March 9, 2025 • 34 mins
Dramatic VA staffing cuts announced by the Trump administration will eliminate 88,000 jobs, returning to 2019 staffing levels before PACT Act implementation and primarily targeting "non-mission critical" positions.
• 15% workforce reduction at VA represents largest cuts to any federal agency in modern history
• Approximately 30% of affected VA employees are veterans themselves
• Republicans claim $90 million savings from eliminating "duplicative contracts"
• No clear metrics established to measure impact on veteran care quality
• DEI positions specifically targeted for elimination regardless of actual duties
• France's President Macron announces shift in nuclear doctrine to protect Ukraine
• European nations reconsidering security arrangements as US commitment wavers
• Nuclear deterrence strategies evolving with potentially destabilizing consequences
• Debate over proper role of America in global security frameworks
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 (00:01):
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of
Left Face.
This is the Pikes Peak RegionVeterans Podcast, where we talk
about politics and local issuesthat affect the veterans here.
My name is Dick Wilkinson, I amyour host and my co-host is
Adam Gillard.
Hey, dick, how you doing buddy?
Hey, adam man, today it's allabout veterans.
(00:23):
Today we got really primetopics, for you know, this is
the sweet spot for us as far asbringing it home from the
national level all the way downto our neighborhood, right.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, the last 24 hours or so has definitely been
a lot of changes coming down thepipe.
You know straight from the VAsecretary's mouth.
You know he's been putting outvideos on this stuff.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And the president has made public comment about it,
so that means they understandthat the visibility is very high
.
I think that job cuts in the VAare something that are a
political lightning rod Right.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
And they just agreed to 88,000 cut cuts.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, I saw a number that said 70, and I saw a number
that said 80.
So yeah, sounds right.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah, so the video that I just watched from the
secretary of the VA.
They said our numbers right noware at like 470-something
thousand and it's going to go tobelow 400,000.
15% of the workforce is thenumber that he gave pretty
clearly, which is drastic as faras cuts.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Now we say drastic, that's within the modern history
, era of federal government,we'll say the last 50 years.
That any agency would take adouble-digit cut at all is
almost unheard of really.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, and this is kind of a double whammy on the
veteran community, because 30%of those folks are going to be
veterans.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
No, that's absolutely true.
So many of the employees of theVA are veterans, so, yeah, it's
a double whammy.
And we thought about trying tofind somebody who sort of had
voted for Trump not necessarilythat they had soured on their
vote, but that they were nowbeing impacted by their choice,
right?
Well, cnn has found a fewpeople that fall into that
(02:11):
category, which makes sense.
You know that that's the kindof story they want to highlight,
and I'm not surprised by whatI've seen the folks that they
have talked to have said well, Ididn't necessarily think it
would happen to me, but I'm notupset about it.
I still want Donald Trump to doexactly what he said he was
going to do, and if that meansme and most of my friends all
(02:32):
lose our jobs, I believe thegrass will be greener on the
other side of whatever he'strying to deliver, and so
they're not reluctant abouttheir vote.
Yet I don't know, wait until ayear from now, when they still
don't have a job and the economyis upside down.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
That's where I kind of question, like, where is the
line that's going to draw peopleout to actually stand up for
themselves?
Because, like you said, rightnow everybody's okay with it and
if you know, obviously peopleare asking for, you know,
democrat leadership and stufflike that.
They just lost an election.
Half the country doesn'tbelieve in them.
Right for sure, and half of thecountry is way better armed.
(03:08):
Yeah, so Democrats can't standup and lead some kind of
revolution here.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
No, it has to come from the Republicans.
There is really no recourse.
No, not from a politicalperspective.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
No, it has to come from Republicans that actually
stand up for what we know, forwhat we actually believe, used
to believe.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
as you know, a country the perhaps where the
rubber meets the road in thisargument, and I mean we don't
have this long to wait.
Unfortunately, that's theproblem.
We need to talk about theimpact of these losses of people
.
But Senate and Congress, right,like the actual legislators,
their job is at risk.
If you know, big, giant swathsof people are unemployed when it
(03:47):
comes time for election twoyears from now, the people who
are on those election cycles,they're at risk, right, and so
it doesn't matter how Republicanyou are or how well you can
walk the walk or talk the talkon the Republican side of the
House, the Republican side ofthe house, if, two years from
now, if a lot of yourconstituents don't have jobs,
you know that's.
That's where, if there was anyopportunity for Republicans to
(04:10):
internally put pressure backtowards the white house that's
it Right.
But so far time has proven ininstances too many instances
have proven that those lawmakerswill sell out their
constituents to support.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Donald Trump.
Jeff Crank just had his firsttelephone town hall yesterday,
which I guess has gone come downfrom, like the Trump
administration too, is to not doany more in persons because
people have been too many photoops, yeah.
Well, yeah, and just thingshave just bad photo ops.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
I mean yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And I mean even like the democratic County chair you
know was on chair was in thepaper yesterday saying how
cowardly it was for Crank to doa telephone call because it
wasn't like video or anythinglike that, it was just a
telephone call.
And like even the Republicanchair said that too though, yeah
, but like from what Iunderstand, like both sides were
like this is pretty cowardly.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Shady, yeah, like you're not even going to have a
video that we can even see youhere.
Yeah, shady, yeah, like you'renot even going to have a video
that we can't even see you here,yeah, Well, so yeah, let's get
to this 88,000 less people atthe VA and, to give the
listeners right, that gets usback to 2019 manning levels,
which the news that I've heardis that most of the hiring since
(05:21):
then has been to supportimplementation of the PACT Act,
to increase the amount of peoplewho can process claims and care
providers in certaindisciplines, because the PACT
Act covers, you know, a lot ofdifferent medical issues
automatically.
Now, so this, you know,rollback is a rollback to
numbers to support the VApre-PACT Act and from you know,
(05:42):
I'm not saying there's astrategy or some kind of logic
behind that, that's just thedots that the Republican side of
the House is connecting for usright now.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, and again, the PACT Act is something that
helped over a million people getbenefits in the first year, and
these are people that areexposed to toxic, noxious
chemicals that they have nocontrol over.
You know we're all at risk ofhaving, you know, cancers
earlier than everybody else.
You know, and these are thethings that he's taken away.
(06:14):
And this is another one ofthose just spiteful things that,
you know, President Biden putthrough and was proud of and
they're just taking it away justto be spiteful.
This is just straight upvindictive, hurting veterans.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
I can see that, that if you tell the story that way
that we're going to roll back tothese numbers, it's hard to
deny that vindictiveness is partof it In my mind, I guess.
For me, I am always interestedin, I don't believe in we're
going to do less with less.
(06:48):
I heard that back when we were.
You heard that at a point intime in the military when back
around 2017, 2018.
It was like the thing we'regoing to do more with less.
We're going to do less withless.
We're going to do whatever, andit was all these just
pejorative terms.
That was like not attached toreality, right, like no.
Like not attached to reality,right Like no.
If we have less people and lessequipment, guess what?
We're going to do?
Less work, right Like?
That's all there is to it.
We're not going to do more withless.
(07:08):
That's stupid right Now.
Can we do the same with less?
That's where I want to, you know, debate the topic a little bit,
because I believe, I do believethat one.
The federal government ingeneral is horrifically bloated
as far as like money spendingand bureaucracy.
I believe that I don't justbelieve it, I've seen it, I've
witnessed it, I live it, youknow, every day.
(07:29):
So no question that there isbureaucracy and that money is
oozing out of the seams inplaces where it does not need to
be.
So I would want to say, I wouldlike to say that if there was
any level of care and strategygoing into removing a certain
amount of people from theworkforce of the VA and we'll
(07:51):
just keep it right to the VA,not the rest of the federal
programs I would like to believethat there is a way to deliver
both things have less employeesand, at the very least, maintain
the same level of quality ofcare and service.
