February 15, 2025 • 42 mins
The episode explores the complexities of local politics, focusing on a cannabis court case that intertwines electoral rights and community protests. The discussion emphasizes how civic engagement can drive political change while addressing the challenges and effectiveness of protests as a means to influence public discourse.
• Review of a cannabis court case in Colorado
• Impact of legal rulings on military voters
• Importance of protests in a democracy
• Examination of American military strategy in foreign lands
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everyone and welcome to Left Face.
This is the Pikes PeaksRegion's veteran podcast Cover,
any topic that kind of relatesback to veterans and just our
experiences.
My name is Adam Gillard.
I'm your co-host here with DickWilkinson.
Morning, dick.
Good morning, adam man.
We called it a few months ago,right when Trump got elected,
(00:21):
that there was going to be noshortage of things to talk about
, and it seems like every day,you know, we see, you know more
of his appointments goingthrough, more of the kind of the
chaos that Musk is raining onus, and we all kind of know that
story fairly well at this point.
What's going on?
So we're going to try and takea little different approach
today and kind of maybe go somedifferent directions and just
(00:44):
talking about those twoknuckleheads Sounds good.
First off, update on the courtcase.
I just read a letter from thelawyer saying that it's pretty
much in the Supreme Court'shands right now, the Colorado
Supreme Court's hands.
The city is trying to say thatthey don't have time to send out
ballots to the militaryoverseas folks because of all
(01:07):
this chaos that they've createdthemselves.
So right now we're just kind ofsitting and waiting for that to
pan out.
But the more that they keepfighting this one taxpayer money
is just getting wasted on it.
Other issues around the cityaren't being looked at um, and
it's like campaign season forfolks like dave donelson the
(01:30):
ballot is in.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I mean just the mechanics of the election.
Now, if we don't get ballotsprinted and issued in time, then
there's that's against thesecretary of state rules and the
constitution of the state rightso there's another, you know,
very pressing issue of folksoverseas or out absentee voters
that require this information tobe able to vote.
Like you're messing up your ownprocess that you're required to
(01:54):
execute.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
And the reason why the ballots can't get printed
right now is the judge thatissued the first ruling saying
that it was unconstitutional thefirst ruling saying that it was
unconstitutional.
She came back a few days laterand said it can still be printed
on the ballots.
With the plaintiff's verbiagelike we get to choose the words
for the ballot.
So on one hand she said it'sunconstitutional, on one hand
(02:15):
she says print it on the ballot.
I don't understand that logicor that reasoning, but it just
really means that the ColoradoSupreme Court needs to act
quicker.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
You know, I think when you told me about it
earlier, I agree at face value Ithought, wow, that's really
strange that the judge slippedthose two kind of opinions in
there together, because thewritten opinion is very clear
Unconstitutional plaintiff iscarried forward is very clear
unconstitutional plaintiff iscarried forward.
City is denied.
I mean, it was super clear,black and white.
(02:48):
Now the legal piece that, asyou're talking to me about it, I
can see where the judge wantedwas willing to maybe loop some
gray area back into theconversation.
Um, the city is up, just up inarms about.
This is not a repeal oflegalizing or not legalizing.
Like we're not making adetermination of should cannabis
(03:09):
be legal or not, and that's whythey say they can run it in
this April election is becausethat one.
They agree that amendment 64says November of even numbered
years is the only time you canask an electorate to ban
cannabis.
They agreed to that.
So now here's where the judgesays okay, you plaintiff, if you
(03:30):
come up with language that isnot essentially against
Amendment 64, and if thelanguage is not to ban cannabis
or make it illegal or somethingelse, then maybe there's a way
for this question to get on theballot or make it illegal or
something else, then maybethere's a way for this question
to get on the ballot.
Essentially, there's a way forthe plaintiff to describe the
question which doesn't make anysense.
(03:50):
The plaintiff doesn't want thequestion on the ballot at all,
but there's a way where youcould thread the needle and say
here's what we want to ask thevoters and this question does
not technically supportlegalization, illegalization or
a ban right that there could besome magical way to construct
that question and not be banningcannabis or flip it around, and
(04:15):
just you know it's not a repealvote.
You basically get to say do youstill want cannabis to be legal
?
You know like, but I mean,that's not the outcome that I
was there in court.
I was there and I saw thearguments and then I read the
court outcomes.
That was definitely not whatthe intention was on that day,
or from the printed courtoutcomes.
(04:36):
So that's, of course, a strangepath forward for the judge to
bring into the case after a veryclear ruling.
But if you were Adam, if youwere to take the opportunity to
define the language on thisballot initiative, what would
you want to see on there to makeit clear to the voters what's?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
going on.
So the smart folks in the room,they want to put kind of what
we had on the last ballot, whereit just kind of tells what
happens with question 300 andstuff like that.
The good things, the money goeshere and there and there.
Me personally, I like to be alittle more forward with folks.
Uh, and I'm going to stealsomething from uh, jesus man
superpowers off of reddit.
(05:13):
Uh, his choice of verbiagewould be should the city council
have veto power over you, thevoter?
Because they think you don'tunderstand what you vote for?
I love it, but like that is soto the point on these, things it
is and that would get aresounding no vote.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
I think right, Maybe not total, Maybe not.
Some people want Dave Donaldsonto vote for them.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
It's funny because I see more and more posts on
Reddit too, about people sayingthat's kind of Orwellian.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, that sign is weird.
I saw it the other day and Iwas like that's terrible.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I wish it was in bold and italicized.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Hey, you know what?
This person's not listening.
I promise they're not, but DaveDonaldson's campaign manager,
which may be Dave, your signsucks.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
You need to go back to campaign school.
It's accurate.
It's accurate for what he wantsto do.
Yeah, maybe Know your baseright?
You need to go back to campaignschool.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
It's accurate.
It's accurate for what he wantsto do.
Yeah, Maybe Know your baseright.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
The next thing I kind of want to talk about is some
of the local protests goingaround.
There was one on the 5thFebruary 5th Okay, that was
supposed to be like a nationalday of protest.
One thing that always like bugsme and pisses me off about any
Democrat movement is it's justnot well organized.
It just seems like there's noleadership at the top pushing
these things down.
It's like people fire offthings and then just kind of
(06:32):
forget it.
That's why I like Occupy WallStreet, occupy Wall.
Street, yeah, because they wouldgo talk to the hippies
occupying Wall Street and they'dbe like oh no, we're just here,
man.
There's no leader, there's noplan.
Well, yeah, that's why we'restill in the same fucking boat,
that's true, that's true.
Yeah, there's not.
But these protests I'm a bigfan of them because I like
(06:56):
diplomacy when it comes to justhaving conversations, and I
think these protests can spark alot of conversations for people
, even if you're not there, ifyou drive by and you see that,
and somebody's in your car andit sparks that conversation.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
It does.
It's hard to drive by a protestand not have an opinion about
it.
That's for sure One you knowsupport or against, it draws
your emotional response and doesthat.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
You know the one on the 5th.
I didn't get a chance to stopby there because I was just
shuttling kids into doctor'sappointments and vet
appointments all day.
But there was a good handful ofpeople out there.
But they're going to be doingit again on Monday President's
Day.
Okay, they're calling it Not myPresident's Day.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Oh, okay, all right.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
That's a good one.
Yeah, because everything's gotto be a hashtag.
Yeah, it's a pretty good one,but they're going to be rallying
up.
12 to 8 is what one flyer says,but I think organizations kind
of starts at 1.
There's a little bit moreorganization to this one, and so
they'll have some speakers downthere.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I was going to say you just said there's a flyer
that's like the most organized,Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
They're jumping up participation in things In this
area.
One, it's kind of dangerousjust being out in this area, so
it's really cool to see peoplecome out and actually speak
their minds and feel passionateabout something, and that's what
I like to see.
But there's a lot of negativityaround the efficacy of it.
Yeah, things like that.
(08:24):
What are?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
your thoughts on the role protests play in politics
today.
I've had a very evolving viewover time of this of protests
and the value or usefulness, orwhy do people do them, and sort
of the lens that I've lookedthrough.
The world has changed, so myopinion on protests has changed.
Um, I, I think as a as theyoungest you know, youngest
version of myself, as an adult Iwas, I couldn't, I did not
(08:55):
understand the idea at all and Iwas probably very much like you
know the people who would leavecomments on your reddit page
now of like, just go to work.
Uh, you know, hey, you dirtyhippie, you know how.
I know you don't have a jobbecause you just go to protests
all the time.
You know, like I would havesaid that.
You know, I was in the army andI was like this is my protest,
right, this is, this is I joinedthe army.
(09:16):
I'm going to go do somethingabout whatever it is Now.
I may, of course, I joined theArmy and I may end up doing
something about something that Itotally disagree with or don't
care about.
So that's different Protesting.
I don't find myself going downto protest on something that I
don't care about, but that isthe argument that a more
conservative listener or personwho's got a problem with
(09:38):
protests would make, is thatthere's the crunchy granola
person that just goes fromprotest to protest and they say
what are we protesting today?
And then they flip their banneraround and they're like no raw
milk.
And then that person's down atthe abortion clinic next week
and then at the Capitol the weekafter that.
They're basically a gun forhire on the protest scene.
