April 20, 2025 • 34 mins
After celebrating John’s birthday, we’re back to address recent feedback from our March 22nd episode, particularly claims of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” As public servants, our concerns stem from direct experience with the impact of erratic policies. Sudden tariff shifts, for example, disrupt planning and create instability, not out of partisanship, but because effective governance matters.
We also examine federal spending priorities, where minimal investment in homelessness contrasts sharply with massive military and debt expenditures. These choices reveal more about values than speeches do. Looking ahead to the midterms, we’ll discuss what Democrats must offer beyond opposition, including clear plans to govern effectively.
April 20, 2025
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Cause I'm too messy and then I'm just too unclean.
You told me, get a job and youasked where the hell I've been
and I'm too perfect, so I openmy big mouth.
I want to be me.
Is that not allowed?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And I'm too clever and then I'm too stupid though
you hate it when I cry, and it'sjust that time of the month.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
And I'm too perfect to show you that I'm not A
thousand people.
I could be for you and youain't gonna hold it wrong.
Hey everybody, welcome back tothe RTWJ podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Happy Easter to those of you who celebrate and, of
course, to our favorite hosthere, john.
We want to wish you a veryhappy birthday, a belated
birthday.
It was last weekend.
So for those of you that keptwondering, why do these guys
keep delaying the episode,what's going on with them?
You know what?
Last weekend it was all aboutcelebrating you and your
birthday and celebrating yourlife and legacy and everything
(01:02):
you bring to the world.
So you know what we were busy,so we're sorry.
We're here now and we're backon track.
So happy belated birthday toJohn again.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Thanks, marcus.
It was a great weekend.
I got to spend it with mypartner, my best friend, of
course, marcus, my family, myfriends, disney yeah, I had an
engagement party, so congrats tomy good friends Olivia and
Matthews on their engagement.
I'm so excited for them and sohappy to be part of their
journey.
And I was part of the also youknow celebration too.
That kind of fell in the middleof my birthday weekend, so I'm
(01:32):
very happy for them it waspretty cool to see Did a lot of
good stuff, had some greatdinner, got a lot of good gifts,
just had a really good time,just to kind of step back and
settle and just, you know, takeit in the drinks were going at
california adventure too.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
You're having a good time with that.
Let me tell you, weather wasgreat, everything was great my
place, disney, is my home.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
We've talked about it many, many times and I, you
know, just love it.
I will continue to stand bythat uh, you know yeah take that
charge.
Thanks, marcus, I appreciate it, and thanks to everyone out
there who wished me a happybirthday, and you know, yeah,
here we go On to good things andon to our show.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
So Absolutely.
Why are we here?
We have a lot of business totake care of.
Yes, that's true.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Yes, first and foremost, you know our show has
taken many different positions.
As Marcus said, we talked aboutyou know personal stuff.
We've talked about politics andthat's kind of what we, you
know, stand by and what we do.
And, of course, you know mylittle rants, as I'm being told
I'm, you know, that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
I've always wanted people to react to our show and
people to respond to ourrequests, people to respond to
things we have to say.
So finally, we got a prettylively, you know well-voiced
response on what I've beensaying.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yes, you, especially you, really got the heat, so
this is.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I listened to the episode, so I'm going to say who
it is.
Jay from the hard parkingpodcast.
Thanks for that feedback.
Um, before I get started, jay,I want to just tell you that you
are personally invited to ourshow let's talk live let's talk
live, because one thing that Iwill stand by is that the real
talk with jam podcast.
Oh my god, excuse me, that wasour um time to wake up.
(03:10):
Yeah, that was our littleinformation here.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
A little early morning, early morning show here
.
You gotta wake up in themorning here.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
But see if you hear that.
That's one thing I was saying,jay, is that come on to the show
, let's discuss this life,because one thing that I will
stand by, that one thing we'vedone from the beginning here at
the RTWJ podcast or Real Talkwith Jam podcast, is that we
record live.
There is no two takes, there isno second take, there is no
elimination of work, nothing.
(03:35):
We are a show that records live, we produce it live and that is
what gives us that raw, true,passionate speaking that we do,
and we got feedback for that.
I was told that I was um, thatI was very passionate and that I
sounded like a super leftliberal, whatever that means.
(03:57):
Um, that I sounded uneducated,cool.
I like that feedback.
I do.
I like the feedback because youare invited to our show.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
All right.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Jay, bring it to us.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
The invitation is out .
Speaker 1 (04:09):
That's fine, but bring it to us, let's talk,
let's discuss a topic live onthe show, let's discuss
something about your president,and we will have fun with it.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Okay, all right, jay, it's out there.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But why is it personal to us, jay, before we
get started on the real specificthings?
Because I want you tounderstand why this is so
personal to us and why, in manysenses, we might sound as we're
very passionate, marcus and I,as all you know are public
servants.
We work in capacities that servethe public.
That is our stark difference.
We work in actual positionsthat serve the public.
(04:48):
That is our stark difference.
We work in actual positionsthat serve the public, and
things that change in governmentaffect the way we work and
affect the way we serve thosethat we work for our
stakeholders, members of thepublic, community members and
fellow public officials in ourorganizations.
So, as public servants, we dealwith this all the time.
The feedback is great.
(05:09):
You can call me anything youwant.
I love it because Marcus and Iare in positions that we've
heard countless different thingssaid to us about us, about our
programs.
And what do we do, marcus?
Take it in stride and keep itpushing, because we are public
servants and it is our job toserve the public.
We took an oath to do that, sothat's why this is so important
to us, because the work we do isaffected by those that make
(05:31):
decisions, and right now theyaren't making them too good, but
we'll get into those specifics.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, I mean I have to just lead into it.
You already set up the stage.
It's.
You know we want to talk andsome of the debate sometimes
gets into the policy right howis the policy right?
So the Trump administrationsets one up and they're putting
it out there.
Let's debate the policy.
The thing is we also, like yousaid, being that we work in
public sector, we're dealingwith the actual execution of the
(05:57):
policies and that executionprocess alone.
I can say, at least again frommy experience, what I'm dealing
with in my industry.
The execution is an absolutenightmare.
It's chaotic, it's unclear.
Priorities change, whatqualifies, things change, for
example, with federal funding.
So we've talked in the past.
We talked about the federalfunding freeze.
(06:19):
That's one of the first thingshe did only a couple of weeks
into the administration right,everything was frozen.
So it was and don't hold me tothe details 100%, but it was
essentially they wanted to gothrough and do a review of all
the different federal fundingprograms and assess whether it
was something they wanted tocontinue.
So in the meantime, no moneywas to go out until they did
(06:41):
that.
Well, that didn't work.
That didn't work for neitherkind of more.
What would you say?
Liberal states, liberaljurisdictions?
Speaker 1 (06:49):
as well as conservative.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Conservative.
States and districts also had aproblem with it too, so they
had to reverse it.
They're still doing it, they'restill going through this review
.
They just didn't hold the moneyback, right.
But just this chaos that's beengoing on.
Everything is chaotic,everything is uncertain.
We don't know from one day tothe next what's going to happen.
Even certain projects.
Now, if it incorporates DEI, ifit incorporates this, if it
(07:18):
incorporates that, it's underreview, it could be pulled
tomorrow.
Every day is just a circus showand we just don't know what to
do.
We don't know how to functionlike that, with this uncertainty
that we've never had to dealwith before.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
This isn't one of his many failed businesses, by the
way, this isn't you know, thisisn't.
There is track record of thisman and his many failed
businesses, from restaurants tohotel chains, to casinos, to
even educational institutions.
