#817 - Conservative v Liberal

Dallas Duff returns to discuss and defend Trump.  Michael Regilio is of a different opinion.  Weekly Roundup show will be out this weekend.  More at dogmadebate.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Neil de grass Tyson. Hey, I'm Adam Carol Gillette.
Not only listening, I'm a guest, I'm a penn and teller,
and I am the fourth listener.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I am the fourth listener.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
And that must make me at least the fourth listener.
It's Dogma Debate with your host Michael Rigilio. For extra
content and to join the conversation.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Please head over to Dogmadebate dot com and join our Patreon.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
And welcome to what absolutely positively one. I am not
even messing with you. This time to be a fantastic
episode of Dogma Debate because Dallas Duff is here, and
it's always a fantastic episode when Dallas Duff is here. Dallas,
I'm gonna I'm gonna frame you, and then you can

(00:49):
reframe if you like. He's a conservative, he voted for Trump.
I wouldn't call him an outright Trump supporter. He's not
a cultist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact,
I'd like to just share with you one quick detail.
I think I said this once before on the show,
but it really warmed my little liberal heart. One time
I got a text from Dallas that just said, can
you recommend some progressive podcasts so that I can expand

(01:12):
my horizons and hear other opinions. And I said, you
know what, Dallas Duff is the real deal. And with that,
Dallas Duff, welcome back to Dogma Debate.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Hey, hey, always, I was great to be here. Thanks
for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Yeah, and you and I were talking about, you know,
let's do let's do a political episode. Let's let's talk
you know whatever in the United States of America in
the year twenty twenty five, and you were, of course
down for it. But you came in with a few
ideas of what you wanted to talk about. So why
don't we start with your stuff and then we'll just
let the conversation go organically. I think I'm looking at

(01:52):
your list some of it, I think there just might
be some agreement on do you want to start with
the first thing you mentioned?

Speaker 2 (01:58):
I don't remember the order of whatever I saying you.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
So, okay, first thing you said, Biden cover ups.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
Say what now, Biden helped cover ups? Oh? Yeah, So
that's that's been interesting, uh to learn. And I'm not
sure you know what all you've kept up on on that.
But by the way, UH, just for the UH listening audience.
Like you know, I'm not a professional political commentator and

(02:24):
I only have so much time in the day to
follow things. But I do try and follow all, you know,
a lot of stuff news and and current events pretty closely.
I like to I probably think of myself more as
kind of a big picture person. I try to follow
some of the nuanced details. But like I said, you know,
when it's not your full time job, you know, like
there's there's always little little details of things that are

(02:46):
gonna come up. So like I try to be transparent
about that. If you say something that like I don't
know much about or I don't, I'm not gonna try
and bullshit my way through it. I'll just be like,
you know, I haven't, I haven't really followed that, and uh,
you know se for closed detail. So just you know,
there's there's a lot of bullshitters on on both sides.
There's a lot of people talking that they just think

(03:08):
they know everything about everything, and I don't. I don't.
I'm not that person, so anyway, so you know, with
that that being said, so with the UH, the Biden
health cover up has been interesting to follow, and I'm
curious to get an alternative, more left wing opinion or
just kind of perspective on all of it. Uh, and
just kind of, you know what, what I followed in

(03:30):
my understanding is kind of some of what's been going on.
So there was the book that was released by Jake Tapper,
and for me for not remembering the name of the
other guy, they really kind of dug into some of
the details of basically how kind of the there was.
There was a lot more that was understood about. Now

(03:52):
this is just about the cognitive stuff. We'll get into
some of the other some of the more recent stuff too,
but this this is related to kind of his like
cognitive declined stuff that you know, everyone ate both in
the administration and a lot of people in the media
were saying, oh, there, you know, there's nothing to see here,
like he's fine, and you know, it turns out there's
probably a lot of people who are running cover for

(04:16):
him on that. And I don't think that's too controversial opinion,
but I'd like to get kind of your general perspective
on that. Just in general we can kind of you know,
maybe go from there.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Well my perspective. Wow, what an interesting way to start
the show because I think I'm going to go much
harder right than you, or at least much harsher than
you just did. You were a little polite for my taste.
I will point out that in twenty nineteen we lost
a few patrons on the show when I was just
an occasional guest host because I said, Joe Biden is

(04:51):
clearly in cognitive decline. This was during the Primaries, and
people got upset. They said, you're no doctor, you have
no way of knowing that. But again, don't don't tell
me what I don't. I can see what I see, right,
I'm not an idiot.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yeah, I mean, and that's what uh you know that
that's what conservatives say about a lot of things that
we could criticize on. And I'm sure you know that
that applies both ways. Like I don't want to just
want to frame it as like as just like a
conservative thing, but like all the time, like I feel
like conservatives are saying, like just just just look, just
look and see with your eyes and be be use
use your reasoning capacities, and you know you have some

(05:28):
of the creation.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
But look, I don't want to get into it. But
conservatives say that when they shouldn't say that they're at
climate change. Just use your eyes, man, the weather's fine.
It's like, dude, that's not how you measure stuff like that.
But okay, that said, let me go a little harder
on Joe Biden. So I then said many times and
uh went on record saying, I'm not voting for Joe
Biden in twenty twenty. I'm voting for Joe Biden's handlers. Like,

(05:50):
I think he will have a better team around him
to do the right thing than Donald Trump would. So
I'm voting I don't. I don't trust this guy. I
don't think he's all there. And good lord, that debate
with Donald Trump was just the most embarrassing thing ever.
Was there a cover up? Absolutely? Did they was Joe Biden?
Or possibly Joe Biden? Like, I want to give Joe

(06:13):
Biden some agency and not let him off the hook.
As I say, he's a daughtering, senile old man and
he was a victim of his handlers, so let's let's
put some blame on him too. But the whole kit
and kablutle, these people, what was it? Power? They wanted
to hang on to power. There's no way they thought
only Joe Biden could beat Donald Trump. Why they lied
to us, why he ran for reelection, I will never know.