(10:08):
You know, and I'll be honestwith you, that's not completely
unheard of that.
There is ways to encourage andentice people into protests or
even into just large events.
Then they get paid to be there,right, like it's weird.
You know, donald Trump has donethat even in some of his own
situations where it's like free.
You know, walmart gift cardsbecause they want people to show
up right.
And again, that's a level oforganization that we don't get
to see.
On the democratic side.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
One of Trump's kids went to Greenland and hired a
bunch of drunks and gave themmoney for like a photo op where
like.
Hey, Greenland loves Trump.
And they're like that's Billyon the corner.
Yeah, I know that guy.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Yeah, he's always out front of the liquor store.
Yeah exactly you go.
Yeah, that's a good one, um,but now I guess let me wrap that
up with my early days, I sawthrough my own lens and said I
could do and I talked about thisin this episode last week I
just saw myself as I can do alot more than stand on the
street, uh, and yell or wave asign.
So I'm gonna leave that forsomebody else and I'm gonna
(11:02):
basically see them asineffective, right, right.
So that was my early view on it.
Last week I kind of stated whatI feel like my more current view
on it is is that activism,especially political activism,
comes in all forms, all shapesand sizes, and I think there are
a lot of people who feel likethe only thing they can do is go
(11:23):
out and hold a sign and protest.
They don't, they don't.
They just don't see themselvesas having any other power within
culture to do that.
I can't.
Now where I sit and how I'minvolved with politics, now I
can't knock that as anythingthat's not as valuable as
something else.
Right, I think it for that, forthat person.
Just like you said, that personknows that if they stand out
(11:44):
there for four hours and 500cars drive by, 100 of those cars
are going to have aconversation with somebody that
day, either in the car, on thephone or at home.
When they get home they'regoing to say you never believed
what I saw down there.
That person, that's valuablemade some.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
That's valuable, right, and these conversations
need to happen because there's afew responses on reddit that
say, because, uh, the one postersays like, uh, it's a protest
against fascism, and they andpeople are thinking that the
left is fascism, like they justdon't have a good understanding
of, like the, just the genericpolitical spectrum, how, how,
like communism, socialism, leftcenter, yeah, authoritarian to
(12:27):
fascism.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And that's on like the right side yeah, like they
think that fascism is like theDemocrats yeah, and it kind of
confuses me, like how do we getthat narrative?
I?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
can give you a little bit of where that comes from.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Oh, and let's make sure we cancel the Department of
Education too.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Yeah, yeah.
Well the less we understand thedefinition of these words, the
easier it is to confuse us right, yeah, orwellian, yeah, it's
literally 1984.
Yeah.
So I think that where peoplethat are on the right-hand side
of things and say that the leftis fascist, here's some of the
(13:07):
evidence that they would cite umcancel culture.
Or don't say that you don'tsupport some initiative that's
important to Democrats, we willstep on you with a goose
stepping boot, just like anyright-handed fascist ever would.
Right, if you show up in ademocratic protest with a unique
idea, you're going to getfascist.
(13:28):
All right, we're going to teachyou real quick how to lick a
boot, because we've got anagenda here, just like the right
does.
And if you can't lick this boot, we don't want you around.
Right, and it's true right.
That's why you get chastised.
If you refuse to participate inthe pronoun argument over the
last couple of years and I'm notputting that in my email
(13:49):
address, yeah, ok, well thenyou're part of the problem.
You are lesser than you're, notreally a Democrat.
You don't like freedom.
You hate gay people, you hatewhatever.
Right, that's a fascist idea itis.
If you're not on board with theagenda, it doesn't matter that
it's a liberal agenda.
The agenda is the goal right.
Very good at grammar and I'mnot sure what to put, you know,
and we would laugh it off.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Like never once did anybody threaten me or try to
hurt me, and like they can poopme out.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Microaggression to you, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
But still, like I mean I volunteer with pride,
like I do a lot of stuff in thecommunity, like I don't do it,
fuck off off.
Like I can't help you, yeah,but I will do everything else.
Like, and I don't even know whyI don't do it in there.
It's literally just not fuckingimportant to me.
It's it's clear what I am andwho I am.
So like it's not important tome so I don't do it.
But at the same time, like I'mgood with everybody else doing
(15:00):
it, but I've never had somebodypush back on me in a negative
way or like in a hostile way,right.
So like equating that tofascism, like that's pretty far
off.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
You're right.
The person on the right thatwould be doing this equation
right and trying to make thisproof what they're really
telling you is I, person on thisin this part of the political
spectrum, know that I would bepersecuted for my speech.
Political spectrum know that Iwould be persecuted for my
speech and I see cancel cultureas a real thing and I attribute
(15:29):
that to the idea of you'reeither in lockstep or you're not
.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
And so that's how I mean, you know they get real
broad and generalized approach.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
You're just an asshole, like like, if you're
going to get criticized for yourspeech, you're probably an
asshole.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Well, that person and I an asshole.
Well, that person and I alittle bit of my libertarian
piece matches with this personof um, I don't care if I, you
know, like there, I I don't mindsaying something outrageous,
hearing someone tell me thatthey think I'm stupid, and then
we both move on in life.
Yeah, now, if that person saysto me I think you're stupid
(16:02):
and'm going to dedicate myentire life to ruining your life
.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
I see where you're going.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Done.
You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
There's so much doxing and toxicity.
With the internet, nothing's aquick conversation.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Free opinions are not welcome right, yeah, they're
not.
And so that is the definition.
If we just boil it down to theconcept of fascism here, free
opinions not being welcome.
Communism doesn't allow freeopinions on the far left side,
fascism on the far right side.
But the outcome is, if you'rean average citizen and you don't
feel like you actually have thefreedom of your ideas and
speech anymore, someone's doingsomething to you right?
(16:35):
You're becoming a victim ofeither communism or fascism.
That's going to be the state ofexistence for most people,
because they don't really wantto see that culture rise, either
bootlicking or cancel culture.
They don't want to see eitherone right.
They want to have the freedomto say or to even be flexible in
their thought.
Like me, I want to be able tobe 20 years old and say I think
protesters are stupid, and thenI want to be able to be 40 years
(16:58):
old and say I understand whythat's valuable to them.
We need that.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Yeah, I just want to be six years old and tell my
kids that I did something.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Yeah, but like I can't pick up a gun and go fight
anymore.
If that is the value to thoseprotesters, that for whatever
reason, that's been their methodof output for their whole life,
then I want them to say that totheir kids and grandkids too.
Right, and that's why I see thevalue in it now that I maybe
didn't see before.
But you know, the continuing ofthat spectrum is that what
we're really talking about isthe electorate or the population
trying to get their governmentor their authority figures to do
(17:36):
something.
Right, that they're trying tosway the outcome of how the big
apparatus of government works.
And that's what a protest,whether it's 20 people in a
local area that have an issue orif it's a nationwide you know,
20 cities have thousands ofpeople show up.
The goal there is that thoseprotesters are trying to move
the needle on the politicalspectrum somehow outside of a
(17:59):
voting cycle.
Basically, Right.
So, as much as we see, somepeople are going to protest over
every little issue.
Some people are going toreserve it to the very last
thing, when they feel likethere's just nothing else that
they can do.
I think we see that same.
That happens in other culturesaround the world too, and it's
(18:19):
interesting to see what's thelevel of threshold that gets the
population out the door in anyof the streets.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
The French have a very low threshold, very low
threshold.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
They do right, exactly Like everyone in half
the people in the country willriot if you change the
retirement age for like onespecific career field.
Right?
They're like, hey, we need thetrain conductors to stick around
for a little bit longer so wedon't have enough people in the
pipe right now.
We're going to shift this andjust move this retirement age by
(18:49):
a couple of years.
That's it, man.
The train stopped running.
The people walk on the tracks.
They're in the streets, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I think I've seen the fire department and police
department clash there.
Yeah, like the policedepartment had their shields and
the fire department just wentright at them.
Yeah, yeah, so yeah, those guyshave a low threshold.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Low threshold right and then flip that around to
other places in the world.
They understand that it'slife-threatening right to take
that stance of.
I'm going to go out on thestreet today.
That may be the last thing youdo, you know.
So if you're in China, you'reprobably not going to be quick
to line up and protest.
And even back during COVIDlockdowns and everything, where
they were just straight upmurdering people and their pets
(19:27):
and everything else, becausethey thought they were sick and
they probably weren't.
You know what happened?
Nothing, nothing right Likecommunism just stomped, stomped,
stomped those people in asubmission, right.
So to me, I see that I hold theelectorate and the population
of a country very accountablefor their government.
(19:49):
I don't generally buy the ideathat you know.
Something like North Korea isprobably the most extreme
example, where you have a fewmillion people of population not
a huge country, but 10 to oneversus like military personnel.
Granted, the military have gunsand food and the population
doesn't, but there's a level ofbuy-in and complicity in those
(20:16):
more extreme conditions, to thepoint that the brainwashing
worked and they believe thattheir president is the king of
the world.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Yeah, that's what I was going to bring up.
God floated him down out of theclouds.
They got three generations ofpeople thinking that, yeah,
deity worship Right.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
So that's again.