I think that's possible.
I don't know if you can improvequality and care with less
people, and that's one of thethings that the Republicans are
(08:11):
trying to paint the picture ofright now.
And the secretary?
There's a video out of thesecretary of the VA and I guess
Adam tells me that he does thisoften where he's kind of the
apologist for Donald Trump'spolicies and he comes out and
says, oh, nothing bad's going tohappen.
And then something bad happensand he says, well, it's not as
bad as you think.
It is Right.
And you'll just have to dealwith it and you'll be fine.
Yeah, just stop complaining,quit your bitching, right, you
(08:34):
know?
So the takeaway from all ofthat for me is he says well,
we're going to save $90 millionbecause we had these duplicative
contracts, and that's $90million that's going to go back
into veteran care, right?
I don't believe that.
No At all.
No, there's nobody that's beancounting that and saying hey, I
(08:56):
got my abacus out, and if Islide this bean over, it goes
from the contractors who areripping us off to the soldiers
who need care.
Yeah, that shit does not happen, right?
Especially not under a programlike Doge.
Like they don't have an abacus,they don't have no clue how
many beans they have or wherethey're trying to move them to.
There's no idea.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
All of these numbers that they're coming up with.
They never show where thosenumbers come from or prove
anything at all.
They're just hacking and peopleare just buying it up.
Prove anything at all.
They're just hacking and peopleare just buying it up.
And by the time those numberscome out, they've been rolled
back significantly and peoplehave already moved on to the
next.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
But we acknowledge on this show that a headline is
basically that can be the entirewin as far as a political
movement right, just theheadline getting printed is all
that really mattered.
Anything that happens afterthat does not matter at all, and
so right now that's a big partof the game for the you know.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
But when you talk about like service to the VA,
like tomorrow or yesterday was agood example for me.
I've been having some kneeproblems.
I called the VA, I had an x-raydone.
Actually, I stopped by theprotest at the VA, then went and
got my x-ray done, got an MRIscheduled now and this is all
(10:06):
within 24 hours that thisservice has happened.
Sure, so anybody complainingabout these shots that people
say they take at and things likethat there's problems in every
medical system out there.
The VA has worked fine for me.
I agree.
Just right now I had an x-raydone.
I'm on schedule for an MRI, gotmy follow-up with my primary
(10:28):
care.
Things are going to happen forthis.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Yeah, and I've been retired a few years longer than
Adam, so I retired back in 2019.
So, at the numbers that they'retalking about, that's when I
got out and went into the VAsystem and I agree, I agree,
even go out of my way.
When I'm at a VA center and Iknow that I'm talking to, you
know a nurse or a doctor inthere, or just you know an admin
(10:51):
worker in there, and they areable to do what you're talking
about, where it all goes tick,tick, tick, and it seems like,
hey, this is what is what'salways supposed to be right,
like.
This is just how care issupposed to work in a medical
facility.
When that happens, I telleverybody.
I say, hey, don't worry aboutan outside of even this churn,
right, because there's alwaysbad news stories and there's
(11:11):
always people that want to walkaround inside the VA hospital
mad at the VA, right.
And so I tell those employeeshey, for me, today, right here
in this room, you met exactly myexpectations and I want to say
thanks for what you're doing.
And I know the next personmight come in here and not act
that way, but the system canwork and it worked for me and
I've done that 10 times in thelast few years.
(11:33):
Well, what's?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
funny about yesterday .
Yesterday worked so wellbecause I stepped out of my,
because I hate the telephoneinterviews stuff but my knee's
not doing great, so I needed itand they set up the telephone,
they set up a video call for meand the IT stuff just flowed
through and I let go of mylittle preconceived notion that
everything was going to suckabout it yeah.
And it worked beautifully.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Then I went outside, saw the protesters.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Yeah, yeah, I agree, I've had a good experience
no-transcript.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Everybody's operating at 60% to 80% of what their
manning needs to be able to keepnumbers or those claims down
and everything, because there'sso much back support that goes
into these medical care servicecenters.
So when you drop those numbersit's going to affect everything,
right down to appointment times, everything.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
And I think this is the you know.
My crux here is I want thesystem to work.
I want to believe that 100,000people can go, 15% of the
workforce can go, and thatquality of care can remain
similar.
But the question that reallystands is how would the
Republicans themselves or theSecretary of the VA right now,
who's telling you things aregoing to change, just deal with
(12:55):
it?
What is he going to use to makedecisions, to make data-driven
decisions, which is what weexpect our government to do now?
We're talking about numbers.
We're talking about people.
We're talking about moneythat's data-driven
decision-making on one side ofthe coin.
What are you using to measuresuccess, Secretary?
Money that's data-drivendecision making on one side of
the coin.
What are you using to measuresuccess, secretary?
That's different than you'resaying.
Things are going to changearound here.
All right, tell me how you'regoing to measure success, right,
(13:16):
and don't cherry pick the thing.
You know, whatever it is.
We spent less money.
That not?
No, there's no veteran issitting around going.
I'm glad my surgery cost $5,000less.
They don't.
That doesn't matter, you knowit's.
How long did it take, Rightit's.
How many trips did you have togo to?
You know, to differentfacilities?
Right, Can you get it all donein one place?
(13:36):
How far did you have to travel?
Right, how you know all thethings?
How long is your overall courseof care for a certain type of
you know illness or injury, what?
What are we going to use tomeasure these things?
Right, I have, they don't know,I don't know and they for sure
don't know Right.
So that's my where I want tobelieve it can succeed.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
My concern is that nobody knows what they're going
to measure.
Um, one big thing that's uhkind of going around too is with
the DEI cuts where, like,everybody with a DEI title
associated with them is gettingcut.
Yeah, a lot of folks have it aslike an additional duty Cause,
like when you're a GS, you grabother things, sure, but it
doesn't matter.
They're using that DEI acts andjust cutting people that you
(14:19):
know believed in equality.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, yeah.
And the fact that that you knowthat happens within the single
digit percentages as far as likeremoving people with those in
their titles.
So even if that was again avindictive movement by a
political agenda, you still have.
They went next to, as we've goton the board over here,
(14:42):
non-mission critical ornon-mission essential.
So it was easy for thepresident to say nothing that's
related to DEI's missionessential.
All right, fair, that can be.
I'm not going to argue with youthere, whatever right.
But if you want to just dothings in big blocks, go for it.
But now, what right?
How do you use any kind ofscrutiny or strategy to
(15:03):
understand really what's missionessential and what's not?
And again back to nomeasurement.
How do we know?
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And you know these, uh, the waythat they're just shooting
blindly into like so manydirections right now.
Uh, we have Canada, you know,threatening tariffs, or we just
we just backed off on thetariffs to Mexico, so that still
has to play out, but you knowCanada's going to shut down
(15:32):
power to a million and a halfpeople or something like that.
There's something crazy upthere, these long-term
repercussions of just bullytactics.
What do you think, on the bigworld stage, how that's going to
play out?
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Well, that brings us over to the almost you know,
almost State of the Union, theaddress to the joint session of
Congress yesterday.
You know it was exactly what weexpect Donald Trump to do with
that type of pulpit and withthat type of you know, audience.
Did you see?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
he gave a kid a secret service, like he made a
kid a secret service agent.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Because it's like one of his, like last wish, final
wishes things yeah, but then hecut cancer research funding Of
course, yes, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
How can you do that?
Speaker 2 (16:15):
And people are applauding.
They're like, oh, he is such agreat, he's a great guy.
That kid lived on his wish.
Yeah, yeah, but he has to diebecause of him.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the next kid is not going to be any
better off.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense,right?
I mean, he knows how to put onmake good television, as he said
last week in the Oval Office.
We're not even talking aboutwhat happened last week in the
Oval Office.
Oh, no, kidding, that's noteven on the board.