I mean, that itself gives meenough information to know that
(07:48):
the president of the UnitedStates comes from a position
that first has many failedbusinesses.
And oh, here we go with theexcuse.
Right, we're gonna get into whythey always defend him because
they have a term about us too,you know.
And the reason why this mandoes not travel out of the
country he's a convicted felon.
Many countries around the worlddo not allow convicted felons
to travel amongst othercountries.
Have you noticed that he reallyhasn't left the us as much as
(08:10):
he should have?
Mind you, it's pretty soon inhis administration, but in this
time, sure, okay, devil'sadvocate here.
Okay, look at you okay, yeah,yeah, you know it's uh, but you
know he doesn't leave becauseyou know.
Okay, whatever, maybe he'sconvicted.
Felon status right prevents himfrom leaving, which is absurd
in many ways.
But marcus taught tell us whyor what we were called.
Uh, you know, because they, youknow.
The feedback we got was that wehate trump and we do but stand
(08:33):
by that, but there is a termthat we were called and yes,
that exists, and why we do we?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
we fall under this category and again and I should
have looked this up before, Ishould have seen- I didn't know
this existed, so you didn't know.
And and there is a state, Idon't want to say which one, I
don't know if it's it's one ofthose ones in the midwest or the
south, they're of coursethey're trying, of course, one
of those that banks off of bluestates because their economy
just collapses.
Okay there was legislationactually they attempted it I'm
(09:01):
not sure what the status is totry and make this an actual
medical condition that peoplecan be diagnosed with.
So we need to be careful wherewe travel now, because you might
actually have this diagnosis.
Oh no, so the term and I heardthis term before, but I think
it's becoming more prevalent nowas people react to his
administration and what's goingon Because I think for some of
(09:21):
us, we're looking at things andgoing, okay, it's really crazy
to make us look crazy forthinking he's crazy.
They use the term trumpderangement syndrome or tds.
Now I'm going to read this.
This is from wikipedia,obviously the most reliable
source of information on the web, as we all know, but I think
this actually is a prettyaccurate like conservatives do
facebook and ai yeah, what isthat?
(09:44):
uh, what did we talk aboutbefore?
What is the name of that?
What was the name of that thing?
4chan, was it 4chan or somenonsense?
They did that.
That platform that people werespreading information on.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Tds trump derangement I'm on attack mode.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Sorry, it's okay it's all right, we're again.
This is a live show.
We, we don't have this scripted.
I have a couple of notes justsitting here.
Okay, tds, let me get into this.
It is a pejorative term used todescribe negative reactions to
US President Donald Trump thatare perceived to be irrational
and to have little regard forTrump's actual policy positions.
(10:18):
So I was mentioning that alittle bit earlier.
Where the execution of thepolicy right, just because you
know, whatever the policy mightbe at the moment that's being
put out there, let's say DEI,right, okay, dei.
Well, you need to look at themerits of his position, blah,
blah, blah.
But we're talking about theexecution and the problems that
come with how it's actuallybeing executed in real life.
So this is saying that you'renot being considerate of the
(10:42):
policy itself.
You're not being considerate ofthe policy itself.
The term has mainly been usedby Trump supporters to discredit
criticism of him.
Oh, here we go, john, there'syou as a way of referring, I'm
sorry, as a way of reframing thediscussion by suggesting that
his opponents are incapable ofaccurately perceiving the world.
In other words, it suggeststhat people let their dislike of
(11:07):
Trump supersede logic andreason.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
I can say the exact same thing for those who support
Trump, because, no matter whatwe say, no matter how we
criticize him, they continuouslystand by the fact oh, oh, but
this is why he did this, or thisis why he's doing this right.
As soon as he lost the debatewith Kamala during the
presidential debate, the firstthing they went to was oh, oh,
but this is why he did this, orthis is why he's doing this
right.
As soon as he lost the debatewith Kamala during the
presidential debate, the firstthing they went to was oh, her
(11:29):
earrings are headphones,earpieces, right?
There is this constant samething?
You guys do, same thing you doJay, that's fine.
Me and Marcus you know what.
Let's self-diagnose ourselveswith TDS.
Ooh, it's not like we've beenthere before, right, that's what
(11:55):
we have to deal with, but Imean it's the same thing.
We critique Trump because he hasbeen a failed person from the
beginning.
He is a TV celebrity, failedbusinesses, convicted felon.
This is why we critique him.
There is no policy issues dancethat I've ever stood by.
That he has said In many waysin the beginning during his
first term of presidency okay,there were parts where he did
say things that's a difference.
(12:16):
But I was like okay, you knowwhat, maybe in some aspect
economy, economic wise he canput us into a different thing.
Right, for example, the Trumptax cuts in the beginning, where
we did beginning, where we didsave a little portion of the way
he allocated tax brackets andhow we were able to better fit
in the tax brackets amongst hisfirst established policy that he
(12:37):
enacted.
I'm not too sure of thespecifics.
Marcus knows a little moreabout that.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Okay, we have a bullet point for you.
John, you're acknowledging, see, so there's some recognition.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
That's the thing, but he is not good.
He isn't.
When I hear him speak, hedoesn't inspire me.
He does not.
He's not a good speaker.
I'm sorry he's not.
There was never a motivateduring his entire run for
presidency.
There was never a motivationalspeech that gave me the chills.
(13:06):
There wasn't anything like whatObama did.
There wasn't anything like whatKamala did.
Even Joe himself, bernieSanders, there wasn't any.
George Bush, even these johnmccain.
You know, these people gave meinspiration.
(13:27):
They spoke in a way that thatwanted to.
You know what?
If they lied to me, that's fine, but they at least convinced me
that they gave me hope.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
However, that looked like okay, so I want to stop you
right there.
I'm going to challenge you,then let's let's do this devil's
advocate thing.
It's good.
So what you just said, right,trump doesn't inspire you or
make you feel like others.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I feel like we're the stupidest country in the world
when he talks.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Is that TDS?
Speaker 1 (13:56):
No.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Okay, talk to me, I'm a communications major Talk to
me.
This is what I do.
I studied I.
I have a Bachelor of.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Science.
Can I conclude?
Since he doesn't motivate you,inspire you and give you an
emotional response, that's whyyou hate him.
A part of it is that, but Ialso hate him because he is a
bigot.
Okay, he has a failed trackrecord.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Nothing has been successful, right?
For example, he's over here onhis website saying that COVID
was spread through a lab andcritiquing the Biden
administration.
Buddy, you were presidentduring the COVID-19 pandemic.
What is it with yourfascination for Biden?
Let it go.
You sound like a really upsetex-husband or ex-wife.
Let it go.
(14:39):
If you want to get married withBiden, go ahead, but let your
relationship dwindle out.
You guys got your divorce.
That's it.
Enough with the obsessions,right?
But no, my really hate is thatthis man does not have any
specific policy implications,does not talk like a powerful
(15:00):
leader, does not have that styleof communication that inspires
others.
He doesn't.
He berates, he attacks, heinterrupts, he ignores as
someone that studied the scienceof communication, the
communication between largegroups, small groups,
individuals, verbal, non-verbal,visual, non-visual all of these
(15:23):
things he is really bad atthings he is really bad at.
He is really bad at this.
He stands up there, spewsnonsense and we all fall for it.
We all do.
I'm a victim of it too.
I'll tell you, and marcus and Ihave said this if this man had
a show where he went to talkshit about people, you best
(15:43):
believe I would pay to be there,because he's good at doing that
.
Oh, he's outrageous.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yes, he's a great performer.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I will give him that.
He is a great performer andwhen it comes to the science of
communication, his performanceis top notch.
