February 5, 2025 • 45 mins
In this insightful episode of Breaking Bread, host Tyrene Peterman engages in a profound dialogue on the current state of political divisiveness and its impact on society since Trump's inaguration. Joined by guest and producer, Freddie, the discussion underscores the need for respectful communication across political lines, aiming to dismantle the pervasive anger and resentment that have seeped into family and social gatherings. With a focus on bringing civility back to public discourse, the episode features a variety of perspectives on many topics, from Republicans to Democrats and everyone in between, emphasizing the collective effort required to address global challenges. Through this conversation, the podcast seeks to inspire listeners to participate in rebuilding a unified political landscape where dialogue triumphs over discord.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hello listeners, back at Breaking Bread here with myself, host Tyrene Peterman.
(00:11):
Happy to be here with you today.
This will be the political discussion for today.
We've got so much to go over, so much happening.
My head is spinning from the last 10 days of the new administration coming on board.
A lot of my listeners, you all know that what I'm trying to do here is that this device
of this in our society right now is just at all time highs and it's causing a lot of
(00:37):
turmoil particularly between and amongst families and friends at holiday dinners.
It's really a rampant issue in our society, this heightened anger and resentment at our
fellow Americans which I do not really think is all that healthy for us as a society since
(01:03):
we are facing a number of huge global problems that we all need to pull together as an American
have to focus that energy on solving some of these problems.
So with that we try to talk to everybody, we want to talk to if you're a Republican,
(01:25):
if you're a Maga, if you're an independent, libertarian, Democrat, far left, whatever
your walk is and if you don't even want to label yourself that's fine too.
We just want respectful dialogue communication here so that we can all get along and solve
some of these huge problems that our country and world are facing.
(01:51):
So what I like to do is bring a little that civility back and that's what the point of
the podcast is.
So please keep that in mind, be respectful even if you disagree.
Today I have a guest friend of the pod and certainly keeps the wheels and the trains
(02:16):
all coming on time here.
He helps with production of the podcast.
Freddie, Freddie, why don't you introduce yourself, say hi to the listeners.
Hey everyone, I'm Freddie.
I am a product manager in tech and I am probably described as a young millennial almost at
(02:36):
the edge of Gen Z.
Yeah, I think that's a good place to describe me.
Awesome, awesome.
Thanks so much.
And for some of our new listeners, because we are getting new listeners, which is amazing
and thank you, thank you, thank you so much for folks who are spreading the word of Breaking
Bread here in Napa.
(02:56):
I am a early, early boomer and what did you say, Freddie?
You said I could be slash Z, Gen Z.
A Gen X.
Or Gen X, I'm sorry.
Gen X.
So just put everything in perspective.
So we're getting, you know, we want generational perspectives here.
It's all on the table.
We want to speak to everyone.
(03:17):
We want to hear everybody's opinion.
And what your thoughts are of the state of politics in the world today.
So with that, this is actually, Freddie and I, our first time talking about, since the
new administration came on board, so a lot to unpack there.
(03:37):
So what I did was, what we did is we divided, you know, a couple, a few topics into, Freddie's
got a couple topics that he wants to cover and I'll let him take that out and then I'll
comment and we'll certainly discuss.
And then I also have a couple of topics that I want to explore and get his feedback on
to as well.
(03:58):
So I'm going to kick it off.
One of the really huge things that bothered me with the new administration when they came
on board that I just, you know, I am for the rule of law.
I don't care where you come from, but I come from a very, very strong family that is always
(04:20):
by the law.
It's the rule of law.
And that's what, you know, I think all of us as U.S. citizens should unite us together
for and when the Trump administration, I get it, you know, he's got the power of the pardon
and, you know, he can exercise his rights and that, you know, okay, it is what it is.
(04:43):
But to release everybody, every single person that was associated with the Jan 6th, taking
over the Capitol, beating police officers, some of them dying.
I mean, I just don't think violence in our political landscape is unacceptable at any
(05:05):
level.
I mean, we are the people with the peaceful transfer of power.
I'm sorry.
I don't care what your background is.
We are the rule of law.
That's what the American society is made of.
And that he just blankedly released all these people.
I mean, take a look at each person's file.
I get it, if somebody was there protesting, got swept into the Capitol and what have you,
(05:29):
all right, yeah, maybe they shouldn't be serving two years or whatever, some miscarry of justice.
I'm open to that.
I'm realistic.
Let's hear about it.
But to give away the leaders of the proud boys and the oath keepers that were organized
criminals, they're organized crime, no different than the mafia.
(05:52):
They're organized crime and took that upon our country and our government.
That's treason.
I'm sorry.
And to release them, to release them into the public is unacceptable.
It should be unacceptable for any reasonable law-biting citizen, which I know there is
(06:12):
a lot of.
I'm sorry, but I feel extremely passionate about this.
And I just, I have to express it.
And I'd love to hear your perspective, Freddie, and we've got the podcast website going.
We're looking for feedback, and we'd love to hear from our listeners.
We're really going to, we really want to hear from you on these particular subject matters.
(06:36):
And then I want to go into, with that, with him releasing all those criminals, I want to
talk about the DOJ, the Department of Justice, and what's going on there.
So it's not bad enough that he released the criminals in free, just basically pardon them,
free range and set them loose in our society.
(06:58):
Now he's active in giving orders within the FBI and firing, firing life, career, duty,
prosecutors.
I'm sorry, just because that's your job and you were told you have to research these crimes
that may or may not have been committed on the US Capitol and you're getting fired for
(07:21):
doing your job, that is unacceptable.
That is a line that is definitely crossed.
Lifelong career professionals who are just doing their job.
There's no Republican, no right wing, no MAGA versus Democrat, liberal, independent, whatever
stripe you are.
(07:42):
These are career professionals.
They go through Republican administration as well as Democratic administrations and we
have all agreed on that as the norm of our society and how we're going to function and
to erase that.
You can throw in inspector generals, anybody who is looking at any type of crime that's
(08:08):
being committed.
It doesn't matter, again, these people are lifelong career professionals.
If a law was broken, we're going after you.
We don't look at your political background and to have them being fired, watchdogs being
fired, what's going on?
What are you setting us up for, Mr. Administration?
(08:31):
What are you setting this up for?
You're getting rid of all the career FBI investigators, the prosecutors and specifically, I want
to label specifically four areas that they're being targeted with either firing or putting
these career professionals onto another, like looking at immigration law.
(08:55):
Something that they're not even involved in but have years of.
I'm going to tell you, these are the four areas.
They're wiping out and cleaning out public integrity investigations, counterintelligence
investigation, cryptocurrency.
What did the new administration?
They just launched a cryptocurrency, billions of dollars.
(09:17):
They want to operate above the law, cryptocurrency investigations, any type of true thought leadership
that we have had, decades of thought leadership, dedicating their life, they're being fired
or moved off to nonsense jobs and highly skilled criminal law experts and law lawyers.
(09:40):
These are the people they're cleaning out.
Again, within reason, if there's some people that are at the end of their career, they
need to be let go, not let go, retired, give them their benefits.
They've spent decades in the organization.
I understand that.
I'm not opposed to that.
(10:01):
We should.
Again, we need to bring young, new talent, new ideas.
I understand that.
But this is something else.
I'm sorry.
This is definitely something else happening within our government and it is not going
to end well.
And that keeps me up at night.
I'd love to hear some of your comments about that, Freddie, about what's going on with
(10:25):
the rule of law and the DOJ.
Yeah.
Obviously, a lot there.
And I think that is the whole is Trump is trying to flood the zone.
Say, even Steve Bannon said that in 2019, he said, basically, the media can only handle
(10:47):
one story at a time and in order to throw everyone off course, you need to flood the
zone, give them too many stories to handle.