I mean it's you know the wholeRussia-Zelensky thing which you
know.
I guess we're going to hold onto it for now.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Well, no, I kind of want to hit that too, because
Zelensky's, like the rest ofEurope's, really rallied around
him and they're going to likethey're going to Okay.
Yes, Because you threw this outthere earlier.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Europe is going to rearm themselves and folks in
this room think it's a good ideathat we're going to have
nuclear powers, like regainingnuclear weapons here, I think
that, if you are, if you everhad them at all right, like
there's a club of people thathave them.
You have one, you have 5 000,it doesn't matter, you're in the
club, right?
If you are france, I'll callout france.
(17:21):
I don't care, from texas theyhave.
I don't like france, right, Imean it's, but I'll call them
out.
How?
How can the president of Francesay well, because America,
who's thousands of miles away,decided that they didn't
necessarily want to deploy abunch of their citizens over
here to protect us.
Guess what?
I got a secret for you guys.
(17:41):
Oh, oh, we have nukes.
Oh, that's right, we have ourown nukes.
I forgot we could protectourselves.
Oh, okay, cool.
So you guys want to beprotected by France.
All of our neighbors that touchus want some protection.
Well, why would you want that?
Like?
Macron acts like he has justopened the treasure vault and is
going to be the most benevolentleader to Europe, because
(18:02):
something he's always had thatshould have always been offered
to the other NATO allies there,he's now going to offer them
what?
I'm not going to clap for you.
They only have seven, I don'tcare.
Make more.
England has some too.
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
They do have the capability and they'll have
resources, so they're going to.
But the whole point of BrettonWoods and the US becoming the
security badge was to stop thenuclear proliferation, and the
seriousness of this cannot beunderstated that once all these
nations start rearmingthemselves.
And I do want to point out that, out of all the nations that
(18:41):
created the nuclear weapon, onedid give it back South America,
they made it.
Or South Africa, south Africa,excuse me, yeah, yeah, south
Africa, yeah, so they made it.
Or South Africa, south Africa,excuse me, yeah, south Africa.
So they made it, they createdit, and then they gave all this
information back to theinternational community.
I think that's where Israel gottheirs too.
Oh, they bought it from them.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
And again, you either have one or you don't right.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
But for the world to work that way it was and for the
US to be the backbone of theworld economy, we provided a
nuclear umbrella that protectedeverybody from Russian and
Chinese aggression.
Yeah, and now we're siding withthem and saying like, no, oh no
, the big boys want to play.
Yeah, we're taking land, we'regoing to take Greenland one way
or the other.
(19:25):
He says, yeah, we're takingGreenland, panama, we still got
our eye on you down there, likethat's still gonna happen, yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
But see, here's the thing.
Let's say, and let's just getin our imaginary, you know time
machine.
And we do.
Take greenland now, where'sdick's position on nuclear
deterrence?
Now I'm like, hey, we, I'm alot more interested in
umbrellaing europe with ourmilitary might because we're
there now.
Right, greenland is basicallyit's in between North America
and Europe, right?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
No, it's not.
It's in between us and Russia.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Yeah, on the northern latitudes, yes, even better,
right, I mean.
But I agree that if I'm justhappy that NATO Is interested in
protecting themselves on theirside of the ocean, to some
degree, like and again I putmyself in the leadership of any
(20:15):
one of those countries to go, Iunderstand that I inherited a
seat where we're little brotherscompared to the big brother in
the room.
So why?
Why?
I don't?
I can't imagine being theleader, the supreme top
president or prime minister ofany country and saying, well,
(20:35):
all of our policy is going tohinge on the fact that another
country that doesn't have anycontiguous contact with us is
going to fall out of the sky andprotect us if something bad
happens.
I can't, but doesn't, doesn't.
Stop with you.
If that's how you live, right?
If you're president McCrone andyou say, well, I'm going to
wait for America to tell me whatto do, how can you be the
president?
(20:56):
Because the buck stops here forthe president of any country,
unless you live under thenuclear umbrella of some other
country and you have tobasically kowtow and say, mother
, may I, to your big brotherevery time you want to do a
policy decision?
No, what the fuck is that?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
We want Greenland, because Greenland is owned by
Iceland, a piece of Europe andwe have strategic assets on
Greenland.
Sure, yeah, like those wouldnot like that.
Protect us from Russia, but nowwe don't have to worry about.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Russia, yeah, but I don't care about Greenland.
I'm saying why would apresident in mainland Europe be
cool with the fact that theirbig brother controls everything
they do?
But you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No, I'm drawing like the.
How easy it is to be, you know,connected there because you
know you want the contiguous ora connected landscape, but but
like the like.
Our missile warning systems ingreenland are still like that
land, still owned by iceland.
That's part of our northAtlantic Treaty there.
Sure, yeah, yeah.
So like all those things matter, like you can't just like, tear
(21:55):
all those things down becauseI'm not saying we should, but
I'm saying why, you know.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Okay, let's take America out of the conversation
for a second.
I want to talk about a Europeanleader.
Why, if you own nukes, do youhave to make an announcement
that you will protect yourneighbors that border you with
your nukes?
Why is that an announcement inthe year 2025?
That these were only for us,this was our baseball and we
(22:23):
never played baseball withanybody else in the neighborhood
.
And you guys can suck it.
I'll play catch by myself.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
No, because we told them to play catch by themselves
, because we were in charge andwe kept the nuclear
nonproliferation.
And why, if?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
you.
That's an American, yes, why?
If you were the Francepresident, why would you be okay
with that?
Why?
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Because then you can spend your money and have
socialized healthcare and cleanstreets.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
You rely on someone that you're not in control of
and have basically no lever topull against to protect you.
Yeah, that's that kind of sucks, right, Like that's what I'm
saying.
If you're in that position as aleader, stop thinking like an
American.
Think like the little brotherwho can't do his job unless he
asks a big brother forpermission.
How can you call yourself apresident of anything if you
(23:08):
have to ask somebody else forpermission to do your job?
Speaker 2 (23:10):
There's no need for the permission if you're not
trying to be aggressive, likewhen the UN stood up, like the
basis of the UN was that wewould not take land forcefully
anymore.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
That hasn't stopped yet, right?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
You know what I'm saying but that doesn't mean
it's not a fucking good goal.
It was written down, but nobody.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
It hasn't stopped is what I'm saying, right Like that
goal has not been achieved andwe can say this clearly on your
three years of war in Europe.
In Europe, no less, not in someproxy war location.
The true Eastern Front is hotright now and UN has nothing,
can't do anything about it,right, right.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Right, right but that's still.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
those alliances still need to be formed and
strengthened, not torn down justbecause they didn't meet their
requirements.
Yes, because you, as the desireof an American, want to be the
big dog.
I do too.
I want to be in charge.
I want to tell all my littlebrothers in Europe to sit down
and shut up and be socialists,because once all this shit goes
down.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
These nukes are going to get out.
There's already loose nukes outin the world.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
There's going to be more.
It's going to be bad, all right, and so nuclear deterrence
again.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So your goal is nuclear deterrence, because
you're the American that has allthe weapons, so you have some
control over nuclear deterrence,right?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
We believe we have some control over it.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
It's more the training that I've seen Right,
but I mean we believe we havesome control over it, so we want
to maintain that position Right.
And again, if I'm the presidentof Italy, nothing you just said
matters to me at all.
How do I defend my country?
I'm the president of Italy, notAmerica, not France, not
Germany.
I'm going to wait for Americato come and save me.
(24:44):
That's my plan.
That's going to be my base ofall things.
Government policy is that mybig brother will show up if I
ask.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
No, we were already there, because they let us keep
our nuclear weapons there topoint them at Russia, like
that's why we are there.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
I don't care about the American presence and the
benefit of it at all.
I care about the downgrading ofquality of purpose of a
European country.