As someone that studiescommunication habits and
theories and policies,procedures, everything like that
.
This man does one thing that'sgood he convinces the poor, the
(16:12):
uneducated and those that aremissing that specific part of
communication techniques thatallow them to fall for what he
says.
He is good at that.
He is damn well good at that,and I will give him that.
I will give Trump that that heis good at convincing people
with the stuff that he says andmaking an impact, Because all of
(16:35):
us, whether you follow him ornot, have something to say about
him, something to respond,react about him.
Yes, that's true, he does goodat that.
That's true.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
That's true Absolutely.
And great perspective.
Thank you for sharing moreabout your perspective on how
you see him and I want to talk alittle bit.
So I always like to talk aboutspecific issues.
Let's do this policy, tds,execution.
I want to look at an example ofthis kind of breakdown.
I want to talk about thetariffs.
I've been talking a lot abouthis economic kind of policy and
(17:06):
stance.
I want to just reflect on that.
So let's break this down.
Let's do a breakdownPolicy-wise tariffs.
We can sit and we can go backand forth all day on exactly who
to put the tariff on right.
Oh, this country deserves atariff, this industry deserves a
tariff.
This is how much it should be.
We can do that all day long.
(17:29):
Personally, I'm not overlyenthusiastic about tariffs,
especially that we are now in2025 in a global economy, and I
don't think the US can juststand on its own away from the
rest of the world.
Our economy is too integratedwith the international market.
I'm not sure that we're there.
So that's my personal view onthat policy.
Let's, let's take all, okay.
(17:50):
So you know, we're talkingabout the policy.
Let's now look at that andlet's look at the execution.
And this is where I have aproblem.
This is the thing.
Every almost every day, thepolicy has changed china at one
point.
The beginning was 10, I believe, believe.
And then we did Mexico andCanada.
At what was it?
25%, right.
How many times in the lastcouple of weeks have those
(18:15):
figures changed?
What the number was?
It is constantly changing.
By the day, by the week, thefigure changes.
What we're doing, oh, we're nownegotiating One point, right?
Honestly, right now, at thismoment, sitting here, I don't
know what the status is ofCanada and Mexico.
I don't know what their rate isright now.
I don't know what they're beingDon't forget the penguins.
(18:37):
Oh, let's not even start withthe island and the penguins.
Yeah, the penguins are going tobe tariffed, but I right now
can't tell you what the theamount is of the tariff or what
the tariff is.
Okay, we got our studio cathere, coming in here right now.
We gotta get control of the cat.
Sorry, that's okay.
So here's the thing.
Look at the stock market.
I believe that this and okay,we can go on all day about.
(18:59):
I'll get feedback on this.
I believe the stock market isthe truth teller of how things
are going in the economy.
The stock market has been infree fall.
It has its moments of recoveryand then it just keeps blowing
up.
It's saying that things aren'tgood right now, right with the
tariffs and everything.
Just look at the execution ofthat.
Let me pose a question.
This is something I saw.
We want production in the USright Right now.
(19:23):
With the way things are withsupply chains and tariffs, why
would you start a factory in theUS right now?
How can you plan business foryour business?
How can you plan what yourcosts are going to be, how
you're going to source materialsor anything?
With the way things are?
This is chaotic.
There is no strategy in howthese tariffs are being done.
(19:45):
They change by the day.
He literally at one point tellsChina a couple of days ago, or
weeks ago China.
China right.
Basically, let's save TikTokand I'll cut back on the tariffs
.
What happened to being tough?
What happened to?
We got to show it to them?
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yes, you didn't hear this, I mean, I'm just like
that's my reaction.
Huh.
What didn't hear this?
I mean, I'm just like that's myreaction.
Huh.
What really like this is thestate of our country.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Let's just play games , and here we go.
These tariffs everyday change.
How do you, as a business, eventhis is the world's biggest
economy, buddy, even in the okaypublic sector.
Going back to our line of work,as we're planning our budgets
and finances, what do sales taxrevenues look like?
What do investment returns looklike?
Absolutely, how do you plan foranything with this?
There's no strategy.
There's no path in how this isbeing executed.
(20:29):
So again, regardless of whetheryou believe in tariffs oh, we
need strong tariffs, let's giveit to China, let's give it to
so-and-so we can debate that,but then look at how he's
actually executing it.
It's a complete mess.
So I would love to sit and, forexample, with terrorists, look
at the policy angle and focus onthe policy angle.
(20:50):
Let's debate the policy angle.
The way it's being handled,though.
I mean everything, everything.
I mean.
Look the mass layoffs, forexample, that Doge did with
various public agencies.
Right, letting all these peoplego offering these buyouts.
No strategy, no path.
They've had to pull back peoplethat they determined were
critical.
They've had to delay peoplefrom taking advantage, for
(21:11):
example, the IRS.
They had to say, nope, irsagents can't do it until after
the tax season.
Why?
Oh, because we actually needyou.
We didn't really realize thatat first, so we had to pull that
back.
Just everything's messy,chaotic, have to pull back.
Just everything's messy,chaotic, have to pull back, have
to correct.
There's no strategy whatsoever,and that's my problem.
With things I can't debate, forexample, let's do mass layoffs,
(21:34):
or let's cut the federalworkforce, because the way it's
being done is so messy itdoesn't matter.
So that's where I'm at.
That's my little spiel aboutpolicy versus execution.
Oh well, tds-wise.
Look at versus execution.
Oh well, you know, tds wise,you know.
Look at the execution.
How can I debate the?
Policy when the execution aloneis so messy.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Exactly, and you know , marcus is more focused on the
aspects of the policies, right,and I look at the humanity from
the type of things, right, Ilook at the stupidity that we
deal with, for example, trump'seducation secretary, rachel
Maddow, which is so funny, right, because she's supposed to be
running the Department ofEducation, an organization that
she's also made to dismantle.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Now clarify Rachel Maddow's the MSNBC host.
What's the secretary's name?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Oh sorry.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I forget her name.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Linda Mahone.
However you say her name, Idon't know, yeah.
So on, Rachel Maddow sorry my.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
however you say her name, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Yeah, so on Rachel Maddow sorry, my words got
jumbled there yeah, so on RachelMaddow.
Linda you know we're talkingabout how.
Linda is truly just a greatexample of the people that were
chosen for his administrationand his cabinet.
So in one press conferencetalking about AI technology, she
(22:45):
called AI, ai oh, lord, havemercy and let me tell you I do
love my a1 sauce and some steak.
It makes it taste really good,really brings out the flavor a1
is a real problem, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (22:56):
this country a1?
Speaker 1 (22:59):
first of my first ago .
She said it multiple times.
My first example okay, and thenwe get into when um trump said
that during a press conference,with telling president sergio
matarella, he's indicated thatthe us and italy are bound
together by shared cultural andpolitical heritage dating back
thousands of years to ancientrome.
(23:19):
Um, the us wasn't aroundthousands of years ago.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Um, so wasn't italy also part of the access powers
in world war ii is.
That is, that what they callgermany and japan wasn't italy
part of that crew too in worldwar ii.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Don't hold me to that I'll give a benefit of the
doubt.
I will maybe say maybe he washighlighting the long-standing
kind of cultural connectionsbetween the two nations.
Maybe he was kind of indicatingthat.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
What he was trying to probably say was the fact that
obviously many Italianimmigrants came to the US in the
1800s and 1900s, but he wasportraying it very inaccurately.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Yeah, and now let's do rapid fire, let's do rapid
fire of where our tax dollarsare spent, and averages of where
tax dollars are spent uh basedon individual tax contributors
like myself and marcus, okay,okay is, according to rotor
rotors, uh, the associated press, sources of the associated
press and the institute forpublic and policy studies.
