Cocktails and News Election Countdown! VP Harris on Fox Controversial CA propositions SF Mayor race

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello, Welcome to the Nicky Medora Show.
I'm Nicki Medoro. She's kim McAllister and I'm kim McAllister.
I always say this before the show, the one minute
before the show starts. I mean, I'm telling you, is
the best one minute before the show, because it's when
kim McAllister gets her beverage cocktails and news. Kim McAllister,

(00:41):
before we get to our friend Emily Hovid, who's going
to be opening the official Voter Guide, tell us what
your husband David has made for you for cocktails and
news real quickly.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
So this is a new development in my house, this
whole cocktails thing that we're doing on Thursday nights. Because
I'm not a big drinker. It's not that I don't drink.
I don't often gravitate toward it. And if I do,
I'll have a glass of wine. So tonight today he goes. Earlier,
he told me, he goes, tonight, you're gonna put your
big girl pannies on. You's gonna have a big girl drink.

(01:13):
And I was like, what the hell does that mean?
He goes, I'm surprising you. So like moments ago, he
brings me this in a margarita glass.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
It's not a margarita. Though. You also keep in mind
Kim McAllister is not much of a drinker people.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
He purchased this this it's a Manhattan it's this pre
made drink. It's a High West Distillery barrel finished cocktail,
all right. So he brings me this, and the guy's
got a cherry in there, and it's very cold. Yep.
And I took a sip of it. He go. I go,

(01:50):
I can't. I can't drink it before Nicky gets here,
because we drink together, Like, I don't want to take
a sip. He goes, No, you need to prepare yourself.
And it's not bad when you sip it, like the
taste of it on the in front of your tongue.
But when you swallow it, I swear to god, it
tastes like you're sucking on a gas pipe, like your

(02:11):
whole throat.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
Is just on fire, on fire.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
So does anyone think this is pleasant?

Speaker 1 (02:18):
I think you have to have a couple of SIPs.
It's like, you know, like a bad wine. Sometimes just
drink half of it and then you just don't even
know about it. But anyway, so that's what Kim's gonna
be drinking on a cocktails and news on the Nicki
Medora Show. Make sure you click that thumbs up and
to support the show. Our Patreon, of course is live.

(02:39):
But let's get to it because we don't have Emily
for very long. Okay, so let's welcome to the show.
We'll be drinking later on, so don't worry people, but
let's welcome to the show. Our good friend Emily Hoven
with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer, and she's gonna
help us get through. I have it right here, Emily,

(03:00):
thank you, Welcome to the show. Welcome back to the show. Emily.
I love seeing your face. Thank you, thank you so
much for joining us.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
Of course, great to see both of you.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
Okay, so we have the voter Guide and we're going
to talk about a couple of state propositions, and then
we are going to squeeze in towards the end the
Chronicles recommendation or the endorsement for the mayor's race, because
that's quite interesting. But I you know, there's so many
propositions there. What ten I think California voters are going
through to decide? I wanted to focus on the housing

(03:31):
ones with you. First one I wanted to touch on,
which I found to be very interesting, was thirty three.
Now thirty three Everyone get out their voter guide. This
is interesting. Okay, I was doing my homework, Emily. This
one is called Prop thirty three expands local governments authority

(03:53):
to enact rent control. Once people see run control, Emily,
they're like, oh my goodness, run control and resident property.
This is not the first time this has been before voters, right.

Speaker 4 (04:05):
No, it has been before voters actually, I believe the
last three statewide elections in various iterations. So yeah, it's
definitely not the first time that it's come before us, and.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
It hasn't done well most obviously, that's why keeps coming
before voters. What is the chronicles endorsement for this, and
how likely do we think it's going to pass?

Speaker 4 (04:28):
Yeah, so this other versions of this measure have failed
by wide margins in past years, but you know, the
proponents of it are.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
Not deterred and keep bringing it back.

Speaker 4 (04:39):
And you know, I think the polls this year are
actually showing it to be somewhat of a close race.
And I think maybe that's partially because you know, coming
out of the pandemic. There were a lot of folks
that you know, dealt with eviction or difficulty paying the
rent and things like that, and so that might be
a point of interest for people. The Chronicle editorial board, however,

(05:01):
we endorsed a no vote on this measure, and it's
for various reasons, but essentially, what Prop. Thirty three would
do is it would repeal something called the Costa Howkins
Rental Housing Act, which is a nineteen ninety five state
law that essentially limits local governments or prevents local governments

(05:26):
from limiting what landlords can charge new tenants when they
first move in. And it also limits the rent increases
that landlords can charge tenants in housing that was built
after nineteen ninety five, condos and single family homes. So
that's you know that that's kind of a complex issue,
but you know, there are cities that already do have

(05:49):
various forms of rent control, and studies have generally shown
that while those measures can protect existing tenants and you know,
make sure make sure that they're not paying a ton
more than when they first moved in, it generally is
a disadvantage for newer tenants, and it also can suppress

(06:09):
new housing supply because it disincentivizes landlords and developers to
build new housing because they know that the housing that
they would build would be rent controlled if the current
law were repealed, because right now it does not. It
basically blocked the local governments from limiting the rent that

(06:31):
you could charge for a brand new apartment. But if this,
if Prop thirty three were to pass, essentially it would
eliminate that prevention, and so local governments would then have
the decision as to whether they want to institute any
other form of rent control that is not currently allowed.
Another reason we opposed it is because there have actually

(06:55):
been a lot of anti housing sort of nimby cities
explicitly saying that they want Prop thirty three to pass
because they would use it to basically enact other forms
of what courts have interpreted to be rent control, including
what are known as UH inclusionary requirements. In other words,

(07:17):
if a developer wants to build a new housing development,
a lot of local governments have inclusionary requirements that basically say, okay,
twenty percent of this project has to be affordable housing.
But basically people that don't want new housing development are
saying they want thirty three to pass, because then they
could pass the law that says it has to be

(07:38):
one hundred percent affordable all the time, and that would
essentially make it impossible for projects to depencil out and
no one would build any housing.

Speaker 3 (07:46):
So because of those concerns, you.

Speaker 4 (07:48):
Know, we oppose, we oppose Proposition thirty three, but you know,
there are a lot of folks and tenants organizations that
support it and say that it will help keep people
in their in their homes and ensure that people are
not displaced and neighborhoods are not gentrified.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
I mean, I was reading it and I was this
is what I was thinking if you had if Prop
thirty three did pass, And one analysis I was reading
is like, well, some people that had investment properties would
want to sell their properties because they wouldn't be able
to rent it as much and get as much money.
I like that because then maybe they would sell their
properties and people would be able to buy them that

(08:25):
want to buy a home. Does that make sense? Like
I feel like people are holding onto their properties as
investment and not letting people that wanted to buy their
first homes have an opportunity to do so. The housing
supply is kind of locked in to some of these.
And I don't know if it's just corporate you know
people that own homes or just you know mom and

(08:47):
pops that own these homes. I just feel it would
add to the housing supply in some way. But are
you finding that that's that's not actually a possibility. And
to add on top of that, I mean, at what
point can people just stop raising the amount of rent
they make from homes? I mean, how do we cap it?
In California? There has to be some sort of mechanism.

(09:10):
If it's not Prop thirty three, then what is it
to make people say enough is enough? People can't afford
it this astronomical rise in rent.

Speaker 4 (09:22):
Yeah, So to answer the first part of your question,
I think paradoxically, the more you expand rent control, actually
the more you are incentivizing people to stay in the
same homes forever. Because if the apartments are rent control,
if more and more apartments are rent controlled.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Why would you ever leave them? Do you know what
I mean?

Speaker 4 (09:42):
Whereas right now you know if you are if there's
not as much rent control, there is going to be
sort of more natural turnover of properties, people moving in
and out of different locations, and again, if you expand
rent control to aggressively, you know, we have reviewed research
that at that point it makes the financial incentive to

(10:03):
build housing essentially disappear. And unfortunately, I mean, for better
or for worse, financial incentives are always going to be
a part of the housing market place. In regard to
your second point, there actually already is a statewide cap
on rent increases. There is a twenty nineteen state law
that limited annual rent increases for most occupied units that

(10:27):
are more than that are more than fifteen years old
to five percent plus inflation or ten percent, whichever is lower.
And it also expanded tenant protections so you couldn't just
you know, evict someone and because you want to raise
the rent. So again that does there are still properties
that are coming on the market that are more that
are less than fifteen years old, that are going to

(10:47):
have higher costs. But you know, at the end of
the day, that protection is still a lot more than
people and other states have.

Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, I just it's just it's so frustrating. I feel
like people are going to see rent control and I mean,
how likely do you think, what do you do you
have any idea what the polling shows with Prop thirty three,
it is climate close or not.

Speaker 4 (11:09):
Yeah, there's various poles that have showed it being closer
than it was in past years. You know, there's been
a lot of money spent on this measure.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
Actually.

Speaker 4 (11:18):
Prop thirty four is an attempt to sort of limit
the ways that the main funder of Prop thirty three,
Michael Weinstein, who is actually AIDS Healthcare Foundation, can really
keep putting this before voters on the ballot. But yeah,
at this point, you know, the poles are closed, and
I think only three percent of ballots have been returned
so far, so it's really unclear how this is going

(11:41):
to end up.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
So you say, the Chronicle is a yes, I'm thirty three.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
No the Chronicle, no.

Speaker 2 (11:47):
No, I'm thirty three.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
Okay, yeah, Okay, I want to go real quickly to
Prop five because I do want to get the mayor's race,
and I know we only have you for another nine
minutes or so. Prop five is this bond measure that
actually correct me if I'm wrong? What impact this election
as well? This allows local bonds for affordable housing and
public infrastructure with fifty five percent voter approval, So that

(12:11):
would change the threshold from two thirds to fifty five percent.
Where does the I mean now this, I'm I'm leaning
towards no because I feel like, jeez, Louise, we spend
so much money on bonds and I'm very cautious about this.
Where does the Chronicle stand on this?

Speaker 4 (12:31):
Yeah, so the Chronicle ed historial Board is also a
no on this measure. And I'm laughing because we are
yes on other measures I promised, but these two specifically,
we happen to be a no on. So Prop five
at its basic level, it basically reduces the threshold to
pass local affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds. So, as

(12:53):
you mentioned, Nikki right now, in local bonds, you need
to have sixty six point seven percent of voter approve
those local bonds for them to go into effect. And
so this can lead to weird outcomes where, for example,
you can have I think there was a fire infrastructure
protection bond in the Bay Area county that failed with
sixty six percent of the vote or something like that.

(13:14):
So even though it's a majority of voters, it still
wasn't that super majority threshold. And I'll just note that
state wide, for state bonds, you actually only need a
fifty percent plus one majority, so the threshold for local
bonds is higher. And part of the reason for that
higher threshold is because local bonds are typically paid back
through higher property taxes, whereas state bonds are repaid out

(13:38):
of the state general fund. So presumably that's money the
state has and it's not a direct tax increase, but
local bonds do tend to lead to local property tax increases,
so that's the reason why they've been higher. But you know,
people make the argument that it's not democratic to have
bonds be rejected with when they even have more than

(14:00):
half percent of the vote, So you know, on that argument,
we are amenable to that argument, even though you know,
I think there are concerns that that would lead to
a lot more bond, a lot more debt, a lot
more taxes, even sloppily constructed bonds, because right now you
do have to kind of put together a pretty intense
coalition to get that two thirds majority. But there is

(14:23):
a very strange carve out in Prop five that is
the main reason why we opposed it, which is it
essentially blocks local governments from using Prop five approved bonds
that pass after the Prop five threshold to build multi
family affordable housing on lots that are currently single family

(14:45):
up to a four plex, So it essentially makes it
difficult to you can't use that bond money specifically for
affordable housing and single family and low zoned neighborhoods, and
we found that to kind of perpetuate the exclusionary aspect
of single family home zoning.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
And so for that reason we opposed the bill.