(06:35):
He would have gone down, honestly, in my opinion, Dallas
as one of the greatest presidents ever. If he came in,
saved us from Trump, passed the torch to a younger
generation and said I'm out, I would have cared that
he was seen Isle. Reagan was seen Isle his last
two years in office. Like it, it happens to old men.
We get it. There's there's there's a there's a buffer
around the president. There's there's handlers, there's advisors that can

(06:56):
kind of take the wheel if he's turning into a daughtering,
senile old man. And for the last little stretch of
the road that we have to figure but no him
running for reelection. He fucked America in my opinion, because
I think Donald Trump is the worst thing this time
around ever to happen to America. And whoever was around him,
whoever was a part of it, I don't I wouldn't
call them criminal. I wouldn't say, you know, let's have

(07:18):
some sort of trials for them or something like that.
But they should hang their head in shame, go away.
And never be seen from again. That is how strongly
I feel about the Biden health cover up.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Did did you see this week? His his doctor was
called into I don't know, it was like an official testimony,
questioning is something and he just he just pled the
fifth on everything. And that now we're learning also that
that Biden has like like stage four cancer or something.
Is that I think, I think that's right, But but

(07:49):
a lot of listening to some some other doctor's opinions
saying that like at this stage in the progression of it,
that it's it's highly unlikely that like this was just
like found out about like somebody knew about it, probably
his doctor, and that now like you know, we don't
know what is doctor. No, it's because his doctor, see

(08:11):
it seems he seems to be very hesitant to say much,
which is which is another interesting element of all.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
Ye, not that I want to both sides, but I
do remember Donald Trump's doctor saying like that he's, you know,
one hundred and fifty five pounds and he can run
a marathon a day, and that he's six foot five
and whatever. Obviously, presidential doctors, I don't know if they're
like just trying to if they're part of the administration
and their job is to bolster this person and make

(08:40):
them look good. But not the first doctor to bs us.
I think Reagan's doctor is probably dishonest about his Alzheimer's
as well. But that's it. Who cares. The system's broken,
it needs to change. I want any accurate I'm just
gonna say, the doctor's job is to give us, the
American people, an accurate summation of the president's health, not

(09:04):
to make the president feel good or be a member
of a team or anything like that. That's it. Your
job tell us how the health is of the person
that's running the free world.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
Right. The element that concerns me of this type of
thing and other things that are related the most, and
this is this is probably one another one of those
areas where I think we're probably going to agree is
that it's not even the fact. It's not the fact
that like Biden has problems, or trumpath problems or whoever. Like,
it's the fact that so many people, and again this

(09:36):
is not even a partisan statement, there are so many
people that are willing to just just lie, bold face
lie to us about so many things on such a
deep level, so many people, and that's that's always a problem,
and I you know, we don't have there's not much
hope for us as as a country, or at least

(09:56):
as as a as a government, as a country trying
to trying to have a functional government if everybody's gonna
lie to us about everything all the time.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
Yeah, that's an excellent point. So yeah, Biden helped cover
up absolute disaster. But then again, look, I would say
the last you know whatever, at least the last year
of the Biden administration was just an absolute disaster. I mean, like,
don't what's the old saying, piss on my back and

(10:25):
tell me that it's raining. Like, we're not idiots. We
could see for a long time that this guy wasn't
doing well cognitively, and that's okay, that's okay. He had
a hard life. He did a good job as senator
and vice president. From my perspective, put him out to pasture,

(10:46):
all right, But just put him out to pasture and
let him, you know, have dignity in his golden final
years on earth, which I'm guessing if I'm not a doctor,
I don't know, but I'm guessing that Joe Biden doesn't
have isn't going to be with us much longer. It
seems like he's got health problems and whatnot. Like give
him dignity now he's got none. I I hate to

(11:10):
say it, but I kind of hate him. I kind
of spit on the ground every time his name gets mentioned.
If I can pull from a Paul Simon lyric there,
it's just I mean, yeah, it's just the thought of
Joe Biden slightly turns my stomach and gets me angry,
and like if anyone got us here, Yeah, Trump number

(11:31):
one got us here, Biden number two got us here,
and I'm not happy with where we are. So yeah,
we're discussing one of the culprits here, and I'm rather
angry with him. All right, there you go. We did
it first first issue. Uh okay, before we even one

(11:54):
of the The next point you said was Democrats sinking
poll numbers and what they can do about it. Why
don't we get that after we discuss all the problems
in the world, and maybe it'll be clearer why they're
sinking poll numbers. So let's put a pin in that.
And then this next one. You are literally the third
person that is asked to come on and talk about this,
and I, uh uh. The other two people like they

(12:20):
just they didn't want to have an honest discussion. One
of them actually started an episode and then they pulled
back and said, you can't put this out. I don't
want to do this anymore because they said, by their
own admission, they said, you're kicking my ass and I
look stupid. But you want to talk about New York
nominating possibly the most socialist slash communist. Wow, right off

(12:41):
the bat there, I think Dallas stuff may have gotten
some bad information if you think he's a communist ever,
and whether or not, that's a good idea. So let's
do it. So you're talking of course about Mom, Dami, Mom,
Donnie go for it.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Let me be clear about something before before we get
into this, like, uh, so, there's very few people, especially
in American politics, at least historically, that you could ever
And I hate playing these like these like gotcha definition
of word games, So I do. I do think it's
important to kind of establish uh definitions and kind of

(13:19):
what you're talking about. So well, I say he's the
most socialist communists we've ever had. I'm not even necessarily
saying that, like he's like the textbook communists, Like, I
don't know if America has ever had like a textbook
textbook communists and people even have different different definitions.