Okay, the average taxpayercontributed about $98 for
(24:28):
deportations, immigrantdetention and border control.
About $26 for refugeeassistance.
Okay, the average taxpayer alsocontributed about $3,700 for
weapons in war, a little over$1,800 for Medicaid.
This is a good one, because youknow, jay and everyone else
love Elon Musk and say he'sdoing a great job.
(24:49):
Right, the average taxpayercontributed about $6 for SpaceX
contracts.
Wow, look at that.
But we only gave a little lessthan one cent for the Council on
Homelessness.
For the Council on Homelessness, the average taxpayer
contributed over $2,000 forPentagon contracts and troops
(25:13):
and also this we contributedalmost $4,000 for interest, just
on the national debt.
How much do you think theaverage taxpayer gave for
diversity, equity and inclusionprograms at the Pentagon?
Take a wild guess.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
I'm going to say that's a hard one You're going
why?
Because is it according to thestandards now by this current
administration, where anythingcan be DEI?
Basically, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I don't know how to guess that, but they say that
they claim to be wasteful Alittle less than three cents.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Is that the current administration saying that?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
This is yeah.
So then you know, it's just,it's, it's it's.
They say that these arewasteful spending tactics.
Right, but we're looking at theimplications on average as an
individual taxpayer on SpaceXcontracts than we are spending
combined on the ConsumerProtection, financial Bureau
Agency, the National ParkService and Museum and Library
(26:11):
Service.
Oh, you know what?
Let's throw in there the PostalService.
So the wastefulness where is itthat it's going?
Right, you know we are we goingto stop the spacex contracts,
jay?
Is that what we're going to do?
I mean, considering that thisbillionaire has billions of
dollars in government contracts,right, where is the um?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
and the consumer finance protection bureau.
Uh, talking about that.
So the the budget on that thatI have for this year, this
current federal fiscal year, is810 million.
The agency has returned over 21billion billion directly back
to consumers.
That agency, basically duringthe recession you had multiple
agencies that were responsiblefor transparency and protections
when it came to financialproducts for consumers.
(26:53):
Right, they consolidated intoone agency.
That agency again has broughtback over $21 billion direct to
the public, direct to thecitizens.
Here's the thing In the pastfew weeks or, I'm sorry, I
believe it was the past fewweeks or if not the past few
months the Consumer FinancialProtection Bureau issued some
(27:14):
guidelines when it came todigital payment platforms.
They're going to have morejurisdiction over those types of
platforms.
Musk wants to start XMoney,which is a digital payment
platform, and he's targeting anagency that would otherwise set
rules and guidelines on how hisplatform operates.
Isn't that interesting?
(27:34):
Yeah that's exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And you know.
Another thing is that I alwayswill say that Republicans I'm
sorry, not Republicans, becausethis is very different that
Republicans I'm sorry, notRepublicans, because this is
very different MAGA Republicansand these crazy evangelical
Christians, and you knoweverything they like to tell on
themselves right, because wehave the attack that's going on
with Trump's syndication ofHarvard.
Right, and you?
know, we're going to cut thisand we're going to cut that
(27:58):
right.
Remember back in 2013, when theGOP was, you know, talking
about the IRS supposedlytargeting political enemies of
President Obama?
Yes, and how they said quote,quote the IRS can go after you
because of what you think.
If that's the case, or what youbelieve, or what you do, we no
(28:19):
longer live in a free country.
Okay, that's what one GOPmember said.
Okay, the next one said this isgreat.
They are direct actions that aretaken, you know, far worse than
Watergate.
You know that they were takenagainst Americans, and they said
(28:40):
that Americans had sought toexercise their first amendment
rights under the free speech.
And then here's another one.
Here's another one Said if thiswere a Republican president
targeting the ACLU or somegruel's, gruel's or anything of
an administration, themainstream media would be on top
of it.
Right, the GOP said this backin 2013.
But what are they doing now?
The exact same thing theytalked about, and that's where
(29:05):
my frustration stands.
Everything they have said.
They turn around and do exactlywhat they talked about, and
that's what bothers me the most.
They always give out theirplans via their accusations,
every single time, absolutely,yes, they always give out their
plans via their accusations,every single time?
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Absolutely yes, that's been a thing.
Now, what they accuse of iswhat they're actually doing.
That is true, very true.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
All hypocrisy that falls out of their mouths.
So, as we end this episode,before we get to the end, we
have a lot more to talk about.
We do Absolutely, and there'snever enough time for every
single.
Before we get to the end, wehave a lot more to talk about.
We do Absolutely, and there'snever enough time for every
single policy that we want todiscuss that we were called out
on.
We'll do it on another episode,but at the end of the day, this
(29:56):
is a mess.
It has to be given and it hasto be said.
If you look up to someone, asyou do Trump, and praise him to
be a God, you're in a cult.
You're absolutely in a cult.
If you think that that oneperson can save everybody from
persecution, you're looking athim as a religious entity, and
(30:19):
that is a cult and I'm afraidfor the future because of that
aspect.
We shouldn't be praising oneperson like that.
We should be working together.
We are in a democracy.
A democracy works with multiplegears and aspects come together
to form one ending, one product, one solution.
That's how it should be.
(30:40):
This is a democracy, not atheocracy, not a dictatorship,
not fascism, not a fascistgovernment.
This is a type of governmentthat works best when all of the
foundations that were createdcome together and work like a
well-oiled machine.
But that's not happening, andthat's my concern.
Any last points, marcus.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Yeah, I'll set the stage for our next episode.
One question, you know again,we're we're gonna be honest and
we're gonna be, you know, reallydive into this.
One thing, too, is what doDemocrats have to do next year
in the midterms?
That is a big question we haveto ask.
The thing is, this can't justbe a referendum against Trump.
That is one thing that I willthrow out there, and that's one
(31:23):
thing that I will throw outthere, and that's one thing that
we've been asked we have todiscuss, and we'll discuss this
next episode a little more.
What do Democrats do goingforward and how do we reclaim?
You know, we talk a lot aboutwhat happened with the last
presidential election in Kamalaright, and why did she?
Why did she lose?
There are many differentreasons.
One thing, though, that didhappen is that campaign became a
(31:50):
lot about becoming a referendumagainst Trump, and Democrats
have to also talk about whatthey are going to do and how
they're going to deliver for thepeople.
That's been something that hasbeen brought up, especially as
we analyze those that were kindof on the fence and ultimately
went for Trump.
What were the reasons for that?
We need to dive into that alittle more, and I'll set the
stage that we get into that morenext episode too.
We have to be able to answerthat.
On this episode we talked a lotabout him and again our
(32:11):
perspective and why we have thestrong positions that we do.
Now, what do we do goingforward?
That's going to be the nextquestion and we will address
that.
So we do.
We have to, and that'ssomething that's been coming up.
I've been seeing, as we starttalking about the midterms, many
prominent democratic figuresare starting to bring up that
question.
It's an important one and it'sone that we need to answer.
So we'll get into that nextepisode.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
A lot of work to do, always and forever.
One thing about us, though asme and Marcus, I like to say
that we're educated and yeah,call me uneducated, but we're
not.
I think we're educated Becausewe don't look up to political
figures as kings and gods andsaviors.
We criticize them just as manytimes we criticize Biden and we
criticize the Democratic Partywe do.
I'll stand by that, becausethey're a mess in many ways, and
(32:55):
we need to get it together.
But that's our stark differenceis that we recognize those
differences.