Speaker 4 (15:04):
And the reason that that was even in there was
because the California Association of Realtors very had raised millions
of dollars to a post Prop five unless that exemption
was written in there for them, because obviously, you know,
they make their money selling those types of homes. You know,
they said that they opposed it because they want to
ensure that people can continue to buy single family homes.

(15:27):
That remains a dream for many people, including people of color,
who are now a growing share of homeowners in the state.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
So that's part of it. But yeah, that's the general
gist of Prop.

Speaker 5 (15:39):
Five.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, it's so interesting looking at who supports this bill,
which is the California Professional Firefighters, the League of Women
Voters of California, and Habitat for Humanity supports it as well.

Speaker 4 (15:52):
I think part of that is because you know the bonds,
you would be able to have lower thresholds for infrastructure bonds,
which includes things like fire fire bonds for fire stations
and obviously Habitat for Humanity also builds some types of housing.
So it would give them more business most likely because
more types of local bonds would pass, whereas right now

(16:15):
they are failing to meet that two thirds super majority.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
All right, we have about five minutes and I have
to get to the mayor's race in San Francisco. And
for those of you that don't live in San Francisco,
I don't live in San Francisco, but this San Francisco
mayor's race is just something to watch. And again it's
falling in line with the presidential race, which I don't
know if Mayor London Breed would be doing as well
if it wasn't in a presidential election. That's what a

(16:41):
lot of people are saying now. Again, just to remind people,
London Breed's the incumbent Mayor Mark Ferrell, former city supervisor
and the appointed mayor, Daniel Luriy, nonprofit founder and the
Levi Strauss Air. Aaron Peskin is the president of the
Board of Supervisors and Asha Safaii is the district of
and supervisor. All of them are running for mayor of

(17:03):
San Francisco, a job I wouldn't want if you paid
me a billion dollars, but they all want the job. Apparently.
The San Francisco Chronicle, I've already read your guys' endorsement
very controversial, apparently in some next to the ones who
are you guys endorsing, because it's apparently two semi endorsements.

Speaker 4 (17:26):
Yeah, So our endorsement came out this week and we
supported Daniel Lurie, who, as you mentioned Nicky, is the
nonprofit founder and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, and
who does not have prior experience in city government, which
makes him unique among the other top candidates that you mentioned.

(17:49):
So he was our top choice, and the reason that
we chose him was that, you know, he kind of represents,
which you can say, a departure from the status quo
and also has a really impressive set of connections to
very knowledgeable people. That kind of gave us confidence that
even if he himself is entering into this with you know,

(18:11):
less experience under his belt, he would be ready to
hit the ground running on day one. Just given the
folks that both within and outside of government that a
not only have trust in him, but be are you know,
willing to lend their expertise and advice to him.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
And so that was that, and then it is a risk.

Speaker 4 (18:29):
But we also felt that San Francisco is kind of
that an inflection point where we do need significant change,
and we do need outside the box thinking and fresh
ideas and a fresh perspective. And so even though there
is sort of that uncertainty of what exactly Lourie would
do and how he would execute it, you know, we
felt that that was the risk worth taking. We also

(18:49):
noted in the editorial that London Bred, the current incumbent,
is also you know, a good choice, and we sort
of suggested that she was the safe choice in this race.
And we say that because she's in known quantity, you know,
she's the incumbent. Voters have had six years to sort
of look at her record and see what she's about,
and you know, we don't feel that the city would

(19:11):
get worse under her tenure. You know, it would kind
of keep going on the track that it's on, which
has pros and cons. But we did suggest that she
would be you know another another good option, and the
other candidates we had concerns about, most significantly surrounding Mark Ferrell,
who has kind of wrapped up a series of very

(19:32):
serious and concerning ethics violations and whose ideas that we
ran past experts we did not feel would actually really
bring the city to the place that it needs to go.
So yeah, that was kind of the reason for it.
But it has been really interesting to sort of get
the feedback from people, and I think we ran a
bunch of letters today that some of them supporting the

(19:53):
decision and some of them criticizing it. And it's going
to be really interesting to see how it all plays out,
and you're kind of seeing these shifting allegiances and ranked
choice voting strategies play into it, because San Francisco is
also somewhat unique in having this ranked choice voting system,
so you basically say this is my top choice, second choice,

(20:15):
third choice, fourth choice choice, and that can distribute the
votes in weird and unpredictable ways. So it's my first
time kind of going through a ranked choice election, so
I I'm kind of just interested to see what's going
to happen because I really have no nah expect you.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Don't like it at all. Sometimes exactly, it's crazy, It's
absolutely crazy, emilyvid Oh, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Before we let you go, can I quickly ask you
what type of ethics violations in regards to Mark Ferrell?

Speaker 3 (20:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (20:47):
Absolutely so. He Most of them are in regard to
his campaign finance policies. So, for example, there are concerns
that he has been using a ballot measure committe that
basically allows for unlimited donations to subsidize his his main
World campaign, which has donation caps of five hundred dollars

(21:09):
per individual, and so basically he's he has been cross
pollinating them in a in a very unusual way, and
it seems that perhaps he might have been Yeah, there's
just questions around that. He also did not report a
very sizable debt that he owes to a prominent San
Francisco family, and he said that he, you know, forgot

(21:32):
to report that debt. But those are things that the
public needs to know because those are those are relationships that.

Speaker 3 (21:39):
Could change how they act when their in office.

Speaker 4 (21:42):
So those are those are several of them, but there
are more, but those are the two that come to mind.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Wowka, well, Emily, I mean i'd love that it's your
first time doing the rank choice voting. Also, real quickly,
like I mentioned before, the fact that this isn't a
presidential election, that also does play well for London Breed.
And do you think that that was obviously a good
move for the for the city of San Francisco, but

(22:08):
making the best choice for may or having it with
the presidential election.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
Yeah, No, One quick thing to you on Mark Ferrell.

Speaker 4 (22:14):
I just want to note that he's very strenuously denied
all the allegations, so I just want to make sure.

Speaker 3 (22:18):
That that's out there in regard to that. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (22:22):
So it's actually funny in terms of the mayoral election, Timy,
because there was a debate a while back about whether
this election should have been held last year or this year,
and so that's why the mayor has actually served six years.
So it's a bit complicated, and the mayor actually opposed it, ironically,
but now I think that it's probably going to benefit her,

(22:43):
and we've actually seen her align herself very explicitly with
Kamala Harris, even using sort of the same tagline of
we won't go back. She has specifically used that in
regard to Mark Ferrell, who she sort of sees as
you know, she's characterized as a as a secret Republican
and kind of wanting to implement all these conservative measures
in San Francisco, and you know, I think obviously being

(23:05):
a woman of color, she's been able to kind of
drum on that enthusiasm as well that the vice president
has generated among a lot of previously apathetic Democratic voters.

Speaker 3 (23:16):
So you know, we'll see.

Speaker 4 (23:17):
I'm not sure if it's gonna how that's going to translate,
because I think Breed's also been going through a pretty
stormy time. There have been a lot of ethics scandals
in her own department that have been covered recently, and
I think have you know, raised a lot of concerns
for voters who feel like they're approving all this money,
They're approving all these new taxes, and you know, the

(23:38):
nonprofits are some of the nonprofits are not using that appropriately,
and meanwhile, we're seeing a lot of crises on our
streets continue to get worse, and so I think there
is that frustration.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
How it will manifest definitely remains to be seen.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
Absolutely. Emily Hope in San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer, thank
you so much. We can't wait to have you back.
It's going to be a crazy election, and I love
that you're covering it all. Thank you so much for
joining us. We love having you. We miss so doors
always open. Thank you, Emily Hovin. Check her out on
the chronicle. Thank you so much. Yeah, it's gonna be

(24:11):
a nuts It's gonna be a crazy, crazy election. I
love that she's covering the rank choice voting. Do you
like rank choice or nothing? No, I don't like it either.

Speaker 2 (24:19):
It's San Francisco and voted there. I found it to
be super frustrating because you could see that most people,
even if you voted, if most people voted for a
number one candidate, yeah, for some reason, the number two
candidates still have the opportunity to win. It was really bizarre.
I didn't care for the way that it wasn't straightforward.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
Yeah, I mean I get I get the idea of
you know, giving people an opportunity and the and the
way that you have to appeal to more voters. Right,
I understand that kind of way, But sometimes you just
I always say this, and I've said it so many times,
you make things comp because you're trying to fool people.
You're trying to screw people. You know what I mean, like,

(25:04):
make it clear, make it easy. When you make things complicated,
you're trying to fool people. All right, we still have
more propositions to go through. I did my homework.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Look at you.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
I did. I have like all these like notes on
my my voter guide. So I promised you guys, we
were going to go through it. Emily was just only
here for twenty minutes. I do appreciate all of our
time coming through it. So let's start at the beginning.
But I did I had something else. When you were
talking about your Manhattan. My husband brought me something.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
What did you get?

Speaker 1 (25:34):
I got something to so I have a little shot here.
How many of you in the comments? All right, you guys,
pay attention, Pay attention those that drink. Okay, this is
cocktails and news. We will be going through the voter guide.
How many of you know what figling is? Does anybody

(25:54):
know what figling is? Anybody? Anybody? Anybody? It's right here
in my glass. It's clear, all right. It's not vodka,
it is not water, it's not gin. Figling anybody anybody.
It's spelled f E I G L I G. It

(26:17):
is so so so so good. Well, I guess it
is a vodka. I guess I'm lying, Well, is vod No,
it's not actually vodka. They don't call it vodka. It's
not it's not licorice. It's not licorice. Cameo, No, that's
not the right spelling. It's f E I G L
I N G. Anybody? Anybody? Anybody know what it's made

(26:41):
out of. It's actually, yeah.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Is it German?

Speaker 1 (26:47):
It's it's a big liqueur. It is so freaking good.
So every time I go to Teskes, Germania, it is German.

Speaker 5 (26:57):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Down in downtown San Jose. They sell in little bottles. Okay,
you get them in these little little bottles.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
But my husband, oh that's a big bottle.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
This is a big bottle. But they come imagine a
little bottle this size, okay, and they come in a
box of like ten and you just like and you
slam it on the ground and then you take a
little swig of it. I am telling you this is
so dangerous. Do you want to know why? Because it's
not like your Manhattan?

Speaker 2 (27:24):
Is it sweet?

Speaker 1 (27:25):
It is so good?

Speaker 2 (27:26):
Wow?

Speaker 1 (27:27):
It is it's not sweet. Look, there's a literally no burn.
It is yeah, so good. It's so dangerous. It's so dangerous.
I mean, you're not gonna get it's not like, it's
not like. That's not gonna get me. That's not gonna
get me drunk.

Speaker 2 (27:46):
What's the alcohol content on the Let me see, let.

Speaker 1 (27:50):
Me see what it is. It's twenty percent. So that's
not that much too, it's not it's not that bad.
It's not twenty percent. I'll call it by volume. It's
not that bad.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
I there's seventy four proof.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Yeah, this is twenty percent alcohol by volume is not that.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
Yeah, And I don't think I'm going to make it
through this thing. I'm I'm not yeah.