Speaker 4 (13:38):
Yeah, that means, just to finish my thought, Okay, what
I am saying is that in terms of the spectrum
of you know, just the whole political spectrum.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
Of you know, the going down the road of you know,
capitalist communist, you know, and however you want to define that. Uh,
he's definitely he's he said enough things. And again, you
want to say that I'm getting bad information, I'm just
telling you what what I've heard him say directly, and
that's what I'm forming my opinion about. So he said things,

(14:13):
he's made he's even made comments about. Now, this may
have just been a flippant thing. Maybe he was like
Joki haha, I don't know, Like he made some comment
about like at one point about like seizing the means
of production. Again, maybe it's just a flippant thing. I
don't know, but he's he's he said something that was
very much that he's he's also stated as one of

(14:36):
his potential policy ideas. Again, maybe he's going to back
off of this, Maybe he won't be able to do it.
But he wants to create basically state run grocery stores
or something in New York where there's no there's no
profits that are made. It's just owned, owned and operated

(14:57):
by the by the state or the community, or some
sort of kind of socialist esque methodology of running grocery stores.
Which that's I mean, we could get into why that
would create a whole bunch.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Of all Right, I've got stuff to say about that,
But if you've got why don't we stop right there
and say, uh that, uh those are That's enough to
go on for the first initial little debate. So first off,
seizing the means of production, I didn't personally see that,
but I would say that with any political candidate, let's
look at their policies and their platform and talk about

(15:34):
that more than perhaps a flip comment, because I never
I did not come across the seizing the means of production,
which I'll give you that then that is straight up
communist socialists right there, if that were in fact the case.
But as far as grocery stores go, that sounds like
a great idea to me. We already have food assistance,
but with food assistants we cut in the middleman. And uh,

(15:57):
you know, we're paying a lot more than we would
have to because corporations have to make their money and whatnot.
What would be wrong with having a service where people
could buy food directly from the government and there's no
middleman and no profits and and food is just sold
at the value and it just runs itself at a

(16:17):
zero percent profit margin. That sounds like a great idea,
particularly with.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
There's one very blatantly obvious problem with that. I don't
know if you if you know what I'm going to
say or or not, But to me, this this should
be blatantly obvious that you should already know what I'm
going to say to So what what What would be
the potential kind of cause and effect of that, at
least theoretically, and I think I think at least practically

(16:45):
probably is that you're not going to have You're you're
probably going to run a lot of the of the
profit profit run and operated grocery stores. You're probably gonna
run them out of business or out out of town
or out of the state because so many people, I mean,

(17:08):
you have it's like why go to why go to
the grocery store that's making a profit where you have
to pay pay a little more, uh, when when you
could go to the one that that that isn't running that. Now,
maybe you could argue that, oh, you know, they're maybe
in the rich neighborhoods, you know, like they can afford
to pay whatever they want. Maybe they'd rather go to
the fancy pansy like you know, rich neighborhood grocery store. Okay,

(17:30):
like you know, maybe maybe it wouldn't run all of
the grocery stores, all the profit run grocery stores out,
but but it's certainly gonna run at least a certain
percentage of them out, which means that that there's gonna
have to be a greater stocking of stuff at the
at the grocery stores that are the state run because
now you now you've run off half the grocery stores.

(17:51):
So so now there's gonna be there's gonna be less stores.
You got more people going to uh going to those
those single stores those however, many of these states store
you know that are going to be when we run
it operated. It just seems like it's gonna create It
would likely create a lot of a lot of problems,
possibly unintended problems, but problems.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Nonetheless, I think those are fair enough points. But I
would say that, uh, you know, without having actually looked
at this plan, because I didn't know we're going to
talk about this. My thought would be that this would
just be nutritional food only. This wouldn't be what are
they what's that product that I had to look up
in that song about Richmond North of Richmond fudge rounds.
I don't think there's is that what he complains about,

(18:30):
like I don't want to be paying for your fudge
rounds or whatnot. It's like, I don't think there'd be
fudge rounds. I don't. I think it would be very limited.
A and B. Just off the top of my head.
I live two blocks from a corporate not corporate, but
there's a chain of used clothing stores that sell used
clothing at quite a big profit in the place. There's

(18:51):
a line around the block. Everybody goes there. And just
down the block is a store that sells use clothing
that is a nonprofit, that makes no money off of it,
and they don't seem to have messed each other's business
up too much. The idea that poor people would be
able to get something and there's no corporate profit off
of it in a limited capacity. I'm not saying next

(19:14):
to every grocery store should be a grocery store running
without a profit, but a few in the city just
as if there are there's I mean, do soup kitchens
run grocery stores out of business? Do food banks run
grocery stores out of business? It seems to me that
being charitable and helping the poorest people, I could assure

(19:35):
you anybody of means is not going to go into
one of those stores. These are not going to be
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
What you guys have in Nashville, but we have Gelson's
here it's a very fancy or Whole Foods or Airwan
that's a new one that's like literally twenty dollars for
a can of soup, Like that's what people of means.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
Want from their grocery store. Whatever this would be is
not going to be competitive in that way.

Speaker 2 (20:04):
Yeah, and you know that that very well could be
the case. I Like I said, when we're especially when
we're talking about things that have yet to be be tried.
I mean, now, I know, like certain versions of like
communism have have been tried, but that's not That's what
I'm talking about. I just mean like in this specific example,
you know, the state of New York has never has
never tried this, like so like me, especially me not

(20:28):
not being being a part of the New York not
living in New York. I say, you know, whatever New
Yorkers want to vote for. Like you know, I'm a big,
big believer in this whole kind of like state run
state by state experiment that we have. It's one of
the reasons why I think, you know, America is you
know unique and cool as you know, you can run

(20:48):
little experiments in an individual states. So if that, if
that's what they think they want to do, you know what,
go for it. And you know, I'll sit back and
I'll watch with kind of an intrigued eye, and maybe
it'll prove me right, maybe it won't. Maybe it'll be
somewhere in between. Maybe it's like it's causing the few problems,
but it's not like you know, wrecking the entire uh

(21:10):
you know, I just amer whatever, Like you know, it
could be any any of those like you know, like
I'm not going to come on here and say, like
I know exactly what would happen, But you know, I
think I don't think it's I personally don't think it's
a good idea, but if New Yorkers want to try it, hey,
you know, not out out.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
There's that classic Della's death reasonable attitude there for New
York want to try it. But I did have a
thought and.

