5-13-25 - 8am - Justice Sotomayor and SPR Correction

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael.

Speaker 2 (00:00):
Did anyone in the Biden administration's attempt to stop Joe
Biden from such a fantastically stupid blanner as training the
petroleum reserves. Also another really stupid thing that they should
have stopped and from doing was pulling out of Afghanistan the.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Way that we did.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Did anyone actually try to say you can't do this.
You look like the biggest school whoever ran the residency.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
I do think there are some generals. I don't think
the second the deaf sect objective, but I thought some
generals objected to do with the afghan withdrawal. But the
other part, I.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
I I doubt it. I don't know real quick though.

Speaker 4 (00:47):
I did receive a text message as the spr is
measured in millions of barrels, not thousand. It has four
hundred million barrels right now, I respectfully disagree. I did
text you back the link to the Energy Information Administration
showing the chart and its states clearly multiple times a

(01:08):
thousand barrels.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
So please if you find.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
Some different source, you know, a e I, A dot
gov or another dot gov source that shows in millions,
please send that my.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Way, because Dragon's pissed off. You've challenged dragons statistic.

Speaker 4 (01:25):
If I'm wrong, please tell me I'm wrong, but back
it up.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, I like for things to be backed up. So
I just discovered this in our clips. But Dragon, I've
put it in our media folders. So if you want
to put it up at Michael Saysgill, you're dot com.
If you would, I would greatly appreciate it, because.

Speaker 4 (01:44):
I'm not gonna do it because you'd appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
Okay, well, I hate if you would do it.

Speaker 4 (01:48):
At appreciate it, So that's not gonna happen.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
Actually, I think when you see what it is, I
think you will want to put it up too. Damn
you they have. Let's see, let me find the execat
as us up. Oh, Benny Johnson, Uh, it's not that's
not where it takes me. Okay, that didn't work. I
know you're waiting with baited breath, but anyway.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
It is.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Saudi Arabia brought in a mobile McDonald's for President Trump.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
On his visit.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
It's an eighteen wheeler. It looks like a reefer truck.
It's got the it's got the cab and then it's
got the cooling system behind it and then behind the
cooling system is in Arabic something. It probably says McDonald's.
And then there's the golden arches with the word McDonald's
under it, and it must open up like a food

(02:50):
truck because there are steps going up to the side.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
It's a McDonald's.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
You know what, if I were a Democrat, I would
never go to McDonald again, because clearly, you know what
this is. They're trying to buy him off, They're trying
to bribe him. And you know, Trump, Trump is so weak,
so pathetic, that when he sees the McDonald's, he'll turn

(03:21):
over to Prince NBS and he will bow down. He
will drop to his knees, and he will genuflect, and
he will say, almighty, Prince NBS.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
All holier than thou.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
Oh, oh, gracious Lord, Princess MBS, thank you, thank you.
Let me bend over and do whatever you want us
to do. That'll be the Democrats, mark my words. Justice
Sonia Sotomayor spoke to the American Bar Association. When I

(03:58):
was a practicing lawyer, I only the ABA and was
a member of the ABA for about a year or
two until I realized just how bad the American Bar
Association is. So I quit and never never looked back,
never once looked back. Well, anyway, she spoke to the ABA,

(04:19):
but she didn't speak as a neutral jurist, which is
what Associate Justice the US Supreme Court should be, you know,
interpreting the Constitution. But instead she spoke as a partisan,
because she actually urged mobilization against a sitting administration. Now

(04:40):
the remarks were I listened.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
To the speech.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
It's I take it back. I did not listen to
the speech. I read the speech, but it was delivered
with careful modulation. He carried all the marks of political
rhetoric come to the guise of some sort of moral urgency.
For example, just these few words, this is our time

(05:06):
to stand up and be heard. Now to an untrained ear,
that may sound like little more than I don't know,
civic encouragement.