Speaker 1 (28:08):
No, and then I have my Medora. I'm not gonna No.
This will not get you hammered. The vigling. But it's
so yummy, it is so so so yet but it's
dangerous because then you're drinking the gigantic beers at Octoberfest
and you're having all the figling, and then you're just
a mess. But anyways, it is so so, so so yummy.
Do you just try Ocean Vodkas, coconut rum, no burn
and really yummy. Yeah, all right, I'm cracking open my

(28:32):
cold one and I am. Okay, So let's go through
the and if anybody wants to hop on, but let's
put the link in there, Kim, can we put the
link in there? Uh, let's put the link in. If
anyone wants to hop on and start ranting and raving
about any of these propositions, you guys can hop on
and join us. Oh excuse me, nugget, I did not
mean you. All right, proposition proposition too.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
If you have an opinion, yeah, or any knowledge or
you want to discuss, here's the show link. Click it
and join the party. Join the Nicki Miandoro showy. Okay, alright,
I love Dave. Stop fyightling around.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Okay. So number two is shut up dog is authorizing
bonds for public school and community college facilities. All right, Now,
I did my research on this a little bit. Okay.
So here's the thing. This is a ten million dollar
bond billion with the b B with the b Okay, Now,

(29:30):
this goes some goes to community colleges. Most of the
money goes to K through twelve construction. All right. Now,
of course with bonds, they have to they have to
approve it every year. Like there's no plan. Right, there's
a plan and this is over thirty five years that
they're going to try to pay this. They're gonna apparently
pay all of this money back with interest. It's going

(29:54):
to be like seventeen and a half billion dollars for
all of this construction that they're going to have to
So keep that in mind. I guess if you like
these bonds. And again, remember what we were talking about
with Proposition five lowering the threshold. How many bonds are
on this frickin thing? I don't know. As I'm getting older.

(30:14):
I used to say yes to all these freaking bonds
when I was younger, and now I'm like, you know what.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
We have a local bond that would increase our school
facilities spend.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
Okay, yeah, I have one of those online.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Too, And so am I going to vote for the
state bond and the local bond? I don't know? And
does this increase the property taxes? I don't. I guess
it wouldn't. It's not a property tax kind of situation, right,
that would be the local one.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
Let me ask you guys in the comments Kim's question, No,
would you rather vote for the state one or your
local one? And do you think that your local school
board or whatever spends the money better, Like would you
rather the money go to like beautifying your local schools
or go to your tea teachers or whatever? Like do
you trust them to spend the money better than the state? Right?

(31:06):
I mean sometimes I'm like wondering. Look around.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
This would be for repair, for upgrade, for construction of
facilities K twelve public schools, including charter schools, community colleges,
career technical education programs, and the improvement of health and
safety conditions and classroom upgrades. That doesn't sound like a
bad thing. It's got the approval of the California Teachers Association,
the California School Nurses Association. The only body opposed to

(31:33):
it is the how how are Jarvis taxpayers Associations?

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yeah they do, rend says, Yes, here's why the state
matches local district bonds. Teacher Louris's bonds get automatic note
from me, stop going further into debt. There you go,
all right, bonds are only for facilities, not salaries. Oh
there you go. Yeah, Okay, let's move on. Prop three
seems like an easy yes, okay, Proposition three just rights

(32:00):
into the state constitution. What now, this isn't easy? Yes,
Although it's not needed necessarily because Prop eight remember Prop Hate,
you know, the whole gay marriage thing. So basically Proposition
three amends our state constitution that basically takes out the
language the marriage is only between a man and a woman.
But Proposition eight was already repealed, so we couldn't enforce

(32:23):
it anyway. So basically it's just it's just so when
we look at our state constitution, that language is out
of it, even though we can't you know what I mean,
It's more symbolic than anything else. But I like it anyways.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
It just will you no, No, I don't know, because
it changes our state constitution.

Speaker 1 (32:38):
We can't av it anyway because we already passed because
of what we already passed, because you know what I'm saying.
So it's it's already not enforceable, but it just takes
it changes the language. It takes out the language that
was in there, which isn't enforceable anyway.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Makes sense when looking who opposes it, the Jonathan Kellor,
Jonathan Keller, the California Family.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Council, anything that says the Family Counsel, you're like you said,
some reverend traditional family, you know.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
Yeah. The supporters includes some type of evangelical Lutheran church,
the Dolores Where To Foundation Equality California. And it costs
nothing for us to make this change.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Yes, yes, it's an easy yes, all right. Number four
another bond, All right, this is ten billion dollars. This
is for environmental projects. But there's no specific projects listed.
I love this one. No specific projects listed. You're only
deciding whether to give ten billion dollars over forty years

(33:38):
with interest. It's like sixteen, you know, billion dollars, and
there's no plan, of course, to pay it back year
over year. This is the problem. It's that every year
we have to figure out with our budget how to
pay these bonds back. Now, environmental projects, of course, this
is everything to do with water, and so you have
to decide for yourself. Again, bonds, bonds.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
But it doesn't tell me what the projects are. It
just tells me it's for water, wildfire prevention, and protection
of communities and lands.

Speaker 1 (34:10):
But at the same time, okay, on one hand, how
are we going to know what specific projects we're gonna
need a year after year? Right, So, on one hand,
we can't know what specific projects we're gonna need. On
the other hand, how are we gonna know, you know
what I mean, we know we're gonna need it. Right
on one hand, because it's California, or no, we need water,

(34:32):
or no, we need to outdate our infrastructure. We know
we need these things. We know we need it, So
on one hand, on the other hand, it's a hell
of a lot of money. We're talking about basically twenty
six billion dollars over I mean, when all of a
sudden done with the interests and everything over forty years.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
But it is to fight the effects and causes of
climate change, right and conserve our natural resources clean drinking
I want I don't know if I'm ready to make
a decision on this, because I wanted to do some
research and find out what exactly do you mean by
clean drinking water? How are you going to do that?

(35:10):
And what kind of projects would this before.

Speaker 1 (35:12):
There's no specific projects listed, There aren't any specific.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
Product's going to be a note for me?

Speaker 1 (35:19):
Well, I mean, but again, what do you it's over
forty years to pay back the bond. You want them
to list specific projects over the next forty years that
this ten billion dollars is going to.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Good luck if you told me this is to build
a sea wall and protect our coastal communities from the
effects of climate change. Right, if you told me that
you know you have a plan for California's waterway is
to to do yearly testing and to make sure that
that they're protected and sart if you gave me more information.

(35:53):
It's like if my kid came to me and said, hey,
can I have twenty bucks and I want it? Well why?
And they're like understand, but like I might go to
the movies, I might not, but they need.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
The money to figure it out. I don't know. I mean,
I don't know. I'm torn on this one environmental stuff.
Are you on one hand? Okay, so that increased day
cost of about four hundred million dollars a year for
forty years to repay the bond. The supporters of the
Clean Water Action, cal Fire Firefighters, National Wildlife Federation, the

(36:27):
National Conservancy. Obviously, Howard Jarvis is against it. I mean,
Howard Jarvis is always against it. Right, nobody's really against
it except Howard Jarvis. Nobody can. That's just it's a
hard one. You're just gonna have money. I just feel
like I feel like if I'm gonna put a lot
of money towards it. I'd rather put it towards my environment.

(36:48):
We are in the middle of a climate change crisis.
Is going to toss it a ton of money, you
know what I mean? So I don't know, I don't know.
That's what you're gonna have to think about. In forty years.
Who the hell knows. No, in forty years, this plant
is even going to be here. You know, money might
not even exist. We might be on Crypto and on
Mars for all we know. Who the hell knows, you know.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
So here's what cal Matter says about this one. Okay,
they say. Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have been
asking for increased spending on climate change and environment in
recent years, especially after the governor and the legislature approved
a fifty four billion dollar spending package called the California
Climate Commitment in twenty twenty two. But then because we

(37:31):
had budget issues, they had to scale it back to
forty four billion.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
About three scale back to fill back four billion dollars, Okay,
three point eight.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
Billion would be spent on water projects have to improve
water quality. The remainder on protecting the state from floods
and droughts, and other activities including restoring rivers and lakes.
The rest would be spent on wildfire and extreme heat projects,
one point ninety five billion, natural lands, parks, wildlife projects,
one point nine billion, coastal lands, bays and ocean protection,

(38:05):
one point two billion clean energy projects, and eight hundred
and fifty million on agricultural projects.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
But not specifical. Okay, So that's a good breakdown. That's
a good breakdown.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
I broke it. I broke it down in an incorrect fashion.
But let me I'll put the link in the chats
you guys can look.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
So that's a good breakdown of like the categories, but
there's lots of specific projects, but it's a good category breakdown, right.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
It gives you a little bit more information on what
the plant.

Speaker 1 (38:30):
Categories, Okay, and I like those categories. I mean, obviously
we don't know the projects, but we know the categories
and I support those categories, right. So yeah, Look, California
is a gigantic state. We know we're going to need
to do all of this stuff. We know we need
the money, we know it's going to be expensive. The

(38:51):
oversight I worry about the fact that bonds need to
be approved and budgeted for year after year for forty years,
conserves me a bit.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
San Francisco Chronicle says yes, Sacramento be says yes. La
Times says yes.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
Sac B says yes. That's saying a lot.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
The U Southern California News Group, East Bay Times, Mercury News,
and the San Diego Union Tribune say no. This has
a report support from the California Labor Federation, the Firefighters,
the National Wildlife Federation, Clean Water Action, the s c
i U League of Women Voters, the California Democratic Party,
and on and on. The Opponents are the California Republican Party,

(39:33):
as you mentioned, Howard Jarvis and friends and a couple
of GPS's.

Speaker 1 (39:38):
Gonna happen with Howard Jarvis.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
I'm gonna say it's a yes.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
I mean yeah, I believe that. Okay, all right, let's
move on.

Speaker 2 (39:51):
Number six.

Speaker 1 (39:53):
Was at number six that we're going to go.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I went from no to yes on that one really quick.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
Yeah, I see, all right. We did number five with Emily.
All right, number six, this one is interesting.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
No longer can we force inmates to work. Uh, involuntary
servitude is now going to be illegal if we pass
Proposition six. Okay, eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for
incarcerated persons. It's kind of the Karen and the Sick
sort of thing. So now it's not saying incarcerated people

(40:27):
cannot work. They can still, but they just can't be
punished if they don't want to. Right, Does that makes sense?
So no more required prison labor. If they don't want
to work, they do not have to, Yes, obviously, I
mean you don't want to work?

Speaker 2 (40:45):
Dark?

Speaker 1 (40:47):
Right? Oh my goodness, Kim, you want to force people
to work in prison?

Speaker 2 (40:55):
So used to? As of now you can face disciplinary
action infractions. Kim, get a write up. I don't know
you're in jail, okay, which means you're.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Paying a Sitting in jail is not enough.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
That's not enough to society. What how wasteful for you
to just lay around on your backside on a raggedy
old cot.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
Now I have to work for you. I have to
make what license plates? What do I have to do
for you? What do I have to do for you?
I have to be a slave for you. I gotta
work on the chain gang. What I have to do
for you?