Speaker 5 (21:33):
As a as a conservative, and I've seen your ILK
post a lot about this over the last few years,
the shoplifting epidemics that they have, particularly in New York City.

Speaker 1 (21:44):
I'm guessing that the shoplifting would go down in those
grocery stores, and that those grocery stores would have less
what's called leakage or you know, loss of product because
of these stores. That it might actually help the bottom
line of corporate grocery stores.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
That could be the shoplifting problem runs deeper, though than
just like poor people like can't not being able to
afford food. I think a lot of the shoplifting problems
not that there aren't like poor people stealing food because
they literally can't afford to eat. I mean that happens,
but like it's mostly, at least in my opinion, like

(22:22):
it's it's mostly not.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
That you know, well I see it. I mean my
grocery store, my neighborhood here in Los Angeles is is
not exactly. I'm not the most wealthy neighborhood ever. So
my local grocery store, there's you know, security stopping some
person shoplifting every other time I'm in there, and they're

(22:46):
always just you know, it's just food. It's not like
they're trying to steal I don't know, some luxury items
or anything like that. They're stopping some guy that put
a chicken breast in his pants or something like that.

Speaker 2 (22:59):
Yeah, I guess you can't. I guess the argument would be,
like you, the more you incentivize it in terms of
like just letting people get by with doing that, you know,
that potentially leads to more of it, you know, I mean,
I know, I guess this is related, but a little
bit of a tangent. I know there's been in certain

(23:22):
parts of California, certain cities. I don't know if it's
a big problem in LA or not, but like certain
types of stores like the I've seen I've seen videos
like in certain places like of Walgreens where it's like
almost everything is behind lock and key because they had
such bad Oh.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
Yeah no, no, no, that's so always. Look, this is again,
I guess we're both on a tangent here, but that
one never made sense to me. It's like locking up
the shampoo and the soap and the toothpaste, but not
locking up I don't know, the drowns or whatnot. It's like,

(24:02):
what why is this the stuff that you're protecting? Maybe
the profit mark. It's if somebody out there is listening
and they understand why it's always this soap, the shampoo,
the deodorant that gets locked up, but nothing else.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
I mean, I know, just I mean generally speaking, like
when I've gone to places where at least certain certain
items are behind locking key, it's usually easy because those
are the more expensive items are those are the more
stolen items usually?

Speaker 1 (24:30):
Right? Okay, I guess that's what it is. But yeah,
that said or maybe the the the optimist in me
or the humanist in me was like or maybe they
they understand that, like, look, if you need to steal
a banana like were, we won't impede that too much.
But you don't need the hair dye that bad. I

(24:53):
don't know.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yeah, maybe I think you're given giving people too much
humanistic credit there.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
Okay, then you said you want to talk about or
we can talk about alligator Alcatraz or whatever else you
wanna I want to go with. So that is the
last immediate item on your list. And then, like I said,
once we get to the end of everything, let's talk
about those poll numbers and Dallas Stuff's advice to Democrats.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah, And I don't know if you wanted to still
talk about, like we we mentioned talking about kind of
our because I actually don't fully understand, like the the
all the primary reasons why you think Trump is so bad,
And I think maybe it might have to deal with
kind of our our our either values hierarchy or our

(25:42):
hierarchy as it relates to policy positions just might just
might be just differ. So I don't know, if you
still wanted to get into that, I can talk about
kind of why why I do think kind of you know,
Trump is doing at least a decent job on certain things,
at least on at least on certain kind of primary

(26:02):
things that are reasons why I voted for him.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, go for it. Why don't you start with that
and we'll go from there. You think Donald Trump's doing
a good job on some why don't you pick some
of the areas you think he's doing a good job.
And I because I can't think of any areas I
think he's doing a good job. I'm guessing whatever it
is you think he's doing well, I think he's doing terribly,
if not criminally.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
All right, Well, so I'll start off this way. Then
I mentioned, like you know, I try and think, try
and think kind of big picture initially, and you know,
from there kind of work down to kind of the
more minutia. So like think about I'm thinking about like
three three big pillars of kind of government society, like health, safety, economics, right,

(26:50):
so those are those are three broad topics health safety, economics.
So so maybe we'll start with with with safety and
then I'll do help the health the economics that So,
so I think the the border issue, I don't I

(27:10):
don't understand if anyone could even argue at this point
that the border isn't isn't safer at least in the
sense that you at least the numbers that I've seen,
like the illegal border crossings there just just way down
since uh Trump came into office this time. And uh,

(27:31):
you know, I I've watched numerous interviews with this Tom
Homan guy, who's the head of ICE or or whatever
it is, whatever they call kind of the what he's
what he's ahead of. I think that's that's what you
would say that his his title is. But yeah, I'm
I've seen numerous interviews with him, and so I mean,

(27:51):
I I agree obviously with what with what they're they're doing,
at least in kind of the broad sense. But the
thing that kind of really stood out in my mind
about like, Okay, like this is this is this administration
is certainly has its act together more so than you know,
the previous and when they were like we just within
the first then see uh, I watched an interview with

(28:14):
Homan where he's saying, you know, we've we've gone and
collected multiple thousands of of offenders that were violent offenders
of some sort or another, whether it be people who
have you know, committed committed acts of violence, or thieves
or people who traffic you know what, whatever, you know,

(28:35):
go down the list, rapists, et cetera. People that we
know have have have a history of these types of things,
and we we know where they are. We were able
to get them and get them out so quickly because
we knew where they are, we know where they are.
We knew where they are. We've known where they are
for a while. It's just the previous administration just sat

(28:56):
on their hands and didn't do anything about it. Now,
well to you, same page. Surely we can get on
the same page on that, or maybe not. I don't
know's I'm curious.

Speaker 1 (29:05):
No, definitely not gonna get on the same page with
me on that. I mean, this is a large this
is a big topic. Uh, and I'm not really sure
where to start. Tom Holman is clearly alliging piece of
shit on that. That is just the dumbest thing I've
ever heard.