Speaker 1 (05:16):
You need to stand up.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
But I would have said, this is your time to
stand up and participate. I would have still found that
a little questionable coming from that wing of the court.
But if you want to, if you want to pretend
that's what she meant, then go ahead and pretend that's
what she meant. But the context clarifies the tone and

(05:38):
the tone tells you what the motive is coming from
a city in US Supreme Court justice in a polarized environment,
when there are open legal battles between the American Bar
Association and the Trump administration, that kind of language functions
as a call to arms. It acts as up battle cry,

(06:02):
and I think it's inappropriate, but even worse, it's corrosive.
It's not that the justice of the Supreme Court are
required to be mute. Judicial silence is not required in
the Constitution, and justices often give speeches. But those speeches

(06:25):
might be on some fine point of bankruptcy law or
some fine point about freedom of speech, you know, to
give them to which I have no problem with whatsoever.
But there is in this country a long standing standing
it is a deeply American norm of judicial restraint when

(06:45):
you give a speech, particularly if it concerns contemporary political
partisan issues. If we're going to preserve trust in the judiciary,
that's going to depend on an appearance of attachment from
the heat of the partisan conflicts that go on between
the other two branches where they go on within our

(07:07):
society as a whole. In among lawyers or in legal theory,
it's the idea of an apolitical court, the vision of
a bench of a judiciary that is immune to the
passions of the populace. Now, it's not a naive notion.

(07:29):
It's aspirational, and like all aspirations, it functions as a
kind of a stabilizing restraint. Now, the defenders of Sotomayor
point to speeches that were made by Justice Alito or
Justice Thomas, and they try to use those speeches of
justification for her giving a speech. And true, others have

(07:53):
made mistakes, But missteps, even made by those colleagues don't
eliminate the line. But it does show how dangerous it
is to forget that the line even exists.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
The wrong of a.

Speaker 3 (08:08):
Conservative associate justice speaking injudiciously does not absolve the left
leaning justice of her own transgressions. Two wrongs don't make
a right. Rather, it's a slippery slope, and it's a
slippery slope that's descending the court into institutional rot. If

(08:30):
both teams play dirty, pretty soon the playing field is unplayable.
And I know people will argue that some of my
Or's comments were mild, that they were barely discernible as
partisan to anybody except someone like me who's steeped in
this political warfare going on in the country. But I

(08:53):
think that's miss reading. Her choice of venue and the
timing is not a coincidence because the American Bar Association,
long associated with the progressive.

Speaker 1 (09:05):
Wing of lawyers.

Speaker 3 (09:08):
And currently involved in litigation before the court, is not
a neutral form. This is not the equivalent of going
to Harvard Law or the University of Colorado School of
Law or Oklahoma City University School of Law and giving
a speech about some heeslitary part of the law, or

(09:30):
just about the workings of the court. Here's what it's
like to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Her speech occurred at a time when there were and
are well publicized disputes between the American Bar Association and
the Trump administration. Let's just say that this was a

(09:53):
battle between you know, we had a battle going on
between the ACLU and Department of Homeland Security. Essence, the
ACLU versus the Trump administration about detention, about deportations. So
she goes before the American Civil Liberties Union and gives
a speech and says, this is our time to take

(10:14):
a stand, this is our time to stand up and
be heard. There wouldn't be any question that it was
a partisan speech. Well, I think the same is absolutely
true of the American Bar Association too. You know, one
of the battles going on between the ABA and the
Trump administration is the barring of federal lawyers from participating

(10:36):
in ABA events because of ideological disagreements. It's the equivalent
of saying, if you're going to be a part of
my administration, then you're not going to participate in these
things because I have a philosophical or a legal or
a political or whatever it is. I don't care when
you work for the President of the United States of America. Look,

(10:58):
Bush and I had disagreements on a lot of issues,
but when it came to publicly, I told the line
with if he and I had disagreements, I would express
those to the chief of staff, or to somebody on
the staff, or to the President himself. Sometimes Bush would

(11:18):
listen to me. Sometimes Bush would just swap me away,
like I've handled that. I'm not going to deal with that.
You take the Judicial Crisis Network. Carrie Severino of that
network argued that Sodomoor's remarks make a mockery of any

(11:43):
appearance of objectivity in cases challenging the administration or involving
the American Bar Association. And that's not a hypothetical concern either.
United States versus Scurmetti. That's a case that's a current
pending case that involves controversial state laws on gender transition

(12:06):
procedures for minors. One of the participants in that case
is the American Bar Association. So a Justice of the
Supreme Court publicly aligning herself with the institutional litigants values
and in fact aligning herself with one of the litigants,