Speaker 2 (41:28):
I tell if tonight's garbage night, if I tell someone
in this household empty the garbage, and they don't. Penalties
are coming your way. Is it the same thing with prison?
I don't know if I'm told if I'm in jail
and they say, listen, Kim, we need you to serve
the dinner tonight. We need you to. You know, this

(41:50):
is not dangerous jobs like you know, the wildfire fighter
firefighting team. We need you to, you know, do the
laundry for the good of everybody in the prison. This
is a community after thinking matters what.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
Kind of job we're talking about here, right? I mean
I think it's you know, certain jobs. Yeah, I don't
know what kind of jobs we're talking about here. A
yes vote on this measure means involuntary servitude would not
be allowed as punishment for crime. State prisons would not.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
Be allowed servitude. It sounds so bad.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
State prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in
prison who refuse to work, So they would face a
punishment if they refuse to work. So and who knows
what kind of punishment that is, especially in prison, right? So,
I mean, are people getting put in solitary confinement if
they refuse to work? Let me come on, now, let's
let's get.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
The supporters of this say the measure would compel state
prisons to prioritize rehabilitative programs, yes, rather than busy work
that doesn't necessarily help an inmate prepare for life after prison.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
Listen, the truth of the matter is the Department of
Rehabilitation doesn't really focus on the rehabilitation part. Come on,
like it's we are not making we do not focus
on the rehabilitation part all the time. We know this, right,
I mean the recidivism rate and all that sort of stuff.
We know about this, right, And it's because prisons are overpopulated.

(43:20):
And again, Emily Hoven did not give, by the way,
the endorsement of the Chronicle on Proposition thirty six, which
we will talk about in a moment, because they haven't
released it yet. They're going to release it next week.
That's why I didn't ask her about it. But again,
if that passes, imagine our prisons are going to get
even more filled up.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
So the next one we have to look at is
prop thirty six because apparently, according to cal Matters, the
support for this is lagging, is lagging because of support
for something else rather proposition six. All right, yeah, support
for better. Proposition thirty six could be influencing voters' first

(43:59):
impression of proper.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
Right, Yeah, I mean we could think about it. Okay,
So if we have overcrowded prisons, right, so then we
have all of these men, let's just talk men, Okay,
we have all these men in prison, and then they're
putting to work and they're you know, the conditions are bad,
and then they're being punished for not to I mean,
come on, I mean, how many prison movies do we

(44:23):
have to see before we have some sort of image
in our mind about what the hell's going on in there?

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Right?

Speaker 1 (44:28):
Like Vicky, She's like, oh please, it's not slavery. They're
making up in some small way for their crimes. I've
never been to prison, VICKI I don't know, but I'm
sensing I'm getting this sense that it's not rainbows and
butterflies in there. I'm sensing that an overcrowded prison with

(44:49):
not so nice prison guards and you know, the higher
ups that look the other way, that things might be
pretty bad for some of the inmates in there. That's
what I'm sensing that in some prisons, not all prisons. Okay,
I don't want to make blanket statements here, but that's
what I'm saying. I think that prison reform. I think

(45:11):
the reason why we had, you know, the the uh
the reduction of prison population in California was because of
the overpopulated prison and now we're just cycling it all back,
right because of the horror stories we were hearing.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
My first thought on this is you're paying a debt
to society and a little you know, it's not a
cush cush vacation. A little hard work was never bad
for anybody. But I know, I hear you, you know,
I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
I feel like I think that we I think we
always forget and I know that, Okay, sometimes I feel
like I'm Pollyanna here, but I always forget that we
I feel like we've get the cycle right. I feel
like we just we feel like prison inmates are dropped
into prison, and they don't start as children. They don't
start as some innocent human being right that they're just

(46:13):
They start as a let's say, thirty four year old man, criminal, right,
bad person? No, something happened to that person. They were
raised in a home, they had a life before that.
There is a reason that that person ended up in prison,
and we forget that, and so we forget who that

(46:33):
human being is. And maybe that's the liberal in me,
but I feel like we forget that, and so we
forget all of the things that led to that person
being there, and so then we're just like, Nope, that
person needs to do hard labor, and we forget all
of the other things that that person deserves some sort
of rehabilitation. And that's what I want us to remember

(46:55):
when we're talking about something as simple as they shouldn't
be forced to work.

Speaker 2 (47:00):
You know, what I'm saying goes hardcore. She says, break
the law. Your body belongs to the state or the
federal government. You cannot do what you want because you
gave up your freedom.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
I just I just I just try to speak to
the heart of people, Like I'm just trying for you
guys to remember that we're talking about a human being.
Like if you could take an inmate and remember that

(47:32):
they are they are people, that they were somebody's child, ones,
that they they were thrown into some sort of system,
and yes, maybe the person they are now is not
that nice of a person, and maybe they will never change. Right,
Fabilitated and you would never want to be, you know,

(47:54):
in a room alone with that person. And I'm not
saying that can't be true, right, I'm not saying that.
But let's just not, you know, throw the baby out
with the bath water and think every single inmate is
that person. Right, So let's just take a deep breath
and understand that inmates, if they don't want to do
some freaking work in prison, they shouldn't have.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
To, Heather. Heather says, a few shifts in the kitchen
or out picking up trash isn't going to interfere.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Is that what it is?

Speaker 2 (48:22):
Your ability to rehabilitate.

Speaker 1 (48:24):
Is that what it is? Though, I don't know if
that's what we're talking about here. If they don't want to,
they shouldn't be punished for it. I think that's what
the bill. That's that's what the proposition is saying. You
can't be punished for saying no, that's what it's saying,
like whatever, I don't know, I don't know, Oh, am
I breaking up? I apologize, No, I don't.

Speaker 2 (48:41):
I don't think you're breaking up.

Speaker 1 (48:42):
Somebody said I was breaking up. I'm sorry Lis, maybe too, whatever,
but anyways, I'm I'm voting. You guys, vote anyway you
want to. I'm voting to not make inmates beet forest
to work on chain gangs.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
I'm just saying it's not a chain gang, though they
don't do that anymore.

Speaker 1 (48:58):
I'm gonna imagine a chain gang him, that's it. I'm
imagining it taking and be able to pay almost nothing
to prisoners and make a profit. Thank you, teacher Lourie.
That's why should a private corporation be able to pay
almost nothing to prisoners and make a profit from a product? Huh?

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Because they're in jail.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Why should a private corporation say slavery?

Speaker 2 (49:23):
No, but they used to have to make license plates, right.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
I don't want to You want to drive around with
a prison prisoner and late and late on your car?
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 2 (49:36):
Trash on the side of the freeway.

Speaker 1 (49:37):
That's that's not that's like jail. That's like jail.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
That ain't prison, Heather says, don't want to do work
you didn't volunteer for cool, don't volunteer yourself for stealing
catalytic converters or selling fent in.

Speaker 1 (49:48):
You guys are harsh tonight, My goodness, I kind of
go that way. Yeah, you guys are so harsh tonight.
Where are my bleeding liberal? If I be only one
here tonight? My god? All right?

Speaker 2 (50:03):
You know what, if I was sent to prison today,
I would expect that it would suck, and I would
expect that I would have some type of search. I
would go into jail. It would be dirty and awful.
It would be a public toilet in the middle of
the cell where everyone could see everything. There would be
people that I had to be scared of around every corner,

(50:24):
and I would come around to the cells with a
clipboard and say, McAllister, today you're scrubbing the latrine.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
The latrine, you're not in the army whatever.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
Like that's what I would expect. I'm just saying, this
is not summer. This is no picnic, this is no
summer camp.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
Thank you, Jen, thank you, thank you. At least have
one bleeding heart level with me, which I don't know.
If you were in prison, you'd probably don't know. You'd
be making cupcakes. I don't know. In the kitchen, I
have no idea, but I.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
In prison, there is no cupcakes. You're stirring a massive
vat of disgusting soup like you know.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
I don't know, man, I'm voting. I'm voting. I do
not believe in involuntary servitude. I don't believe in slavery,
even if you are in prison. I don't. Sorry, I'm voting. Yes,
you can vote. No, you can you can negate my vote.
How about that?

Speaker 2 (51:19):
Kids? All right?

Speaker 1 (51:20):
Exactly, all right.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Now we have to go to thirty six.

Speaker 1 (51:23):
Now, well said you go, you want to skip the
minimum wage one? Okay, fine, let's gip it.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
Because they the reason they say our votes on Prop
six won't necessarily matter is because all the focus is
on thirty thirty six.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
Okay, right, this is it. Okay, thirty six guys, what
do you think? How are you voting him?

Speaker 2 (51:44):
I don't know. Let's read about it. This allows felony
charges and increased sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.
The felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts
under nine hundred and fifty dollars would now be allowed
to be felonies. If the defendant has two prior drugger
theft convictions, then again it would be felonies. The costs

(52:09):
for the state criminal justice system range from several tens
of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions.
Local criminal justice or local criminal justice costs likely in
the tens of millions annually. People that support it, crime
Victims of California, California District Attorneys Association, Family Business Association
of California. Who opposes it, the District of Contra Costa County,

(52:32):
and crime Survivors for Safety and Justice.

Speaker 1 (52:35):
Yep, all right, okay, so let's I'm going to go
to the I'm going to go to the I love
the arguments before and after, So okay, now my first
I'm gonna be completely honest. When I first heard about this,
my mayor here in San Jase, that mayheon has a
big old proponent of it. He's a yes on thirty

(52:55):
six guy, right, I like my mayor. By the way.
Uh oh, And by the way, do I have any
San Jose people who are you voting for frem Ayer.
I'm just I'm I'm taking a poll over here, Lecardo
or Low let me know. Anyways, So, uh, this one

(53:16):
I'm torn on. I'm gonna be honest because I don't
know how it's actually going to play out. This is
one of those propositions where I honestly feel because of
one thing, and one thing only, the judge's discretion. This

(53:36):
is where it's really going to matter, right, as it
all comes down to the judge's discretion whether or not
the person standing in front of them is going to
be sent to drug treatment or whether they're going to
be sent to prison. Right, That's what That's where it

(53:57):
comes down to. That is where the rubber meets the
with this. Is that judge going to look at someone
who might have multiple thefts or drug offenses. That's the difference.
That's what all the difference comes down to is the
judge's discretion.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
So what this bill does is, according to cal Matters,
it would create a new kind of felony. It's known
as a treatment mandated felony. Right, it would allow prosecutors
to charge a person rested for possession of certain drugs
like fentanyl or heroine, who have two or more previous
convictions for certain drug crimes with this new felony. After
pleading no contest, they would be able to choose undergo

(54:38):
substance use disorder or mental health treatment or serve up
to three years in jail or prison. The problem with
it and some people say this could save lives. Right,
that's a good thing. But the problem is that most
people are probably going to choose get the mental health help,
get the drug treatment help. Right. The issue is there's

(54:59):
no capacity that there would be a whole new population
of people mandated into treatment facilities, and California counties are
not being given the resources with this bill to meet
that newcoming demand.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
But would Proposition one do that? See, that's my question.
Remember would Prop one that just passed, that we just
approved in the last the midterm election that Governor Newsom
said all that freaking money for right? Isn't that what
Proposition one did was gave all this freaking money to

(55:36):
create all of these mental health and drug places. Wasn't
that what we just approved. Wouldn't this be working hand
in hand with that? I don't hear anybody explaining it
that way, and that concerns me. Where is the talk
of Proposition one working with Proposition thirty six? That's what

(55:57):
The fact that Newsom and well Newsom is against Prop
thirty six, that's probably why. But the fact that nobody's
talking about that working hand in hand, I don't understand,
Like I don't understand why that's not being explained like
that unless Newsom doesn't think that proposition one's going to
be up and running in time, which also concerned me
for this to be playing out hand in hand with it.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
Oh, it's interesting. There's an executive director for the Prosecutor's
Alliance of California that says it's irresponsible to tell voters
that people will get treatment when you know they will
not because there is no treatment available. She said, they've
wrapped the bill, wrap this pill. In Bologney, the only
way to get voters to vote for their prison initiative
is to tell them that it's about treatment.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
Okay, Well, then I'm going to play Devil's advocates with that. Okay,
So if you're telling me, right, Nusom, let's say Newsome,
I'm just going to talk to Undism because he's against this. Newsom.
If you are saying that there's no treatment for this,
then there's no treatment for people on the street. Then
there's no treatment for the people on the street that
aren't getting arrested and going to court. Then there's no

(57:03):
trement for people when you send out social services to
the homeless, shelters to their tents on the street. Right,
and there's no services. There's no services. Whether you're offering
it in court or you're offering it at the shelter,
then there's no services. So which is it, Are there

(57:24):
services or are there no services? Because there should be
services no matter what.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
So Mayor Matt Mayhon and San Jose, your guy has
been a huge supporter of this, and he's acknowledging the
lack of treatment options available in Santa Clara County. He
says this, I think that's why Prop thirty six ultimately
will be a great forcing funding, a forcing function for
the state and all of our counties to invest in

(57:50):
patient treatment systems at scale, which is something we've desperately
needed for years. So he says, you vote yes on
this and counties are forced to figure out how to
provide treatment.