And that's what he's doing.
He's saying that he's lining up the DOJ purge.
He's got tariffs going out on Canada and Mexico as of yesterday, all the infrastructure on
(11:12):
deportation, gender, everything.
That's his goal is to make it too many stories for us to handle.
And so the best thing.
Okay.
Okay.
Stop right there.
That's a good point.
Let's unpack that.
Okay.
So tell us why he's doing it.
(11:32):
Why is he flooding the zone with all this, I mean, nonsense.
It's not nonsense.
A lot of these are serious matters and throwing up unqualified candidates for the
for the for the cabinets that were wasting time with these people.
I have another comment on that.
I know you want to talk a little bit about that, but why is he flooding the zone?
What's the benefit there to him?
(11:54):
Yeah, the illustration.
Well, so the way that I understand it as a person in technology, and I'm sure he's
getting this exact back from Elon Musk is this concept of see what breaks.
Push as much as you can and see what breaks.
Federal funding freeze, you know, freezing, you know, Medicaid, whatever, freezing, you
(12:21):
know, see what actually breaks when you try to push all of these things.
And you're going to get everything else through probably, but the biggest things maybe you
won't get through.
But all those things, other things are going to fly under the radar because you made a
big deal about everything else.
Okay.
So what is he benefit by the stuff that does fly under the radar that he gets away with?
(12:46):
What's the benefit?
There's a benefit.
There's a motive.
Why are they doing it?
There's a motive when they do that.
Clearly a motive.
Tell me what you think.
I have strong feelings about it.
I mean, just to give an example, he's purging out these specific specialized areas in the
DOJ, okay?
(13:06):
Crypto.
Is it a coincidence that he just launched a multi-billion dollar Himmelania, these crypto
coins and that whole universe over there?
They're all on the bandwagon there.
It's billions and billions.
Well, it's following what Elon Musk did.
I think it was 2021 with the DOJ coin.
(13:27):
He really hyped up this meme coin.
Yeah.
It's really getting a lot of people interested in the coin.
Exactly.
The value is going up.
Elon Musk had a whole bunch of the coin and when it got to a very high peak, he sold all
of it.
Who walked away with all the billions?
Yep.
And so I'm sure he's trying to do the same types of things.
(13:50):
Pump and dump.
It's an old Wall Street term.
Pump and dump.
Pump it up.
Get your money out and everybody gets stuck.
It's musical chairs, basically.
So there are areas that the level of grift and the level of this every.
And again, Democrats are not immune to this.
(14:14):
I mean, they're not immune to it at all.
I'm talking as a citizen, not as a left, right, whatever.
It's wrong.
So what I will say is, and I think a lot of there is a lot of misunderstanding.
And I get my news from this one great source and I know we'll talk about it later, but
(14:36):
she is a lawyer.
She does a great podcast and she gives me very specific understanding of the law and
gives me a legal analysis of what is happening.
And something that I didn't understand is that executive actions are not law.
They are a directive to basically say, oh, to ex-sat or the other department chairs,
(15:03):
these are what you need to do and the type of agenda that I want to set.
They are not legislation.
Exactly.
Right?
And so there's going to be a whole set of legislations that come through over the next
few months, six months, year.
(15:23):
And back to executive order to make it permanent.
Right.
To actually create legislation that, yeah, exactly.
And it's never going to get through with the way the Congress is set up right now.
I mean, they will get through some stuff.
And so Democrats are going to have to deal.
So we need to think about managing our outrage, I think, is let's come together and really
(15:49):
identify the areas in which we can be most productive.
I mean, hey, there might be some benefits.
I'm not going to say I'm anti everything Trump does because maybe there are some.
I'm not.
I'm not either.
Reasonable.
Reasonable.
But let's be thoughtful about what we push back again and how we push back against new
(16:18):
legislation that will be passed in the coming year, four years.
I agree 100%.
It's like, you know, pants on fire every single time is not going to get us anywhere.
You have to definitely prioritize.
That's what he's pushing with the flooding of this.
He wants outrage.
You're absolutely right.
(16:39):
100%.
I think you cannot have our society, our foundation of our society without the rule of law.
I think that is a core value of American and what makes us extraordinary why we have the
richest stock market in the world is because we abide by the rule of law.
People remember that you like your little portfolios and everything.
(17:03):
It's like the reason why we attract all the global wealth to our stock markets is because
of the rule of law.
An interesting fact there.
And now that we're just talking about size of economy, it's real quick.
An interesting fact that I dug into yesterday.
Did you know that California's economy is about the size of Canada's and Mexico's combined?
(17:29):
Yes.
It's the fourth largest GDP in the world.
It is fourth, the fourth in the whole world.
That is wild to me.
One state in bigger than our two labor.
We're fourth.
We're fourth in the global economy, the state of California.
Wow.
(17:50):
Incredible, isn't it?
I mean, we have it all.
I mean, we really are so blessed here in the West Coast for so many reasons for that matter.
But yes, it's extraordinary.
Absolutely extraordinary.
So we kind of got off on a little bit of a run.
(18:11):
Sorry about that, Freddie.
So I think we're in agreement.
You know, I mean, flooding the zone is not going to, you know, move the ball at all.
Just chasing tails, you know, because I mean, a lot of it is outrageous and it's so outrageous.
(18:31):
It's unfortunate that we're in this place.
But I haven't seen the Democratic Party or any of the members come out and actually give
a, here's what happened, here's where we're at, and this is what we need to do to move
forward.
So I mean, I mean, granted, it's, well, it's been since November, you know, so it's not
(18:55):
like it's just been the last two weeks since he's taken over.
So we've had some time here and to still not really feel confident about, you know, what
happened here.
I think, I think we need to have a very public, yeah, internal battle inside of the Democratic
(19:18):
Party.
I agree with you.
Again, I'm actually registered as an independent and has been since I've been 18 years old.
However, I, for the most part, have voted for the Democratic Party, not always.
Often go for an end and a candidate if there is one.
But there is a lot of things and there are a lot of disparate parts of the Democratic
(19:44):
Party and we need to have an internal fight and figure out, and I think it needs to include
the public and the Democratic Party voters large, the voters.
Absolutely.
And I think we need to determine what we want our pathway forward to be.
I think it's been very clear with the election of Donald Trump that there's a wave of rejection
(20:08):
of, yeah, right.
Our values were rejected by the majority of the US.
There's a rejection of the establishment is what I want to say.
Not just the Democratic Party, but the establishment and there is a wave of on both sides of the
aisle and has been since 2016 or earlier, by the way, of populism.
(20:33):
And you'll see this with the voters in Queens, New York that voted for both Donald Trump
and AOC.
These are the types of voters that we're going to see more and more of in the United
States.
And we need to listen to them in my opinion.
(20:54):
I couldn't agree more than you.
It's so astounding to me that it's that clear.
That is a cry from the voting population that they watch.
Our government is no longer working for us, the people, we the people.
And I have to say, I agree.
It's like, what is this nonsense?
(21:15):
It's like, they can't even.
We can't solve problems.
We have to live.
You realize with this whole debt ceiling that we're practically living paycheck to paycheck
with that nonsense.
They can't even figure that out.
I got to put a five-year damn budget together and sign off on it.
(21:35):
It's a problem every three months or six, whatever they pass it.
And I mean, it's just, people are tired of it.
When people vote for somebody who called a mob to attack our US Capitol, and instead
of something is definitely not resonant, something's wrong people.
(21:57):
And it's in the house.
It's in our own house.
And these Democrats, these lifelong Democrats have got to wake up.
And I said, I think it's generational.