(12:27):
raises I think absolutely reasonable fears about her impartiality in
adjudicating that matter. Now, before you ask, or before you
even think to yourself, well, you know, she ought to
recuse herself from the case. That's entirely up to her.
The Chief Justice, could you know, maybe go have coffee

(12:49):
and say, hey, listen, you know this is causing some problems.
Maybe you want to consider re accusing. But that's all
he can do. He can't force her to recuse. Only
judges themselves have the power to decide whether or not
they should accuse themselves from a case. So the irony
here is pretty rich. So while so to my ore,

(13:10):
Rowley's lawyers to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.
She is, maybe unwittingly, she's undermining the very judicial mechanism
designed to offer equal justice without fear or favor. She
said to the litigants, you know, when that case comes up,
I don't whether it's come up for oral arguments yet
or not. The ABA lawyers can sit there and think

(13:32):
to themselves, Yeah, yeah. We had her come in and
speak to us, and she tolds us it was time
to stand up and be heard. So maybe we ought
to work that phrase into our oral argument. We're here
to stand up and be heard. May it please the court?
The AB stands here to be heard, to stand up

(13:52):
and be heard. There will be others that will say
that her speeches are expressions of her identity, the continuation
of the Senate that she said in two thousand and
one in a lecture at Berkeley, when she famously said
that a wise Latina woman, which is what she called herself,
might reach a better conclusion than a white male. Now

(14:16):
at the time that she gave that speech twenty four
years ago, widely criticized during her confirmation hearings because that
speech showed her belief that personal experience shapes judgment. Now,
if you give it a charitable interpretation, it's a recognition

(14:38):
of the complexity of legal interpretation in a plurals society
like we live in. But it's less generous and it's
more realistic interpretation. It actually amounts to a redefinition of
objectivity itself, going from the impartial application of law to

(14:59):
the athetic projection of your personal narrative onto the merits
of a case that is in front of you as
a judge. In the end, that's the heart of the matter.
If we're gonna have justices be philosopher's, you know, philosopher kings.
Their robes have to conceal the team colors underneath it.

(15:24):
But here's sodomy Or, who increasingly appears unwilling to play
that part. She's not merely sympathetic to progressive causes. She
champions them from the lectern and her defenders will claim, well,
this is a virtue that shows you just how disengaged

(15:46):
or divorced from reality the left is.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
You know.

Speaker 3 (15:51):
They they look at anything justifies the end, whatever means
it takes justifies the end.

Speaker 1 (16:00):
And when it.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
Comes to judges, now you can say and do anything
because well, as long as the other side might make
a mistake here or there that justifies us and making
the same mistakes. No, it doesn't. And by the way,
I would challenge some who justify her speech to take
anything that Justice Alito has spoken on or that Justice

(16:24):
Thomas has spoken on, because those are the two most
controversial justice is on the so called conservative side of
the court and give me similar language. Because suldoma or
speeches don't blur the line between their role of adjudication

(16:46):
and activism, which is not supposed to be part of
their role, she erases it. There was a poll by
CBS last year that found that seven and ten Americans
now believe that judges rule based on their ideology instead
of the law. Now, that stat alone ought to terrify

(17:11):
anybody who values the legitimacy of our Constitution and the
constitutional order that it establishes, because once the Supreme Court,
or for that matter, any of our judicial system federal
state are local, when it becomes perceived as a political
extension of the party platform, then whatever ruling is they

(17:34):
hand down, whether you're for or against them, will less
likely be obeyed out of respect than out of necessity.
In fact, why would you obey it at all? Why
do you care? You might as well be in front
of an old Soviet well our current Russian court, or
a Chinese court, Chinese Communist Party court. The moment compliance

(17:58):
becomes can additional. The courts lost the very power that
the first Chief Justice, John Marshall so presently defined in
Very versus Madison, not the power of the purse, not
the power of the sword, but the power of judgment.
Lose that the robes really do just become costumes. Full

(18:22):
to my oar has brought disgrace to the court. Hey,
let's go talk to Josh. Josh, how are you.

Speaker 5 (18:32):
Today doing real well?

Speaker 1 (18:35):
Michael? How about yourself doing great?