Speaker 6 (29:20):
So, Uh, the Biden administration knew where human traffickers, rapists,
and criminals were and just weren't doing anything. Just let
them go, Oh it's just a rapist. You believe that,
that makes sense to you.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
They just knew, they knew where the human traffickers were,
but they were like, come on, everyone needs a little
human trafficking. What point are you making their dallas? That
is crazy that he would say that if he said
that they knew where they were, they just didn't know
what about that?

Speaker 2 (29:47):
They allowed that? Like what it seems to be unless
unless you have just like really irrefusable like data on
this and somehow which you know, which that that's that's
tough to to get into on just like an hour
or two podcasts. But like to say, yes, it is crazy,
but but to take that position as if like it's

(30:09):
not true is to is to reject the possibility that
there are crazy, evil people in this world who do
crazy evil things. And maybe there's maybe there are these people,
maybe there's maybe there's some nuance behind the reasons. You know,
people are good, good at kind of rationalizing all sorts
of things. But yes, I don't I don't deny that

(30:32):
it's that it's crazy and or evil, but but I
also accept that there are crazy and evil people in
this world. Do we at least agree on on that point?
There and they're crazy.

Speaker 1 (30:44):
And evil people in the world. Yes, I think most
of them are currently in the Trump Administration's consolidated it
quite nicely.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
That's the way.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Hold on, Just to be clear, hold on Dallas and Hackery.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
That's just partisan hackery, man, Come on, you're better than that. No,
it's actually there are evil people.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
It's objective. Wait, so you're saying that it's Bart said hackery.
Just to be clear that I think the Trump administration
is evil. As as you make the argument that the
Biden administration was evil, crazy and evil, you're.

Speaker 2 (31:15):
Taking a nuanced position and you're twisting it. I'm not
saying everybody in the Biden administration is twisted or evil
or whatever. I'm simply saying that that let's start from
the premise that there are that there are twisted and
evil people that are in all parties, all across the

(31:35):
spectrum of all ideological ILKs, et cetera. Can we at
least agree on that.

Speaker 1 (31:42):
Sure, there's crazy, evil people in the world. I don't
know how many of them were immediately in the Biden administration,
but sure they. Let me just tell you a little
something about why that strikes me as immediately odd because
or the standard that I try and apply. I had
somebody very recently send me a video of somebody claiming

(32:06):
that the Trump administration is flying prisoners in shackles out
to the middle of the ocean, throwing them out of
military planes into the ocean and flying back, and they
were like, can you fact check this for me? I
was like no, Like why not? I was like, because
I don't have to. It doesn't pass the smell test,

(32:28):
Like there's no way that the Trump administration is so
stupid that they think that's a better idea than just
shipping them to Seacott or putting them in Alligator Alcatraz
or whatever, that what would be the benefit. The entire
world would turn against them, their base would turn against them,
the UN would charge Donald Trump, or he'd be charged
in the Hague with war crimes.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
Like, there's no chance.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
It's true. You've followed for some liberal bullshit propaganda and
I'm not going to engage in it. And if the
idea that they knew were the human traffickers and the
rapists and the drug dealers, they just let them go,
didn't didn't pursue them, that doesn't pass the smell test
to me.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Dallas, Well, I mean, I'm not I'm not exactly sure.
I don't know if that really suffices in my opinion
as as a as a as a great argument. I mean,
I understand we we both have our kind of like
biases in certain ways or are a certain kind of
like okay, like man, that's that seems weird or like

(33:28):
I mean, like I get I get all that, but like,
but you know, we know there are certain facts that
we can say for sure that hopefully we can agree
on Like, for example, we know there are there no
we know that there have been instances of of people
who were murdered who figure out the best way to

(33:50):
ward this. There were there have been instances where citizens
have been murdered by illegals who we know have a record,
and we know who know have even gone through certain
elements of the of the system and just just been
let go like maybe they were put in put in

(34:10):
prison or something. I don't even know exactly how how
how all this works, because I'm not a lawyer. I'm
not like, I don't know all the ins and outs,
but I do know for a fact that that there
there have been there have been citizens who have been
murdered by illegals who have have all sorts of records
that we know they've had records, and they just keep
with just keep letting them, letting them go. Like I
don't know why. I don't know why that happens. I

(34:33):
just know it has it has happened.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Okay, So you're kind of making an argument there for
like minority report future crimes or something like that, not
not even the story, well they murdered the citizen, they
were arrested. You're saying, why is it that this person
had legal problems in the past, went through the system,
was penalized at jail or parole or whatever it was.
But that's just how the system works. The repeat offenders exist.

(34:59):
You're saying, why are they allowed to stay in the country? Perhaps,
is that the point you're trying to make, because it's
not like they knew that this person was a murderer
and let them go. The minute they murder, they go
get them. And that's how you framed it that they
knew were the murderers and the rapists and the human
traffickers were they just let them go.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
Well, I don't remember the names as it retains to
this particular case, but I do remember that there was
somebody who was murdered who was a citizen, knew they
were murdered by and by an illegal who had all
that all sorts of all sorts of offenses. And uh,

(35:40):
I think I think one of which was even like
they were like they were like threatening the person that
they were murdered, or there was like there was there
was like a previous violent offense. Anyways, I don't.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
It's not worth it to talk about. It's something you
kind of have remember with those details.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
Like that, I guess that would be that would be
my biggest.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
You do realize Donald Trump was president only five years
ago for the four years previous of that. So so
these people all just showed up in America under Biden,
committed these offenses under Biden, served their time under Biden,
and were let go under Biden. Or is it that
what it's Trump? You guys turn a blind eye to
the fact that the system lets people fall through the cracks,

(36:19):
perhaps or repeat offenders. Or again, you're talking about wanting
to punish people for future crimes. Nobody has murdered, raped,
or human traffic that the FEDS knew about and let
go that never happened.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
I assure you that's not what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (36:34):
Okay, you're saying, why are these repeat offenders allowed to
repeat offend? That's a good questions that goes into criminal
psychology and every other thing. But if you punish somebody
they pay their debt to society, you're kind of done
with them at that point. You can do all you
can to help them get back on their feet, but
if they're going to repeat offend, you can't stop them.