I think it's definitely generational.
And I really think that people, they want change, Democrats.
(22:19):
They don't, you know, they want change.
People want change.
And you need to recognize that and stop being so afraid to run with that.
Wherever that change comes from, if it comes from AOC or if it comes from Bernie Sanders,
I mean, not to pick on that, but I mean, you know what I mean?
It's like, I don't care about change.
(22:42):
People want change, even if it's, even if we're on the verge of neo-Naziism and authoritarianism,
it's something, you know?
And I just, you know, until the Democrats wake up, I mean, they're not, they're doing
the same thing.
And what was the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over
(23:04):
again.
You know?
And it's like, it's not, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
You've done your time, Nancy Pelosi.
I love you.
I adore you.
I'm inspired.
Chuck Schumer, same to you as well.
But please, let go.
Let go of the power and give it to the next generation.
Please, we need it.
(23:25):
We're dying.
We're not going to, that's it.
I mean, when I seen last week, or not last week, but it was a few months ago where AOC
got beat out of that chairmanship, you know, and I like the guy, don't get me wrong, I
like the guy, but we need fresh voices.
Don't be afraid of the fresh voices.
But what I will say about that is the progressive caucus now has something like 90 members,
(23:51):
much bigger than it was 10 years ago.
There is an element of change in there in the Democratic Party, but we need to come
together and decide what is our path if we want to actually be able to implement any
of it.
And I'm not saying progressivism is the way to go.
A lot of the progressivism that we got in the 2010s and even the early 2020s has been
(24:21):
more performative over true change.
You know, I'm talking about Obamacare and, you know, we were talking, his original vision
was single payer.
Yes.
And instead, we, you know, now have covered California where we get to go in and pay $500
a month for access to the same companies that provide us insurance in the United States.
(24:50):
That is not a great solution for anyone.
No, no, no.
That is definitely not like solving the problem, which is a problem.
It's a problem.
It is a problem.
So that's what I'm saying.
A lot of the progressivism that we've seen in the past 10 years has been performative
(25:12):
and it's been, oh, getting gay people rights, getting people trans rights, which is all good
in the part.
But give us all the other parts as well.
Give us economic, you know, access.
Give us populist, you know, agendas that, you know, help small and medium business people
(25:35):
start new companies.
All of our money is still going to corporations and a vast majority of both Kamala and Trump's
donators were large corporations.
Oh, yeah.
Let's empower small business again.
That's.
That's the foundation of our society.
(25:56):
And my mom and dad were like small business owners.
That's it.
I mean, truly, you're absolutely right.
And Kamala's platform, she did say she was going to give X amount of money and whatnot
to new people starting new businesses.
So I mean, it was at least an acknowledgement that, oh, wow, wouldn't that be great?
(26:20):
You know, programs like that.
That helps, you know, the everyday people.
Yeah.
And in something that, you know, you said progressive and I, you know, I did shout out AOC as an
example and Bernie Sanders or in what now, but I'm not, you know, I am for progress.
I'm for new ideas.
If you want to call them progressive, okay, you know, I'm for new ideas.
(26:43):
In fact, I actually, you know, you were talking about like the independence, like you're more
of a registered independent these days.
And I think you made a mention about a statistic that there was more independence that voted
in our last presidential election than ever in history before.
So from a, from a people that are registered as independent voted for independence in this
(27:07):
election, a lot of independence voted, you know, either Trump or Kamala.
Because I think it was either 16 or 2020 in which there was a lot of third party votes.
Was that, I think 2016, there was a lot of third party votes.
Yeah, there was, there was, there was.
That's what hurt Hillary.
(27:28):
That's why a lot of those votes went to the third party.
Right, right, right.
Exactly.
But for this, for this election, more registered independence.
Straight away, registered independent is the point here.
Which I'm, I'm seriously considering it.
I have to say, to be honest, I certainly am.
In fact, all of, I noticed, I know we're going to run through it and, you know, what
(27:52):
type of resources that we listen to, we want to share with, with the listeners at the end.
But I find myself listening to more right leaning, I guess never, Republican, never
Trumpers, whatever that slice is.
It's they're Republicans, but never Trumpers, so they'll be with the Democrats or independent.
(28:14):
So, but I noticed some, like some of my really consistent titles that I listened to are those.
So I'm identifying more with those folks, which I think is a, is a, is a combination,
you know, I look at them as a combination.
I, I overall, I'm just trying to take it to the big picture of what's going on here in
(28:35):
our society with the voting public and, and, you know, I really think the Democrats have
a really huge opportunity.
It's like, they were never going to break it up.
Let's just face it, we can go on and on with the same miserable stalemate politics for
years and it took something like, you know, the MAGA movement to break it down.
(29:00):
So okay, it's like, we got it.
So the Democrats really have an opportunity to bring us back to the center and take some
of, some of those ideas from the Trump side.
They, they're valid points.
They really truly are.
At least we should be free to like discuss it.
It should be a debate.
We should be empathetic to the feelings that people have that result in these policy positions.
(29:28):
You know, whether or not we agree that the policy positions are going to make the impact
that they suggest, that might not be true.
However, we should be empathetic to why people feel that way.
And we should come up with as many solutions for that problem as possible and explore which
(29:50):
one we think will actually resolve in the biggest impact.
I agree.
I agree.
I'm hopeful that and, and we, if we can help in that process, any small teeny tiny way,
way, I think that's part of the mission of this podcast, the political discussion is
to have those open and free.
We want everybody here and to share your opinions because that's what's going to solve the,
(30:14):
the problems of our lifetime is having, you know, anything's on the table.
That's so exciting.
Anything's on the table.
Wow.
You know, I mean, just listen to it.
It's energizing.
It's energizing.
Anything's on the table.
We can direct our future.
No, no.
And that's what I think Trump and Trump is.
(30:35):
I think that's the message, the subtle, it's like a feeling, you know, that you could do
anything.
Yeah.
I mean, if there's anything positive, and I think there are some things positive, but
if there's anything positive to come out is, it's the ability to think in a different
way and, you know, just kind of going at tariffs at a high level.
(30:57):
I don't think tariffs would ever be able to supplement the revenue that we earn from
income tax as, as Trump and his crew may suggest.
However, that idea is, is a fabulous idea.
If, if you, if people could not pay income tax and for all of our, you know, governmental
(31:19):
programs to be run by Social Security, yeah, by other governments, like, oh, that would
be fabulous or our taxes from via tariff because consumers are the ones paying it.
That's a fabulous idea.
However, you know, the likelihood, the likelihood of that actually being accomplished, looking
(31:40):
back at his actual accomplishments from his first term, what did he actually set out to
accomplish and what did he accomplish?
Not as much as I think he'd like to think.
Yeah, 100%.
All right.
So with that, I'm going to pause here, but we do have time for another topic.
(32:02):
If there's something on your side that you want to discuss.
So let's, let's go for it.
I know we covered quite a bit actually.
Yeah, I think we covered quite a bit at a high level.
If there's anything that you would like to dig into a little deeper, I'm happy to respond
to that.
Okay, okay.
I think this DEI thing, you know, it just, what does that mean?
(32:24):
You know, I mean, obviously diversity.
Equity and inclusion.
Equity and inclusion.
Thank you.
We know what that means, but what does it really mean?
You know, it's like, that's what we have to like, understand.
I feel like, you know, I, if you want to talk about DEI policy, yeah, let's talk about it.
It needs to be updated.
What, what, what's, what is the data say?
(32:45):
What is the actual true data say and where we are in advancing everybody to a level playing
field?
I mean, because that's what the, the, I'm a DEI, you know, thank God, you know, this
was decades ago when this was introduced.
