that. Actually, I think Democrats
actually did better, but the Republican Party is further away
from their voter base then people might expect. With that said,
(43:27):
there's a lot of people who are very vocal in
support of what Donald Trump is doing. But you know,
I think people recognize that. A lot of voters, I'll say,
recognize on some level that mass deportation efforts doesn't really
change how much money they make. And I think at
(43:48):
the end of the day, that's what most people care about.
As far as Democrats being out of touch with voters,
every single topic that we've touched on today and many
others are critical to not just voters but to the
(44:08):
United States of America. It's fair to say that, yes,
some people care about this more than that. Some people
care about, you know, money more than climate change or whatever.
But it's Democrats that have a holistic view of this country,
(44:30):
and I think rightfully so. To have progressive politics, you
need to be forward thinking. And forward thinking requires planning
a reversion or conservative politics that takes you backwards. You
kind of already know the road back there. When you're
moving forward, you're charting new territory. So you have to
anticipate what could go wrong, what could go right, and
(44:54):
navigate things that have not been explored before. So I
think that the philosophy as part and parcel to the
Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
You have to be mindful of things that you have
not seen and planned for them.
Speaker 1 (45:15):
I think that really the most toxic element in the
overall equation is the Maga movement. The Maga movement that
responds to the whims of the president is the reason
that we don't have a border deal. We've talked about
this on the show before. When Joe Biden had a
bipartisan border deal in place that was set to get
(45:35):
voted on, and Donald Trump, in the eleventh hour made
the phone call I've said it before, saying, hey, don't
vote on this border deal. I want that border to
be weak so that I can win a campaign against
Joe Biden. So all the Republicans said, all right, you're
our Jesus Christ, So we won't vote. And that bill
never got passed, and so we were stuck with a
weak border. That's not Democrat's fault. That's Donald Trump's and
(45:58):
the Mega Movement's fault. Democrats, of course, get blamed for it,
and that's the way the narrative got chronicled. Kamala Harris
ran a campaign and she was vulnerable because the border
was weak. Donald Trump, that was a brilliant play on
his part, because the reason the border was weak is
because of Donald Trump, not because of Kamala Harris, not
(46:20):
because of Democrats. And you can see this time and again,
rinse and repeat. Conservatives made the first move in exploiting
the weaknesses and the loopholes in our democratic system for
their benefit, costing the people. The people had to sit
(46:41):
through a weak border so that Donald Trump could get
back in office and do what he's doing now, which
is not deporting the worst of the worst, just getting
everybody out of here so that things look like what
he wants it to look like. But again, who's going
to work these farms, Who's going to pick the fruit
(47:02):
that ends up in the grocery stores. Who's going to
run the Hyundai plants where they employ thousands of people.
Who's going to run them? Immigrants we need them, And
with Donald Trump deporting people and immigrants being afraid to
move here to invest here, it's like these people shooting
(47:22):
themselves in the foot. Unfortunately, at this point they can
no longer blame Democrats. And I think this is the
real showing of what Republicans are as a brand. Donald
Trump will continue to lie and say the economy is
doing great when it isn't in his estimation, Saying something
over and over again makes it true, and a lot
(47:44):
of people will follow in his footsteps. But the truth
is the people on the ground, their material reality either
stays the same or gets worse, while Donald Trump and
his cronies line their pockets. Now, last thing I'll say
is that it is true that Democrats.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
In recent years were.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
The party of poor people, working class people, and now
they're the party of rich people, you know, But I
think that that is because the party has more appeal
to the enlightened, and Republicans have indeed become the party
(48:31):
of the working class. And of course they have their
rich base as well. But there is a segment of
the population that is vulnerable to people that will do
things for them specifically, and Donald Trump sort of filled
that void. I think that that deserves to be said.
As as I mentioned, Democrats have a lot of shoring
(48:51):
up to do, but it's not all bad, and Republicans
don't have it figured out. As illustrated by the versus
sixty five number, neither party is really doing as great
as they'd like to. So I'll leave it there, and
with that in mind, thank you both very much, as always,
for your time and your insight. Once again, Today's guests
our Bin News anchors Nicole Deal and Mike Iland. This
(49:15):
has been a production of the bi In. Today's show
was produced by Chris Thompson. Have some thoughts you'd like
to share, use the red microphone talkback feature on the
iHeartRadio app. While you're there, be sure to hit subscribe
and download all of our episodes.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
I'm your host Ramsey's Jaw.
Speaker 1 (49:29):
On all social media, and we'll be hosting another episode
of Civic Cipher this weekend.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
I'm a station near you.
Speaker 1 (49:34):
For stations, show times, and podcast info, check Civiccipher dot
com and join us Monday as we share our news
with our voice from our perspective right here on the
QR code
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com