If you're not in charge ofyourself, you see what I'm
saying.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
They are still in charge of themselves.
Are they, though?
Because they just don't have tospend money getting their
nuclear weapons?
I think they should.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I don't care about nukes, but I think they should
spend so much more money, timeand effort on defending
themselves from Russia.
They need to do that becauseRussia can drive to anywhere in
Europe.
Russia cannot drive, not rightnow.
We have to get the earth alittle bit warmer and then they
can drive to America, right, butright now they can drive on the
(25:42):
ground, they can walk on theirfeet to anywhere in Europe.
Wear in Europe and the ideathat a country that's an ocean
away is going to be your saviorand protect you from everything,
so that you can have socializedhealth care.
I?
I'm sorry, but I think WinstonChurchill would roll over in his
grave if he was like we're just, we had, we had no agency until
(26:03):
the Americans showed up, and wewere never going to be.
We would never survive.
The crown was going to fallunless the Americans showed up,
right?
That's basically, what you'resaying that every European
leader is okay with is that theBig Brother umbrella is the
basis of their everything right,and if I'm in charge of any
country on earth, I cannot wrapmy brain around the Big Brother
(26:28):
being the thing that dictateshow I do life.
I just can't do that, you know,and that's Europe To me.
The fact that Macron wantsapplause because he has offered
to protect his neighbors withhis weapons 50 years after he
should have already been, youknow, 70 years after the
aggression happened, and heknows why they all were.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
You know what I'm saying.
Like every time we've gone towar, they've all protected us,
They've all stood with us.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Why did he to other Europeans, not us, take America
out, this is a European-onlyconversation.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
They're doing a ton of stuff for Ukraine right now.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
No, I'm saying that it's a European-only
conversation.
Just completely take Americaout of it.
He's helping Ukraine.
He said I am just now willingto protect Ukraine with my nukes
, just today, like two days ago.
Three years they've beeninvaded and he was like these
nukes are for France only, noteven no Germany, nobody, it
(27:18):
doesn't matter England, I meanUkraine, you're already out of
the EU and NATO, you're on theedge anyway, but this nuke is
for anybody in Europe.
Now he just made thatannouncement and I'm saying, why
, why?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Because that's a doctrine thing.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And I think it's a really shitty doctrine is what
I'm trying to say.
But again.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
You don't just change doctrine on the drop of a hat.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Why would you ever have a doctrine that I have a
nuke and someone who doesn'ttouch me, I'm going to rely on
their nukes instead of my nukesto protect myself, because you
let them shoot theirs off beforeyou get rid of yours.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You wouldn't let somebody else.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Shoot their ammo before you shoot yours.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
I would not be okay with my big brother telling me
what to do if I was a presidentof any country.
Period, right, I just wouldn't.
That's not how the nukes workin in other countries at all you
know what I'm saying, so no,yeah, because like our nukes are
there, like, like we're nottalking about american nukes,
we're talking about french nukes, dude, so like whoever's nukes,
(28:21):
like yeah, their countrieshandle them, yeah, they always
have them, like they've stillalways had them.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
But the doctrine change is that we always, we all
had a first strike doctrinesaying that we would not strike
first.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Sure, yeah, but like it was always up to the, and
France's doctrine was I won'tstrike anybody unless I'm
protecting myself.
Right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
So like that's a huge like doctrinal change to say
like, and I'm saying we're ashitty, we're warming up the
buttons.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Position to live in, to go.
I just I'm not gonna use, I'llnever use my name.
That's.
That's russia and america.
Right like no, you'll never useit first no, you'll never use
it.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
I'm saying his policy shift, I'm not talking about
first.
He didn't change.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
First he didn't change.
First he said second use, 10thuse.
He said it wouldn't matter whoshot first.
My nukes were only for France.
Just go read the article, dude.
On Monday, because it'sThursday now.
On Monday, macron said pleaseclap for me, because on Sunday
they had their meeting in London, right.
And on Monday he said I wantapplause because after our
meeting yesterday, I decidedthat I would be willing to
(29:26):
protect Ukraine, where I was notokay to do that yesterday.
On Saturday, I wasn't willingto protect them in this way, but
today I am.
Why on Saturday was yourmentality around protecting a
contiguously connected neighborto you?
What happened between Saturdayand Monday that you believe that
(29:49):
, like this, lifelong change indoctrine is now required?
And I know the answer isAmerica said they weren't going
to play, and I think that I getthat you.
The American supremacy is thegoal here, but my point is is
that France has responsibilityfor Europe more than America
does, because France is fuckingin Europe, all right, and
(30:12):
America is not, and so Francehas a requirement to protect
their neighbors.
And on Saturday he would havesaid no, I won't do this, but on
Monday he would.
And the fact that Big Brothersaid you guys actually need to
learn how to fight and protectyourselves.
Big Brother said you guysactually need to learn how to
fight and protect yourselves.
I feel like, if that's whatprompted the doctrine shift,
(30:34):
what a terrible position to bein as a president, that on
Saturday you were like I'm notgoing to fight this fight, it's
somebody else's fight.
But then somehow on Sunday yougrew some sort of backbone or
courage or I don't know what,and said, oh, I guess I've got a
different view of the world nowand I actually would protect
you.
I'm mad at him that on Saturdayhe wouldn't protect them.
I just don't get it right thathis offer was not equal to the
(30:58):
American offer.
He was not willing to take asmuch damage, put in as much
effort, try as hard or just care, even vocally, back them in the
way that America would have.
On Saturday he wasn't willingto do those things.
That's what he said.
That's why he had to make anannouncement on Monday that
something changed.
He said on Saturday I wasn'tdown to protect you.
(31:19):
On Monday I am why.
On Saturday, why would theyever in a position to say I'm
not down to protect you?
That's the problem I have, andI'm not talking about America.
I'm talking about why would aEuropean country look at another
European country and say Idon't care about you, because
America's got your back, not me.
That's so fucked up.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I think that's quite a bit of a stretch for him to
say I don't care about you.
They're giving so much moneyand effort into the Ukrainian
war.
They've given so much more thanwe have already To.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
They've given so much more than we have already.
To say that they wouldn'tprotect them is so disingenuous.
Then why did he make theannouncement on Monday?
What was the point of it?
What was the point?
I wasn't a nuclear protector ofyou on Saturday and I am now on
Monday Because he had to bethen.
He had to be on Saturday too,that's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
You know, their funding of the war, like who
knows what, came out in uh intelchannels.
Well, actually, we told uhgreat britain to no longer
provide intel to ukrainians yeah, so we've even cut off our five
.
Yeah, yeah, so so we we do knowthat that we're cutting intel
and things like that, sure, sobig things change over the
weekend.
(32:26):
Yeah, he needs to ramp upnuclear production.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
He didn't say he's making nukes.
He didn't say that he's goingto have to.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
I don't care.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
He didn't say that we're not putting words in his
mouth.
He said what I will do isrepeat him On Saturday I was not
your nuclear protector.
On Monday I am and I'm sayingwhat kind were you in that on
Saturday you did not care aboutthat he probably had intel
saying like we got you.
Day one.
He should have said my nukebacks you the day Russia invaded
(32:55):
them three years ago.
That's the day that Macron, whowas in charge back then, should
have said Eastern Frontaggression is unacceptable.
We don't need to wait forAmerica.
We're going to be Europeanleaders, I'm going to be the
president of France and I'mgoing to do my job and protect
my neighbors, and I'm going tostep out here, right here, the
first day that Russia shotsomething into a European
country and rolled over theborder.
(33:17):
I'm going to offer you my ownblood and my nukes and
everything I can to stop them atyour Eastern border.
I'm not going to wait for themto show up and I'm for sure not
going to wait for the presidentof the United States to tell me
what to do.