Speaker 2 (18:37):
So?

Speaker 3 (18:38):
I know that people a lot of people have I
guess anybody on social Security probably has social Security as
part of their retirement air quotes here portfolio. So if
if that is part of or maybe your only retirement,
how do you increase your income otherwise?

Speaker 5 (18:56):
Yeah, that's a great question, Michael. I mean, honestly, if
folks are relying solely on social Security, it's gonna be
a little bit tougher for most. And let's be honest,
tensions have all but gone the way of the dinosaur.
Unless you've worked for an entity that has one, they're
few and far between, you know. And really like social

(19:17):
Security was never ever meant to be someone's retirement. It
was just meant to be a supplement. I think that's
the concept that's been lost over time. So those two
things that we just mentioned don't cover your income needs
in retirement. I mean, what can you rely on. You
really have your retirement savings right, but what if the

(19:37):
market's choppy like it's been, and what if it is
for the foreseeable future. That has a lot of folks nervous.
So Michael, I'm gonna I'm gonna ask you to brace yourself.
I'm gonna use the A word on your show. Annuity. Wow,
look at annuities. You know a lot of people hear

(19:58):
bad things about them, But in all I to see,
let's be real, people just don't understand them. They're a
great resource for income and retirement. They provide protection from
market risk. Not all of them, but most the ones
that we like to use do. Typically they'll give you
a bonus somewhere in the range of ten to twenty

(20:18):
percent up front, and they can provide income that you
and your spouse can outlive. I mean, that's a pretty
big deal for a lot of folks.

Speaker 3 (20:29):
And the amount of the incomes obviously will depend on
the dollar amount of the annuity that you.

Speaker 5 (20:35):
Buy, correct, correct, Yeah, it depends on the amount that
you invest in the annuity. It also depends on your age.
Interestingly enough, you know, annuities have nothing.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
To do with health.

Speaker 5 (20:47):
It's all age based and obviously investment based. And so
you know, that's why we really want to put this
out there. You know, folks need to come visit with
us and determine whether that's even a fit or not,
because honestly, their annuities are not right for everyone. So
that's why it's important that they go through our Summit
Retirement Guide process that we walk them through. We'll always

(21:10):
always start with what's important in folks lives, and based
on what's important in their lives, will tailor an income
plan that's going to work around and address what's important
to them throughout their retirement. So I mean, honestly, Michael,
without income, there is no retirement, right, yeah.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yeah, So if you find yourself in that, you know,
if someone's listening, they find themselves in that situation, they
should at least make the phone call so you can
have the initial discussion to see whether or not it's
possible for you to help them, and if it is,
then you can take them through the process and you know,
give them some options and of course if they're and

(21:47):
if there is no way to help them, and you'll
tell them up that up front too.

Speaker 5 (21:51):
Yep. We and we've had to do that before, and
that's fine. I mean, we always use the phrase around here,
we'd rather have you trust us than love us.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
Yeah, of course we want folks to love us, but
sometimes we need to tell them the hard truth.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
Yeah. Yeah, Well I think that's good advice.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
So you know, I would say to all of you
in the audience, whatever situation you find yourself in, it
really is worth the phone call so you can at
least have the conversation with Josh and his partners about
whether or not they can help you, and if they can,
let them take you through that trademark Summer Retirement Guide process.
So don't put that off any longer either. Pick up

(22:29):
the phone call the retirement planning. Some of the Rockies
today have that conversation with them nine seven zero six
six three thirty two eleven. Call them today nine seven
zero six six three thirty two eleven, or go check
them out on their website rpcenter dot com.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Dragon. I'm wrong.

Speaker 4 (22:49):
I'm wrong, and I'm okay with being wrong because I
love being proof that I am wrong with actual numbers
and data and everything. I do appreciate the Texter for
getting back to me with his sources of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve level level.