I mean, I am, believe me, my career, I was, every day I was like the only woman at a roomful
(33:07):
of wall street men, you know, I mean, for a long decades.
Uh, to put it easily, but I had that opportunity.
I got a seat at the, at the table and, and I'm grateful for that.
And if that was a DEI, you know, then okay, you know, but I have a track record, a professional,
I was successful and, um, I'm proud of that.
(33:32):
I'm proud of it.
Okay.
I'm proud of it.
And just again, this is my experience, direct experience with DEI.
It's like what I did see a lot of for, for a long time is the good old boys, GOB.
Let's, if we're going to look at DEI, let's look at GOB, good old boys network.
(33:52):
Okay.
Do you know how much I've seen that and through my career of advancement of these guys that
are at the top senior management, believe me, believe me, if you want to go back to meritocracy,
let's look at that and how many years we had to put up with that.
Yeah.
Okay.
(34:13):
So, so I think there's a couple of assumptions that are being made in regards to DEI one,
that DEI means that we are choosing unqualified people.
Exactly.
The second one is that before DEI programs were created and 15, 20 years ago.
(34:37):
That's when it actually was.
Well, I think the assumption that unqualified people, I can't even tell you, I'm sorry.
Yeah.
This is my experience.
Yes.
No, I hear you, but that's what I'm saying.
There's an assumption that before that there was a meritocracy, which is, is not true.
That's why we got DEI because we're promoting all these people who are not qualified.
(35:00):
We need to look at women.
If they've got the experience, black people, whatever the diversity is, that's what drove
corporate America to do it because it's a financial, it's an economic.
You want the best and the brightest in these positions.
If anything, the pool of people that you're recruiting from is larger and so there should
(35:23):
be more competition.
It's possible that it has been abused in some cases, but I think writ large, it's probably
been a net benefit for people, for society.
It's come up with more ideas.
It's come up with more thoughts and perspectives on how we approach problems.
(35:45):
Exactly.
Well, that's the whole thing of the beauty about diversity and what's America special
is because we do get all of these dynamic talent source.
My understanding of affirmative action and DEI at large is that the biggest beneficiaries
of DEI thus far have actually been white women.
(36:08):
I have to agree with you.
I benefited by that and I'm grateful for that opportunity.
I think I proved myself worthy of that opportunity as well.
I truly believe that in my heart.
To think that there's this massive number of incompetent, diverse people that are running
(36:29):
the government or running corporate America is just ludicrous.
Listen to that.
Will you please listen to that?
It doesn't make sense.
It's ludicrous to think that.
Let's just bring it right back.
We had that plane crash.
This is the DC plane crash that went down.
(36:49):
Trump had that press conference and he blamed DEI.
He has no facts.
He says he has common sense that it was a DEI problem.
Just to give you the true statistics here from the FAA, 94% of all pilots flying are
(37:10):
white.
84% of mechanics and technicians are white.
83% are all the engineers.
78% are air traffic controllers.
That's the facts.
That's the truth.
(37:30):
My understanding of this issue, there was a critique of the FAA that they were promoting
the hiring of peoples with disabilities.
That is the DEI that he was talking about.
However, my understanding is this policy specifically actually goes back to 2013.
(37:57):
It spans Obama's administration.
It spans his first administration and it spans Biden's administration.
If this policy was something that he wanted to be critical of, it is something that existed
under his first administration.
Yeah, absolutely.
It was so traumatic and so bad.
(38:20):
Why wouldn't his administration did away with it or raise it as an issue back when he was
in control?
It wasn't when he was in the presidency.
No.
Because this is just, and again, we're taking time discussing this.
That's a great segue into.
So Freddie, in our close, we're going to give three of our really weekly resources that
(38:49):
we go to.
Give us three of your go-to resources that you consistently listen to, watch, yada, yada,
yada.
Yeah, one of my all-time favorites and it's probably been, I've probably been six months
into it.
I think she has been making podcasts for about three years now.
It's a podcast you can find called Unbiased by a great woman.
(39:16):
Her name is Jordan is my lawyer.
And it gives you kind of a legal perspective on the current events that are happening.
And she really helps, I think, really has helped me with critical thinking on the issues
that are happening today.
Yeah, really, really enjoy and recommend her.
(39:36):
And she really gives an unbiased perspective on things.
I think she's really proud of the fact that people cannot tell if she is a registered
Republican or a registered Democrat.
And so highly recommend her to look her up.
(39:58):
I would say the current daily show that I'm watching currently is called Breaking Points.
You can find that on YouTube.
They usually share five or six stories daily and they kind of dig into that current event.
That's crystal ball and.
Saga.
Yeah, yeah.
(40:18):
Definitely.
Definitely look into them.
They're millennials and will give you really well researched perspectives.
Crystal is more Democrat leaning.
Saga is more Republican leaning.
And then they have another pair who I think call themselves counterpoints and they do
(40:39):
it their show on Wednesday and they have a woman who's more Republican lean and a man
who's a little bit more Democrat.
So it's a nice switch up.
And then the final resource that I will share you with was actually kind of more of is not
a daily news, but it's actually a podcast that kind of deep dives into the history of
(41:03):
money in politics.
And that is called Master Plan by The Lever.
The Lever also does do current news as well.
But this is a kind of podcast series, I think 12 or 13 episodes where they go into history
of money in politics, starting with Nixon and kind of go up to current day and how money
(41:29):
in politics has evolved to be where it is today.
So for you listeners out there who want to take a little bit deeper dive on some of these
topics, great, great options there, Freddie.
And my go to options and in fact, I was just reviewing what do I listen to?
(41:50):
What do I read on a consistent basis?
And again, and I said this earlier is that I'm a lifelong blue Democrat, you know, core
and core growing up, but I'm really finding out.
I don't know if it's an independent, I don't think, but what came to this is that I'm listening
to my main sources are Republican, never Trumpers.
(42:15):
I identify with them.
I just do it.
Makes sense to me at this time in my life.
And I don't know, it's just a new, it's just a reality.
So I don't know if that makes me an independent or if I have no idea, but that's where I'm
at.
So here's some of my favorite sources.
I mean, I love the Atlantic.
(42:39):
You have to discover they're online and their podcasts are just absolutely amazing.
I started with a subscription, but then it's like they're online is just really, really
helpful.
And there's certain writers that I really love.
I love Tom Nichols.
I love his voice.
I love Ann Applebaum.
Oh my God, I adore her.
(43:01):
She does a lot of little mini podcasts as well, too.
Did a great one on authoritarianism that I loved.
I'm also liking the bulwark.
I love Charlie Sykes.
I've seen Charlie Sykes on CNN and MSNBC and I started looking into him.
Then he started developing podcasts, the bulwark.
(43:22):
And Tim Miller, I go to every week, I listen to him at least two or three times a day.
And again, he's a Republican.
I think he was on the Bush campaign.
And then on the bulwark, Sarah Longwell, she's another Republican.
Really, I mean, she really digs in.
She's really well known for her survey.
(43:44):
She really goes out and does a lot of surveys amongst the voters and tries to get that pulse
of what are the voters thinking out there.
So I really like her perspective and what she brings to the podcast.
And then I really, a deadline White House, Nicole Wallace, I just, again, she's a Bush
(44:05):
administration.
Really like her perspective and love her show and she's certainly introduced me to a lot
of different writers and news.
So yeah, so the Atlantic, the bulwark with Tim Miller, deadline White House, Nicole Wallace.
(44:25):
And lastly, I really, really love on with Kara Swisher, especially these days with how
the tech pros have taken over the White House.
And obviously she has decades of experience with these guys.
So love her perspective as well.