The day that Russia invades,you have my nukes, ukraine, not
three years later, not afterDonald Trump shows up and messes
around that I'm going to decideto grow a spine and do
(33:39):
something to make a presence inthe fight.
No, the day that Russia invadedis the day that Macron should
have stood up and said my nukebacks you.
And the three years later it'stoo late is what I'm saying.
It's too late.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Okay, I heard you Want to wrap it up.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Yeah, sure, there we go.
This is this week's episode.
Thanks everybody.
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of
Left Face.
This is the Pikes Peak RegionVeterans Podcast, where we talk
about politics and local issuesthat affect the veterans here.
My name is Dick Wilkinson, I amyour host and my co-host is
Adam Gillard.
Hey, dick, how you doing buddy?
Hey, adam man, today it's allabout veterans.
(00:23):
Today we got really primetopics, for you know, this is
the sweet spot for us as far asbringing it home from the
national level all the way downto our neighborhood, right.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, the last 24 hours or so has definitely been
a lot of changes coming down thepipe.
You know straight from the VAsecretary's mouth.
You know he's been putting outvideos on this stuff.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And the president has made public comment about it,
so that means they understandthat the visibility is very high
.
I think that job cuts in the VAare something that are a
political lightning rod Right.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
And they just agreed to 88,000 cut cuts.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, I saw a number that said 70, and I saw a number
that said 80.
So yeah, sounds right.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah, so the video that I just watched from the
secretary of the VA.
They said our numbers right noware at like 470-something
thousand and it's going to go tobelow 400,000.
15% of the workforce is thenumber that he gave pretty
clearly, which is drastic as faras cuts.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Now we say drastic, that's within the modern history
, era of federal government,we'll say the last 50 years.
That any agency would take adouble-digit cut at all is
almost unheard of really.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, and this is kind of a double whammy on the
veteran community, because 30%of those folks are going to be
veterans.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
No, that's absolutely true.
So many of the employees of theVA are veterans, so, yeah, it's
a double whammy.
And we thought about trying tofind somebody who sort of had
voted for Trump not necessarilythat they had soured on their
vote, but that they were nowbeing impacted by their choice,
right?
Well, cnn has found a fewpeople that fall into that
(02:11):
category, which makes sense.
You know that that's the kindof story they want to highlight,
and I'm not surprised by whatI've seen the folks that they
have talked to have said well, Ididn't necessarily think it
would happen to me, but I'm notupset about it.
I still want Donald Trump to doexactly what he said he was
going to do, and if that meansme and most of my friends all
(02:32):
lose our jobs, I believe thegrass will be greener on the
other side of whatever he'strying to deliver, and so
they're not reluctant abouttheir vote.
Yet I don't know, wait until ayear from now, when they still
don't have a job and the economyis upside down.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
That's where I kind of question, like, where is the
line that's going to draw peopleout to actually stand up for
themselves?
Because, like you said, rightnow everybody's okay with it and
if you know, obviously peopleare asking for, you know,
democrat leadership and stufflike that.
They just lost an election.
Half the country doesn'tbelieve in them.
Right for sure, and half of thecountry is way better armed.
(03:08):
Yeah, so Democrats can't standup and lead some kind of
revolution here.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
No, it has to come from the Republicans.
There is really no recourse.
No, not from a politicalperspective.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
No, it has to come from Republicans that actually
stand up for what we know, forwhat we actually believe, used
to believe.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
as you know, a country the perhaps where the
rubber meets the road in thisargument, and I mean we don't
have this long to wait.
Unfortunately, that's theproblem.
We need to talk about theimpact of these losses of people
.
But Senate and Congress, right,like the actual legislators,
their job is at risk.
If you know, big, giant swathsof people are unemployed when it
(03:47):
comes time for election twoyears from now, the people who
are on those election cycles,they're at risk, right, and so
it doesn't matter how Republicanyou are or how well you can
walk the walk or talk the talkon the Republican side of the
House, the Republican side ofthe house, if, two years from
now, if a lot of yourconstituents don't have jobs,
you know that's.
That's where, if there was anyopportunity for Republicans to
(04:10):
internally put pressure backtowards the white house that's
it Right.
But so far time has proven ininstances too many instances
have proven that those lawmakerswill sell out their
constituents to support.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Donald Trump.
Jeff Crank just had his firsttelephone town hall yesterday,
which I guess has gone come downfrom, like the Trump
administration too, is to not doany more in persons because
people have been too many photoops, yeah.
Well, yeah, and just thingshave just bad photo ops.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
I mean yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And I mean even like the democratic County chair you
know was on chair was in thepaper yesterday saying how
cowardly it was for Crank to doa telephone call because it
wasn't like video or anythinglike that, it was just a
telephone call.
And like even the Republicanchair said that too though, yeah
, but like from what Iunderstand, like both sides were
like this is pretty cowardly.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Shady, yeah, like you're not even going to have a
video that we can even see youhere.
Yeah, shady, yeah, like you'renot even going to have a video
that we can't even see you here,yeah, Well, so yeah, let's get
to this 88,000 less people atthe VA and, to give the
listeners right, that gets usback to 2019 manning levels,
which the news that I've heardis that most of the hiring since
(05:21):
then has been to supportimplementation of the PACT Act,
to increase the amount of peoplewho can process claims and care
providers in certaindisciplines, because the PACT
Act covers, you know, a lot ofdifferent medical issues
automatically.
Now, so this, you know,rollback is a rollback to
numbers to support the VApre-PACT Act and from you know,
(05:42):
I'm not saying there's astrategy or some kind of logic
behind that, that's just thedots that the Republican side of
the House is connecting for usright now.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, and again, the PACT Act is something that
helped over a million people getbenefits in the first year, and
these are people that areexposed to toxic, noxious
chemicals that they have nocontrol over.
You know we're all at risk ofhaving, you know, cancers
earlier than everybody else.
You know, and these are thethings that he's taken away.
(06:14):
And this is another one ofthose just spiteful things that,
you know, President Biden putthrough and was proud of and
they're just taking it away justto be spiteful.
This is just straight upvindictive, hurting veterans.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
I can see that, that if you tell the story that way
that we're going to roll back tothese numbers, it's hard to
deny that vindictiveness is partof it In my mind, I guess.
For me, I am always interestedin, I don't believe in we're
going to do less with less.
(06:48):
I heard that back when we were.
You heard that at a point intime in the military when back
around 2017, 2018.
It was like the thing we'regoing to do more with less.
We're going to do less withless.
We're going to do whatever, andit was all these just
pejorative terms.
That was like not attached toreality, right, like no.
Like not attached to reality,right Like no.
If we have less people and lessequipment, guess what?
We're going to do?
Less work, right Like?
That's all there is to it.
We're not going to do more withless.
(07:08):
That's stupid right Now.
Can we do the same with less?
That's where I want to, you know, debate the topic a little bit,
because I believe, I do believethat one.
The federal government ingeneral is horrifically bloated
as far as like money spendingand bureaucracy.
I believe that I don't justbelieve it, I've seen it, I've
witnessed it, I live it, youknow, every day.
(07:29):
So no question that there isbureaucracy and that money is
oozing out of the seams inplaces where it does not need to
be.
So I would want to say, I wouldlike to say that if there was
any level of care and strategygoing into removing a certain
amount of people from theworkforce of the VA and we'll
(07:51):
just keep it right to the VA,not the rest of the federal
programs I would like to believethat there is a way to deliver
both things have less employeesand, at the very least, maintain
the same level of quality ofcare and service.
I think that's possible.
I don't know if you can improvequality and care with less
people, and that's one of thethings that the Republicans are
(08:11):
trying to paint the picture ofright now.
And the secretary?
There's a video out of thesecretary of the VA and I guess
Adam tells me that he does thisoften where he's kind of the
apologist for Donald Trump'spolicies and he comes out and
says, oh, nothing bad's going tohappen.