It's an extreme example, right,it would be almost impossible
to convince that population ofpeople that this person is not a
deity and that you could have abetter life if you just stop
doing what they told you to dofor like a month that the whole
house of cards falls apart,right, right, so that's the far
end.
To do for like a month that thewhole house of cards falls
apart, right, so that's the farend of that spectrum.
(20:50):
France can protest just at thedrop of a hat.
You got China or North Korea,where, literally, you will die
if you take the stand Well withthe North Koreans.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
A lot of them are dying just from starvation and
stuff like that and they'restill worshiping the sky and
that's the problem right.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Is I think.
How hard can you squeeze thisgroup?
Of people in a vice.
How hard, when does it finallypop?
Speaker 1 (21:12):
And so one of North Korea's tactics is that every
once in a while, they do theirsaber rattling and kind of like
remind their population thatAmerica is evil.
Yeah, sure it was.
That critical failure is aboutto happen and they started
lighting off their nukes.
What kind of response would youthink we would have towards a
nation of people who are justbrainwashed civilians?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
What should our response to a?
This category of North Koreawould know they were in an
asymmetric fight with us, rightLike they would assume that
China is going to back them upand that brings symmetry to the
fight.
But let's just take China outof it.
Let's say China just kind ofall of a sudden balks and says
like whoa, guys stepped outalive and like we're not really
ready for this.
yeah, yeah, you know.
(22:11):
And so now north korea is justout there alone and unafraid.
Um, I would expect the usmilitary that, especially that
we've been preparing for thatfight for 60 years right, I
would expect that the plan toroll North and occupy and I know
that those battle plans aremeant to be executed in less
(22:34):
than a couple months right Toget across the DMZ and occupy
the, the very small amount ofpopulation in the North.
I would want to see that.
I would want to see thatcarried out with great force,
right?
Speaker 1 (22:46):
That the government?
Yeah, just roll over the DMZ.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Yeah, that the government of North Korea and
again, that probably a lot ofthe shaky internal military
faction balanced against thatfamily monarchy power thing,
right, I would want to see thatjust fall apart, like completely
destroy the house of cards thatthe North Korean monarchy has
put together.
And of course, I see, I thinkwe could do that through a very,
(23:13):
very powerful ground campaign.
As far as North Korea goes,right, like, yeah, there'd be
air, obviously there's air andwater assets involved, but to
win that war it's a very fastground campaign.
That is, hold ground by mightand do it fast.
Just like basically whathappened in Iraq, right, then
the first desert storm where wewent from Kuwait into Iraq and
(23:33):
had rolled Baghdad in two weeks.
Right, do that to North Korea.
That would be my expectation.
Just just turn North Korea intoBaghdad and it's fricking one
10th the size of Iraq.
So I think we could do it evenfaster.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Right, well, it's been 70 years, I think, since
we've been waiting for that,watching the DMZ, yeah.
So when you talk about waitingfor their governments to fall,
do you just wait for a surrenderfrom them or wait for a Kim
Jong-un?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
I mean, in that specific instance, as america
does, I would pick a general andI'd say guess what?
You're now the king of northkorea.
You know, and, and you're gonnado exactly what we say.
Yeah, and if you don't, we'regonna kill you and pick your
brother to be the king of northkorea, and if you don't do that,
we'll just keep doing it.
Man, you know, you are herebecause we are here, right, and
(24:25):
that's how it's going to work,right, and that, again, not
always served us well.
I understand that form ofdiplomacy Now, and that's also
the colonial concept of any timea colonial empire country shows
up, the balance of power getsshifted, because what happens is
the ruling majority and thenear minority.
(24:46):
Whatever the closest nearminority is, the US government
or the colonial power backs thenear minority and tips the
asymmetric balance of power intotheir hands, and now you have a
subjugated majority, right?
I'm not saying that's a goodthing.
I think we should probablyrelook that part of the playbook
(25:07):
.
Pretty heavily yeah, but I am OKwith the idea that this group
of people civilian, military,political leadership as a whole
have proven that they can't notdo it themselves, can't not do
(25:31):
it themselves and we're notgoing to let you revert back
into some jacked up form ofself-government that you just
came out of or suffered from for50 years, or you had people
starving for the last 70 yearsbecause you created this little
enclave.
That's gone.
That's gone, and we're going tomaybe even pull a Trump and
rename the country, because weneed you to understand that what
was is no more right.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Well, you know, I think, with that one, you know,
rolling them into South Korea,or making one Korea, you know,
unifying the country.
You know that that would makesense.
Um, you know, long-term, uh,when we shift over to other
places like Israel and Palestine, or or the Gaza strip, uh, West
bank areas, things like that,or the Gaza Strip, West Bank
areas, things like that.
When we look at what hashappened after October 7th,
(26:16):
Israel kind of went in with apretty brute force.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
The least what would you call it?
Surgical, I think.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
The least surgical.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, there was no precision munitions in this one,
the fact that they say thereare, like you're trying to blow
up something that's underground,underneath civilians.
Yeah, that's an oxymoron.
If you shoot a bunker busterunderneath a building full of
civilians.
It's still blowing up all thosecivilians Right?
Speaker 1 (26:45):
yeah, it's still collateral damage, Known
collateral.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
It wasn't accidental, it was qualified in that
military decision.
We're going to blow this up andthis up, right.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
I just read this morning that Trump wants to kick
it to the Arab nations tofigure out what they want to do
with the Palestinians, becausehe's still hell-bent on just
moving them out and us takingthat territory Do you think?
I don't want to say it likethat, but what are your thoughts
on America saying that theywant to like the president of
(27:17):
America saying that he wants totake land in another sovereign
nation and kind of run it?
Speaker 2 (27:25):
I don't want to see America in the position of
colonizer again.
I don't want to see America inthe position of colonizer again.
I don't want to see that.
I understand that Donald Trumpdoes, but I don't.
And again that part of theworld.
I don't want to see Americatrying to establish some
permanent presence there throughmilitary occupation or some
colony territory Like thatdoesn't make any sense to me.
(27:49):
Uh, the sun can set on theAmerican empire, that's fine,
you know, like we don't have tobe the Brits and you know, cover
the East to the West, Um, butuh, my, I think my take on it,
you know, is I understand wherehe's coming from in his method
of we're not going to doanything based on previous ideas
(28:13):
of diplomacy or humanitarianefforts, or these are the rules,
Mr President, this is how it'salways been done, this is what
treaty we agreed to 60, 70 yearsago.
So this is what we're going todo.
Now he's like no, we're notright.
Like all those people are dead.
Everything has changed.
A thousand attacks in eitherdirection have happened since
then.
So whatever was considered inthat last round of negotiation
(28:34):
is kind of trash now.
Uh, and I don't I'm not sayingI agree with his method of what
he wants to choose as an outcome.
But I completely understandthat he's saying stop it with
your diplomacy norms, Stoptalking to me about those things
, because I will shoot anyone inthe face if I decide to and I'm
not going to answer to youabout it either I'm going to
(28:56):
tell you yes, we shot them inthe face.
And next question right, I'mnot bad at that, you know.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Like, if you're a military general.
Yes, that is how you think, butonce you step into the civilian
role of a presidency, you haveto take diplomacy and
humanitarianism into accountwith every decision, yeah, and
to not to lose those.
Then what are we fighting forto begin with?
Speaker 2 (29:24):
I agree that diplomacy first is, should
always be, the path of theAmerican.
You know, government is, is,we're not.
We don't ever want to just siton the shelf and then literally
drop out of the sky with bombs,having not been involved in that
conflict, having any kind ofweight in the conversation,
whatever right Like.
We don't want to do that.
We don't want to pick a proxywar and just back one side and
(29:45):
get after it with no realobvious intention of why it
would benefit us.
I don't want to see that.
But I do understand userdiplomacy up to a certain point.
We're giving people who haveproven that they don't want to
(30:06):
be treated fairly, that theydon't want to be handled as
grown, mature participants inthe deliberation process.
They're not interested in that.
So why are we talking to themas though they are?
Why are we giving someonecredit for maturity and
capability that they've told usthey don't have and don't want
to have?
Don't negotiate with people onyour terms of this heightened
(30:28):
moral sense.
Negotiate with them on theirterms of blood is the answer.
I get it, I understand that,and they have slipped out of the
idea and I say they Hamas andHezbollah.
Diplomacy is a joke.
They will diplomize their wayinto being able to reinforce.
(30:50):
They want to get the tanks outof Gaza so that they can
basically go pick all thebullets up out of the dust and
start shooting at Israel again.
That's their form of diplomacy.
How long will it take for us toresupply and go do another?
October 7th, that's it.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
The resupply is an interesting thing.
Iran obviously backs themheavily.
Saudi Arabia was close to adeal with Israel before the
October 7th thing.
They don't have goodrelationships with each other,
saudi Arabia and Iran and that'sone of those foundational
things their religious beliefs.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
That's how deep that goes.
It's been a benefit to Americanpolitics to have that imbalance
there.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
With, you know, talking about the resupplies and
you know the war's kind ofpulled back.
Now how do we keep the weaponsout of there?
It's already so restricted butthey're still getting weapons.
How?
Speaker 2 (31:44):
do you keep?
Well, donald Trump's answer iskeep the terrorists out of there
, and then there won't beweapons there.
Get rid of the people who havededicated their life to doing
nothing but destroying thepeople across the fence from
them.