So with that listeners, we're going to wrap it up to, you know, an awesome, you know,
(44:46):
really deep dive on some specific topics.
It was good to let this out and get it out, just what's been going on in the overall political
landscape and catch up with Freddie.
Thanks so much.
And to next time, take care and we'll be back here soon.
Bye-bye.
Yep.
(45:07):
Bye.
Hello listeners, back at Breaking Bread here with myself, host Tyrene Peterman.
(00:11):
Happy to be here with you today.
This will be the political discussion for today.
We've got so much to go over, so much happening.
My head is spinning from the last 10 days of the new administration coming on board.
A lot of my listeners, you all know that what I'm trying to do here is that this device
of this in our society right now is just at all time highs and it's causing a lot of
(00:37):
turmoil particularly between and amongst families and friends at holiday dinners.
It's really a rampant issue in our society, this heightened anger and resentment at our
fellow Americans which I do not really think is all that healthy for us as a society since
(01:03):
we are facing a number of huge global problems that we all need to pull together as an American
have to focus that energy on solving some of these problems.
So with that we try to talk to everybody, we want to talk to if you're a Republican,
(01:25):
if you're a Maga, if you're an independent, libertarian, Democrat, far left, whatever
your walk is and if you don't even want to label yourself that's fine too.
We just want respectful dialogue communication here so that we can all get along and solve
some of these huge problems that our country and world are facing.
(01:51):
So what I like to do is bring a little that civility back and that's what the point of
the podcast is.
So please keep that in mind, be respectful even if you disagree.
Today I have a guest friend of the pod and certainly keeps the wheels and the trains
(02:16):
all coming on time here.
He helps with production of the podcast.
Freddie, Freddie, why don't you introduce yourself, say hi to the listeners.
Hey everyone, I'm Freddie.
I am a product manager in tech and I am probably described as a young millennial almost at
(02:36):
the edge of Gen Z.
Yeah, I think that's a good place to describe me.
Awesome, awesome.
Thanks so much.
And for some of our new listeners, because we are getting new listeners, which is amazing
and thank you, thank you, thank you so much for folks who are spreading the word of Breaking
Bread here in Napa.
(02:56):
I am a early, early boomer and what did you say, Freddie?
You said I could be slash Z, Gen Z.
A Gen X.
Or Gen X, I'm sorry.
Gen X.
So just put everything in perspective.
So we're getting, you know, we want generational perspectives here.
It's all on the table.
We want to speak to everyone.
(03:17):
We want to hear everybody's opinion.
And what your thoughts are of the state of politics in the world today.
So with that, this is actually, Freddie and I, our first time talking about, since the
new administration came on board, so a lot to unpack there.
(03:37):
So what I did was, what we did is we divided, you know, a couple, a few topics into, Freddie's
got a couple topics that he wants to cover and I'll let him take that out and then I'll
comment and we'll certainly discuss.
And then I also have a couple of topics that I want to explore and get his feedback on
to as well.
(03:58):
So I'm going to kick it off.
One of the really huge things that bothered me with the new administration when they came
on board that I just, you know, I am for the rule of law.
I don't care where you come from, but I come from a very, very strong family that is always
(04:20):
by the law.
It's the rule of law.
And that's what, you know, I think all of us as U.S. citizens should unite us together
for and when the Trump administration, I get it, you know, he's got the power of the pardon
and, you know, he can exercise his rights and that, you know, okay, it is what it is.
(04:43):
But to release everybody, every single person that was associated with the Jan 6th, taking
over the Capitol, beating police officers, some of them dying.
I mean, I just don't think violence in our political landscape is unacceptable at any
(05:05):
level.
I mean, we are the people with the peaceful transfer of power.
I'm sorry.
I don't care what your background is.
We are the rule of law.
That's what the American society is made of.
And that he just blankedly released all these people.
I mean, take a look at each person's file.
I get it, if somebody was there protesting, got swept into the Capitol and what have you,
(05:29):
all right, yeah, maybe they shouldn't be serving two years or whatever, some miscarry of justice.
I'm open to that.
I'm realistic.
Let's hear about it.
But to give away the leaders of the proud boys and the oath keepers that were organized
criminals, they're organized crime, no different than the mafia.
(05:52):
They're organized crime and took that upon our country and our government.
That's treason.
I'm sorry.
And to release them, to release them into the public is unacceptable.
It should be unacceptable for any reasonable law-biting citizen, which I know there is
(06:12):
a lot of.
I'm sorry, but I feel extremely passionate about this.
And I just, I have to express it.
And I'd love to hear your perspective, Freddie, and we've got the podcast website going.
We're looking for feedback, and we'd love to hear from our listeners.
We're really going to, we really want to hear from you on these particular subject matters.
(06:36):
And then I want to go into, with that, with him releasing all those criminals, I want to
talk about the DOJ, the Department of Justice, and what's going on there.
So it's not bad enough that he released the criminals in free, just basically pardon them,
free range and set them loose in our society.
(06:58):
Now he's active in giving orders within the FBI and firing, firing life, career, duty,
prosecutors.
I'm sorry, just because that's your job and you were told you have to research these crimes
that may or may not have been committed on the US Capitol and you're getting fired for
(07:21):
doing your job, that is unacceptable.
That is a line that is definitely crossed.
Lifelong career professionals who are just doing their job.
There's no Republican, no right wing, no MAGA versus Democrat, liberal, independent, whatever
stripe you are.
(07:42):
These are career professionals.
They go through Republican administration as well as Democratic administrations and we
have all agreed on that as the norm of our society and how we're going to function and
to erase that.
You can throw in inspector generals, anybody who is looking at any type of crime that's
(08:08):
being committed.
It doesn't matter, again, these people are lifelong career professionals.
If a law was broken, we're going after you.
We don't look at your political background and to have them being fired, watchdogs being
fired, what's going on?
What are you setting us up for, Mr. Administration?
(08:31):
What are you setting this up for?
You're getting rid of all the career FBI investigators, the prosecutors and specifically, I want
to label specifically four areas that they're being targeted with either firing or putting
these career professionals onto another, like looking at immigration law.
(08:55):
Something that they're not even involved in but have years of.
I'm going to tell you, these are the four areas.
They're wiping out and cleaning out public integrity investigations, counterintelligence
investigation, cryptocurrency.
What did the new administration?
They just launched a cryptocurrency, billions of dollars.
(09:17):
They want to operate above the law, cryptocurrency investigations, any type of true thought leadership
that we have had, decades of thought leadership, dedicating their life, they're being fired
or moved off to nonsense jobs and highly skilled criminal law experts and law lawyers.
(09:40):
These are the people they're cleaning out.
Again, within reason, if there's some people that are at the end of their career, they
need to be let go, not let go, retired, give them their benefits.
They've spent decades in the organization.
I understand that.
I'm not opposed to that.
(10:01):
We should.
Again, we need to bring young, new talent, new ideas.
I understand that.
But this is something else.
I'm sorry.
This is definitely something else happening within our government and it is not going
to end well.
And that keeps me up at night.
I'd love to hear some of your comments about that, Freddie, about what's going on with
(10:25):
the rule of law and the DOJ.
Yeah.
Obviously, a lot there.
And I think that is the whole is Trump is trying to flood the zone.
Say, even Steve Bannon said that in 2019, he said, basically, the media can only handle
(10:47):
one story at a time and in order to throw everyone off course, you need to flood the
zone, give them too many stories to handle.
And that's what he's doing.
He's saying that he's lining up the DOJ purge.
He's got tariffs going out on Canada and Mexico as of yesterday, all the infrastructure on
(11:12):
deportation, gender, everything.
That's his goal is to make it too many stories for us to handle.