We recognize that not everyoneis perfect and we do not look up
to political figures as thesaviors of the new world for all
of us here at the rtwj podcast.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
I'm john and I'm marcus, and we'll catch you guys
on our next episode, take carePromise me no promises.
Don't you promise me nothingwhen you're free?
(33:40):
Just be careful Promise me nopromises.
Cause I'm too messy and then I'm just too unclean.
You told me, get a job and youasked where the hell I've been
and I'm too perfect, so I openmy big mouth.
I want to be me.
Is that not allowed?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And I'm too clever and then I'm too stupid though
you hate it when I cry, and it'sjust that time of the month.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
And I'm too perfect to show you that I'm not A
thousand people.
I could be for you and youain't gonna hold it wrong.
Hey everybody, welcome back tothe RTWJ podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Happy Easter to those of you who celebrate and, of
course, to our favorite hosthere, john.
We want to wish you a veryhappy birthday, a belated
birthday.
It was last weekend.
So for those of you that keptwondering, why do these guys
keep delaying the episode,what's going on with them?
You know what?
Last weekend it was all aboutcelebrating you and your
birthday and celebrating yourlife and legacy and everything
(01:02):
you bring to the world.
So you know what we were busy,so we're sorry.
We're here now and we're backon track.
So happy belated birthday toJohn again.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Thanks, marcus.
It was a great weekend.
I got to spend it with mypartner, my best friend, of
course, marcus, my family, myfriends, disney yeah, I had an
engagement party, so congrats tomy good friends Olivia and
Matthews on their engagement.
I'm so excited for them and sohappy to be part of their
journey.
And I was part of the also youknow celebration too.
That kind of fell in the middleof my birthday weekend, so I'm
(01:32):
very happy for them it waspretty cool to see Did a lot of
good stuff, had some greatdinner, got a lot of good gifts,
just had a really good time,just to kind of step back and
settle and just, you know, takeit in the drinks were going at
california adventure too.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
You're having a good time with that.
Let me tell you, weather wasgreat, everything was great my
place, disney, is my home.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
We've talked about it many, many times and I, you
know, just love it.
I will continue to stand bythat uh, you know yeah take that
charge.
Thanks, marcus, I appreciate it, and thanks to everyone out
there who wished me a happybirthday, and you know, yeah,
here we go On to good things andon to our show.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
So Absolutely.
Why are we here?
We have a lot of business totake care of.
Yes, that's true.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Yes, first and foremost, you know our show has
taken many different positions.
As Marcus said, we talked aboutyou know personal stuff.
We've talked about politics andthat's kind of what we, you
know, stand by and what we do.
And, of course, you know mylittle rants, as I'm being told
I'm, you know, that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
I've always wanted people to react to our show and
people to respond to ourrequests, people to respond to
things we have to say.
So finally, we got a prettylively, you know well-voiced
response on what I've beensaying.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yes, you, especially you, really got the heat, so
this is.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I listened to the episode, so I'm going to say who
it is.
Jay from the hard parkingpodcast.
Thanks for that feedback.
Um, before I get started, jay,I want to just tell you that you
are personally invited to ourshow let's talk live let's talk
live, because one thing that Iwill stand by is that the real
talk with jam podcast.
Oh my god, excuse me, that wasour um time to wake up.
(03:10):
Yeah, that was our littleinformation here.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
A little early morning, early morning show here
.
You gotta wake up in themorning here.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
But see if you hear that.
That's one thing I was saying,jay, is that come on to the show
, let's discuss this life,because one thing that I will
stand by, that one thing we'vedone from the beginning here at
the RTWJ podcast or Real Talkwith Jam podcast, is that we
record live.
There is no two takes, there isno second take, there is no
elimination of work, nothing.
(03:35):
We are a show that records live, we produce it live and that is
what gives us that raw, true,passionate speaking that we do,
and we got feedback for that.
I was told that I was um, thatI was very passionate and that I
sounded like a super leftliberal, whatever that means.
(03:57):
Um, that I sounded uneducated,cool.
I like that feedback.
I do.
I like the feedback because youare invited to our show.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
All right.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Jay, bring it to us.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
The invitation is out .
Speaker 1 (04:09):
That's fine, but bring it to us, let's talk,
let's discuss a topic live onthe show, let's discuss
something about your president,and we will have fun with it.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Okay, all right, jay, it's out there.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But why is it personal to us, jay, before we
get started on the real specificthings?
Because I want you tounderstand why this is so
personal to us and why, in manysenses, we might sound as we're
very passionate, marcus and I,as all you know are public
servants.
We work in capacities that servethe public.
That is our stark difference.
We work in actual positionsthat serve the public.
(04:48):
That is our stark difference.
We work in actual positionsthat serve the public, and
things that change in governmentaffect the way we work and
affect the way we serve thosethat we work for our
stakeholders, members of thepublic, community members and
fellow public officials in ourorganizations.
So, as public servants, we dealwith this all the time.
The feedback is great.
(05:09):
You can call me anything youwant.
I love it because Marcus and Iare in positions that we've
heard countless different thingssaid to us about us, about our
programs.
And what do we do, marcus?
Take it in stride and keep itpushing, because we are public
servants and it is our job toserve the public.
We took an oath to do that, sothat's why this is so important
to us, because the work we do isaffected by those that make
(05:31):
decisions, and right now theyaren't making them too good, but
we'll get into those specifics.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, I mean I have to just lead into it.
You already set up the stage.
It's.
You know we want to talk andsome of the debate sometimes
gets into the policy right howis the policy right?
So the Trump administrationsets one up and they're putting
it out there.
Let's debate the policy.
The thing is we also, like yousaid, being that we work in
public sector, we're dealingwith the actual execution of the
(05:57):
policies and that executionprocess alone.
I can say, at least again frommy experience, what I'm dealing
with in my industry.
The execution is an absolutenightmare.
It's chaotic, it's unclear.
Priorities change, whatqualifies, things change, for
example, with federal funding.
So we've talked in the past.
We talked about the federalfunding freeze.
(06:19):
That's one of the first thingshe did only a couple of weeks
into the administration right,everything was frozen.
So it was and don't hold me tothe details 100%, but it was
essentially they wanted to gothrough and do a review of all
the different federal fundingprograms and assess whether it
was something they wanted tocontinue.
So in the meantime, no moneywas to go out until they did
(06:41):
that.
Well, that didn't work.
That didn't work for neitherkind of more.
What would you say?
Liberal states, liberaljurisdictions?
Speaker 1 (06:49):
as well as conservative.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Conservative.
States and districts also had aproblem with it too, so they
had to reverse it.
They're still doing it, they'restill going through this review
.
They just didn't hold the moneyback, right.
But just this chaos that's beengoing on.
Everything is chaotic,everything is uncertain.
We don't know from one day tothe next what's going to happen.
Even certain projects.
Now, if it incorporates DEI, ifit incorporates this, if it
(07:18):
incorporates that, it's underreview, it could be pulled
tomorrow.
Every day is just a circus showand we just don't know what to
do.
We don't know how to functionlike that, with this uncertainty
that we've never had to dealwith before.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
This isn't one of his many failed businesses, by the
way, this isn't you know, thisisn't.
There is track record of thisman and his many failed
businesses, from restaurants tohotel chains, to casinos, to
even educational institutions.
I mean, that itself gives meenough information to know that
(07:48):
the president of the UnitedStates comes from a position
that first has many failedbusinesses.
And oh, here we go with theexcuse.
Right, we're gonna get into whythey always defend him because
they have a term about us too,you know.
And the reason why this mandoes not travel out of the
country he's a convicted felon.