Speaker 1 (57:59):
And I I support that because again it should be
a question to newsome of you told us with Proposition
one that you were funding all of these treatment centers,
that you were working with the courts to set up
these mental health and drug treatment centers, which is why

(58:21):
we approved by a very thin majority Proposition one. You
told us that Newsomme, you ad nauseum told us that
you were going to fund all of these treatment centers.
So don't tell us when the court is telling these
people to go to treatment centers versus these social workers

(58:44):
on the streets that there's no place for you to
go that it doesn't It shouldn't matter who's telling these
people to go get treatment. It shouldn't matter whether it's
a judge or a social worker on the street. It
should not matter. So I am voting yes on side.

Speaker 2 (59:00):
The treatment of people would be offered shelter, job training,
and other services designed to break the cycle of addiction
and homelessness, and those who finished the treatment, if the
treatment would ever be available, would have their charges dismissed.
I see a law like this passing, and then when
people have to go to prison instead of getting treatment
because it's not available, lawsuits will fly and then all

(59:23):
of a sudden, somehow communities will find the money.

Speaker 1 (59:26):
Right now, Ran is saying Proposition ones that it was
a housing measure and meant and reducing mental health money locally.
That's why I voted against it. But it's the mental
health and drugture. It was mental health and drug treatment
that it went hand in hand with that Ren because
the mental health and drug treatment went hand in hand.

(59:46):
They had to go somewhere. They had to go somewhere.
They had to create these treatment facilities to get them
into housing. There had to be a place for these
people to go. That's what I mean by that. How
to be these treatment facilities built within the counties. That's

(01:00:07):
what I'm talking about. So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
I just I think I'm a yes on thirty six.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like, I think that Matt
Mahon has a point. I think it's going to put
the pressure on these counties and the state to build
the mental health facilities they got rid of under Reagan
that we've never rebuilt that we needed. We need them,

(01:00:35):
whether we need them because of crime, whether we need
them because drugs, whatever, we need mental health facilities, housing facilities.
Some people need to live there for a very long time,
maybe forever. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
Laurie says, I worry these special types of sentencing for
certain offenses three strikes as a horrible mistake. Let judges
judge with respect to sentencing and circumstances of the crime.

Speaker 1 (01:01:05):
That's what I mean, Like the judges discretion that's going
to be the rub, you know what I mean? But
I mean, I remember there was a news report, i
want to say, a couple of years ago with like
one of very few judges talking about this, and he
was one of them that worked with these people, and
he got very emotional in this newscast and he was

(01:01:26):
saying exactly that he wants to help these people. But
it takes certain judges, and we need more of them
to work on these types of cases. They're hard, though,
they're very hard, and there's a lot of them, right
I mean, you're talking about people that are mentally ill,
you're talking about people that are on drugs, and we

(01:01:48):
also know how many what they call them touches you
need to have on people before they're even willing to
get help. Right now, Sometimes you need to have the
threat of incarceration to force people to get the help
that they need. Going to be a problem.

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
Dietrich says, a lack of therapy for my family member
resulted in a nasty drug habit.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
Yeah, so, I mean, it's it's just I don't know.
I'm voting yes, and we'll see what happens. Unfortunately. I
also do think it is a problem that if we're
just gonna throw people in prison, that's not the answer.
That's my thing. If we're just using this as a
way of like getting people off the streets and into prison,
that's not what I want. We need to get people

(01:02:31):
into treatment. And unfortunately, if it becomes that, we're just
going to be all the way back to when Jerry
Brown and we got handed over to the receiver, and
we're just gonna be all the way back to where
we were before. And that's just assinine.

Speaker 2 (01:02:44):
I do agree with nit one Pearl one. Three strikes
was a bit of a disaster. Yeah, so you know,
but this isn't that I think I'm a guess on it, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
Yeah, all right, So that's thirty six was that it
was that the last one that we had to go through.
I think so. I think thirty six was the last one.
All right, are there any other measures that you guys
are I mean, I think that that's I think we
did well. I promised you guys that we would go it.
I mean three strikes. I understood the idea behind three strikes.

(01:03:15):
I did when it was first proposed. I remember back
then people were like, dude, if you can't get it
together up the three strikes, if a Judge's literally looking
at you and being like dude the next time. But
when it became, when the reality became the candy bar experience,
you know, excuse but it became something like that, right, Yeah,

(01:03:37):
it became it became ridiculous. It's officially cocktail Hour.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
Yes, all right, I'm going.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
So Kim McAllister is drinking gasoline. She says, you stone
like it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:54):
It gets it gets easier.

Speaker 1 (01:03:57):
Yeah, you have to keep drinking it. I will tell
you that, and you can feel it in my chest.
Don't tell David this, but sometimes those pre made ones
can be pretty harsh, you know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (01:04:07):
Is that what it is?

Speaker 1 (01:04:08):
Well, that's what he got you, right.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
This was not inexpensive. This was This was twenty eight
ninety nine. It makes six cocktails. That's way too much.

Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
Well, I'd show me the label again. Bring it up
to the camera. Let me see.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
That's way too much to spend on this.

Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
So it's Manhattan. Yeah, I think he's High West Manhattan cocktail. Yeah,
where he's like rye whiskey and Kim's like dry whiskey
and he's like rye whiskey.

Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
I'm like, I don't know, I don't know. But I
don't even like it, and you just spent wasted thirty dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
Oh no, then yeah exactly, Liz is like David needs
to finish the bottle and not in one city. If
there's six cocktails in.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
It, it feels like something that can have your liver
dropping out.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
Yeah. No, the figling is good. You should do that
next time. Try this figling is really really I'm telling right, Yeah,
the figling, that's what it looks like. But you get
the small ones. It's dangerous though it's only twenty person
alcohol by volume, though it's not that bad. Did you
finish that? No, I mean there's still I'll have another
shot though, another shot.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
I mean I only I only had like three or
four SIPs of it, and I almost have the whole
drink left.

Speaker 1 (01:05:21):
Oh, come on, let's have a little bit more. But
this is the dangerous The dangerousness of this is like
there's no burn. Like see, I don't do shots at all,
but I'll drink this till the cows come home because
there's no burn.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
He says. That's less than five dollars a drink. It's
not expensive, it's thirty dollars. I wouldn't have spent. I'll
tell you that much, VICKI, and I'm not even enjoying it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Yeah, No, I don't drink I really don't drink wine
that much anymore, Dedre. I had wine the other night
with my friend. We went out to we went out
to dinner, and I just got like a little carafe
of wine, and I remember why I don't drink wine
that much anymore. It's a freaking dog but yeah, it's
it's good.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Yeah. Oh you're muted.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
I can't hear you, I know, because the dogs are you.

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
Yelling at your dog? All right, Teacher Laurie says, kim
forcing yourself to drink something as silly. Alcohol always tastes
better as you get buzzed. Forcing yourself to drink it
leads to problems. Well, now that I know I spent
thirty dollars on it, Teacher Laurie, I'm feeling obligated to
drink it. You see what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
Well made you the drink?

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
Yes, that time he did. He made it for me.
That was really nice.

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
And he's really really sweet. He came in like right
before and he was really excited to give it. And
it's so funny. I feel like, David should make a
cameo during the show giving you the drink. We need
to do it next time. He needs to give you
the drink right when we start the show, because he's
he's always he's trying to educate Kim on the on

(01:06:59):
the alcohol and he's and he and she has no
comprehension of any of the call is dry whiskey. He's like, rye,
rye whiskey. Oh and that's right, we're changing the clocks back.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
Yeah, all right, Charlotte wanted to make an appearance.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
Oh okay, we heard nugget probably, yeah, exactly. Okay, So
should we should we laugh about Trump dancing by himself
on stage?

Speaker 2 (01:07:30):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:07:30):
I should we I should.

Speaker 2 (01:07:33):
Oh but while you're looking for that, can I tell
you that today he won this weird rampage about what.

Speaker 1 (01:07:40):
I don't know if I have the video of him
dancing on stage. I thought I had it, but he's
so weird. Oh yeah, I do, Okay, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
Called for President Biden to re enter the presidential race.

Speaker 1 (01:07:49):
I saw a headline about that that was really weird.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
What is weird? Rant about CBS in sixty minutes? I
think people are saying that he's a bit of whimpy
for not going on sixty minutes. And when you criticize
him for being less than you know, robust, and if
you say he's cowardly, this is his internal ego. So
he's kind of losing it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:11):
I don't understand like he went. You heard about how
he did that all women town hall, Yeah, with all Republican.

Speaker 2 (01:08:21):
They and Fox didn't say that. They said it's all women.
They didn't say it was like the Republican committee.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
Of like, why would you didn't you're a chicken.

Speaker 2 (01:08:32):
About reproductive rights. He didn't get real questions from women.
Put him in front of you, and you and I
right exactly in front of you and me rather exactly,
we have different questions here.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
I think this is and I think that, like somebody asked.

Speaker 2 (01:08:50):
Him, we're going to get busted for the song? But yeah, crazy,
all right?

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
Can I just bet this song? Let's just look at him.
I mean, I don't know understand what he's doing. Apparently
he was like he was at a rally and he
just was like, nobody wants any more questions. Let's just
listen to music. Why why don't you want to answer
any more questions? Is my question to you, like, at.

Speaker 2 (01:09:17):
All time, all these people went to this rally. Apparently
was really really hot. In this room, two people fainted
back to back, and one guy who's having this medical emergency,
and Trump looks at him and goes, you need to
lose weight. The guy's being carried out and he's like, safe,
you lost weight, you wouldn't have fainted. Seriously. Yeah, meanwhile,

(01:09:42):
fire up the YMCA and the ave Maria. He's dude,
just losing it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Yeah, So there was there was also a Univision town hall.
I'm gonna play you this little clip. Now. The guy
he has an interpreter because he speaks Spanish, which I
think probably he's driving Trump nuts. I don't know. I'm
sure his his patients was running very low having to
wait for the interpreter. But basically, the guy was asking,
you know, the farmers, many are undocumented. They break their

(01:10:10):
backs hour after hour picking all this food for Americans.
You know, if you if they if you deport them,
what's this going to do to the price of the food.
Who are you going to get to do this? So
this is Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
Worried about the prices at the grocery store.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
Yeah, exactly. You are in voilation now. So this is
Trump's non answer to this question. I mean it's like
he has the name drop all these like talking points,
and it's a he never answered the freaking question. Laurie
is here, Yeah, hi, Laurie, how are you? Oh my god.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
We've been trying to get your attention.