(36:55):
They paid their they paid the price, they did their
time back a little bit because this is not a
perfect conversation because neither of us have specifics here I
would like to talk about. So how do we know
that they're not going after the criminals? And by the way,
I'm surprised that you're saying this since you do listen
to a lot of right wing podcasts, and this is

(37:16):
something I'm hearing on the right all the time now,
which is people saying I thought they were gonna go
after the worst. I thought they're going after all the criminals.
Why are they pulling families apart? Why are they chasing
down people picking you know, oranges? Why are they going
after farmers? Why are they going after the farm stands.
Just yesterday in California, not forty minutes north of me,

(37:40):
they rated a number of farms with military vehicles, men
with guns, helicopters, and they were going after the people
picking crops like out of a movie about a third
world country, men with guns in the fields as children.
I saw children and women running from the soldier with
guns it through the fields. Why are they doing that

(38:04):
if they were just gonna go after the bad guys first.
And why is it every right wing commentator I listened
to is saying the same thing. They're like, where are
the bad guys? I thought you were going after all
these bad guys. You're pulling families off.

Speaker 2 (38:17):
First thought. They did say first, So that that's so
they got them over on number point number two.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
Hold on point number one. We got to stop on
point number one. You're saying they said they'd go after
them first. So Donald Trump ran on, they're eating the cats,
the dogs, there's they're rapists, there's murderers are coming through
the windows. And a measly what three months in to
his term, they had already got all the murderers coming

(38:45):
through the windows, the rapists, the killers that I didn't
where was the news about that. We know the people
they arrested and sent to Seacott, a gay hairdresser, a
guy that didn't do it. And we're gonna get into
a Brago Garcia in just a second. They he ran
on a lie. Donald Trump ran on a giant, fucking lie,

(39:07):
and he did it might be smirching the good name
of the immigrants that come into this country, Yes, without documentation.
Here's the fact of the matter is When Donald Trump
says whatever, they're not sending their best. When Donald Trump
says they're not sending their best, that's where he's mistaken.
That's where he's mistaken. See if your friend walked across

(39:31):
a desert so that he could work three minimum wage
paying jobs, live in an apartment with eight other people,
just so he could send money home to his mother,
you'd call him son of the year. They kind of
are sending their best. The people that come here to
work in the fields and work three minimum wage paying
jobs so that they can send money home to their family.

(39:52):
These are decent people trying to do what's best for
them and their family. The criminals and the lazy people
and the terrible people, they mostly stayed wherever they were.
This is mostly good people coming in and he fucking
smeared them. He made people like you, good people like you,
think that anybody working in a minimum wage job or

(40:14):
working in the fields that is not here legally is
a murderer coming through the windows. They're here to rape
our daughters, they're here to murder us. They're crazy, they're
drug dealers, they're drug traffickers. He ran on a fucking lie,
and the evidence that he ran on a fucking lie.
Is the fact that they're going after the family picking
tomatoes in a field.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
Okay, So, with all due respect that there's there's a
little bit of pear clutching within that argument. There's also
and I'll give you your due and I'll give you
the counter. So you're you're arguing your kind of primary basis,
at least in terms of where you come from. You're
you're arguing on the basis of empathy, which is fine.

(40:58):
Empathy is good, like we should all have and sense
of empathy. However, when we're talking about when we're talking
about politics, and especially as it pertains to policy, I
more so would argue on the basis of principles. So
is what is our primary principle that we're going to
go off of as far as it relates to people

(41:21):
crossing the border illegally? Are we going to have laws
based on that? Yes or no? Are we going to
enforce those laws? Yes or no? This would be a
more principled approach as far as it relates to kind
of how we deal with policy.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
And I'm happy to have that discussion with you, Dallas.
I'm talking about Donald Trump lying through his teeth and
saying racist, hateful stuff about people that wasn't true, and
he proved it wasn't true because they weren't there. What
he said, he was going to go sweep up the rapists,
the killers, the murderers, the psychopaths that were coming through
your window. He said, coming through your window. They're coming

(41:57):
through your windows, folks, aid his base for paranoid fools.
And then when he had the power, he said, sorry,
they don't actually exist. So I'm just gonna go grab
this mother and daughter in a field.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
Picking the most of this. First off, the racist stuff,
like just as I've called bullshit from the beginning. We've
had a little bit of a previous discussion about that,
like I don't I don't accept that. I don't I don't.
I don't buy that that argument I haven't heard. I
haven't heard really good arguments, in my opinion, that that

(42:31):
that Donald Trump is racist. But these are these are all,
these are all non sequiturs. These are these are these,
these are a distraction from the from the principled argument,
which is which is the which is this which is
where I and many many conservatives not that, I mean,
you have your principles as well, but but the principled argument,

(42:52):
at least as it relates to the subject of immigrants
legal immigration, is what what are our what are our
laws going to be? What are they and what are
we going to how are we going to handle it?
Are we going to enforce them or not? That that
is the principled place, and the perspective that I come

(43:14):
from is that, yes, I believe we should have laws,
and I believe we should enforce those laws, which which means, sorry,
that there's there's some very decent people who have come
here illegally that are going to have to go because
we have laws and we should enforce those laws. That's
my perspective on that.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
That's a fine and dandy perspective, and I understand that
let's pull back a tiny little bit here and look
at what the actual scenario is over the last thirty
forty years in America. I like I always point to
Milton Friedman. You know him, I'm sure, the world famous
renowned conservative economist. He did a speech I can't remember

(43:56):
when it was, I think late eighties, early nineties, perhaps
maybe late nineties, where he talked about this very issue
from the conservative point of view. And this was the
conservative point of view forever. He said that illegal immigration
is good as long as it remains illegal. And I
think that the entire American system ran off of this

(44:17):
concept for a long time. They come here, they work
the jobs nobody else will work. They're good, decent people.
They have oftentimes Social Security numbers that they can't actually use,
so they pay into the system, they pay taxes, and
they can't pull out of the system at all. So
the system is working. From a Republican point of view,

(44:38):
George Bush knew this. Reagan knew this. They talked about it.
George Bush in fact, talked about creating a path of
citizenship for them as Ron Reagan literally did give amnesty
to everyone that was here illegally because the system was
set up for them to come here. Farms at big agriculture,

(45:00):
the hospitality industry, you name it. They all ran off
of the notion that these people would come here. We
want them here, bring them here. And then when Donald
Trump decides to run for president, he decides to change
the deal, change the arrangement, and say you are criminals,
you gotta go. Even though we have examples literally of

(45:20):
American companies advertising in Mexico telling people. If you can
get across the border, you've got a job with us.
Just get across the border. And then we decided to
change the deal because of what why is it?