Many countries around the worlddo not allow convicted felons
to travel amongst othercountries.
Have you noticed that he reallyhasn't left the us as much as
(08:10):
he should have?
Mind you, it's pretty soon inhis administration, but in this
time, sure, okay, devil'sadvocate here.
Okay, look at you okay, yeah,yeah, you know it's uh, but you
know he doesn't leave becauseyou know.
Okay, whatever, maybe he'sconvicted.
Felon status right prevents himfrom leaving, which is absurd
in many ways.
But marcus taught tell us whyor what we were called.
Uh, you know, because they, youknow.
The feedback we got was that wehate trump and we do but stand
(08:33):
by that, but there is a termthat we were called and yes,
that exists, and why we do we?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
we fall under this category and again and I should
have looked this up before, Ishould have seen- I didn't know
this existed, so you didn't know.
And and there is a state, Idon't want to say which one, I
don't know if it's it's one ofthose ones in the midwest or the
south, they're of coursethey're trying, of course, one
of those that banks off of bluestates because their economy
just collapses.
Okay there was legislationactually they attempted it I'm
(09:01):
not sure what the status is totry and make this an actual
medical condition that peoplecan be diagnosed with.
So we need to be careful wherewe travel now, because you might
actually have this diagnosis.
Oh no, so the term and I heardthis term before, but I think
it's becoming more prevalent nowas people react to his
administration and what's goingon Because I think for some of
(09:21):
us, we're looking at things andgoing, okay, it's really crazy
to make us look crazy forthinking he's crazy.
They use the term trumpderangement syndrome or tds.
Now I'm going to read this.
This is from wikipedia,obviously the most reliable
source of information on the web, as we all know, but I think
this actually is a prettyaccurate like conservatives do
facebook and ai yeah, what isthat?
(09:44):
uh, what did we talk aboutbefore?
What is the name of that?
What was the name of that thing?
4chan, was it 4chan or somenonsense?
They did that.
That platform that people werespreading information on.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Tds trump derangement I'm on attack mode.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Sorry, it's okay it's all right, we're again.
This is a live show.
We, we don't have this scripted.
I have a couple of notes justsitting here.
Okay, tds, let me get into this.
It is a pejorative term used todescribe negative reactions to
US President Donald Trump thatare perceived to be irrational
and to have little regard forTrump's actual policy positions.
(10:18):
So I was mentioning that alittle bit earlier.
Where the execution of thepolicy right, just because you
know, whatever the policy mightbe at the moment that's being
put out there, let's say DEI,right, okay, dei.
Well, you need to look at themerits of his position, blah,
blah, blah.
But we're talking about theexecution and the problems that
come with how it's actuallybeing executed in real life.
So this is saying that you'renot being considerate of the
(10:42):
policy itself.
You're not being considerate ofthe policy itself.
The term has mainly been usedby Trump supporters to discredit
criticism of him.
Oh, here we go, john, there'syou as a way of referring, I'm
sorry, as a way of reframing thediscussion by suggesting that
his opponents are incapable ofaccurately perceiving the world.
In other words, it suggeststhat people let their dislike of
(11:07):
Trump supersede logic andreason.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
I can say the exact same thing for those who support
Trump, because, no matter whatwe say, no matter how we
criticize him, they continuouslystand by the fact oh, oh, but
this is why he did this, or thisis why he's doing this right.
As soon as he lost the debatewith Kamala during the
presidential debate, the firstthing they went to was oh, oh,
but this is why he did this, orthis is why he's doing this
right.
As soon as he lost the debatewith Kamala during the
presidential debate, the firstthing they went to was oh, her
(11:29):
earrings are headphones,earpieces, right?
There is this constant samething?
You guys do, same thing you doJay, that's fine.
Me and Marcus you know what.
Let's self-diagnose ourselveswith TDS.
Ooh, it's not like we've beenthere before, right, that's what
(11:55):
we have to deal with, but Imean it's the same thing.
We critique Trump because he hasbeen a failed person from the
beginning.
He is a TV celebrity, failedbusinesses, convicted felon.
This is why we critique him.
There is no policy issues dancethat I've ever stood by.
That he has said In many waysin the beginning during his
first term of presidency okay,there were parts where he did
say things that's a difference.
(12:16):
But I was like okay, you knowwhat, maybe in some aspect
economy, economic wise he canput us into a different thing.
Right, for example, the Trumptax cuts in the beginning, where
we did beginning, where we didsave a little portion of the way
he allocated tax brackets andhow we were able to better fit
in the tax brackets amongst hisfirst established policy that he
(12:37):
enacted.
I'm not too sure of thespecifics.
Marcus knows a little moreabout that.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Okay, we have a bullet point for you.
John, you're acknowledging, see, so there's some recognition.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
That's the thing, but he is not good.
He isn't.
When I hear him speak, hedoesn't inspire me.
He does not.
He's not a good speaker.
I'm sorry he's not.
There was never a motivateduring his entire run for
presidency.
There was never a motivationalspeech that gave me the chills.
(13:06):
There wasn't anything like whatObama did.
There wasn't anything like whatKamala did.
Even Joe himself, bernieSanders, there wasn't any.
George Bush, even these johnmccain.
You know, these people gave meinspiration.
(13:27):
They spoke in a way that thatwanted to.
You know what?
If they lied to me, that's fine, but they at least convinced me
that they gave me hope.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
However, that looked like okay, so I want to stop you
right there.
I'm going to challenge you,then let's let's do this devil's
advocate thing.
It's good.
So what you just said, right,trump doesn't inspire you or
make you feel like others.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I feel like we're the stupidest country in the world
when he talks.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Is that TDS?
Speaker 1 (13:56):
No.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Okay, talk to me, I'm a communications major Talk to
me.
This is what I do.
I studied I.
I have a Bachelor of.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Science.
Can I conclude?
Since he doesn't motivate you,inspire you and give you an
emotional response, that's whyyou hate him.
A part of it is that, but Ialso hate him because he is a
bigot.
Okay, he has a failed trackrecord.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Nothing has been successful, right?
For example, he's over here onhis website saying that COVID
was spread through a lab andcritiquing the Biden
administration.
Buddy, you were presidentduring the COVID-19 pandemic.
What is it with yourfascination for Biden?
Let it go.
You sound like a really upsetex-husband or ex-wife.
Let it go.
(14:39):
If you want to get married withBiden, go ahead, but let your
relationship dwindle out.
You guys got your divorce.
That's it.
Enough with the obsessions,right?
But no, my really hate is thatthis man does not have any
specific policy implications,does not talk like a powerful
(15:00):
leader, does not have that styleof communication that inspires
others.
He doesn't.
He berates, he attacks, heinterrupts, he ignores as
someone that studied the scienceof communication, the
communication between largegroups, small groups,
individuals, verbal, non-verbal,visual, non-visual all of these
(15:23):
things he is really bad atthings he is really bad at.
He is really bad at this.
He stands up there, spewsnonsense and we all fall for it.
We all do.
I'm a victim of it too.
I'll tell you, and marcus and Ihave said this if this man had
a show where he went to talkshit about people, you best
(15:43):
believe I would pay to be there,because he's good at doing that
.
Oh, he's outrageous.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yes, he's a great performer.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I will give him that.
He is a great performer andwhen it comes to the science of
communication, his performanceis top notch.
As someone that studiescommunication habits and
theories and policies,procedures, everything like that
.
This man does one thing that'sgood he convinces the poor, the
(16:12):
uneducated and those that aremissing that specific part of
communication techniques thatallow them to fall for what he
says.
He is good at that.
He is damn well good at that,and I will give him that.