Speaker 3 (23:04):
Well, I think this is a good lesson in in
graph reading because.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
In how you read data.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
Yes, yes, because you read it and I think at
first you do you understand what I was saying about.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
I get it now, Okay, but it's a stupid way
to present this information in.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
This but it's a common way to put it. Maybe
I agree. It may be stupid, yes, because if you
don't think of it in terms of a calculation, then yeah,
you would be.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
Right right because I'm just reading it straight through. To
go back just a little bit, we were talking about
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and what the levels are and
the damage that Biden did when he drained it and
all that kind of good stuff. So we found out
that we have four hundred nearly four hundred million barrels
of oil in the Strategic Patrol Reserve right.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
Now as of earlier this month.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
But as the data show mode from the charts that
I have used in the past and trusted from the
Energy Information Administration, that it shows when you hover your
mouse over the very end of the chart, the most
current reading from May second of twenty twenty five shows
as three hundred ninety nine, one hundred and twenty two

(24:19):
thousand barrels. Right, So I am to interpret that as
three hundred ninety nine, one hundred and twenty two thousand
barrels of oil.

Speaker 3 (24:29):
And let me tell you why I disagree with the
way you read that, because if it if it was
now my mind, number is slightly different. But let's just
say I'll read you what mine says. Mine says three
hundred ninety six thousand, four hundred and thirty four thousand barrels.
If it were only the three hundred ninety six thousand,

(24:50):
it would just say three hundred ninety six thousand, comma
four hundred and thirty four barrels.

Speaker 1 (24:56):
But it doesn't.

Speaker 3 (24:56):
It says there's three hundred ninety six thousand thousand barrels.
Because over here on the chart over here on the axes,
it has weekly US ending stocks of crude and spr
in thousand of barrels.

Speaker 4 (25:12):
Agreed, Yes, I can see your lawyer brain distincting that
that is is a distinct difference between the number followed
by the word yeah, so okay, so yes, that that
can be interpreted correctly to nearly four hundred thousand thousand barrels.

(25:35):
So yes, if you do the four hundred thousand times
a thousand, that does equal the four hundred million to
which the good guber texter did retort with his facts
from Energy dot gov where I was reading from EIA
dot gov to where his Energy dot gov sits a
six do show three hundred and ninety nine million barrels

(25:58):
of wall.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
And thus ends today. Lesson in chart and graph.

Speaker 4 (26:02):
Reading, always check multiple sources, even if they are both
from dot gov sites, that one interpretation can seem wrong.

Speaker 3 (26:14):
Yeah, I just I just find it funny because one
of the very first things I look at when I look.

Speaker 4 (26:20):
At you, I saw, yeah, I said thousand barrels, and
I'm reading it as it was three hundred and ninety
nine thousand barrels.

Speaker 1 (26:31):
Three nine thousand thousand barrels.

Speaker 4 (26:34):
Yeah no, And I greatly appreciate the text of the
wrote back and helped understand all that kind of stuff.
I do not mind being wrong. When I am proven
that I am wrong, please go for it. Awesome.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
But in all.

Speaker 3 (26:51):
Seriousness, I really do believe that. And I'm not picking
on you, but it really is. I think so often,
and I'm susceptible to it too. Glance they get a
chart and you see the number and fail. You fail,
I fail, we all fail to look at Oh but
what's the measurement?

Speaker 4 (27:11):
And immediately too, when you when we were discussing this
off air during that commercial break, you're like, uh, let
me just google this, and you're like, uh, the AI
overview says four hundred million. It's like, Michael, you really
gonna sit there and trust the AI overview. You got
a link right below. Check the link that's a dot
gov link. AI overview said, is this no?

Speaker 3 (27:33):
No, which I said I was going to but I
was just as I'm pulling it all up, I'm telling
you what it said.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
I don't give two craps about the AI overview.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
You don't trust AI. I'm shocked.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
He so, you know I told you during our pre
production meeting about how it is filling out that thing
where you rate companies. Well, one of them was because
I just plugged in the name Apple, which pop every
Apple product you could possibly imagine. So I thought, oh,
this is an easy way to get like twenty five
of them, you.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
Know, twenty five dollar products.