And so the best thing.
Okay.
Okay.
Stop right there.
That's a good point.
Let's unpack that.
Okay.
So tell us why he's doing it.
(11:32):
Why is he flooding the zone with all this, I mean, nonsense.
It's not nonsense.
A lot of these are serious matters and throwing up unqualified candidates for the
for the for the cabinets that were wasting time with these people.
I have another comment on that.
I know you want to talk a little bit about that, but why is he flooding the zone?
What's the benefit there to him?
(11:54):
Yeah, the illustration.
Well, so the way that I understand it as a person in technology, and I'm sure he's
getting this exact back from Elon Musk is this concept of see what breaks.
Push as much as you can and see what breaks.
Federal funding freeze, you know, freezing, you know, Medicaid, whatever, freezing, you
(12:21):
know, see what actually breaks when you try to push all of these things.
And you're going to get everything else through probably, but the biggest things maybe you
won't get through.
But all those things, other things are going to fly under the radar because you made a
big deal about everything else.
Okay.
So what is he benefit by the stuff that does fly under the radar that he gets away with?
(12:46):
What's the benefit?
There's a benefit.
There's a motive.
Why are they doing it?
There's a motive when they do that.
Clearly a motive.
Tell me what you think.
I have strong feelings about it.
I mean, just to give an example, he's purging out these specific specialized areas in the
DOJ, okay?
(13:06):
Crypto.
Is it a coincidence that he just launched a multi-billion dollar Himmelania, these crypto
coins and that whole universe over there?
They're all on the bandwagon there.
It's billions and billions.
Well, it's following what Elon Musk did.
I think it was 2021 with the DOJ coin.
(13:27):
He really hyped up this meme coin.
Yeah.
It's really getting a lot of people interested in the coin.
Exactly.
The value is going up.
Elon Musk had a whole bunch of the coin and when it got to a very high peak, he sold all
of it.
Who walked away with all the billions?
Yep.
And so I'm sure he's trying to do the same types of things.
(13:50):
Pump and dump.
It's an old Wall Street term.
Pump and dump.
Pump it up.
Get your money out and everybody gets stuck.
It's musical chairs, basically.
So there are areas that the level of grift and the level of this every.
And again, Democrats are not immune to this.
(14:14):
I mean, they're not immune to it at all.
I'm talking as a citizen, not as a left, right, whatever.
It's wrong.
So what I will say is, and I think a lot of there is a lot of misunderstanding.
And I get my news from this one great source and I know we'll talk about it later, but
(14:36):
she is a lawyer.
She does a great podcast and she gives me very specific understanding of the law and
gives me a legal analysis of what is happening.
And something that I didn't understand is that executive actions are not law.
They are a directive to basically say, oh, to ex-sat or the other department chairs,
(15:03):
these are what you need to do and the type of agenda that I want to set.
They are not legislation.
Exactly.
Right?
And so there's going to be a whole set of legislations that come through over the next
few months, six months, year.
(15:23):
And back to executive order to make it permanent.
Right.
To actually create legislation that, yeah, exactly.
And it's never going to get through with the way the Congress is set up right now.
I mean, they will get through some stuff.
And so Democrats are going to have to deal.
So we need to think about managing our outrage, I think, is let's come together and really
(15:49):
identify the areas in which we can be most productive.
I mean, hey, there might be some benefits.
I'm not going to say I'm anti everything Trump does because maybe there are some.
I'm not.
I'm not either.
Reasonable.
Reasonable.
But let's be thoughtful about what we push back again and how we push back against new
(16:18):
legislation that will be passed in the coming year, four years.
I agree 100%.
It's like, you know, pants on fire every single time is not going to get us anywhere.
You have to definitely prioritize.
That's what he's pushing with the flooding of this.
He wants outrage.
You're absolutely right.
(16:39):
100%.
I think you cannot have our society, our foundation of our society without the rule of law.
I think that is a core value of American and what makes us extraordinary why we have the
richest stock market in the world is because we abide by the rule of law.
People remember that you like your little portfolios and everything.
(17:03):
It's like the reason why we attract all the global wealth to our stock markets is because
of the rule of law.
An interesting fact there.
And now that we're just talking about size of economy, it's real quick.
An interesting fact that I dug into yesterday.
Did you know that California's economy is about the size of Canada's and Mexico's combined?
(17:29):
Yes.
It's the fourth largest GDP in the world.
It is fourth, the fourth in the whole world.
That is wild to me.
One state in bigger than our two labor.
We're fourth.
We're fourth in the global economy, the state of California.
Wow.
(17:50):
Incredible, isn't it?
I mean, we have it all.
I mean, we really are so blessed here in the West Coast for so many reasons for that matter.
But yes, it's extraordinary.
Absolutely extraordinary.
So we kind of got off on a little bit of a run.
(18:11):
Sorry about that, Freddie.
So I think we're in agreement.
You know, I mean, flooding the zone is not going to, you know, move the ball at all.
Just chasing tails, you know, because I mean, a lot of it is outrageous and it's so outrageous.
(18:31):
It's unfortunate that we're in this place.
But I haven't seen the Democratic Party or any of the members come out and actually give
a, here's what happened, here's where we're at, and this is what we need to do to move
forward.
So I mean, I mean, granted, it's, well, it's been since November, you know, so it's not
(18:55):
like it's just been the last two weeks since he's taken over.
So we've had some time here and to still not really feel confident about, you know, what
happened here.
I think, I think we need to have a very public, yeah, internal battle inside of the Democratic
(19:18):
Party.
I agree with you.
Again, I'm actually registered as an independent and has been since I've been 18 years old.
However, I, for the most part, have voted for the Democratic Party, not always.
Often go for an end and a candidate if there is one.
But there is a lot of things and there are a lot of disparate parts of the Democratic
(19:44):
Party and we need to have an internal fight and figure out, and I think it needs to include
the public and the Democratic Party voters large, the voters.
Absolutely.
And I think we need to determine what we want our pathway forward to be.
I think it's been very clear with the election of Donald Trump that there's a wave of rejection
(20:08):
of, yeah, right.
Our values were rejected by the majority of the US.
There's a rejection of the establishment is what I want to say.
Not just the Democratic Party, but the establishment and there is a wave of on both sides of the
aisle and has been since 2016 or earlier, by the way, of populism.
(20:33):
And you'll see this with the voters in Queens, New York that voted for both Donald Trump
and AOC.
These are the types of voters that we're going to see more and more of in the United
States.
And we need to listen to them in my opinion.
(20:54):
I couldn't agree more than you.
It's so astounding to me that it's that clear.
That is a cry from the voting population that they watch.
Our government is no longer working for us, the people, we the people.
And I have to say, I agree.
It's like, what is this nonsense?
(21:15):
It's like, they can't even.
We can't solve problems.
We have to live.
You realize with this whole debt ceiling that we're practically living paycheck to paycheck
with that nonsense.
They can't even figure that out.
I got to put a five-year damn budget together and sign off on it.
(21:35):
It's a problem every three months or six, whatever they pass it.
And I mean, it's just, people are tired of it.
When people vote for somebody who called a mob to attack our US Capitol, and instead
of something is definitely not resonant, something's wrong people.
(21:57):
And it's in the house.
It's in our own house.
And these Democrats, these lifelong Democrats have got to wake up.
And I said, I think it's generational.
I think it's definitely generational.
And I really think that people, they want change, Democrats.
(22:19):
They don't, you know, they want change.
People want change.
And you need to recognize that and stop being so afraid to run with that.
Wherever that change comes from, if it comes from AOC or if it comes from Bernie Sanders,
I mean, not to pick on that, but I mean, you know what I mean?