Speaker 2 (01:10:48):
What's going on?

Speaker 1 (01:10:49):
Phineas had lost his companion today.

Speaker 6 (01:10:54):
Oh Phineas, Oh no, oh Eddie is I am so sorry,
and he tried to get your attention.

Speaker 1 (01:11:06):
I've been trying to get your attention.

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
Kim probably ignored me because I put all caps.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
No, I didn't, didn't it. I'm kind of trying to
scroll back and I'm not looking. I'm not it. I'm
so sorry. Thank you for popping in to let us know.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
I am so sorry, so bad, and I'm so frustrated.
Oh Phineas, if you're still here, I'm so sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
Oh now I see you did you did all caps?

Speaker 7 (01:11:31):
Me?

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
Yeah? Oh no, I'm so sorry, Phineas.

Speaker 1 (01:11:34):
I am so so sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
Huge hug.

Speaker 5 (01:11:40):
I was on a zoom for like two hours today,
so I'm getting off this thing, but I just I
couldn't stop myself.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
I had to get Oh.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
Well, thank you for hopping on and telling us ideas
we are going to say a big prayer for you.
I'm so sorry. Thank you Lourie for hopping I'm thank you.
I'll take you out. Thank you, Lorie. Oh Phineas, I
can't imagine. Oh I love you, sonny Is. We love
you so so so much, and I'm so sorry that
that happened. Everyone's giving you hugs right now, so so

(01:12:09):
much so sorry. Oh oh that sucks.

Speaker 2 (01:12:12):
Oh not easy to lose your creature, especially if you know,
if you live in alone and that's your main, your
main squeeze. That sucks.

Speaker 1 (01:12:21):
I know, I can't you know what you know? What
sucks is that before I got Nugget, I don't know
how many of you followed me from KGO, I was
like the most apathetic animal person ever. And then I
got this friggin dog that has my heart now damn it,
and like he's just my love. Even when he barks
during my show, I just love him. I just love him.

(01:12:41):
But yeah, back to Trump, He's just He's just and okay,
And I know probably you guys have been talking all
day about Kamala Harris's Fox interview. I really do think
she did well. You know, I will tell you this.
She went into the lions den, and I will tell
you this, she did not back down the fact that

(01:13:06):
he was trying to get at first, you know what
he was trying to do. He was trying to get
a deplorable moment from him. You know how Hillary Clinton
mistakenly the basket of deplorables. He was trying to get
that from her. I would never.

Speaker 5 (01:13:27):
Say that about the American people. And in fact, if
you listen to Donald Trump, if you watch any of
his rallies, he's the one who tends to demean and
belittle and diminish the American people. He's the one who
talks about an enemy within it within, an enemy within
talking about the American people, suggesting he would turn the

(01:13:48):
American military on the American people.

Speaker 3 (01:13:52):
We asked that the question supposed.

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
To be misgoden.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
So now we're going to play again, and I think
the was getting the most play obviously was the whole
enemy within thing, right, But that whole, the whole Are
they stupid? Are they stupid? For a bear, he's not
the worst at Fox. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna
throw him to the wolves. He's not the best, he's
not the worst. I'm I think that he was a

(01:14:19):
good choice for this interview because you know, he's he's
not obviously Tucker obviously is gone, but whatever. But I
do think he was a good choice for the interview.
I do think that he interrupted her a lot. I
do think that the whole enemy within thing, and the

(01:14:39):
fact that they had a clip ready as if that's
what she was talking about was complete and absolute bs
because this is what they showed the question.

Speaker 6 (01:14:51):
To the former president today, hers Faulkner had a town
hall and this is how he responded.

Speaker 7 (01:14:58):
I heard about that saying I was like threatening. I'm
not threatening anybody. They're the ones doing the threatening. They
do phony investigations. I've been investigated more than Alphonse Capon.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
He was the greatest God.

Speaker 7 (01:15:11):
Particularly it's called weaponization of government is a terrible thing.

Speaker 5 (01:15:15):
So, and with all due respect, that clip was not
what he has been saying about the enemy within that
he has repeated when he's speaking about the American people.
That's not what you just showed. No, no, no, that's
not what you just showed. In all fairness and respect
to you, the question that we asked you didn't show that.

(01:15:35):
And here's the bottom line. He has repeated it many times.
And you and I both know that. And you and
I both know that he has talked about turning the
American military on the American people. He has talked about
going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He
has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.

(01:15:56):
This is a democracy, and in a democracy, the president
of the United States, in the United States of America
should be willing to be able to handle criticism without
saying he'd lock people up for doing it. And this
is what is at stake, which is why you have
someone like the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

(01:16:17):
Staff saying what Mark Milly has said about Donald Trump
being a threat to the United States of America.

Speaker 1 (01:16:28):
That way, Yes, it's quoted in the Bob would and
he hasn't. They're the Bob Wood word thing in there
as if like that's supposed to be.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
Is what he's saying, that he's sick, wants to sick
the American military on American citizens.

Speaker 1 (01:16:42):
It's and I'm just going to play for you again.
This is for anybody that's wondering what Donald Trump actually says,
and he said it more than once, but this is this,
this is what he's actually said, so again he has
said it.

Speaker 5 (01:16:59):
Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be
a peaceful election day.

Speaker 8 (01:17:02):
Well, he doesn't have any idea what's happening in he
spends most of his day sleeping. I think the bigger
problem is the enemy from within, not even the people
that have come in and destroying our country by the way,
totally destroying our country, the towns and villages, they're being inundated.
But I don't think the other problem in terms of

(01:17:22):
election day. I think the bigger problem are the people
from within. We have some very bid we have some
sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they're they
and it should be very easily handled by if necessary,
by National Guard or if really necessary, by the military,
because they can't let that happen.

Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
Joe Biden said, he doesn't. There you go, that's it.
That's the quote him sticking the National Guard and the
military on American citizens. So for any of you people
thinking Harris Faulkner, who is a freaking ass hat with
her freaking flip hair, and I'm sorry, I don't I
hate to be so she is not a journalist. She

(01:18:04):
is and it pisses me off because she is an
educated woman. Harris Faulkner is an educated woman, and she
has demeaned herself. And I hate when educated women reduce themselves,
reduce themselves to be on Fox News for an efing paycheck.

(01:18:26):
Harris Faulkner, you can do better than that. I'm just
letting you know, not that I'm anybody, but you can
do better than Fox effing News. I'm just saying just
but anyways, not that I'm a fan, not that I
even give an f but like, you could do better.
I'm just saying, but anyways, like he says it, that
wasn't edited. You know what I mean. That wasn't edited.

(01:18:47):
There was no cut, there was nobody editing Donald Trump
right there. There's no oh what he meant to say?
That was There is no question about what Donald Trump
meant in that quote. He's talking about the American people,
all right, and it just it bothers me. It bothers

(01:19:08):
me when people think that he has any place in
the White House. I've said it time and again. I
am sorry Republicans that you were unable to come up
with a viable candidate for president. You don't have one.
You might not like Kamala Harris, you might not like

(01:19:31):
her at all, you might disagree with her policies exactly.
I'm sorry you couldn't come up with somebody that could
debate policy, but you do not have a candidate for president.
You failed to put forth a viable candidate. And now
that JD. Vance has officially come out and said that

(01:19:54):
Donald Trump did not lose the twenty twenty election, he
has made himself. He has disqualified himself for any any
future office. Ever. He is delusional, in my book, disqualified.

Speaker 2 (01:20:11):
So I have a couple of things to tell you.
The first is that it was kind of a Republican
e Day for Kamala Harris because she appeared not only
on Fox with Brett Baer, and I tend to think
there were some questions I wish that she would have
answered a little more strongly, although he did that thing
given that, you know, I hate when talk show hosts

(01:20:34):
don't give people they invite on their show the opportunity
to speak exactly like, if they don't answer your question
in an appropriate way, circle back around and ask it again,
right right?

Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
You invited to be here.

Speaker 2 (01:20:46):
Let them speak, all right, So she goes on Fox,
she has her moments with him. She also appeared yesterday
at a farm in Pennsylvania. It's called Washington Crossing and
it's not too far from where the Constitution was signed.
And she appeared on a stage with a bunch of Republicans,

(01:21:06):
some of whom left the Trump administration and support her.
Olivia is at Troy I think is one of the
ones that was on stage. Adam Kinsinger was there, other Republicans.
The people that own the farm, longtime Republicans. This farm
has been in their family for generations. They come and

(01:21:27):
allow her to speak in front of their old barn,
and they say, there is no choice. If you respect
the Constitution of the United States, you have to have
to vote for Kamala Harris. So she's standing on a
stage with all of these Republicans and she is decidedly presidential.
And I will tell you that Trump appeared at this

(01:21:50):
Univision a rally that you played a clip from. It
was the immigrants there asked him some of the toughest
questions he has been asked in this entire campaign. And
one of them stood up and asked him to please
address the parents of school shooting victims and tell them
what's going on with the gun policy in this country.

(01:22:12):
He went on and on about the Second Amendment, said
nothing to the victims of school shootings. And you know
what I remember about Kamala Harris the day there was
a horrible school shooting on the East Coast, I think
it was in Georgia, and she said, it doesn't have
to be this way. And she gave us speech, and
it was it was less of a canned speech and
more of heartfelt comments that it's like, that's what this

(01:22:35):
country needed to hear exactly. And here she is at
Washington crossing Pennsylvania, standing on a farm with a gazillion Republicans,
and she's standing up for the Constitution of the United States,
which is something her opponent is not doing.

Speaker 5 (01:22:50):
Is increasingly unstable and unhinged.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
Talking about Trump here, yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:23:00):
Question, and he is seeking unchecked power. Consider what his
closest advisors have said. His national security advisor, two defense secretaries,
his former chief of staff, his own vice president all

(01:23:26):
have warned America Donald Trump is unfit to serve or
listen to. General Milly, donald Trump's top general he has
called Trump and I quote fascist to the core and said, quote,

(01:23:48):
no one has ever been as dangerous to this country.
So think about that. General Milly served in uniform for
more than forty years, commanding American forces around the world.
He has confronted some of America's worst enemies, and he

(01:24:16):
is saying no one has ever been as dangerous to
our country as Donald Trump. America must heed this warning
because anyone who tramples on our democratic values as Donald

(01:24:37):
Trump has, anyone who has called for the quote termination
of the Constitution of the United States, as Donald Trump has,
must never again stand behind the seal of the President

(01:24:59):
of the United I can't stay exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:25:05):
Never again, never again.

Speaker 2 (01:25:14):
And there are all the Republicans on stage with Park exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:25:17):
That's what I can't get. That's what I can't get. Like,
this is why I don't understand why Republicans like I
don't understand why it's close kids and to.

Speaker 5 (01:25:26):
Those and to those who are watching. If you share
that view, no matter your party, no matter who you
voted for last time, there is a place for you
in this campaign.

Speaker 1 (01:25:44):
That's what I hope, I really do.

Speaker 5 (01:25:48):
It could be so the collagen we have built has
room for everyone who is ready to turn the page
on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump. And I
pledged to you to be a president for all Americans.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
You know what you hear from the other side, go
against me and.

Speaker 1 (01:26:13):
You up yea.

Speaker 5 (01:26:16):
Quite seriously. So, as I've mentioned, many of you know,
I spent a career as a prosecutor in law enforcement.
And I will tell you I never asked a victim
or a witness, are you a Republican or are you
a Democrat. I never asked of anyone who needed help,

(01:26:41):
if anyone who deserved attention, where were they registered and
who did they vote for? The only question I ever
asked was are you okay? And that is the kind
of president I pledged to you that I will be.