Make them live somewhere elseand then gun and go kill
somebody.
The motivation to harm will bethere.
But I mean his mentality andagain we're going to go further
(32:14):
than what diplomacy allows andwe're going to say don't stop
the guns from getting in there,stop the terrorist people from
getting in there.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Guns don't kill people Wow.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Yeah, people, that's right.
Guns don't kill people, peoplekill people.
There could be a pile of gunsin the middle of Gaza City and
if there's no people there, itwill never shoot anyone.
All right, ever, ever.
That gun, those.
It could be 100 feet tall andit would never shoot a person.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
But you let five terrorists in there and they're
going to use those guns untilthey run out of bullets or you
know a crayola, eight crayons,and we're going to draw the map.
You're talking aboutgenerational families and I get
you know your point aboutthey're all kind of involved
with somebody that's involved Inthat one part of the world.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
Yes, I mean it's a microcosm, it's unique.
I'm not saying that this is theway that all populations with
terrorist issues or poverty,driven crime issues or whatever
you know, like drug gangs andstuff, is what I'm saying.
They're places that areteetering on that failed state
third world kind of status.
Not every place in the worldlike that is 100% bought in on a
(33:20):
terrorist organization or thedrug trade that even Afghanistan
a lot of people grew poppiesbut that didn't mean everybody
was a drug dealer, right,unfortunately, the nature of the
Gaza location, conflict,previous treaties that haven't
worked that is a microcosm ofbasically a part of the world
(33:41):
that is the only economy is toparticipate in terrorism.
Right, like that's it.
You're either selling food tothe terrorists or you're making
bombs.
Participate in terrorism, right, like that's it.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
You're either selling food to the terrorists or
you're making bombs for theterrorists.
Right, but they've also beenboxed in Sure, they can't go
anywhere.
So like if that's your onlymeans to survive.
You're going to survive.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Yeah, but once you get older, you know, once if
you're, you know male or femaledoesn't matter.
Once you're a person and yourealize, wait a minute, we live
in a war zone and not everywhereelse in the world is like where
we live, then you have adecision to make, right, am I
(34:25):
going to do?
Am I going to be part of thewar machine or not?
Right, and it's differentbecause in America we have an
all volunteer force and even youknow, if we were to try to move
into a position where we weregoing to do a draft, we could
not come anywhere near the levelof population density and
penetration that, like Hamas hasin Gaza and in that Palestinian
population.
We wouldn't even get 50% of themales in the United States into
(34:50):
the military.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
It just wouldn't happen.
No, their density really feedsthat.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Yeah, and so that's what I'm saying is like they
also are desperate right In thatif you're missing a limb, if
you can shoot with the otherhand, we need you right.
And so there's a difference.
It would be almost impossibleto turn America into a full war
machine like what we might thinkof as World War II, where
almost everything was pulling alever to get metal, food,
(35:16):
munitions, humans out to the wareffort.
It would be America couldn'treach that level of diversity,
military density, like we didback in World War II.
We couldn't do that right now,whereas you've got the
population of the Palestiniansin Gaza and they are basically
they've been drafting everysingle person that can fight in
(35:37):
the fight.
They're just like World War IIAmerica, and they've been that
way for the last 10, 15 years orlonger.
Right when it's like hey, bombs, beans and bullets, get in here
, we can do it.
Rosie the Riveter whatever youknow, rahina the Riveter, she's
in there helping make the bombsright, because the only way to
get out of the box is to killthe Jews right, like to them.
(36:00):
That's the only way we survivethis oppression is to win the
war against Israel.
That's it.
There's only one way to surviveis to win the war with Israel,
and we need everyone else in theworld to come and help us,
because that's the end.
That's it.
There's nothing else we can doexcept fight Israel.
There's.
I don't know of any other placein the world where the entire
population of civilians andmilitary and terrorists and
(36:22):
paramilitary and everything elsein between has one driving goal
, and it's to kill your neighbor.
Yeah, I don't know of anotherplace in the world that's like
that right now.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Yeah, it's insane.
Uh, my, I was in Israel for alittle bit and you know, being
able to sit down and talk tosome Palestinians.
Uh, it was a time when, like,uh, there were still obviously
tensions going on, but but itwasn't crazy.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Sure Relative stability Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
A few years prior there was some missiles getting
launched, but he was just likethat.
He said, yeah, I would killthem all.
I was in Jerusalem, but he'slike that was my grandpa's land
that they're living on.
He's like they stole that fromme.
And so I hear that and I'm like, well, that makes sense,
(37:11):
because that's probably how Iwould react too if somebody
stole my land.
Like, yeah, like blood willflow, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But you know, when we'retalking generationally and you
know now, with israel has aright to defend themselves, and
then you have you throw thingslike october 7th keep happening
there.
Yeah, like I don't understandhow.
(37:31):
I don't understand how to goforward.
Right, you know what I mean.
And like, are we at that pointwhere you just say F it and
steamroll them?
Speaker 2 (37:41):
The um, everyone will get into the chicken squabbling
over, getting into, as I liketo do on the show, getting in
our time machine and saying whenwas the last?
Where do you drop the marker inhistory of who has the right to
this land, who has the biblicalor God-given right or cultural
right or whatever, who's had themost time on the field?
Basically like, if I've got allthe minutes on the clock, I've
(38:04):
been on the field, then it's myland.
You know, like that argument'sbeen there and we can go back to
the most recent version of thatafter World War II.
And here's the thing.
My argument sounds like I'multra pro-Israel and I'm like a
war dog, right, but I'm not,because I've spent and I'm still
in this position where I cannotwrap my brain around how the
(38:27):
Zionist movement after World WarII convinced not really the
world but the winners, theallies, that Zionism needed to
be birthed, branded anddelivered by other countries.
Right, like that again,unprecedented action, right that
, something that was not inexistence.
There was no state of Jewishpopulation at that time.
(38:51):
Jewish people lived there, butnot under a government, right,
not since 70 AD.
Yeah, in the Roman sect.
So the yeah, so went to a place,drew some lines on the ground
and said this is a new country,this is happening.
And it wasn't in the region ofthe world where the fighting was
(39:13):
happening.
Right, like even more bizarre,to abstract that out.
It wasn't like we were like,hey, poland, we're going to take
a big part of this and turn itinto the Jewish enclave because
bad things happened here.
That would have maybe I don'twant to say made sense, but it
would have made a little moresense, but it would have made a
little more sense, or Germanyright, we're going to make a
population here between Polandand Germany, and this is going
to be the safe place andEurope's going to protect it.
And this is going to be howwe're going to do it Not park
(39:35):
these people in another part ofthe world where we can't protect
them and then just not abandonthem, but let it simmer, let it
be ugly and messed up forever.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
That's their same plan right now with the
Palestinians?
It is, I know, I agree.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
And so for years I've been like look, I do not
understand how the modern daycountry of Israel exists.
It just seems crazy to me andyou're absolutely right that
we're doing basically the exactsame thing in the opposite
direction, or just I don't know,as you said, finishing the deal
or whatever.
I don't see it that way, yeah,but it's like oh oh well, the
(40:12):
two state solution thingwouldn't work, and we're still
kind of.
The last thing we did was makeIsrael, so we don't really want
to back out of that yet.
Right, we want to save face andpretend like that was a good
idea?
Right, and we're going to keepdoing that for a couple hundred
(40:43):
more years.
Right, and for now, the bestidea is let's go one state and
go one big Israeli state, right,and you know, I disagree with
the idea and I think it's asmuch as I love Jimmy, stupid.
It's a western fantasy that noone there actually wants, where
it's just like us trying todeliver democracy to afghanistan
.
They didn't want that shit.
Yeah, they don't care aboutvoting for anything that they
don't want to vote, right, samething.
There's no two-state solutionis a western wet dream that has
no reality in the levant period,right.
(41:06):
Well, it would never happen.
It's impossible.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
The Levant period Right Well, I never happened.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
It's impossible.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Yeah, then you just condemn yourself to a this cycle
of killing your neighbors justshooting each other and blowing
each other up bus bombs.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
And you know, october 8th the next time, you know
like it'll.
It'll keep happening.
So I don't.
I love, yeah, I love, yeah.
I love that Trump is.
I want him to shake the snowglobe so hard that the things
that are glued to the bottombreak off, but that everything
stays inside the snow globe, youknow, and then when you set it
(41:37):
down, it all falls back down andmaybe it's beautiful, maybe
it's so much better than theoriginal artist designed?
Probably not.
The house will be upside downand the trees will be broken and
the snowman will be dead.
That's probably what willhappen, but if it doesn't, we're
the snowman, you know thatright.
Yeah, I do.
But I'm just saying, likethat's what he's doing.
He's shaking the snow globe sohard that he wants the actual
(42:00):
things inside there that aremounted to break off and float
around.
Right, yeah, and I am clappingfor that, as long as he doesn't
drop the snow globe, I guess.
But I think I'm okay withshaking it real, real hard, you
know.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Well, yeah, that's one way to look at it An
80-year-old guy trying to jugglea snow globe, yeah yeah, we're
kind of screwed.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
With KFC grease on his hands.
We're screwed man.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Yeah, we're kind of screwed With KFC grease on his
hands.