It's like, I don't care about change.
(22:42):
People want change, even if it's, even if we're on the verge of neo-Naziism and authoritarianism,
it's something, you know?
And I just, you know, until the Democrats wake up, I mean, they're not, they're doing
the same thing.
And what was the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over
(23:04):
again.
You know?
And it's like, it's not, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
You've done your time, Nancy Pelosi.
I love you.
I adore you.
I'm inspired.
Chuck Schumer, same to you as well.
But please, let go.
Let go of the power and give it to the next generation.
Please, we need it.
(23:25):
We're dying.
We're not going to, that's it.
I mean, when I seen last week, or not last week, but it was a few months ago where AOC
got beat out of that chairmanship, you know, and I like the guy, don't get me wrong, I
like the guy, but we need fresh voices.
Don't be afraid of the fresh voices.
But what I will say about that is the progressive caucus now has something like 90 members,
(23:51):
much bigger than it was 10 years ago.
There is an element of change in there in the Democratic Party, but we need to come
together and decide what is our path if we want to actually be able to implement any
of it.
And I'm not saying progressivism is the way to go.
A lot of the progressivism that we got in the 2010s and even the early 2020s has been
(24:21):
more performative over true change.
You know, I'm talking about Obamacare and, you know, we were talking, his original vision
was single payer.
Yes.
And instead, we, you know, now have covered California where we get to go in and pay $500
a month for access to the same companies that provide us insurance in the United States.
(24:50):
That is not a great solution for anyone.
No, no, no.
That is definitely not like solving the problem, which is a problem.
It's a problem.
It is a problem.
So that's what I'm saying.
A lot of the progressivism that we've seen in the past 10 years has been performative
(25:12):
and it's been, oh, getting gay people rights, getting people trans rights, which is all good
in the part.
But give us all the other parts as well.
Give us economic, you know, access.
Give us populist, you know, agendas that, you know, help small and medium business people
(25:35):
start new companies.
All of our money is still going to corporations and a vast majority of both Kamala and Trump's
donators were large corporations.
Oh, yeah.
Let's empower small business again.
That's.
That's the foundation of our society.
(25:56):
And my mom and dad were like small business owners.
That's it.
I mean, truly, you're absolutely right.
And Kamala's platform, she did say she was going to give X amount of money and whatnot
to new people starting new businesses.
So I mean, it was at least an acknowledgement that, oh, wow, wouldn't that be great?
(26:20):
You know, programs like that.
That helps, you know, the everyday people.
Yeah.
And in something that, you know, you said progressive and I, you know, I did shout out AOC as an
example and Bernie Sanders or in what now, but I'm not, you know, I am for progress.
I'm for new ideas.
If you want to call them progressive, okay, you know, I'm for new ideas.
(26:43):
In fact, I actually, you know, you were talking about like the independence, like you're more
of a registered independent these days.
And I think you made a mention about a statistic that there was more independence that voted
in our last presidential election than ever in history before.
So from a, from a people that are registered as independent voted for independence in this
(27:07):
election, a lot of independence voted, you know, either Trump or Kamala.
Because I think it was either 16 or 2020 in which there was a lot of third party votes.
Was that, I think 2016, there was a lot of third party votes.
Yeah, there was, there was, there was.
That's what hurt Hillary.
(27:28):
That's why a lot of those votes went to the third party.
Right, right, right.
Exactly.
But for this, for this election, more registered independence.
Straight away, registered independent is the point here.
Which I'm, I'm seriously considering it.
I have to say, to be honest, I certainly am.
In fact, all of, I noticed, I know we're going to run through it and, you know, what
(27:52):
type of resources that we listen to, we want to share with, with the listeners at the end.
But I find myself listening to more right leaning, I guess never, Republican, never
Trumpers, whatever that slice is.
It's they're Republicans, but never Trumpers, so they'll be with the Democrats or independent.
(28:14):
So, but I noticed some, like some of my really consistent titles that I listened to are those.
So I'm identifying more with those folks, which I think is a, is a, is a combination,
you know, I look at them as a combination.
I, I overall, I'm just trying to take it to the big picture of what's going on here in
(28:35):
our society with the voting public and, and, you know, I really think the Democrats have
a really huge opportunity.
It's like, they were never going to break it up.
Let's just face it, we can go on and on with the same miserable stalemate politics for
years and it took something like, you know, the MAGA movement to break it down.
(29:00):
So okay, it's like, we got it.
So the Democrats really have an opportunity to bring us back to the center and take some
of, some of those ideas from the Trump side.
They, they're valid points.
They really truly are.
At least we should be free to like discuss it.
It should be a debate.
We should be empathetic to the feelings that people have that result in these policy positions.
(29:28):
You know, whether or not we agree that the policy positions are going to make the impact
that they suggest, that might not be true.
However, we should be empathetic to why people feel that way.
And we should come up with as many solutions for that problem as possible and explore which
(29:50):
one we think will actually resolve in the biggest impact.
I agree.
I agree.
I'm hopeful that and, and we, if we can help in that process, any small teeny tiny way,
way, I think that's part of the mission of this podcast, the political discussion is
to have those open and free.
We want everybody here and to share your opinions because that's what's going to solve the,
(30:14):
the problems of our lifetime is having, you know, anything's on the table.
That's so exciting.
Anything's on the table.
Wow.
You know, I mean, just listen to it.
It's energizing.
It's energizing.
Anything's on the table.
We can direct our future.
No, no.
And that's what I think Trump and Trump is.
(30:35):
I think that's the message, the subtle, it's like a feeling, you know, that you could do
anything.
Yeah.
I mean, if there's anything positive, and I think there are some things positive, but
if there's anything positive to come out is, it's the ability to think in a different
way and, you know, just kind of going at tariffs at a high level.
(30:57):
I don't think tariffs would ever be able to supplement the revenue that we earn from
income tax as, as Trump and his crew may suggest.
However, that idea is, is a fabulous idea.
If, if you, if people could not pay income tax and for all of our, you know, governmental
(31:19):
programs to be run by Social Security, yeah, by other governments, like, oh, that would
be fabulous or our taxes from via tariff because consumers are the ones paying it.
That's a fabulous idea.
However, you know, the likelihood, the likelihood of that actually being accomplished, looking
(31:40):
back at his actual accomplishments from his first term, what did he actually set out to
accomplish and what did he accomplish?
Not as much as I think he'd like to think.
Yeah, 100%.
All right.
So with that, I'm going to pause here, but we do have time for another topic.
(32:02):
If there's something on your side that you want to discuss.
So let's, let's go for it.
I know we covered quite a bit actually.
Yeah, I think we covered quite a bit at a high level.
If there's anything that you would like to dig into a little deeper, I'm happy to respond
to that.
Okay, okay.
I think this DEI thing, you know, it just, what does that mean?
(32:24):
You know, I mean, obviously diversity.
Equity and inclusion.
Equity and inclusion.
Thank you.
We know what that means, but what does it really mean?
You know, it's like, that's what we have to like, understand.
I feel like, you know, I, if you want to talk about DEI policy, yeah, let's talk about it.
It needs to be updated.
What, what, what's, what is the data say?
(32:45):
What is the actual true data say and where we are in advancing everybody to a level playing
field?
I mean, because that's what the, the, I'm a DEI, you know, thank God, you know, this
was decades ago when this was introduced.
I mean, I am, believe me, my career, I was, every day I was like the only woman at a roomful
(33:07):
of wall street men, you know, I mean, for a long decades.
Uh, to put it easily, but I had that opportunity.
I got a seat at the, at the table and, and I'm grateful for that.
And if that was a DEI, you know, then okay, you know, but I have a track record, a professional,
I was successful and, um, I'm proud of that.