Speaker 3 (01:27:02):
That is my pledge to you.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
Look at her, Look at that woman. This is going
to be the first. Don't make me crying because I'm drinking.
This is going to be the first woman in the
White House.

Speaker 1 (01:27:16):
I hope, so, Kim, this is.

Speaker 2 (01:27:18):
Going to be the first woman in the White House.
And she might not have won against a normal candidate,
even if she was the better candidate, because she's a woman.
But throw a train wreck light. Like Trump, who's now
in the last two weeks making comments about, you know,
seking the military on American citizens, who goes to a

(01:27:40):
rally and won't even talk to the victims of gun
violence and says we should have more guns for entertainment. Really,
who won't answer questions about, you know, if you take
away immigrants who are doing the work American citizens don't
want to do, what's that going to do to food
prices at the grocery store.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
I don't even know how it's even a question. I
don't even understand how it's even an effing question. I mean,
I don't know how they can stand in the same
room and talk out loud and people are like, there's
even Janet Yellen came out today, you know, and I understand, like,
you know, obviously she's the you know, under Biden and

(01:28:23):
Treasury secretary and Dibiden, I get it, Like people are like, oh, Paul,
but yeah, so many economists, so many have said Donald
Trump's economic plan would lead to inflation, like it doesn't work.
So many that have nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans,
like like, I don't understand how people are ignoring so

(01:28:48):
much evidence against Donald Trump. It's so weird.

Speaker 2 (01:28:53):
She really seems to be unraveling though in the in
the last couple of days, to the point where you
look at him and go, oh, like, this is a
a Joe Biden at that last debate moment, right, Phineas,
I'm so sorry about your pop. I'm so so sorry,
Phineas says Kim. We said that about Hillary.

Speaker 1 (01:29:11):
The difference difference.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Phineas is that when Hillary ran against Trump, and she
warned us too, because she knew we should have listened
to her right as a nation.

Speaker 1 (01:29:21):
But I think she took a lot for granted. I
think Hillary took a lot for granted.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
As Hillary ran, we as a nation hadn't experienced all
that is Trump. We had a taste of him in
the campaign. You know, we had the grab him by
the pee. We didn't have now the stacks of evidence, now,
the outrageousness, now, the suspension of the constitution. Right, we
didn't have all of these wild things that are happening

(01:29:46):
with him. And so I would argue that maybe we
said the last that about Hillary Colton last time, but
that's before we knew more about Trump. Now we know
now we know better as a country so I don't know.
I I'm trying to be very optimistic, and I look
at her and she's so presidential and so ready to
lead that I feel like, this is our moment. This

(01:30:08):
is it.

Speaker 1 (01:30:10):
Uh Reky says, Drums canceled many appearances of late. Yes, absolutely,
Joe says, I know why all of our staff quit
on our Joe, how many people have quit on Donald
Trump during his first presidency and how many are talking
against him right now? John, have you seen our economy
and the economic numbers since the beginning of the year.

(01:30:31):
You can keep ignoring it and the numbers, but that's
that's just because you're listening to Trump. Like, honestly, our
economic numbers should not be ignored. They shouldn't every single
time listen to Fox News. Listen to Fox News. You
can talk about like certain grocery numbers, but go ahead,

(01:30:52):
listen to our economic numbers, Listen to our job numbers.
You can ignore them, but that just means you're listening
to Donald Trump. Go look at the right now, Go ahead,
go ahead. Every single time John, Fox News is like,
oh my god, this beats expectations. This beats expectations, This
beats expectations.

Speaker 2 (01:31:10):
Go ahead, John, just go ahead, And he says, have
you seen the prices at the grocery store lately? And
I would argue John that if you want to deport
millions and millions of people, people who do the jobs
that Americans don't want to do. Here in California, you
see them out in the Central Valley picking the crops.

(01:31:31):
If they're not doing the work, then how much do
you think it's going to cost at the grocery store?
Then if you deport all the immigrants, how much is
it going to cost? Then already at the end of
the pandemic, we saw restaurants closing because they couldn't hire people.
There wasn't enough staff. You want to deport all these people,
what's going to happen to our economy? Then that's a

(01:31:52):
big mistake.

Speaker 1 (01:31:53):
I swear to God. I mean people like you, John,
I mean, will make an excuse for everything. Just fine.
I mean you will pick and choose, but I can't. Again,
it's it's like you can't talk to people about real
numbers if you're just going to continue to ignore the facts.
So again, it's fine grocery prices, ignoring you know, all

(01:32:16):
sorts of other factors is fine job numbers, all the
stock market, all those sorts of things that have shocked
Wall Street under Biden. You're ignoring. So I'm not going
to have I'm not going to play this game with
people like you.

Speaker 2 (01:32:31):
John Sam says, I'm at the grocery store right now.
Prices are lower. Deidre says, my grocery prices are lower
than they were a year ago. You know what, I
think we knew that there was a grocery store that
came out and said that they admitted that they hadn't
decreased prices exactly. They were charging get fine exactly. I
think that when Kamala Harris said I'm going after people

(01:32:51):
who are priced couging gouging at the grocery store as
they could get ready, and I think they people were like, oh, okay,
I guess we better subtle the down then, and so
they totally hot.

Speaker 1 (01:33:02):
Yeah, they can hide behind it. You can't stop people
from you know, keeping their prices high and then hiding
behind inflation. But again, you can look at other numbers
that look great, but you can ignore them. Every single
time there was a great number on Wall Street and
a jobs report, every single time Fox News was like
Oh my god, it beat expectations. Donald trub would be like,

(01:33:23):
the economy sucks and all of his little minions would
be like the economy sucks, and it wasn't true. So
you can keep repeating Donald Trump's talking points, John, if
you want to and live in that little universe, fine,
live in that universe. I live in reality.

Speaker 2 (01:33:38):
So you're going on when someone like Joe Blow comes
on the show or John whomever, and they they think they're,
you know, being so smart spouting off these things. They
don't realize they're coming on a show where we actually
have facts.

Speaker 1 (01:33:51):
Well, and it's fine, like and it's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
But your opinion if you can't back it up, is meaningless.

Speaker 1 (01:33:57):
Right, Well, because there's facts, and then there's what Donald
Trump tells you to say, and that's it. You can
say what Donald Trump says, and then there's what actually
is facts. See Donald Trump says, I'm gonna come out
with the evidence in a few days and then never
produces anything. We in reality come out with the actual numbers,

(01:34:19):
John and Joe, and then we produce them. And if
you want to produce something, you can. I'll keep waiting, though, Okay, what.

Speaker 2 (01:34:29):
Are the Harris Biden immigration policies.

Speaker 1 (01:34:32):
The one that's to plan, the bipartisan plan.

Speaker 2 (01:34:34):
You mean, so I feel like we're not looking back,
We're going forward. And Kamala Harris has said that day
one she will look at getting this immigration bill that
Trump tanked because he wanted there to be problems and
he wanted there to be an issue to run on.
Instead of caring more about America, he cared more about himself. Again,

(01:34:55):
I feel like this is what she wants to do.
People will get on board when she wins, and that
will be our immigration policy, will have more border agents.
If you care about immigration, this is what then you'll
vote for Kamala Harris because this is the plan she
wants to put in place, right right, If you care
about being ugly and deporting people and tanking the economy

(01:35:18):
because there's no one to work in the fields and
there's no one to take all the jobs, then that's
your prerogative. But don't come on here and say you're
okay with the Biden Harris immigration policy, because what's the
immigration policy. It was developed by Democrats and Republicans. That's
the immigration policy.

Speaker 1 (01:35:37):
John Cottingham, Yeah, there was one, And Donald Trump said
don't pass it because he didn't want to give Biden
the win. That's it. There's evidence. They actually Republicans met romy.
So many Republicans came out and said Donald Trump tanked
this bill. It's evident. I mean, we talked about it
at nauseam. You know it's true, John, you know it's true.
So okay, there's a bill that they're going to sign

(01:36:00):
on day one. If Kamala Harris becomes president, hopefully it'll pass.
That would have kind of helped solve all the problems.
But Trump didn't want to give the win. So stop.
You know it's true. It's fine. And again it would
have passed months and months and months ago. But again,
Trump doesn't believe it's a crisis enough to solve right now.
So all of these things are things that Trump wants

(01:36:24):
you to believe, and we don't need to debate them.
There's facts and there's fictions.

Speaker 2 (01:36:30):
This is fine, sleeping volcano. Trump did not tank the bill.
It was six Democrats who voted it out. That's true. Right,
it was bipartisan. Many Republicans were supporting it. It would
have passed if Donald Trump hadn't hadn't picked up the
phone and called all of his cronies and said, don't
pass this. I don't want them to have any success.

(01:36:50):
I don't want those Democrats to have any.

Speaker 1 (01:36:52):
Those six Democrats were not the deciding factor on that
bill passing. You know it, and I know it. Just
because six Democrats did not vote for it does not
I mean that bill wouldn't have passed.

Speaker 2 (01:37:01):
Stop.

Speaker 1 (01:37:01):
That's not true. That's not true. That's not true, and
you know it and I know it, So stop it.

Speaker 2 (01:37:06):
Yeah, stop it.

Speaker 1 (01:37:07):
You are so full of crap.

Speaker 2 (01:37:09):
You are so we're getting in some serious trolls tonight,
coming in with a bunch.

Speaker 1 (01:37:13):
It's because they're all tender. It's because they're all chicken tenders. Fine,
you can be whatever you want to be. You just
know there was a bipartisan border bill the Trump tanked.
You know it, and I know it, so stop. You
know it. So stop. Like there's facts. You guys don't
like facts. I know it. You just like the talking
points that Trump has and it's fine. Just accept it.

(01:37:36):
It's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:37:37):
Here's another thing for Republicans that have decided to troll
us tonight, or I wouldn't say republicans, I would say Trumpians.
The fact is that. I don't care what your issues are,
if they're the economy, if their immigration, what have you.
The issue before Americans, I think that is most important

(01:37:59):
is the issue you have the Constitution of the United States.
It's the issue of whether we want to keep America
and it's principles intact with the president that respects and
honors the oath of office and the Constitution or someone
that would crumple it up in a ball and throw
it behind him. That and if you are a true patriot,

(01:38:21):
Joe Blow and John Cottingham and Sleeping Volcano and whomever else,
if you're a true patriot and you're voting for Trump,
you should be ashamed of yourself, one hundred percent ashamed
of yourself because you're scared. Are you? Are you a
white person who's scared that somehow they're going to slip
down a rank in society? Is that what you're scared of?
Because that's not going to happen to you. It's gonna

(01:38:42):
be okay. I promise A woman in the White House,
a black woman in the White House, isn't going to
mean that that there you're any less important in the world.
It's gonna be okay.

Speaker 1 (01:38:51):
Okay, Yeah, I just think that Trump is just too volatile.
I don't think that he cares about anybody but himself.
I do hope that Kamala Harir will keep her promise.
I've said this many times of working across the eye.
I do believe that you will work across the Aisle.
I really do. I will be one that will be
loud and say work across the I'll put Republicans in

(01:39:12):
your cabinet. I mean, I think that's what we want.
I want bipartisanship. I want that. I don't believe Democrats
have the answer to everything. I do believe in, you know,
women's rights and all that sort of stuff. I'm not
going to compromise on that, but policies. Compromising some on
fiscal policies and things like that. Yes, Absolutely, working on

(01:39:33):
border bills that make sense to everybody, especially states that
are actually on the border. Absolutely understanding the needs of
people on the border versus states that have no comprehension
of what it's like. Absolutely, we need to understand what
it's like in a country as large as ours, You
know what I mean, That's what we need to do.