We're screwed man.
Yeah, we'll end it on that.
Thanks everybody for joining usagain.
My name's Adam Gillard.
With me is Dick Wilkinson.
This was Left Face.
Thanks for joining us.
Hello everyone and welcome to Left Face.
This is the Pikes PeaksRegion's veteran podcast Cover,
any topic that kind of relatesback to veterans and just our
experiences.
My name is Adam Gillard.
I'm your co-host here with DickWilkinson.
Morning, dick.
Good morning, adam man.
We called it a few months ago,right when Trump got elected,
(00:21):
that there was going to be noshortage of things to talk about
, and it seems like every day,you know, we see, you know more
of his appointments goingthrough, more of the kind of the
chaos that Musk is raining onus, and we all kind of know that
story fairly well at this point.
What's going on?
So we're going to try and takea little different approach
today and kind of maybe go somedifferent directions and just
(00:44):
talking about those twoknuckleheads Sounds good.
First off, update on the courtcase.
I just read a letter from thelawyer saying that it's pretty
much in the Supreme Court'shands right now, the Colorado
Supreme Court's hands.
The city is trying to say thatthey don't have time to send out
ballots to the militaryoverseas folks because of all
(01:07):
this chaos that they've createdthemselves.
So right now we're just kind ofsitting and waiting for that to
pan out.
But the more that they keepfighting this one taxpayer money
is just getting wasted on it.
Other issues around the cityaren't being looked at um, and
it's like campaign season forfolks like dave donelson the
(01:30):
ballot is in.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
I mean just the mechanics of the election.
Now, if we don't get ballotsprinted and issued in time, then
there's that's against thesecretary of state rules and the
constitution of the state rightso there's another, you know,
very pressing issue of folksoverseas or out absentee voters
that require this information tobe able to vote.
Like you're messing up your ownprocess that you're required to
(01:54):
execute.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
And the reason why the ballots can't get printed
right now is the judge thatissued the first ruling saying
that it was unconstitutional thefirst ruling saying that it was
unconstitutional.
She came back a few days laterand said it can still be printed
on the ballots.
With the plaintiff's verbiagelike we get to choose the words
for the ballot.
So on one hand she said it'sunconstitutional, on one hand
(02:15):
she says print it on the ballot.
I don't understand that logicor that reasoning, but it just
really means that the ColoradoSupreme Court needs to act
quicker.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
You know, I think when you told me about it
earlier, I agree at face value Ithought, wow, that's really
strange that the judge slippedthose two kind of opinions in
there together, because thewritten opinion is very clear
Unconstitutional plaintiff iscarried forward is very clear
unconstitutional plaintiff iscarried forward.
City is denied.
I mean, it was super clear,black and white.
(02:48):
Now the legal piece that, asyou're talking to me about it, I
can see where the judge wantedwas willing to maybe loop some
gray area back into theconversation.
Um, the city is up, just up inarms about.
This is not a repeal oflegalizing or not legalizing.
Like we're not making adetermination of should cannabis
(03:09):
be legal or not, and that's whythey say they can run it in
this April election is becausethat one.
They agree that amendment 64says November of even numbered
years is the only time you canask an electorate to ban
cannabis.
They agreed to that.
So now here's where the judgesays okay, you plaintiff, if you
(03:30):
come up with language that isnot essentially against
Amendment 64, and if thelanguage is not to ban cannabis
or make it illegal or somethingelse, then maybe there's a way
for this question to get on theballot or make it illegal or
something else, then maybethere's a way for this question
to get on the ballot.
Essentially, there's a way forthe plaintiff to describe the
question which doesn't make anysense.
(03:50):
The plaintiff doesn't want thequestion on the ballot at all,
but there's a way where youcould thread the needle and say
here's what we want to ask thevoters and this question does
not technically supportlegalization, illegalization or
a ban right that there could besome magical way to construct
that question and not be banningcannabis or flip it around, and
(04:15):
just you know it's not a repealvote.
You basically get to say do youstill want cannabis to be legal
?
You know like, but I mean,that's not the outcome that I
was there in court.
I was there and I saw thearguments and then I read the
court outcomes.
That was definitely not whatthe intention was on that day,
or from the printed courtoutcomes.
(04:36):
So that's, of course, a strangepath forward for the judge to
bring into the case after a veryclear ruling.
But if you were Adam, if youwere to take the opportunity to
define the language on thisballot initiative, what would
you want to see on there to makeit clear to the voters what's?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
going on.
So the smart folks in the room,they want to put kind of what
we had on the last ballot, whereit just kind of tells what
happens with question 300 andstuff like that.
The good things, the money goeshere and there and there.
Me personally, I like to be alittle more forward with folks.
Uh, and I'm going to stealsomething from uh, jesus man
superpowers off of reddit.
(05:13):
Uh, his choice of verbiagewould be should the city council
have veto power over you, thevoter?
Because they think you don'tunderstand what you vote for?
I love it, but like that is soto the point on these, things it
is and that would get aresounding no vote.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
I think right, Maybe not total, Maybe not.
Some people want Dave Donaldsonto vote for them.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
It's funny because I see more and more posts on
Reddit too, about people sayingthat's kind of Orwellian.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, that sign is weird.
I saw it the other day and Iwas like that's terrible.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I wish it was in bold and italicized.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Hey, you know what?
This person's not listening.
I promise they're not, but DaveDonaldson's campaign manager,
which may be Dave, your signsucks.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
You need to go back to campaign school.
It's accurate.
It's accurate for what he wantsto do.
Yeah, maybe Know your baseright?
You need to go back to campaignschool.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
It's accurate.
It's accurate for what he wantsto do.
Yeah, Maybe Know your baseright.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
The next thing I kind of want to talk about is some
of the local protests goingaround.
There was one on the 5thFebruary 5th Okay, that was
supposed to be like a nationalday of protest.
One thing that always like bugsme and pisses me off about any
Democrat movement is it's justnot well organized.
It just seems like there's noleadership at the top pushing
these things down.
It's like people fire offthings and then just kind of
(06:32):
forget it.
That's why I like Occupy WallStreet, occupy Wall.
Street, yeah, because they wouldgo talk to the hippies
occupying Wall Street and they'dbe like oh no, we're just here,
man.
There's no leader, there's noplan.
Well, yeah, that's why we'restill in the same fucking boat,
that's true, that's true.
Yeah, there's not.
But these protests I'm a bigfan of them because I like
(06:56):
diplomacy when it comes to justhaving conversations, and I
think these protests can spark alot of conversations for people
, even if you're not there, ifyou drive by and you see that,
and somebody's in your car andit sparks that conversation.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
It does.
It's hard to drive by a protestand not have an opinion about
it.
That's for sure One you knowsupport or against, it draws
your emotional response and doesthat.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
You know the one on the 5th.
I didn't get a chance to stopby there because I was just
shuttling kids into doctor'sappointments and vet
appointments all day.
But there was a good handful ofpeople out there.
But they're going to be doingit again on Monday President's
Day.
Okay, they're calling it Not myPresident's Day.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Oh, okay, all right.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
That's a good one.
Yeah, because everything's gotto be a hashtag.
Yeah, it's a pretty good one,but they're going to be rallying
up.
12 to 8 is what one flyer says,but I think organizations kind
of starts at 1.
There's a little bit moreorganization to this one, and so
they'll have some speakers downthere.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I was going to say you just said there's a flyer
that's like the most organized,Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
They're jumping up participation in things In this
area.
One, it's kind of dangerousjust being out in this area, so
it's really cool to see peoplecome out and actually speak
their minds and feel passionateabout something, and that's what
I like to see.
But there's a lot of negativityaround the efficacy of it.
Yeah, things like that.
(08:24):
What are?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
your thoughts on the role protests play in politics
today.
I've had a very evolving viewover time of this of protests
and the value or usefulness, orwhy do people do them, and sort
of the lens that I've lookedthrough.
The world has changed, so myopinion on protests has changed.
Um, I, I think as a as theyoungest you know, youngest
version of myself, as an adult Iwas, I couldn't, I did not
(08:55):
understand the idea at all and Iwas probably very much like you
know the people who would leavecomments on your reddit page
now of like, just go to work.
Uh, you know, hey, you dirtyhippie, you know how.
I know you don't have a jobbecause you just go to protests
all the time.
You know, like I would havesaid that.
You know, I was in the army andI was like this is my protest,
right, this is, this is I joinedthe army.
(09:16):
I'm going to go do somethingabout whatever it is Now.
I may, of course, I joined theArmy and I may end up doing
something about something that Itotally disagree with or don't
care about.
So that's different Protesting.
I don't find myself going downto protest on something that I
don't care about, but that isthe argument that a more
conservative listener or personwho's got a problem with
(09:38):
protests would make, is thatthere's the crunchy granola
person that just goes fromprotest to protest and they say
what are we protesting today?
And then they flip their banneraround and they're like no raw
milk.
And then that person's down atthe abortion clinic next week
and then at the Capitol the weekafter that.
They're basically a gun forhire on the protest scene.
(10:08):
You know, and I'll be honestwith you, that's not completely
unheard of that.
There is ways to encourage andentice people into protests or
even into just large events.
Then they get paid to be there,right, like it's weird.
You know, donald Trump has donethat even in some of his own
situations where it's like free.