Speaker 3 (28:08):
But one of them was Apple Artificial Intelligence, which I
rated horribly because Apple Intelligence is right now probably one
of the biggest failures of Apple products. It's really really bad. Anyway,
you've probably already experienced what I'm about to talk about
yourself now, whether you reacted with surprise, maybe you just

(28:31):
wrote it off. It just depends on the person. But
there's new pulling data out that shows what you may
already suspect, and that's the experience of losing friends since
the twenty twenty four election of Trump. That's absolutely real,

(28:52):
if very divided depending on your political tribe. Obviously, I've
experienced that myself, where some of my friends, not very
many of them, but there's there's one or two in particular,
who are just over the top anti Trump. There is

(29:12):
nothing in my opinion, I should ask them this question sometime,
but we've promised not to talk about it that I'd
like to say, is there anything that he could do
other than just leaving office that you would that you
would agree with I don't. I think their answer would
honestly be, there's nothing he could do. So when when

(29:33):
National Polster Signal spelled cygn al sigena, When when Signal
offered the opportunity to suggest a question or two for
the latest survey, it was an opportunity for some people
to put to the test the experience of what I
think a lot of Americans know, and that is, in
the past six months we've lost friends over the result

(29:56):
of the twenty twenty four election. The direction of law
friend friends seen fairly when I first looked at this
poll seem politically consistent in my own personal experience. But
anecdotes aren't data. We know that, and knowing more people

(30:18):
on the right than the left as I do, it's
possible that my experience was skewed. But it turns out
that it must not be, according to Signal's latest national survey,
which I'll tell you next.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
Hey, Michael, you were just talking about the mobile McDonald's
that Saudi Arabia brought in for the Donald Trump visit
and you said it looked like a reefer truck.

Speaker 4 (30:41):
I just wanted to clarify.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
Where I'm from, that means a truck with a refrigerated
cargo space.

Speaker 4 (30:47):
But because you're from Colorado, I just wanted to make
sure it didn't mean something different.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
That's actually a pretty good point. God, I love the clarification.

Speaker 3 (30:56):
I think that's a perfectly good clarification considering you're broadcasting
from Colorado.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Yep.

Speaker 4 (31:01):
And I do love this clarification too. From a Texter
Mike barrels, gallons or quartz, it doesn't matter. Let's just
fill the dang thing back up. Amen, Amen and amen.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
So let's go back to this Signal poll survey fifteen
hundred likely voters. They conducted it last week May sixth
through the eighth. There's a three percent margin of error.
More than half voters, fifty three percent say that it's
at least somewhat common that their friends and neighbors have
ended a friendship because of Trump in the twenty twenty
four election. Thirty nine percent say that it's not common

(31:38):
or not common at all. But the ideological breakdown is
fascinating Democrats and voters who backed Harris in twenty four
are far more likely to say friends and neighbors have
ended they've ended a friendship over the election, and self
identified liberals saying they have a hard time coexisting. So

(31:59):
take your damn cod This team sits the sticker off,
and they have a hard time playing nice with anybody
who voted differently than they did by thirty points a
two to one margin, sixty one percent common compared to
thirty one percent not common. But on the other side,
conservatives are much more even keeled. Forty nine percent say

(32:20):
they've lost friendships over twenty twenty four has been common,
but forty five percent say it's not common now. If
you want to drill down to what I think is
the biggest driving factor, it's the portion of the coalition that's.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
Made up of those usual.

Speaker 3 (32:35):
College educated women, and it's usually white college educated women.
That's a cohort that now dominates the politics of the
Democrats and in their circles. They say that that these
differences of political opinion have led to broken friendships with
friends and neighbors at a rate more than a forty
point rate sixty seven percent to twenty four percent.

Speaker 1 (32:59):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
Talk about bigoted or racist, or closed minded or whatever
majority of you want to put on it. It seems
to me that if you're a and I got to
be careful because I know in this audience I have
white college educated women. But unless you're going to tell
me that you are in that sixty seven percent, you're

(33:21):
the minority.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
What's happened to them is is.

Speaker 3 (33:26):
Our system of higher education so bad that it so
brainwashes educated women that they are at a rate more
than forty points sixty seven to twenty four percent say yeah,
we've cut off friendships.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (33:44):
Maybe one of the underlying beliefs could be that your
friends and neighbors are just flat out races because of
their political opinions. Because of the Harris voters, the Signal
poll found that sixty two percent say that race relations
have gotten worse in the past five years, which goes
back to George Floyd, while fifty Trump voters say that

(34:07):
race relations have actually improved and may have stayed about
the same. Wow, losing friendship over votes politics way to
influences our social lives.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
Get a life might be my best advice.