And then something bad happensand he says, well, it's not as
bad as you think.
It is Right.
And you'll just have to dealwith it and you'll be fine.
Yeah, just stop complaining,quit your bitching, right, you
(08:34):
know?
So the takeaway from all ofthat for me is he says well,
we're going to save $90 millionbecause we had these duplicative
contracts, and that's $90million that's going to go back
into veteran care, right?
I don't believe that.
No At all.
No, there's nobody that's beancounting that and saying hey, I
(08:56):
got my abacus out, and if Islide this bean over, it goes
from the contractors who areripping us off to the soldiers
who need care.
Yeah, that shit does not happen, right?
Especially not under a programlike Doge.
Like they don't have an abacus,they don't have no clue how
many beans they have or wherethey're trying to move them to.
There's no idea.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
All of these numbers that they're coming up with.
They never show where thosenumbers come from or prove
anything at all.
They're just hacking and peopleare just buying it up.
Prove anything at all.
They're just hacking and peopleare just buying it up.
And by the time those numberscome out, they've been rolled
back significantly and peoplehave already moved on to the
next.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
But we acknowledge on this show that a headline is
basically that can be the entirewin as far as a political
movement right, just theheadline getting printed is all
that really mattered.
Anything that happens afterthat does not matter at all, and
so right now that's a big partof the game for the you know.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
But when you talk about like service to the VA,
like tomorrow or yesterday was agood example for me.
I've been having some kneeproblems.
I called the VA, I had an x-raydone.
Actually, I stopped by theprotest at the VA, then went and
got my x-ray done, got an MRIscheduled now and this is all
(10:06):
within 24 hours that thisservice has happened.
Sure, so anybody complainingabout these shots that people
say they take at and things likethat there's problems in every
medical system out there.
The VA has worked fine for me.
I agree.
Just right now I had an x-raydone.
I'm on schedule for an MRI, gotmy follow-up with my primary
(10:28):
care.
Things are going to happen forthis.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Yeah, and I've been retired a few years longer than
Adam, so I retired back in 2019.
So, at the numbers that they'retalking about, that's when I
got out and went into the VAsystem and I agree, I agree,
even go out of my way.
When I'm at a VA center and Iknow that I'm talking to, you
know a nurse or a doctor inthere, or just you know an admin
(10:51):
worker in there, and they areable to do what you're talking
about, where it all goes tick,tick, tick, and it seems like,
hey, this is what is what'salways supposed to be right,
like.
This is just how care issupposed to work in a medical
facility.
When that happens, I telleverybody.
I say, hey, don't worry aboutan outside of even this churn,
right, because there's alwaysbad news stories and there's
(11:11):
always people that want to walkaround inside the VA hospital
mad at the VA, right.
And so I tell those employeeshey, for me, today, right here
in this room, you met exactly myexpectations and I want to say
thanks for what you're doing.
And I know the next personmight come in here and not act
that way, but the system canwork and it worked for me and
I've done that 10 times in thelast few years.
(11:33):
Well, what's?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
funny about yesterday .
Yesterday worked so wellbecause I stepped out of my,
because I hate the telephoneinterviews stuff but my knee's
not doing great, so I needed itand they set up the telephone,
they set up a video call for meand the IT stuff just flowed
through and I let go of mylittle preconceived notion that
everything was going to suckabout it yeah.
And it worked beautifully.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Then I went outside, saw the protesters.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Yeah, yeah, I agree, I've had a good experience
no-transcript.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Everybody's operating at 60% to 80% of what their
manning needs to be able to keepnumbers or those claims down
and everything, because there'sso much back support that goes
into these medical care servicecenters.
So when you drop those numbersit's going to affect everything,
right down to appointment times, everything.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
And I think this is the you know.
My crux here is I want thesystem to work.
I want to believe that 100,000people can go, 15% of the
workforce can go, and thatquality of care can remain
similar.
But the question that reallystands is how would the
Republicans themselves or theSecretary of the VA right now,
who's telling you things aregoing to change, just deal with
(12:55):
it?
What is he going to use to makedecisions, to make data-driven
decisions, which is what weexpect our government to do now?
We're talking about numbers.
We're talking about people.
We're talking about moneythat's data-driven
decision-making on one side ofthe coin.
What are you using to measuresuccess, Secretary?
Money that's data-drivendecision making on one side of
the coin.
What are you using to measuresuccess, secretary?
That's different than you'resaying.
Things are going to changearound here.
All right, tell me how you'regoing to measure success, right,
(13:16):
and don't cherry pick the thing.
You know, whatever it is.
We spent less money.
That not?
No, there's no veteran issitting around going.
I'm glad my surgery cost $5,000less.
They don't.
That doesn't matter, you knowit's.
How long did it take, Rightit's.
How many trips did you have togo to?
You know, to differentfacilities?
Right, Can you get it all donein one place?
(13:36):
How far did you have to travel?
Right, how you know all thethings?
How long is your overall courseof care for a certain type of
you know illness or injury, what?
What are we going to use tomeasure these things?
Right, I have, they don't know,I don't know and they for sure
don't know Right.
So that's my where I want tobelieve it can succeed.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
My concern is that nobody knows what they're going
to measure.
Um, one big thing that's uhkind of going around too is with
the DEI cuts where, like,everybody with a DEI title
associated with them is gettingcut.
Yeah, a lot of folks have it aslike an additional duty Cause,
like when you're a GS, you grabother things, sure, but it
doesn't matter.
They're using that DEI acts andjust cutting people that you
(14:19):
know believed in equality.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, yeah.
And the fact that that you knowthat happens within the single
digit percentages as far as likeremoving people with those in
their titles.
So even if that was again avindictive movement by a
political agenda, you still have.
They went next to, as we've goton the board over here,
(14:42):
non-mission critical ornon-mission essential.
So it was easy for thepresident to say nothing that's
related to DEI's missionessential.
All right, fair, that can be.
I'm not going to argue with youthere, whatever right.
But if you want to just dothings in big blocks, go for it.
But now, what right?
How do you use any kind ofscrutiny or strategy to
(15:03):
understand really what's missionessential and what's not?
And again back to nomeasurement.
How do we know?
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And you know these, uh, the waythat they're just shooting
blindly into like so manydirections right now.
Uh, we have Canada, you know,threatening tariffs, or we just
we just backed off on thetariffs to Mexico, so that still
has to play out, but you knowCanada's going to shut down
(15:32):
power to a million and a halfpeople or something like that.
There's something crazy upthere, these long-term
repercussions of just bullytactics.
What do you think, on the bigworld stage, how that's going to
play out?
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Well, that brings us over to the almost you know,
almost State of the Union, theaddress to the joint session of
Congress yesterday.
You know it was exactly what weexpect Donald Trump to do with
that type of pulpit and withthat type of you know, audience.
Did you see?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
he gave a kid a secret service, like he made a
kid a secret service agent.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Because it's like one of his, like last wish, final
wishes things yeah, but then hecut cancer research funding Of
course, yes, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
How can you do that?
Speaker 2 (16:15):
And people are applauding.
They're like, oh, he is such agreat, he's a great guy.
That kid lived on his wish.
Yeah, yeah, but he has to diebecause of him.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the next kid is not going to be any
better off.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense,right?
I mean, he knows how to put onmake good television, as he said
last week in the Oval Office.
We're not even talking aboutwhat happened last week in the
Oval Office.
Oh, no, kidding, that's noteven on the board.
I mean it's you know the wholeRussia-Zelensky thing which you
know.
I guess we're going to hold onto it for now.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Well, no, I kind of want to hit that too, because
Zelensky's, like the rest ofEurope's, really rallied around
him and they're going to likethey're going to Okay.
Yes, Because you threw this outthere earlier.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Europe is going to rearm themselves and folks in
this room think it's a good ideathat we're going to have
nuclear powers, like regainingnuclear weapons here, I think
that, if you are, if you everhad them at all right, like
there's a club of people thathave them.