You know, walmart gift cardsbecause they want people to show
up right.
And again, that's a level oforganization that we don't get
to see.
On the democratic side.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
One of Trump's kids went to Greenland and hired a
bunch of drunks and gave themmoney for like a photo op where
like.
Hey, Greenland loves Trump.
And they're like that's Billyon the corner.
Yeah, I know that guy.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Yeah, he's always out front of the liquor store.
Yeah exactly you go.
Yeah, that's a good one, um,but now I guess let me wrap that
up with my early days, I sawthrough my own lens and said I
could do and I talked about thisin this episode last week I
just saw myself as I can do alot more than stand on the
street, uh, and yell or wave asign.
So I'm gonna leave that forsomebody else and I'm gonna
(11:02):
basically see them asineffective, right, right.
So that was my early view on it.
Last week I kind of stated whatI feel like my more current view
on it is is that activism,especially political activism,
comes in all forms, all shapesand sizes, and I think there are
a lot of people who feel likethe only thing they can do is go
(11:23):
out and hold a sign and protest.
They don't, they don't.
They just don't see themselvesas having any other power within
culture to do that.
I can't.
Now where I sit and how I'minvolved with politics, now I
can't knock that as anythingthat's not as valuable as
something else.
Right, I think it for that, forthat person.
Just like you said, that personknows that if they stand out
(11:44):
there for four hours and 500cars drive by, 100 of those cars
are going to have aconversation with somebody that
day, either in the car, on thephone or at home.
When they get home they'regoing to say you never believed
what I saw down there.
That person, that's valuablemade some.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
That's valuable, right, and these conversations
need to happen because there's afew responses on reddit that
say, because, uh, the one postersays like, uh, it's a protest
against fascism, and they andpeople are thinking that the
left is fascism, like they justdon't have a good understanding
of, like the, just the genericpolitical spectrum, how, how,
like communism, socialism, leftcenter, yeah, authoritarian to
(12:27):
fascism.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And that's on like the right side yeah, like they
think that fascism is like theDemocrats yeah, and it kind of
confuses me, like how do we getthat narrative?
I?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
can give you a little bit of where that comes from.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Oh, and let's make sure we cancel the Department of
Education too.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Yeah, yeah.
Well the less we understand thedefinition of these words, the
easier it is to confuse us right, yeah, orwellian, yeah, it's
literally 1984.
Yeah.
So I think that where peoplethat are on the right-hand side
of things and say that the leftis fascist, here's some of the
(13:07):
evidence that they would cite umcancel culture.
Or don't say that you don'tsupport some initiative that's
important to Democrats, we willstep on you with a goose
stepping boot, just like anyright-handed fascist ever would.
Right, if you show up in ademocratic protest with a unique
idea, you're going to getfascist.
(13:28):
All right, we're going to teachyou real quick how to lick a
boot, because we've got anagenda here, just like the right
does.
And if you can't lick this boot, we don't want you around.
Right, and it's true right.
That's why you get chastised.
If you refuse to participate inthe pronoun argument over the
last couple of years and I'm notputting that in my email
(13:49):
address, yeah, ok, well thenyou're part of the problem.
You are lesser than you're, notreally a Democrat.
You don't like freedom.
You hate gay people, you hatewhatever.
Right, that's a fascist idea itis.
If you're not on board with theagenda, it doesn't matter that
it's a liberal agenda.
The agenda is the goal right.
Very good at grammar and I'mnot sure what to put, you know,
and we would laugh it off.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Like never once did anybody threaten me or try to
hurt me, and like they can poopme out.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Microaggression to you, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
But still, like I mean I volunteer with pride,
like I do a lot of stuff in thecommunity, like I don't do it,
fuck off off.
Like I can't help you, yeah,but I will do everything else.
Like, and I don't even know whyI don't do it in there.
It's literally just not fuckingimportant to me.
It's it's clear what I am andwho I am.
So like it's not important tome so I don't do it.
But at the same time, like I'mgood with everybody else doing
(15:00):
it, but I've never had somebodypush back on me in a negative
way or like in a hostile way,right.
So like equating that tofascism, like that's pretty far
off.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
You're right.
The person on the right thatwould be doing this equation
right and trying to make thisproof what they're really
telling you is I, person on thisin this part of the political
spectrum, know that I would bepersecuted for my speech.
Political spectrum know that Iwould be persecuted for my
speech and I see cancel cultureas a real thing and I attribute
(15:29):
that to the idea of you'reeither in lockstep or you're not
.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
And so that's how I mean, you know they get real
broad and generalized approach.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
You're just an asshole, like like, if you're
going to get criticized for yourspeech, you're probably an
asshole.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Well, that person and I an asshole.
Well, that person and I alittle bit of my libertarian
piece matches with this personof um, I don't care if I, you
know, like there, I I don't mindsaying something outrageous,
hearing someone tell me thatthey think I'm stupid, and then
we both move on in life.
Yeah, now, if that person saysto me I think you're stupid
(16:02):
and'm going to dedicate myentire life to ruining your life
.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
I see where you're going.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Done.
You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
There's so much doxing and toxicity.
With the internet, nothing's aquick conversation.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Free opinions are not welcome right, yeah, they're
not.
And so that is the definition.
If we just boil it down to theconcept of fascism here, free
opinions not being welcome.
Communism doesn't allow freeopinions on the far left side,
fascism on the far right side.
But the outcome is, if you'rean average citizen and you don't
feel like you actually have thefreedom of your ideas and
speech anymore, someone's doingsomething to you right?
(16:35):
You're becoming a victim ofeither communism or fascism.
That's going to be the state ofexistence for most people,
because they don't really wantto see that culture rise, either
bootlicking or cancel culture.
They don't want to see eitherone right.
They want to have the freedomto say or to even be flexible in
their thought.
Like me, I want to be able tobe 20 years old and say I think
protesters are stupid, and thenI want to be able to be 40 years
(16:58):
old and say I understand whythat's valuable to them.
We need that.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Yeah, I just want to be six years old and tell my
kids that I did something.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Yeah, but like I can't pick up a gun and go fight
anymore.
If that is the value to thoseprotesters, that for whatever
reason, that's been their methodof output for their whole life,
then I want them to say that totheir kids and grandkids too.
Right, and that's why I see thevalue in it now that I maybe
didn't see before.
But you know, the continuing ofthat spectrum is that what
we're really talking about isthe electorate or the population
trying to get their governmentor their authority figures to do
(17:36):
something.
Right, that they're trying tosway the outcome of how the big
apparatus of government works.
And that's what a protest,whether it's 20 people in a
local area that have an issue orif it's a nationwide you know,
20 cities have thousands ofpeople show up.
The goal there is that thoseprotesters are trying to move
the needle on the politicalspectrum somehow outside of a
(17:59):
voting cycle.
Basically, Right.
So, as much as we see, somepeople are going to protest over
every little issue.
Some people are going toreserve it to the very last
thing, when they feel likethere's just nothing else that
they can do.
I think we see that same.
That happens in other culturesaround the world too, and it's
(18:19):
interesting to see what's thelevel of threshold that gets the
population out the door in anyof the streets.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
The French have a very low threshold, very low
threshold.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
They do right, exactly Like everyone in half
the people in the country willriot if you change the
retirement age for like onespecific career field.
Right?
They're like, hey, we need thetrain conductors to stick around
for a little bit longer so wedon't have enough people in the
pipe right now.
We're going to shift this andjust move this retirement age by
(18:49):
a couple of years.
That's it, man.
The train stopped running.
The people walk on the tracks.
They're in the streets, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I think I've seen the fire department and police
department clash there.
Yeah, like the policedepartment had their shields and
the fire department just wentright at them.
Yeah, yeah, so yeah, those guyshave a low threshold.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Low threshold right and then flip that around to
other places in the world.
They understand that it'slife-threatening right to take
that stance of.
I'm going to go out on thestreet today.
That may be the last thing youdo, you know.
So if you're in China, you'reprobably not going to be quick
to line up and protest.
And even back during COVIDlockdowns and everything, where
they were just straight upmurdering people and their pets
(19:27):
and everything else, becausethey thought they were sick and
they probably weren't.
You know what happened?
Nothing, nothing right Likecommunism just stomped, stomped,
stomped those people in asubmission, right.
So to me, I see that I hold theelectorate and the population
of a country very accountablefor their government.
(19:49):
I don't generally buy the ideathat you know.
Something like North Korea isprobably the most extreme
example, where you have a fewmillion people of population not
a huge country, but 10 to oneversus like military personnel.
Granted, the military have gunsand food and the population
doesn't, but there's a level ofbuy-in and complicity in those
(20:16):
more extreme conditions, to thepoint that the brainwashing
worked and they believe thattheir president is the king of
the world.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Yeah, that's what I was going to bring up.
God floated him down out of theclouds.
They got three generations ofpeople thinking that, yeah,
deity worship Right.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
So that's again.
It's an extreme example, right,it would be almost impossible
to convince that population ofpeople that this person is not a
deity and that you could have abetter life if you just stop
doing what they told you to dofor like a month that the whole
house of cards falls apart,right, right, so that's the far
end.
To do for like a month that thewhole house of cards falls
apart, right, so that's the farend of that spectrum.