I will give Trump that that heis good at convincing people
with the stuff that he says andmaking an impact, Because all of
(16:35):
us, whether you follow him ornot, have something to say about
him, something to respond,react about him.
Yes, that's true, he does goodat that.
That's true.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
That's true Absolutely.
And great perspective.
Thank you for sharing moreabout your perspective on how
you see him and I want to talk alittle bit.
So I always like to talk aboutspecific issues.
Let's do this policy, tds,execution.
I want to look at an example ofthis kind of breakdown.
I want to talk about thetariffs.
I've been talking a lot abouthis economic kind of policy and
(17:06):
stance.
I want to just reflect on that.
So let's break this down.
Let's do a breakdownPolicy-wise tariffs.
We can sit and we can go backand forth all day on exactly who
to put the tariff on right.
Oh, this country deserves atariff, this industry deserves a
tariff.
This is how much it should be.
We can do that all day long.
(17:29):
Personally, I'm not overlyenthusiastic about tariffs,
especially that we are now in2025 in a global economy, and I
don't think the US can juststand on its own away from the
rest of the world.
Our economy is too integratedwith the international market.
I'm not sure that we're there.
So that's my personal view onthat policy.
Let's, let's take all, okay.
(17:50):
So you know, we're talkingabout the policy.
Let's now look at that andlet's look at the execution.
And this is where I have aproblem.
This is the thing.
Every almost every day, thepolicy has changed china at one
point.
The beginning was 10, I believe, believe.
And then we did Mexico andCanada.
At what was it?
25%, right.
How many times in the lastcouple of weeks have those
(18:15):
figures changed?
What the number was?
It is constantly changing.
By the day, by the week, thefigure changes.
What we're doing, oh, we're nownegotiating One point, right?
Honestly, right now, at thismoment, sitting here, I don't
know what the status is ofCanada and Mexico.
I don't know what their rate isright now.
I don't know what they're beingDon't forget the penguins.
(18:37):
Oh, let's not even start withthe island and the penguins.
Yeah, the penguins are going tobe tariffed, but I right now
can't tell you what the theamount is of the tariff or what
the tariff is.
Okay, we got our studio cathere, coming in here right now.
We gotta get control of the cat.
Sorry, that's okay.
So here's the thing.
Look at the stock market.
I believe that this and okay,we can go on all day about.
(18:59):
I'll get feedback on this.
I believe the stock market isthe truth teller of how things
are going in the economy.
The stock market has been infree fall.
It has its moments of recoveryand then it just keeps blowing
up.
It's saying that things aren'tgood right now, right with the
tariffs and everything.
Just look at the execution ofthat.
Let me pose a question.
This is something I saw.
We want production in the USright Right now.
(19:23):
With the way things are withsupply chains and tariffs, why
would you start a factory in theUS right now?
How can you plan business foryour business?
How can you plan what yourcosts are going to be, how
you're going to source materialsor anything?
With the way things are?
This is chaotic.
There is no strategy in howthese tariffs are being done.
(19:45):
They change by the day.
He literally at one point tellsChina a couple of days ago, or
weeks ago China.
China right.
Basically, let's save TikTokand I'll cut back on the tariffs
.
What happened to being tough?
What happened to?
We got to show it to them?
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yes, you didn't hear this, I mean, I'm just like
that's my reaction.
Huh.
What didn't hear this?
I mean, I'm just like that's myreaction.
Huh.
What really like this is thestate of our country.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Let's just play games , and here we go.
These tariffs everyday change.
How do you, as a business, eventhis is the world's biggest
economy, buddy, even in the okaypublic sector.
Going back to our line of work,as we're planning our budgets
and finances, what do sales taxrevenues look like?
What do investment returns looklike?
Absolutely, how do you plan foranything with this?
There's no strategy.
There's no path in how this isbeing executed.
(20:29):
So again, regardless of whetheryou believe in tariffs oh, we
need strong tariffs, let's giveit to China, let's give it to
so-and-so we can debate that,but then look at how he's
actually executing it.
It's a complete mess.
So I would love to sit and, forexample, with terrorists, look
at the policy angle and focus onthe policy angle.
(20:50):
Let's debate the policy angle.
The way it's being handled,though.
I mean everything, everything.
I mean.
Look the mass layoffs, forexample, that Doge did with
various public agencies.
Right, letting all these peoplego offering these buyouts.
No strategy, no path.
They've had to pull back peoplethat they determined were
critical.
They've had to delay peoplefrom taking advantage, for
(21:11):
example, the IRS.
They had to say, nope, irsagents can't do it until after
the tax season.
Why?
Oh, because we actually needyou.
We didn't really realize thatat first, so we had to pull that
back.
Just everything's messy,chaotic, have to pull back.
Just everything's messy,chaotic, have to pull back, have
to correct.
There's no strategy whatsoever,and that's my problem.
With things I can't debate, forexample, let's do mass layoffs,
(21:34):
or let's cut the federalworkforce, because the way it's
being done is so messy itdoesn't matter.
So that's where I'm at.
That's my little spiel aboutpolicy versus execution.
Oh well, tds-wise.
Look at versus execution.
Oh well, you know, tds wise,you know.
Look at the execution.
How can I debate the?
Policy when the execution aloneis so messy.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Exactly, and you know , marcus is more focused on the
aspects of the policies, right,and I look at the humanity from
the type of things, right, Ilook at the stupidity that we
deal with, for example, trump'seducation secretary, rachel
Maddow, which is so funny, right, because she's supposed to be
running the Department ofEducation, an organization that
she's also made to dismantle.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Now clarify Rachel Maddow's the MSNBC host.
What's the secretary's name?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Oh sorry.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I forget her name.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Linda Mahone.
However you say her name, Idon't know, yeah.
So on, Rachel Maddow sorry my.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
however you say her name, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Yeah, so on Rachel Maddow sorry, my words got
jumbled there yeah, so on RachelMaddow.
Linda you know we're talkingabout how.
Linda is truly just a greatexample of the people that were
chosen for his administrationand his cabinet.
So in one press conferencetalking about AI technology, she
(22:45):
called AI, ai oh, lord, havemercy and let me tell you I do
love my a1 sauce and some steak.
It makes it taste really good,really brings out the flavor a1
is a real problem, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (22:56):
this country a1?
Speaker 1 (22:59):
first of my first ago .
She said it multiple times.
My first example okay, and thenwe get into when um trump said
that during a press conference,with telling president sergio
matarella, he's indicated thatthe us and italy are bound
together by shared cultural andpolitical heritage dating back
thousands of years to ancientrome.
(23:19):
Um, the us wasn't aroundthousands of years ago.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Um, so wasn't italy also part of the access powers
in world war ii is.
That is, that what they callgermany and japan wasn't italy
part of that crew too in worldwar ii.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Don't hold me to that I'll give a benefit of the
doubt.
I will maybe say maybe he washighlighting the long-standing
kind of cultural connectionsbetween the two nations.
Maybe he was kind of indicatingthat.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
What he was trying to probably say was the fact that
obviously many Italianimmigrants came to the US in the
1800s and 1900s, but he wasportraying it very inaccurately.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Yeah, and now let's do rapid fire, let's do rapid
fire of where our tax dollarsare spent, and averages of where
tax dollars are spent uh basedon individual tax contributors
like myself and marcus, okay,okay is, according to rotor
rotors, uh, the associated press, sources of the associated
press and the institute forpublic and policy studies.
Okay, the average taxpayercontributed about $98 for
(24:28):
deportations, immigrantdetention and border control.
About $26 for refugeeassistance.
Okay, the average taxpayer alsocontributed about $3,700 for
weapons in war, a little over$1,800 for Medicaid.