You have one, you have 5 000,it doesn't matter, you're in the
club, right?
If you are france, I'll callout france.
(17:21):
I don't care, from texas theyhave.
I don't like france, right, Imean it's, but I'll call them
out.
How?
How can the president of Francesay well, because America,
who's thousands of miles away,decided that they didn't
necessarily want to deploy abunch of their citizens over
here to protect us.
Guess what?
I got a secret for you guys.
(17:41):
Oh, oh, we have nukes.
Oh, that's right, we have ourown nukes.
I forgot we could protectourselves.
Oh, okay, cool.
So you guys want to beprotected by France.
All of our neighbors that touchus want some protection.
Well, why would you want that?
Like?
Macron acts like he has justopened the treasure vault and is
going to be the most benevolentleader to Europe, because
(18:02):
something he's always had thatshould have always been offered
to the other NATO allies there,he's now going to offer them
what?
I'm not going to clap for you.
They only have seven, I don'tcare.
Make more.
England has some too.
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
They do have the capability and they'll have
resources, so they're going to.
But the whole point of BrettonWoods and the US becoming the
security badge was to stop thenuclear proliferation, and the
seriousness of this cannot beunderstated that once all these
nations start rearmingthemselves.
And I do want to point out that, out of all the nations that
(18:41):
created the nuclear weapon, onedid give it back South America,
they made it.
Or South Africa, south Africa,excuse me, yeah, yeah, south
Africa, yeah, so they made it.
Or South Africa, south Africa,excuse me, yeah, south Africa.
So they made it, they createdit, and then they gave all this
information back to theinternational community.
I think that's where Israel gottheirs too.
Oh, they bought it from them.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
And again, you either have one or you don't right.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
But for the world to work that way it was and for the
US to be the backbone of theworld economy, we provided a
nuclear umbrella that protectedeverybody from Russian and
Chinese aggression.
Yeah, and now we're siding withthem and saying like, no, oh no
, the big boys want to play.
Yeah, we're taking land, we'regoing to take Greenland one way
or the other.
(19:25):
He says, yeah, we're takingGreenland, panama, we still got
our eye on you down there, likethat's still gonna happen, yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
But see, here's the thing.
Let's say, and let's just getin our imaginary, you know time
machine.
And we do.
Take greenland now, where'sdick's position on nuclear
deterrence?
Now I'm like, hey, we, I'm alot more interested in
umbrellaing europe with ourmilitary might because we're
there now.
Right, greenland is basicallyit's in between North America
and Europe, right?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
No, it's not.
It's in between us and Russia.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Yeah, on the northern latitudes, yes, even better,
right, I mean.
But I agree that if I'm justhappy that NATO Is interested in
protecting themselves on theirside of the ocean, to some
degree, like and again I putmyself in the leadership of any
(20:15):
one of those countries to go, Iunderstand that I inherited a
seat where we're little brotherscompared to the big brother in
the room.
So why?
Why?
I don't?
I can't imagine being theleader, the supreme top
president or prime minister ofany country and saying, well,
(20:35):
all of our policy is going tohinge on the fact that another
country that doesn't have anycontiguous contact with us is
going to fall out of the sky andprotect us if something bad
happens.
I can't, but doesn't, doesn't.
Stop with you.
If that's how you live, right?
If you're president McCrone andyou say, well, I'm going to
wait for America to tell me whatto do, how can you be the
president?
(20:56):
Because the buck stops here forthe president of any country,
unless you live under thenuclear umbrella of some other
country and you have tobasically kowtow and say, mother
, may I, to your big brotherevery time you want to do a
policy decision?
No, what the fuck is that?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
We want Greenland, because Greenland is owned by
Iceland, a piece of Europe andwe have strategic assets on
Greenland.
Sure, yeah, like those wouldnot like that.
Protect us from Russia, but nowwe don't have to worry about.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Russia, yeah, but I don't care about Greenland.
I'm saying why would apresident in mainland Europe be
cool with the fact that theirbig brother controls everything
they do?
But you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No, I'm drawing like the.
How easy it is to be, you know,connected there because you
know you want the contiguous ora connected landscape, but but
like the like.
Our missile warning systems ingreenland are still like that
land, still owned by iceland.
That's part of our northAtlantic Treaty there.
Sure, yeah, yeah.
So like all those things matter, like you can't just like, tear
(21:55):
all those things down becauseI'm not saying we should, but
I'm saying why, you know.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Okay, let's take America out of the conversation
for a second.
I want to talk about a Europeanleader.
Why, if you own nukes, do youhave to make an announcement
that you will protect yourneighbors that border you with
your nukes?
Why is that an announcement inthe year 2025?
That these were only for us,this was our baseball and we
(22:23):
never played baseball withanybody else in the neighborhood
.
And you guys can suck it.
I'll play catch by myself.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
No, because we told them to play catch by themselves
, because we were in charge andwe kept the nuclear
nonproliferation.
And why, if?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
you.
That's an American, yes, why?
If you were the Francepresident, why would you be okay
with that?
Why?
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Because then you can spend your money and have
socialized healthcare and cleanstreets.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
You rely on someone that you're not in control of
and have basically no lever topull against to protect you.
Yeah, that's that kind of sucks, right, Like that's what I'm
saying.
If you're in that position as aleader, stop thinking like an
American.
Think like the little brotherwho can't do his job unless he
asks a big brother forpermission.
How can you call yourself apresident of anything if you
(23:08):
have to ask somebody else forpermission to do your job?
Speaker 2 (23:10):
There's no need for the permission if you're not
trying to be aggressive, likewhen the UN stood up, like the
basis of the UN was that wewould not take land forcefully
anymore.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
That hasn't stopped yet, right?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
You know what I'm saying but that doesn't mean
it's not a fucking good goal.
It was written down, but nobody.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
It hasn't stopped is what I'm saying, right Like that
goal has not been achieved andwe can say this clearly on your
three years of war in Europe.
In Europe, no less, not in someproxy war location.
The true Eastern Front is hotright now and UN has nothing,
can't do anything about it,right, right.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Right, right but that's still.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
those alliances still need to be formed and
strengthened, not torn down justbecause they didn't meet their
requirements.
Yes, because you, as the desireof an American, want to be the
big dog.
I do too.
I want to be in charge.
I want to tell all my littlebrothers in Europe to sit down
and shut up and be socialists,because once all this shit goes
down.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
These nukes are going to get out.
There's already loose nukes outin the world.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
There's going to be more.
It's going to be bad, all right, and so nuclear deterrence
again.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So your goal is nuclear deterrence, because
you're the American that has allthe weapons, so you have some
control over nuclear deterrence,right?
Speaker 2 (24:22):
We believe we have some control over it.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
It's more the training that I've seen Right,
but I mean we believe we havesome control over it, so we want
to maintain that position Right.
And again, if I'm the presidentof Italy, nothing you just said
matters to me at all.
How do I defend my country?
I'm the president of Italy, notAmerica, not France, not
Germany.
I'm going to wait for Americato come and save me.
(24:44):
That's my plan.
That's going to be my base ofall things.
Government policy is that mybig brother will show up if I
ask.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
No, we were already there, because they let us keep
our nuclear weapons there topoint them at Russia, like
that's why we are there.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
I don't care about the American presence and the
benefit of it at all.
I care about the downgrading ofquality of purpose of a
European country.
If you're not in charge ofyourself, you see what I'm
saying.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
They are still in charge of themselves.
Are they, though?
Because they just don't have tospend money getting their
nuclear weapons?
I think they should.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I don't care about nukes, but I think they should
spend so much more money, timeand effort on defending
themselves from Russia.
They need to do that becauseRussia can drive to anywhere in
Europe.
Russia cannot drive, not rightnow.