Speaker 2 (45:34):
Sorry you asked me a question.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
Yeah, I'm saying that that was the deal. But Donald
Trump tried to decided to change the deal. He decided
to frame them all his criminals, rapists, murderers, coming in
your window, eating our dogs and cats. Which I don't
care what you say, that's racist. These people didn't come
here to rape or murder or eat our dogs and
cats or even come in our windows. They came here

(45:57):
to pick our food to work.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
That's all he's not. He's never said all all illegal
immigrants or rapists and all that kind of stuff, So
that's a bit of a misrepresentation.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
Actually, he said they're they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime,
they're rapists. The only the only people that he said,
not all of them were good people. And he's because
he said, and some of them I assume are good people.
So he said they're bringing crime, they're bringing drugs, they're rapists.
The only people he's hedged on were the good people

(46:31):
when he said and some of them, I assume are
good people.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
So you're you're you're taking you're taking some hyperbolic things
Trump has said, Uh, and you're kind of extrapolating them
a little bit, kind of stretching them a little bit.
I think also, and also I think you're you're going
a little bit against something that you yourself said earlier,
or you said something about like, let's not focus on

(46:56):
politicians rhetoric. So when I was talking about and I
was talking about his rehetic, You're like.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
No, no, no, that wasn't rhetor rhetoric. That was some off
the cuff thing he may have said somewhere. That wasn't
a speech where he said we should seize the means
of production. That wasn't a policy position. I don't think
that was rhetoric. I don't think it was the same thing.

Speaker 2 (47:16):
Well, neither is the hyperbolic statements that that you're talking about,
like Trump saying no.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
No, no, no. If I said Donald Trump's policy was
to grab women by their vaginas, that would be me
taking an off the cuff comment and assigning it to policy.
The thing is, Donald Trump says on the campaign trail
into a microphone, into thousands of cheering fans. That's campaign rhetoric,
that's policy.

Speaker 2 (47:41):
Well, no campaign campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric. Now you
could say, you could argue that racists, i'll give you,
I'll give the devil his due, so to speak. Like so,
like I think you could argue that that what someone
says at a campaign rally and to a microphone is
more potentially more serious than something that said either off

(48:05):
the cuff in private or something that said like in
some other context. But it's still it's still rhetorics. So
let's not conflate rhetoric with policy because there there's still
a distinction between because all the all the rhetoric that
comes out of politicians mouth doesn't doesn't always equal policy.
In fact, the politicians all the time they're saying all
sorts of things that that never never become policy or

(48:28):
that like they're there there, they'll they'll say certain things,
and then what they what they say and then what
they actually put into the actual like written policies sometimes
very different. So I think we probably can probably can
agree on that rightly.

Speaker 1 (48:41):
But what he says is racist, appeals to racist and
gets the votes of racists.

Speaker 2 (48:46):
You love to focus on this, this racist thing, as
if like there's like really solid evidence that he's a racist,
which there's there's, there's not, there's not. We already I
think we've already.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
Saying they're bringing crime, they're bringing drug they're rapists. When
talking about brown people coming up from Mexico, they're coming
in our windows, they're eating our cats and dogs. All
of it lies.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
First off, you're first off, you inserted, you inserted the
brown people. Think as if as if.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
All those white people coming over the border from Mexico.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
Okay, here here where here again, here's where. I don't
know if you're doing this deliberately or what, but like
so uh, most most conservatives, I believe Trump Trump included, Well,
our positions on the the border stuff is the same,

(49:43):
regardless of whatever your skin your skin color is, Like,
we don't we don't, we don't want we don't want
white people bringing drugs over over the border any more
than we want anyone of any other race to bring
bring drugs over the border or whatever. So, you know,
just because just because strump Trump is inarticulate sometimes about

(50:04):
this stuff, does does it mean that like that Therefore,
when he's kind of being a little wishy washy with
his language, he's he's making a racist statement, Like I
think his language.

Speaker 1 (50:17):
What How do you think racists reacted when they heard
him say they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're racists,
I mean rapists. Do you think they said, I don't,
I don't know I was being wishy washer Or do
they think they said, finally somebody gets us.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
I don't know very many racists, so I don't know,
like i'd have to find some an interview on my guess.
And and also I think their opinions are mostly irrelevant anyways,
because mostly people who voted most of the Trump, most
of the people who voted for Trump are not are
not racist. Uh, most of the policy I don't don't.
I don't see any policy that he's putting for that

(50:53):
that I would describe as racist. So I think it's
the racist stuff. It's just it's all BS.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Like in my opinion, Yeah, there's no racists in America.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
The people waving the.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
Party, waiving the Confederate flag, fighting for Confederate monuments, and
literally renaming military bases after racist traders to the United
States of America. You think the racist thing is all BS.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
I think I think to focus on the racist thing
is it's not it's not doing you any good as
far as like a policy advocate or a political advocate.
And and the fact that that the overwhelming, the overwhelming
majority of the people who voted for Trump and the
people in this country, uh, they don't have. I listened.