This is a good one, because youknow, jay and everyone else
love Elon Musk and say he'sdoing a great job.
(24:49):
Right, the average taxpayercontributed about $6 for SpaceX
contracts.
Wow, look at that.
But we only gave a little lessthan one cent for the Council on
Homelessness.
For the Council on Homelessness, the average taxpayer
contributed over $2,000 forPentagon contracts and troops
(25:13):
and also this we contributedalmost $4,000 for interest, just
on the national debt.
How much do you think theaverage taxpayer gave for
diversity, equity and inclusionprograms at the Pentagon?
Take a wild guess.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
I'm going to say that's a hard one You're going
why?
Because is it according to thestandards now by this current
administration, where anythingcan be DEI?
Basically, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
I don't know how to guess that, but they say that
they claim to be wasteful Alittle less than three cents.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Is that the current administration saying that?
Speaker 1 (25:51):
This is yeah.
So then you know, it's just,it's, it's it's.
They say that these arewasteful spending tactics.
Right, but we're looking at theimplications on average as an
individual taxpayer on SpaceXcontracts than we are spending
combined on the ConsumerProtection, financial Bureau
Agency, the National ParkService and Museum and Library
(26:11):
Service.
Oh, you know what?
Let's throw in there the PostalService.
So the wastefulness where is itthat it's going?
Right, you know we are we goingto stop the spacex contracts,
jay?
Is that what we're going to do?
I mean, considering that thisbillionaire has billions of
dollars in government contracts,right, where is the um?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
and the consumer finance protection bureau.
Uh, talking about that.
So the the budget on that thatI have for this year, this
current federal fiscal year, is810 million.
The agency has returned over 21billion billion directly back
to consumers.
That agency, basically duringthe recession you had multiple
agencies that were responsiblefor transparency and protections
when it came to financialproducts for consumers.
(26:53):
Right, they consolidated intoone agency.
That agency again has broughtback over $21 billion direct to
the public, direct to thecitizens.
Here's the thing In the pastfew weeks or, I'm sorry, I
believe it was the past fewweeks or if not the past few
months the Consumer FinancialProtection Bureau issued some
(27:14):
guidelines when it came todigital payment platforms.
They're going to have morejurisdiction over those types of
platforms.
Musk wants to start XMoney,which is a digital payment
platform, and he's targeting anagency that would otherwise set
rules and guidelines on how hisplatform operates.
Isn't that interesting?
(27:34):
Yeah that's exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
And you know.
Another thing is that I alwayswill say that Republicans I'm
sorry, not Republicans, becausethis is very different that
Republicans I'm sorry, notRepublicans, because this is
very different MAGA Republicansand these crazy evangelical
Christians, and you knoweverything they like to tell on
themselves right, because wehave the attack that's going on
with Trump's syndication ofHarvard.
Right, and you?
know, we're going to cut thisand we're going to cut that
(27:58):
right.
Remember back in 2013, when theGOP was, you know, talking
about the IRS supposedlytargeting political enemies of
President Obama?
Yes, and how they said quote,quote the IRS can go after you
because of what you think.
If that's the case, or what youbelieve, or what you do, we no
(28:19):
longer live in a free country.
Okay, that's what one GOPmember said.
Okay, the next one said this isgreat.
They are direct actions that aretaken, you know, far worse than
Watergate.
You know that they were takenagainst Americans, and they said
(28:40):
that Americans had sought toexercise their first amendment
rights under the free speech.
And then here's another one.
Here's another one Said if thiswere a Republican president
targeting the ACLU or somegruel's, gruel's or anything of
an administration, themainstream media would be on top
of it.
Right, the GOP said this backin 2013.
But what are they doing now?
The exact same thing theytalked about, and that's where
(29:05):
my frustration stands.
Everything they have said.
They turn around and do exactlywhat they talked about, and
that's what bothers me the most.
They always give out theirplans via their accusations,
every single time, absolutely,yes, they always give out their
plans via their accusations,every single time?
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Absolutely yes, that's been a thing.
Now, what they accuse of iswhat they're actually doing.
That is true, very true.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
All hypocrisy that falls out of their mouths.
So, as we end this episode,before we get to the end, we
have a lot more to talk about.
We do Absolutely, and there'snever enough time for every
single.
Before we get to the end, wehave a lot more to talk about.
We do Absolutely, and there'snever enough time for every
single policy that we want todiscuss that we were called out
on.
We'll do it on another episode,but at the end of the day, this
(29:56):
is a mess.
It has to be given and it hasto be said.
If you look up to someone, asyou do Trump, and praise him to
be a God, you're in a cult.
You're absolutely in a cult.
If you think that that oneperson can save everybody from
persecution, you're looking athim as a religious entity, and
(30:19):
that is a cult and I'm afraidfor the future because of that
aspect.
We shouldn't be praising oneperson like that.
We should be working together.
We are in a democracy.
A democracy works with multiplegears and aspects come together
to form one ending, one product, one solution.
That's how it should be.
(30:40):
This is a democracy, not atheocracy, not a dictatorship,
not fascism, not a fascistgovernment.
This is a type of governmentthat works best when all of the
foundations that were createdcome together and work like a
well-oiled machine.
But that's not happening, andthat's my concern.
Any last points, marcus.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Yeah, I'll set the stage for our next episode.
One question, you know again,we're we're gonna be honest and
we're gonna be, you know, reallydive into this.
One thing, too, is what doDemocrats have to do next year
in the midterms?
That is a big question we haveto ask.
The thing is, this can't justbe a referendum against Trump.
That is one thing that I willthrow out there, and that's one
(31:23):
thing that I will throw outthere, and that's one thing that
we've been asked we have todiscuss, and we'll discuss this
next episode a little more.
What do Democrats do goingforward and how do we reclaim?
You know, we talk a lot aboutwhat happened with the last
presidential election in Kamalaright, and why did she?
Why did she lose?
There are many differentreasons.
One thing, though, that didhappen is that campaign became a
(31:50):
lot about becoming a referendumagainst Trump, and Democrats
have to also talk about whatthey are going to do and how
they're going to deliver for thepeople.
That's been something that hasbeen brought up, especially as
we analyze those that were kindof on the fence and ultimately
went for Trump.
What were the reasons for that?
We need to dive into that alittle more, and I'll set the
stage that we get into that morenext episode too.
We have to be able to answerthat.
On this episode we talked a lotabout him and again our
(32:11):
perspective and why we have thestrong positions that we do.
Now, what do we do goingforward?
That's going to be the nextquestion and we will address
that.
So we do.
We have to, and that'ssomething that's been coming up.
I've been seeing, as we starttalking about the midterms, many
prominent democratic figuresare starting to bring up that
question.
It's an important one and it'sone that we need to answer.
So we'll get into that nextepisode.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
A lot of work to do, always and forever.
One thing about us, though asme and Marcus, I like to say
that we're educated and yeah,call me uneducated, but we're
not.
I think we're educated Becausewe don't look up to political
figures as kings and gods andsaviors.
We criticize them just as manytimes we criticize Biden and we
criticize the Democratic Partywe do.
I'll stand by that, becausethey're a mess in many ways, and
(32:55):
we need to get it together.
But that's our stark differenceis that we recognize those
differences.
We recognize that not everyoneis perfect and we do not look up
to political figures as thesaviors of the new world for all
of us here at the rtwj podcast.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
I'm john and I'm marcus, and we'll catch you guys
on our next episode, take carePromise me no promises.
Don't you promise me nothingwhen you're free?
(33:40):
Just be careful Promise me nopromises.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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