We have to get the earth alittle bit warmer and then they
can drive to America, right, butright now they can drive on the
(25:42):
ground, they can walk on theirfeet to anywhere in Europe.
Wear in Europe and the ideathat a country that's an ocean
away is going to be your saviorand protect you from everything,
so that you can have socializedhealth care.
I?
I'm sorry, but I think WinstonChurchill would roll over in his
grave if he was like we're just, we had, we had no agency until
(26:03):
the Americans showed up, and wewere never going to be.
We would never survive.
The crown was going to fallunless the Americans showed up,
right?
That's basically, what you'resaying that every European
leader is okay with is that theBig Brother umbrella is the
basis of their everything right,and if I'm in charge of any
country on earth, I cannot wrapmy brain around the Big Brother
(26:28):
being the thing that dictateshow I do life.
I just can't do that, you know,and that's Europe To me.
The fact that Macron wantsapplause because he has offered
to protect his neighbors withhis weapons 50 years after he
should have already been, youknow, 70 years after the
aggression happened, and heknows why they all were.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
You know what I'm saying.
Like every time we've gone towar, they've all protected us,
They've all stood with us.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
Why did he to other Europeans, not us, take America
out, this is a European-onlyconversation.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
They're doing a ton of stuff for Ukraine right now.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
No, I'm saying that it's a European-only
conversation.
Just completely take Americaout of it.
He's helping Ukraine.
He said I am just now willingto protect Ukraine with my nukes
, just today, like two days ago.
Three years they've beeninvaded and he was like these
nukes are for France only, noteven no Germany, nobody, it
(27:18):
doesn't matter England, I meanUkraine, you're already out of
the EU and NATO, you're on theedge anyway, but this nuke is
for anybody in Europe.
Now he just made thatannouncement and I'm saying, why
, why?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Because that's a doctrine thing.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And I think it's a really shitty doctrine is what
I'm trying to say.
But again.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
You don't just change doctrine on the drop of a hat.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Why would you ever have a doctrine that I have a
nuke and someone who doesn'ttouch me, I'm going to rely on
their nukes instead of my nukesto protect myself, because you
let them shoot theirs off beforeyou get rid of yours.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You wouldn't let somebody else.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Shoot their ammo before you shoot yours.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
I would not be okay with my big brother telling me
what to do if I was a presidentof any country.
Period, right, I just wouldn't.
That's not how the nukes workin in other countries at all you
know what I'm saying, so no,yeah, because like our nukes are
there, like, like we're nottalking about american nukes,
we're talking about french nukes, dude, so like whoever's nukes,
(28:21):
like yeah, their countrieshandle them, yeah, they always
have them, like they've stillalways had them.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
But the doctrine change is that we always, we all
had a first strike doctrinesaying that we would not strike
first.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Sure, yeah, but like it was always up to the, and
France's doctrine was I won'tstrike anybody unless I'm
protecting myself.
Right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
So like that's a huge like doctrinal change to say
like, and I'm saying we're ashitty, we're warming up the
buttons.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Position to live in, to go.
I just I'm not gonna use, I'llnever use my name.
That's.
That's russia and america.
Right like no, you'll never useit first no, you'll never use
it.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
I'm saying his policy shift, I'm not talking about
first.
He didn't change.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
First he didn't change.
First he said second use, 10thuse.
He said it wouldn't matter whoshot first.
My nukes were only for France.
Just go read the article, dude.
On Monday, because it'sThursday now.
On Monday, macron said pleaseclap for me, because on Sunday
they had their meeting in London, right.
And on Monday he said I wantapplause because after our
meeting yesterday, I decidedthat I would be willing to
(29:26):
protect Ukraine, where I was notokay to do that yesterday.
On Saturday, I wasn't willingto protect them in this way, but
today I am.
Why on Saturday was yourmentality around protecting a
contiguously connected neighborto you?
What happened between Saturdayand Monday that you believe that
(29:49):
, like this, lifelong change indoctrine is now required?
And I know the answer isAmerica said they weren't going
to play, and I think that I getthat you.
The American supremacy is thegoal here, but my point is is
that France has responsibilityfor Europe more than America
does, because France is fuckingin Europe, all right, and
(30:12):
America is not, and so Francehas a requirement to protect
their neighbors.
And on Saturday he would havesaid no, I won't do this, but on
Monday he would.
And the fact that Big Brothersaid you guys actually need to
learn how to fight and protectyourselves.
Big Brother said you guysactually need to learn how to
fight and protect yourselves.
I feel like, if that's whatprompted the doctrine shift,
(30:34):
what a terrible position to bein as a president, that on
Saturday you were like I'm notgoing to fight this fight, it's
somebody else's fight.
But then somehow on Sunday yougrew some sort of backbone or
courage or I don't know what,and said, oh, I guess I've got a
different view of the world nowand I actually would protect
you.
I'm mad at him that on Saturdayhe wouldn't protect them.
I just don't get it right thathis offer was not equal to the
(30:58):
American offer.
He was not willing to take asmuch damage, put in as much
effort, try as hard or just care, even vocally, back them in the
way that America would have.
On Saturday he wasn't willingto do those things.
That's what he said.
That's why he had to make anannouncement on Monday that
something changed.
He said on Saturday I wasn'tdown to protect you.
(31:19):
On Monday I am why.
On Saturday, why would theyever in a position to say I'm
not down to protect you?
That's the problem I have, andI'm not talking about America.
I'm talking about why would aEuropean country look at another
European country and say Idon't care about you, because
America's got your back, not me.
That's so fucked up.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I think that's quite a bit of a stretch for him to
say I don't care about you.
They're giving so much moneyand effort into the Ukrainian
war.
They've given so much more thanwe have already To.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
They've given so much more than we have already.
To say that they wouldn'tprotect them is so disingenuous.
Then why did he make theannouncement on Monday?
What was the point of it?
What was the point?
I wasn't a nuclear protector ofyou on Saturday and I am now on
Monday Because he had to bethen.
He had to be on Saturday too,that's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
You know, their funding of the war, like who
knows what, came out in uh intelchannels.
Well, actually, we told uhgreat britain to no longer
provide intel to ukrainians yeah, so we've even cut off our five
.
Yeah, yeah, so so we we do knowthat that we're cutting intel
and things like that, sure, sobig things change over the
weekend.
(32:26):
Yeah, he needs to ramp upnuclear production.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
He didn't say he's making nukes.
He didn't say that he's goingto have to.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
I don't care.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
He didn't say that we're not putting words in his
mouth.
He said what I will do isrepeat him On Saturday I was not
your nuclear protector.
On Monday I am and I'm sayingwhat kind were you in that on
Saturday you did not care aboutthat he probably had intel
saying like we got you.
Day one.
He should have said my nukebacks you the day Russia invaded
(32:55):
them three years ago.
That's the day that Macron, whowas in charge back then, should
have said Eastern Frontaggression is unacceptable.
We don't need to wait forAmerica.
We're going to be Europeanleaders, I'm going to be the
president of France and I'mgoing to do my job and protect
my neighbors, and I'm going tostep out here, right here, the
first day that Russia shotsomething into a European
country and rolled over theborder.
(33:17):
I'm going to offer you my ownblood and my nukes and
everything I can to stop them atyour Eastern border.
I'm not going to wait for themto show up and I'm for sure not
going to wait for the presidentof the United States to tell me
what to do.
The day that Russia invades,you have my nukes, ukraine, not
three years later, not afterDonald Trump shows up and messes
around that I'm going to decideto grow a spine and do
(33:39):
something to make a presence inthe fight.
No, the day that Russia invadedis the day that Macron should
have stood up and said my nukebacks you.
And the three years later it'stoo late is what I'm saying.
It's too late.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Okay, I heard you Want to wrap it up.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Yeah, sure, there we go.
This is this week's episode.
Thanks everybody.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.