(01:39:55):
But this, like other ring of others, is stupid, you
know what I mean. And I don't think that Trump
has any comprehension of being a president for all Americans,
That's what I mean. And we need to have somebody
that does. We need to turn the page on him.
We need the Republicans to realize they need a real candidate,
and unfortunately they did not put one up. And so

(01:40:16):
that's it, you know what I mean. So again, Donald
Trump is not a candidate for president in my eyes.
That's it. So you guys need to put up a
real candidate next time around. I am sorry your party
could not have done it this time around, but you didn't.
Sorry like you just didn't. Now I'm not saying the

(01:40:36):
whole Republican Party is terrible. You just couldn't get it
together this time around. I'm sorry. So that's it. I'm
not talking about Trump though, because our show's coming to
an end and I kind of feel like we got
it all hot and bothered them under the collar, you
know what I mean. I don't like to end it
on a bad note. I want to end it on
something lighter. So let's talk about something the letter.

Speaker 2 (01:40:54):
Let me tell you before you move into something light
that do you remember that moment you just played it.
A couple of minutes go, when Brett Behar on Fox
News was talking speaking with Vice President Kamala Harris, and
he went to a clip and he played this clip
of Trump talking about oh, you know, I didn't It
was basically not the.

Speaker 1 (01:41:14):
Clip telling of him within.

Speaker 2 (01:41:17):
The enemy within, He's going to say all this stuff.
And then Kamala Harris called him on it. She's like,
that's not what he said. Right. Well, Brett Bear now
says he played the wrong Trump clip during his Harris interview.
Says he played the wrong one. He said, I did
make a mistake, and I want to say I made
the mistake, and I love calling him out on that.
She's like, no, what you just played basically whitewashing over

(01:41:40):
the outrageous comments he made. Let me tell you what
he really said.

Speaker 1 (01:41:45):
Bear right, and now the wrong one.

Speaker 2 (01:41:49):
He said, he made the made a mistake and he
played the wrong clip during his interview with Kamala Harris. YEP.

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
I will respect Bear for admitting that. And that's why
I said at the beginning, you know, I don't think
that he was a bad choice for the interview. He's not.
I don't watch Fox news, but I didn't mind the choice.
And thank you Jim so much for the ten dollars day.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, great show. I have
the matter, thank you, and I as promise you guys,
if you missed the beginning of the show, we did

(01:42:16):
go through it. Thank you to Emily Hoven for coming
on the show and and uh going through some of
the ballot with us. So thank you, thank you, thank you.
We always appreciate all the donors to the show. But yeah,
I mean Brettbear. That took a lot of balls to
actually say that. So yeah, Phineas, we love you, thank
you so much for joining us. And our heart goes

(01:42:37):
out to Phineas he lost his for a baby zorbis tonight. Yeah,
I'm sorry, big prayers to Phineas. I'm so sorry, my friend.
I'm so sorry, big hearts and loves to you. Did
he actually play the clip though? Did Bredbeer play the
clip that he was supposed to play or did he
not play it?

Speaker 2 (01:42:56):
He didn't play it. Now he's saying it was a
wrong clip, so I don't know. I don't know what
if he was on the air again tonight and played
the right clip. But as to the play.

Speaker 1 (01:43:07):
I mean, but you know what, again, Harris Faulkner, she
wouldn't have played the right one anyway, you know what
I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
I also don't believe that. I believe that it's not
that hard to get the clips right. This is a
professional allegency news organization. You have to know people, so
either someone switched it out or something happened. But if
you're the anchor and you say, I want the clip
of him saying that there's an enemy within and he's

(01:43:36):
going to put the military on American citizens, and then
someone else plays the wrong one again, I do respect
that he came out and said that was the wrong cut,
but come on.

Speaker 1 (01:43:48):
Well, I mean, he seemed to have had it ready.
And thank you Red for the five dollars donation. Love
you guys and all our friends. The Biden economy has
surprissed every Trump metric and any economic metric facts are facts.
I know Trumpies don't like facts though, Sorry, they just don't.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. All right, all right,
let's end on a good note. I wanted to do

(01:44:09):
this because I did see this actually earlier. I think
this was before the show, and I quickly saw it
when I had logged in at the beginning. I think
this was SF TESLA. I try to make a mental note.
Apparently nap A Valley since I made a note because
we were drinking. Napa Valley has a new what they

(01:44:30):
call it, a new American Viticulture area. Okay, first one
in thirteen years, SF TESLA, let me know about this in.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
Lat On Pedalas Gap.

Speaker 1 (01:44:44):
It's called Crystal Springs. Oh, it's in Napa Valley, which
is already home to seventeen distinct avas, which are American
viticulture areas. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Tray Bureau took
over four years. Took over four years to approve the
AVA proposal. And yeah, it's called Crystal Springs. It's located

(01:45:08):
on the border of sant Elena in Kalistoga, in the
foothills of Howell Mountain. I don't know. I know where
sant Helena and Kalastoga is, so if you know where
Howell Mountain is. So they're going to label their wines
under the general Napa Valley AVA. But since the broader
Napa Valley label signifies the wine could be from anywhere

(01:45:30):
within the region's one hundred and twenty thousand acres of vines.
Producers were eager to get their specific region recognized for
its unique qualities. Wow, so there we go. We have
a new AVA in Napa Valley. It's called Crystal Valley. Oh,

(01:45:53):
Crystal Springs in the Napa Valley. Crystal Springs in Napa Valley.

Speaker 2 (01:45:57):
What is different about this than the other? The other
twelve or thirteen? I don't know what I want to know, like,
why is it different?

Speaker 1 (01:46:05):
So primarily planned to Cabernet seven. It has the wines
offer extremely dark, complex flavors and rich aromatics, according to
an interview with the San Francisco Chronicles San Francisco Chronicle.
And so the next time you're browsing the Napa Asle,
keep an eye out for the Crystal Springs name.

Speaker 2 (01:46:27):
I like it.

Speaker 1 (01:46:28):
Okay, Oh and I need to let us know so
I can't okay, So again, there is a meetup happening.

Speaker 2 (01:46:34):
I managed to almost make it through this drink.

Speaker 1 (01:46:37):
Okay, I don't have the Okay, whoever is going to
the meet up? Pricky, give me the details really quickly,
because I don't have them up in front of me.
I am not able to make it my birthday. You
have the details. I don't have the details.

Speaker 2 (01:46:50):
It's at Testa Rosa Winery and Los Gatos, Okay, on
Saturday tomorrow, and I think they're meeting at.

Speaker 1 (01:46:55):
One pm Tomorrow's Friday, but.

Speaker 2 (01:46:57):
Sorry, on Saturday one pm and they needed an RSVP
because they had to make reservations. Okay, so you can
contact I think Deirdre is the one organizing this, and
if you want to go, maybe she could add your
name to.

Speaker 1 (01:47:10):
The w It's right there at one wine bar. Unfortunately,
my birthday's on the twenty sixth, but I'm celebrating it
this Saturday, so I'm not going to be able to
be there. I wish I would have known earlier. But
we're doing a bike ride in Santa Cruz and then
I'm going to go to a reggae show at Mosali.
If anyone loves reggae, where's the reggae show? It's at
moz Ali and Santa Cruz. It's Michael Rose, one of

(01:47:32):
my favorite artists. So it's at mose Ali in Santa Cruz.
If anyone loves good reggae, I will be there on
Saturday night at Osali. Buy me up right in front
of the stage. I will be there.

Speaker 2 (01:47:45):
It turns out I'll also be in Santa Cruz on Saturday.
I know, look for the bike.

Speaker 1 (01:47:51):
We're going to be riding bikes during the day at
beer a bar crawl. So and there's like a band thing.

Speaker 2 (01:47:57):
Are you going to be at the Bandanna Cruz High
School band competition And it starts at like nine am.
Julia has to be there to warm up and then
she competes and then they don't give out a words
out until later. So I'm going to be spending all
day sitting on you know, a street.

Speaker 1 (01:48:14):
Staying at the Aqua Breeze. Don't stop me people, but
because they they sent me a notification because the parking
is going to be all messed up because of the
band thing.

Speaker 2 (01:48:25):
The band thing, that's where I go. I think she
said that awards don't happen until later in the day
and then the kids like go to the boardwalk, So
I don't think I'm going to make it over the
hill in time to stop at Testerosa. Unfortunately, the fourteen
fifteen people that are going to meet up and what
I love about this is these are folks that met

(01:48:48):
and connected on your show on the Mark Thompson show
on the after party and have managed to strengthen these
connections and really get to know each other. And now
we'll do an in person meetup and people are going
to be able to see all the people they talk
to every day in person.

Speaker 1 (01:49:03):
I love you guys. If you guys, please take pictures
and send them to me and Kim and Mark so
we can show them all this on all of the shows. Okay,
so please send pictures to the shows, all of them.
I want to show them too, So even if I'm
showing them next Thursday, I want to show them. So
Tesaro's a winery in Los Gatos at one at the
wine bar. Go. It's on Saturday, the nineteenth. It's going

(01:49:26):
to be a great time. Take a bunch of pictures,
drive safely and yeah, it's going to be a great
old time. And I love the fact that you guys
are doing it. Sandy says, I'm bringing name tags and
a sign which we'll say Mark Thompson show me up perfect.
So yeah, just look for people, have a great time.
It's going to be so so much fun. And yeah,
it's going to be great. So I'm so glad that

(01:49:46):
you guys are doing that. That is going to be
just so much fun.

Speaker 2 (01:49:50):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:49:50):
That is our show. Thank you guys so much for
being here. We love you guys so much. I love
the family that you guys have created here. It is
just absolutely awesome. If you love this show. If you
love this show, please think about supporting us through our Patreon.
Go to the Nicki medoroshow dot com, the Nicki medoroshow
dot com. Thank you to Jim for supporting us through

(01:50:11):
our super chat. Thank you. Thank you also to rev
Pe for supporting us to this superchat. You can support
us even if you don't do it live. If you're
watching this in the recording, just look for the dollar
sign under the live chat box. Our Patreon can be
found at the Nicki medoroshow dot com. You can also
find all of the links under the show notes right

(01:50:32):
there the Patreon. Also, our PayPal links are there. Every
way to support the show is always in the show notes.
Apologize for my also support Anti Tabby's Island Flavors. She
supports the show. She has this delicious guava barbecue sauce.
Go to Anti Tabbies dot com and you can buy

(01:50:54):
the guava barbecue sauce and make sure you use our
coupon code it's Nick Kim n I K k I
M and you get ten percent off every single time
you order, and a portion goes to our show. A
portion goes to support kids in Jamaica. And the guava
barbecue sauce is absolutely delicious, so please support the show.

(01:51:14):
We really appreciate you guys being here. We will be
back here at five o'clock on Thursday. Cocktail and news.
Kim's gonna have some sort of concoction that's gonna get
her all messed up from her husband, who knows.

Speaker 2 (01:51:26):
We like it.

Speaker 1 (01:51:27):
We love it. Drink your gasoline. We love you. Take
care of each other, have fun on Saturday. Take pictures.
Thanks so much for being here. Bye bye, Nikki, you
as saou fam.

Speaker 3 (01:51:42):
I give you the less.

Speaker 2 (01:51:44):
You all so the best.

Speaker 3 (01:51:48):
I really get rest.

Speaker 1 (01:51:51):
You're so wow. Okay