(20:50):
France can protest just at thedrop of a hat.
You got China or North Korea,where, literally, you will die
if you take the stand Well withthe North Koreans.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
A lot of them are dying just from starvation and
stuff like that and they'restill worshiping the sky and
that's the problem right.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Is I think.
How hard can you squeeze thisgroup?
Of people in a vice.
How hard, when does it finallypop?
Speaker 1 (21:12):
And so one of North Korea's tactics is that every
once in a while, they do theirsaber rattling and kind of like
remind their population thatAmerica is evil.
Yeah, sure it was.
That critical failure is aboutto happen and they started
lighting off their nukes.
What kind of response would youthink we would have towards a
nation of people who are justbrainwashed civilians?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
What should our response to a?
This category of North Koreawould know they were in an
asymmetric fight with us, rightLike they would assume that
China is going to back them upand that brings symmetry to the
fight.
But let's just take China outof it.
Let's say China just kind ofall of a sudden balks and says
like whoa, guys stepped outalive and like we're not really
ready for this.
yeah, yeah, you know.
(22:11):
And so now north korea is justout there alone and unafraid.
Um, I would expect the usmilitary that, especially that
we've been preparing for thatfight for 60 years right, I
would expect that the plan toroll North and occupy and I know
that those battle plans aremeant to be executed in less
(22:34):
than a couple months right Toget across the DMZ and occupy
the, the very small amount ofpopulation in the North.
I would want to see that.
I would want to see thatcarried out with great force,
right?
Speaker 1 (22:46):
That the government?
Yeah, just roll over the DMZ.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Yeah, that the government of North Korea and
again, that probably a lot ofthe shaky internal military
faction balanced against thatfamily monarchy power thing,
right, I would want to see thatjust fall apart, like completely
destroy the house of cards thatthe North Korean monarchy has
put together.
And of course, I see, I thinkwe could do that through a very,
(23:13):
very powerful ground campaign.
As far as North Korea goes,right, like, yeah, there'd be
air, obviously there's air andwater assets involved, but to
win that war it's a very fastground campaign.
That is, hold ground by mightand do it fast.
Just like basically whathappened in Iraq, right, then
the first desert storm where wewent from Kuwait into Iraq and
(23:33):
had rolled Baghdad in two weeks.
Right, do that to North Korea.
That would be my expectation.
Just just turn North Korea intoBaghdad and it's fricking one
10th the size of Iraq.
So I think we could do it evenfaster.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Right, well, it's been 70 years, I think, since
we've been waiting for that,watching the DMZ, yeah.
So when you talk about waitingfor their governments to fall,
do you just wait for a surrenderfrom them or wait for a Kim
Jong-un?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
I mean, in that specific instance, as america
does, I would pick a general andI'd say guess what?
You're now the king of northkorea.
You know, and, and you're gonnado exactly what we say.
Yeah, and if you don't, we'regonna kill you and pick your
brother to be the king of northkorea, and if you don't do that,
we'll just keep doing it.
Man, you know, you are herebecause we are here, right, and
(24:25):
that's how it's going to work,right, and that, again, not
always served us well.
I understand that form ofdiplomacy Now, and that's also
the colonial concept of any timea colonial empire country shows
up, the balance of power getsshifted, because what happens is
the ruling majority and thenear minority.
(24:46):
Whatever the closest nearminority is, the US government
or the colonial power backs thenear minority and tips the
asymmetric balance of power intotheir hands, and now you have a
subjugated majority, right?
I'm not saying that's a goodthing.
I think we should probablyrelook that part of the playbook
(25:07):
.
Pretty heavily yeah, but I am OKwith the idea that this group
of people civilian, military,political leadership as a whole
have proven that they can't notdo it themselves, can't not do
(25:31):
it themselves and we're notgoing to let you revert back
into some jacked up form ofself-government that you just
came out of or suffered from for50 years, or you had people
starving for the last 70 yearsbecause you created this little
enclave.
That's gone.
That's gone, and we're going tomaybe even pull a Trump and
rename the country, because weneed you to understand that what
was is no more right.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Well, you know, I think, with that one, you know,
rolling them into South Korea,or making one Korea, you know,
unifying the country.
You know that that would makesense.
Um, you know, long-term, uh,when we shift over to other
places like Israel and Palestine, or or the Gaza strip, uh, West
bank areas, things like that,or the Gaza Strip, West Bank
areas, things like that.
When we look at what hashappened after October 7th,
(26:16):
Israel kind of went in with apretty brute force.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
The least what would you call it?
Surgical, I think.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
The least surgical.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, there was no precision munitions in this one,
the fact that they say thereare, like you're trying to blow
up something that's underground,underneath civilians.
Yeah, that's an oxymoron.
If you shoot a bunker busterunderneath a building full of
civilians.
It's still blowing up all thosecivilians Right?
Speaker 1 (26:45):
yeah, it's still collateral damage, Known
collateral.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
It wasn't accidental, it was qualified in that
military decision.
We're going to blow this up andthis up, right.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
I just read this morning that Trump wants to kick
it to the Arab nations tofigure out what they want to do
with the Palestinians, becausehe's still hell-bent on just
moving them out and us takingthat territory Do you think?
I don't want to say it likethat, but what are your thoughts
on America saying that theywant to like the president of
(27:17):
America saying that he wants totake land in another sovereign
nation and kind of run it?
Speaker 2 (27:25):
I don't want to see America in the position of
colonizer again.
I don't want to see America inthe position of colonizer again.
I don't want to see that.
I understand that Donald Trumpdoes, but I don't.
And again that part of theworld.
I don't want to see Americatrying to establish some
permanent presence there throughmilitary occupation or some
colony territory Like thatdoesn't make any sense to me.
(27:49):
Uh, the sun can set on theAmerican empire, that's fine,
you know, like we don't have tobe the Brits and you know, cover
the East to the West, Um, butuh, my, I think my take on it,
you know, is I understand wherehe's coming from in his method
of we're not going to doanything based on previous ideas
(28:13):
of diplomacy or humanitarianefforts, or these are the rules,
Mr President, this is how it'salways been done, this is what
treaty we agreed to 60, 70 yearsago.
So this is what we're going todo.
Now he's like no, we're notright.
Like all those people are dead.
Everything has changed.
A thousand attacks in eitherdirection have happened since
then.
So whatever was considered inthat last round of negotiation
(28:34):
is kind of trash now.
Uh, and I don't I'm not sayingI agree with his method of what
he wants to choose as an outcome.
But I completely understandthat he's saying stop it with
your diplomacy norms, Stoptalking to me about those things
, because I will shoot anyone inthe face if I decide to and I'm
not going to answer to youabout it either I'm going to
(28:56):
tell you yes, we shot them inthe face.
And next question right, I'mnot bad at that, you know.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Like, if you're a military general.
Yes, that is how you think, butonce you step into the civilian
role of a presidency, you haveto take diplomacy and
humanitarianism into accountwith every decision, yeah, and
to not to lose those.
Then what are we fighting forto begin with?
Speaker 2 (29:24):
I agree that diplomacy first is, should
always be, the path of theAmerican.
You know, government is, is,we're not.
We don't ever want to just siton the shelf and then literally
drop out of the sky with bombs,having not been involved in that
conflict, having any kind ofweight in the conversation,
whatever right Like.
We don't want to do that.
We don't want to pick a proxywar and just back one side and
(29:45):
get after it with no realobvious intention of why it
would benefit us.
I don't want to see that.
But I do understand userdiplomacy up to a certain point.
We're giving people who haveproven that they don't want to
(30:06):
be treated fairly, that theydon't want to be handled as
grown, mature participants inthe deliberation process.
They're not interested in that.
So why are we talking to themas though they are?
Why are we giving someonecredit for maturity and
capability that they've told usthey don't have and don't want
to have?
Don't negotiate with people onyour terms of this heightened
(30:28):
moral sense.
Negotiate with them on theirterms of blood is the answer.
I get it, I understand that,and they have slipped out of the
idea and I say they Hamas andHezbollah.
Diplomacy is a joke.
They will diplomize their wayinto being able to reinforce.
(30:50):
They want to get the tanks outof Gaza so that they can
basically go pick all thebullets up out of the dust and
start shooting at Israel again.
That's their form of diplomacy.
How long will it take for us toresupply and go do another?
October 7th, that's it.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
The resupply is an interesting thing.
Iran obviously backs themheavily.
Saudi Arabia was close to adeal with Israel before the
October 7th thing.
They don't have goodrelationships with each other,
saudi Arabia and Iran and that'sone of those foundational
things their religious beliefs.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
That's how deep that goes.
It's been a benefit to Americanpolitics to have that imbalance
there.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
With, you know, talking about the resupplies and
you know the war's kind ofpulled back.
Now how do we keep the weaponsout of there?
It's already so restricted butthey're still getting weapons.
How?
Speaker 2 (31:44):
do you keep?
Well, donald Trump's answer iskeep the terrorists out of there
, and then there won't beweapons there.
Get rid of the people who havededicated their life to doing
nothing but destroying thepeople across the fence from
them.
Make them live somewhere elseand then gun and go kill
somebody.
The motivation to harm will bethere.