(33:32):
I'm proud of it.
Okay.
I'm proud of it.
And just again, this is my experience, direct experience with DEI.
It's like what I did see a lot of for, for a long time is the good old boys, GOB.
Let's, if we're going to look at DEI, let's look at GOB, good old boys network.
(33:52):
Okay.
Do you know how much I've seen that and through my career of advancement of these guys that
are at the top senior management, believe me, believe me, if you want to go back to meritocracy,
let's look at that and how many years we had to put up with that.
Yeah.
Okay.
(34:13):
So, so I think there's a couple of assumptions that are being made in regards to DEI one,
that DEI means that we are choosing unqualified people.
Exactly.
The second one is that before DEI programs were created and 15, 20 years ago.
(34:37):
That's when it actually was.
Well, I think the assumption that unqualified people, I can't even tell you, I'm sorry.
Yeah.
This is my experience.
Yes.
No, I hear you, but that's what I'm saying.
There's an assumption that before that there was a meritocracy, which is, is not true.
That's why we got DEI because we're promoting all these people who are not qualified.
(35:00):
We need to look at women.
If they've got the experience, black people, whatever the diversity is, that's what drove
corporate America to do it because it's a financial, it's an economic.
You want the best and the brightest in these positions.
If anything, the pool of people that you're recruiting from is larger and so there should
(35:23):
be more competition.
It's possible that it has been abused in some cases, but I think writ large, it's probably
been a net benefit for people, for society.
It's come up with more ideas.
It's come up with more thoughts and perspectives on how we approach problems.
(35:45):
Exactly.
Well, that's the whole thing of the beauty about diversity and what's America special
is because we do get all of these dynamic talent source.
My understanding of affirmative action and DEI at large is that the biggest beneficiaries
of DEI thus far have actually been white women.
(36:08):
I have to agree with you.
I benefited by that and I'm grateful for that opportunity.
I think I proved myself worthy of that opportunity as well.
I truly believe that in my heart.
To think that there's this massive number of incompetent, diverse people that are running
(36:29):
the government or running corporate America is just ludicrous.
Listen to that.
Will you please listen to that?
It doesn't make sense.
It's ludicrous to think that.
Let's just bring it right back.
We had that plane crash.
This is the DC plane crash that went down.
(36:49):
Trump had that press conference and he blamed DEI.
He has no facts.
He says he has common sense that it was a DEI problem.
Just to give you the true statistics here from the FAA, 94% of all pilots flying are
(37:10):
white.
84% of mechanics and technicians are white.
83% are all the engineers.
78% are air traffic controllers.
That's the facts.
That's the truth.
(37:30):
My understanding of this issue, there was a critique of the FAA that they were promoting
the hiring of peoples with disabilities.
That is the DEI that he was talking about.
However, my understanding is this policy specifically actually goes back to 2013.
(37:57):
It spans Obama's administration.
It spans his first administration and it spans Biden's administration.
If this policy was something that he wanted to be critical of, it is something that existed
under his first administration.
Yeah, absolutely.
It was so traumatic and so bad.
(38:20):
Why wouldn't his administration did away with it or raise it as an issue back when he was
in control?
It wasn't when he was in the presidency.
No.
Because this is just, and again, we're taking time discussing this.
That's a great segue into.
So Freddie, in our close, we're going to give three of our really weekly resources that
(38:49):
we go to.
Give us three of your go-to resources that you consistently listen to, watch, yada, yada,
yada.
Yeah, one of my all-time favorites and it's probably been, I've probably been six months
into it.
I think she has been making podcasts for about three years now.
It's a podcast you can find called Unbiased by a great woman.
(39:16):
Her name is Jordan is my lawyer.
And it gives you kind of a legal perspective on the current events that are happening.
And she really helps, I think, really has helped me with critical thinking on the issues
that are happening today.
Yeah, really, really enjoy and recommend her.
(39:36):
And she really gives an unbiased perspective on things.
I think she's really proud of the fact that people cannot tell if she is a registered
Republican or a registered Democrat.
And so highly recommend her to look her up.
(39:58):
I would say the current daily show that I'm watching currently is called Breaking Points.
You can find that on YouTube.
They usually share five or six stories daily and they kind of dig into that current event.
That's crystal ball and.
Saga.
Yeah, yeah.
(40:18):
Definitely.
Definitely look into them.
They're millennials and will give you really well researched perspectives.
Crystal is more Democrat leaning.
Saga is more Republican leaning.
And then they have another pair who I think call themselves counterpoints and they do
(40:39):
it their show on Wednesday and they have a woman who's more Republican lean and a man
who's a little bit more Democrat.
So it's a nice switch up.
And then the final resource that I will share you with was actually kind of more of is not
a daily news, but it's actually a podcast that kind of deep dives into the history of
(41:03):
money in politics.
And that is called Master Plan by The Lever.
The Lever also does do current news as well.
But this is a kind of podcast series, I think 12 or 13 episodes where they go into history
of money in politics, starting with Nixon and kind of go up to current day and how money
(41:29):
in politics has evolved to be where it is today.
So for you listeners out there who want to take a little bit deeper dive on some of these
topics, great, great options there, Freddie.
And my go to options and in fact, I was just reviewing what do I listen to?
(41:50):
What do I read on a consistent basis?
And again, and I said this earlier is that I'm a lifelong blue Democrat, you know, core
and core growing up, but I'm really finding out.
I don't know if it's an independent, I don't think, but what came to this is that I'm listening
to my main sources are Republican, never Trumpers.
(42:15):
I identify with them.
I just do it.
Makes sense to me at this time in my life.
And I don't know, it's just a new, it's just a reality.
So I don't know if that makes me an independent or if I have no idea, but that's where I'm
at.
So here's some of my favorite sources.
I mean, I love the Atlantic.
(42:39):
You have to discover they're online and their podcasts are just absolutely amazing.
I started with a subscription, but then it's like they're online is just really, really
helpful.
And there's certain writers that I really love.
I love Tom Nichols.
I love his voice.
I love Ann Applebaum.
Oh my God, I adore her.
(43:01):
She does a lot of little mini podcasts as well, too.
Did a great one on authoritarianism that I loved.
I'm also liking the bulwark.
I love Charlie Sykes.
I've seen Charlie Sykes on CNN and MSNBC and I started looking into him.
Then he started developing podcasts, the bulwark.
(43:22):
And Tim Miller, I go to every week, I listen to him at least two or three times a day.
And again, he's a Republican.
I think he was on the Bush campaign.
And then on the bulwark, Sarah Longwell, she's another Republican.
Really, I mean, she really digs in.
She's really well known for her survey.
(43:44):
She really goes out and does a lot of surveys amongst the voters and tries to get that pulse
of what are the voters thinking out there.
So I really like her perspective and what she brings to the podcast.
And then I really, a deadline White House, Nicole Wallace, I just, again, she's a Bush
(44:05):
administration.
Really like her perspective and love her show and she's certainly introduced me to a lot
of different writers and news.
So yeah, so the Atlantic, the bulwark with Tim Miller, deadline White House, Nicole Wallace.
(44:25):
And lastly, I really, really love on with Kara Swisher, especially these days with how
the tech pros have taken over the White House.
And obviously she has decades of experience with these guys.
So love her perspective as well.
So with that listeners, we're going to wrap it up to, you know, an awesome, you know,
(44:46):
really deep dive on some specific topics.
It was good to let this out and get it out, just what's been going on in the overall political
landscape and catch up with Freddie.
Thanks so much.
And to next time, take care and we'll be back here soon.
Bye-bye.
Yep.
(45:07):
Bye.
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.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!