But I mean his mentality andagain we're going to go further
(32:14):
than what diplomacy allows andwe're going to say don't stop
the guns from getting in there,stop the terrorist people from
getting in there.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Guns don't kill people Wow.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Yeah, people, that's right.
Guns don't kill people, peoplekill people.
There could be a pile of gunsin the middle of Gaza City and
if there's no people there, itwill never shoot anyone.
All right, ever, ever.
That gun, those.
It could be 100 feet tall andit would never shoot a person.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
But you let five terrorists in there and they're
going to use those guns untilthey run out of bullets or you
know a crayola, eight crayons,and we're going to draw the map.
You're talking aboutgenerational families and I get
you know your point aboutthey're all kind of involved
with somebody that's involved Inthat one part of the world.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
Yes, I mean it's a microcosm, it's unique.
I'm not saying that this is theway that all populations with
terrorist issues or poverty,driven crime issues or whatever
you know, like drug gangs andstuff, is what I'm saying.
They're places that areteetering on that failed state
third world kind of status.
Not every place in the worldlike that is 100% bought in on a
(33:20):
terrorist organization or thedrug trade that even Afghanistan
a lot of people grew poppiesbut that didn't mean everybody
was a drug dealer, right,unfortunately, the nature of the
Gaza location, conflict,previous treaties that haven't
worked that is a microcosm ofbasically a part of the world
(33:41):
that is the only economy is toparticipate in terrorism.
Right, like that's it.
You're either selling food tothe terrorists or you're making
bombs.
Participate in terrorism, right, like that's it.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
You're either selling food to the terrorists or
you're making bombs for theterrorists.
Right, but they've also beenboxed in Sure, they can't go
anywhere.
So like if that's your onlymeans to survive.
You're going to survive.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Yeah, but once you get older, you know, once if
you're, you know male or femaledoesn't matter.
Once you're a person and yourealize, wait a minute, we live
in a war zone and not everywhereelse in the world is like where
we live, then you have adecision to make, right, am I
(34:25):
going to do?
Am I going to be part of thewar machine or not?
Right, and it's differentbecause in America we have an
all volunteer force and even youknow, if we were to try to move
into a position where we weregoing to do a draft, we could
not come anywhere near the levelof population density and
penetration that, like Hamas hasin Gaza and in that Palestinian
population.
We wouldn't even get 50% of themales in the United States into
(34:50):
the military.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
It just wouldn't happen.
No, their density really feedsthat.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Yeah, and so that's what I'm saying is like they
also are desperate right In thatif you're missing a limb, if
you can shoot with the otherhand, we need you right.
And so there's a difference.
It would be almost impossibleto turn America into a full war
machine like what we might thinkof as World War II, where
almost everything was pulling alever to get metal, food,
(35:16):
munitions, humans out to the wareffort.
It would be America couldn'treach that level of diversity,
military density, like we didback in World War II.
We couldn't do that right now,whereas you've got the
population of the Palestiniansin Gaza and they are basically
they've been drafting everysingle person that can fight in
(35:37):
the fight.
They're just like World War IIAmerica, and they've been that
way for the last 10, 15 years orlonger.
Right when it's like hey, bombs, beans and bullets, get in here
, we can do it.
Rosie the Riveter whatever youknow, rahina the Riveter, she's
in there helping make the bombsright, because the only way to
get out of the box is to killthe Jews right, like to them.
(36:00):
That's the only way we survivethis oppression is to win the
war against Israel.
That's it.
There's only one way to surviveis to win the war with Israel,
and we need everyone else in theworld to come and help us,
because that's the end.
That's it.
There's nothing else we can doexcept fight Israel.
There's.
I don't know of any other placein the world where the entire
population of civilians andmilitary and terrorists and
(36:22):
paramilitary and everything elsein between has one driving goal
, and it's to kill your neighbor.
Yeah, I don't know of anotherplace in the world that's like
that right now.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Yeah, it's insane.
Uh, my, I was in Israel for alittle bit and you know, being
able to sit down and talk tosome Palestinians.
Uh, it was a time when, like,uh, there were still obviously
tensions going on, but but itwasn't crazy.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Sure Relative stability Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
A few years prior there was some missiles getting
launched, but he was just likethat.
He said, yeah, I would killthem all.
I was in Jerusalem, but he'slike that was my grandpa's land
that they're living on.
He's like they stole that fromme.
And so I hear that and I'm like, well, that makes sense,
(37:11):
because that's probably how Iwould react too if somebody
stole my land.
Like, yeah, like blood willflow, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But you know, when we'retalking generationally and you
know now, with israel has aright to defend themselves, and
then you have you throw thingslike october 7th keep happening
there.
Yeah, like I don't understandhow.
(37:31):
I don't understand how to goforward.
Right, you know what I mean.
And like, are we at that pointwhere you just say F it and
steamroll them?
Speaker 2 (37:41):
The um, everyone will get into the chicken squabbling
over, getting into, as I liketo do on the show, getting in
our time machine and saying whenwas the last?
Where do you drop the marker inhistory of who has the right to
this land, who has the biblicalor God-given right or cultural
right or whatever, who's had themost time on the field?
Basically like, if I've got allthe minutes on the clock, I've
(38:04):
been on the field, then it's myland.
You know, like that argument'sbeen there and we can go back to
the most recent version of thatafter World War II.
And here's the thing.
My argument sounds like I'multra pro-Israel and I'm like a
war dog, right, but I'm not,because I've spent and I'm still
in this position where I cannotwrap my brain around how the
(38:27):
Zionist movement after World WarII convinced not really the
world but the winners, theallies, that Zionism needed to
be birthed, branded anddelivered by other countries.
Right, like that again,unprecedented action, right that
, something that was not inexistence.
There was no state of Jewishpopulation at that time.
(38:51):
Jewish people lived there, butnot under a government, right,
not since 70 AD.
Yeah, in the Roman sect.
So the yeah, so went to a place,drew some lines on the ground
and said this is a new country,this is happening.
And it wasn't in the region ofthe world where the fighting was
(39:13):
happening.
Right, like even more bizarre,to abstract that out.
It wasn't like we were like,hey, poland, we're going to take
a big part of this and turn itinto the Jewish enclave because
bad things happened here.
That would have maybe I don'twant to say made sense, but it
would have made a little moresense, but it would have made a
little more sense, or Germanyright, we're going to make a
population here between Polandand Germany, and this is going
to be the safe place andEurope's going to protect it.
And this is going to be howwe're going to do it Not park
(39:35):
these people in another part ofthe world where we can't protect
them and then just not abandonthem, but let it simmer, let it
be ugly and messed up forever.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
That's their same plan right now with the
Palestinians?
It is, I know, I agree.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
And so for years I've been like look, I do not
understand how the modern daycountry of Israel exists.
It just seems crazy to me andyou're absolutely right that
we're doing basically the exactsame thing in the opposite
direction, or just I don't know,as you said, finishing the deal
or whatever.
I don't see it that way, yeah,but it's like oh oh well, the
(40:12):
two state solution thingwouldn't work, and we're still
kind of.
The last thing we did was makeIsrael, so we don't really want
to back out of that yet.
Right, we want to save face andpretend like that was a good
idea?
Right, and we're going to keepdoing that for a couple hundred
(40:43):
more years.
Right, and for now, the bestidea is let's go one state and
go one big Israeli state, right,and you know, I disagree with
the idea and I think it's asmuch as I love Jimmy, stupid.
It's a western fantasy that noone there actually wants, where
it's just like us trying todeliver democracy to afghanistan
.
They didn't want that shit.
Yeah, they don't care aboutvoting for anything that they
don't want to vote, right, samething.
There's no two-state solutionis a western wet dream that has
no reality in the levant period,right.
(41:06):
Well, it would never happen.
It's impossible.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
The Levant period Right Well, I never happened.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
It's impossible.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Yeah, then you just condemn yourself to a this cycle
of killing your neighbors justshooting each other and blowing
each other up bus bombs.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
And you know, october 8th the next time, you know
like it'll.
It'll keep happening.
So I don't.
I love, yeah, I love, yeah.
I love that Trump is.
I want him to shake the snowglobe so hard that the things
that are glued to the bottombreak off, but that everything
stays inside the snow globe, youknow, and then when you set it
(41:37):
down, it all falls back down andmaybe it's beautiful, maybe
it's so much better than theoriginal artist designed?
Probably not.
The house will be upside downand the trees will be broken and
the snowman will be dead.
That's probably what willhappen, but if it doesn't, we're
the snowman, you know thatright.
Yeah, I do.
But I'm just saying, likethat's what he's doing.
He's shaking the snow globe sohard that he wants the actual
(42:00):
things inside there that aremounted to break off and float
around.
Right, yeah, and I am clappingfor that, as long as he doesn't
drop the snow globe, I guess.
But I think I'm okay withshaking it real, real hard, you
know.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Well, yeah, that's one way to look at it An
80-year-old guy trying to jugglea snow globe, yeah yeah, we're
kind of screwed.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
With KFC grease on his hands.
We're screwed man.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Yeah, we're kind of screwed With KFC grease on his
hands.
We're screwed man.
Yeah, we'll end it on that.
Thanks everybody for joining usagain.
My name's Adam Gillard.
With me is Dick Wilkinson.
This was Left Face.
Thanks for joining us.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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