(51:45):
I listened to every conservative I can possibly find. Most
of the people I know are conservatives, not all, but
most at least that I'm close with, uh, like family
and really close friends. But you know, none of these people,
none of these people are racist like you. So I mean,
I don't that not that they don't exist. I lived

(52:07):
all over the place you know about, just just so
listeners are aware, I've I've lived in the South, I've
lived in California, I've you know, and I've I've traveled
all over this country. I've talked to a lot of people,
and uh, and you know, I I don't not that
there aren't some racists. I've maybe stumbled on a few

(52:27):
in my entire life. I don't know, right, I don't
know where most of them are.

Speaker 1 (52:31):
We're saying the same thing. I'm not calling conservatives racists.
I'm saying Donald Trump plays two racists, courts, the racist vote,
and I brought up some pretty good examples. So why
is it. Let's I'm sorry that we have to take
this detour. It wasn't intended. But we'll get back to
immigration in a second. But I have a question for you.

(52:52):
Pete Hesitt says he's stripping a naval ship of the
name Harvey Milk, a civil rights icon who died fighting
for the rights of gay people, because Pete hegxas said,
people want to be proud of the ship they're serving on. Now,
I don't know anyone that wouldn't be proud of serving

(53:14):
on a ship name for a civil rights icon. But okay,
Saint Pete Hegsath changed the name of a military fort
back to General Robert E. Lee, a racist trader to
the United States of America. Do you think all the
black soldiers on that base are proud of the base
they're serving on. What message is he sending and to whom?

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Okay, I'm not aware of that particular instance, but I'll
comment on it. Okay, for starters, I don't care. I
don't care what are ships are named. That's such a
that's such a of all the big issues. That's such

(54:04):
a non important issue, So I'll we'll start there.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
But how is it not important that he says gay
rights icons no place? By the way, Harvey Milk served
in the US and Navy.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Did he say those words specifically, gay rights icons have
no place in the X Y Z are you?

Speaker 1 (54:21):
He said, I'm taking the name off the ship because
people want to be proud of the ship they're serving on.
That's what he said. What's the opposite of proud of
the ship you're serving on? Not proud? Changing the name
is the factor that changes it from not proud to proud.
So therefore he's saying, I am placating to people that

(54:41):
don't want to serve on a ship name for a
gay man. And then he said, I'm changing a military
base back to Robert E. Lee to plak people who
want to be proud of the racist past of America.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
I think you're I think you're adding stuff in there
that was that was, that was never don't I don't know.
I don't know why he would want to change the
name specifically. I mean, I don't. But let let's say
for the sake of argument that, like you know, there's
some there's some racist reason behind like wanting to change

(55:19):
the name, and and and and in conjunction with that
that like you know, like he just doesn't like gay
people in general. And those are those are the two reasons,
some combination of like gay people, but yes, I gave
people bad racist good let's say that that that is
that is our argument. Okay, that is bad, but but
also does that is that one of the the is

(55:44):
that a deal breaker issue for me? The name, the
name of a ship. No, What would be a deal
breaker issue for me would be if he, if he
or the administration just in general, was creating blatant policies
to blatantly discriminate against gay people or to blatantly uplift

(56:05):
some racist policies in some way. And I know, I
know you know about all about the policy. That's where
the focus should be. And I don't. I don't see
either of those things happening. And if I did see
either of those things happening, you and me would be
would be standing together, uh to say that, Okay, this
is this is wrong, this, this policy here is racist,

(56:27):
this uh, this et cetera is you know it is
it's just hateful towards uh gay people or discriminates against
gay people. I'm not I'm not at all a fan
of that. I'm I'm one of the I was one
of the few conservatives who was pro gay marriage before
it was popular on the right to be uh pro

(56:47):
gay marriage. I just wanted to, like, you know, put
put that out there too as context to the uh
to the listeners. I've been I've been supportive of a
certain a certain element of gay rights for a long
time now. So yeah, so if that really became an
issue policy wise, not in terms of what the name

(57:08):
of the ship is, but if it became an issue
policy wise, then yes, I would be we would be
very much marching together or whatever.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
Okay, that's but okay, you addressed the ship. You don't
care what the name of the ship is. But it's
not the name of the ship. It's the stripping the
name of the ship. Why would he do that? Who
is he playing to? Who is he placating by doing
this and saying people want to be proud of the

(57:39):
ship they're serving on Who wouldn't be proud? Homophobic, backwards
thinking dumbasses. That's who he's placating. That's who he's trying
to make feel like they have power in this country.
Who is he placating? Who is he trying to make
feel at home by changing a military base to Robert E. Lee?

(58:01):
A racist trader, not even an American. He wasn't an American.
He didn't fight for America. I mean he did initially,
particularly in the Mexican War and others, but the Civil
War he was fighting for another country. The other country
killed American soldiers. That's all they did. That's what their
whole plan was, kill American soldiers. Who is he trying

(58:23):
and for a racist cause? By the way, So who
is he playcating? Who is he telling you have a
place in our party? Who is Donald Trump placating by
saying they're rapists, they're criminals, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime.
Doesn't matter what the policy is. Who are they making
feel at home in the Republican Party by doing these things?

Speaker 2 (58:46):
Well, I think it does primarily matter the most what
the policy is. Then, even to even if I was
to if we were to agree that like he's like
somehow placating to you know, some like racists or you know,
gay bashers or or or whatever, that that still doesn't

(59:10):
negate the fact that I don't see any actual policies
that are that are really harming uh, harming gay people
or that are uplift uplifting racists. Also to say that,
like as a as a related point, I think a
lot of y'all on the left. I don't know if
you consider yourself a Democrat or not, but you know,

(59:31):
just some just everyone in the in kind of that
that spectrum, you know, Democrat, lefties, whatever. I think y'all often,
in my opinion, will miss the forest through the trees,
and y'all want to y'all want to kind of either
ignore the bigger issues or take a certain stance on
the bigger issues that I would argue is the wrong stance,

(59:52):
like like like the border for example, Like you know,
we we have we have the people are dying and
the tens of thousands or more from fentanyl getting over
over the border through kind of illegal crossings. And you
y'all want to talk about the names of a ship.
I mean, I mean what I mean, what where I can.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
I can walk in chew gum at the same time, Dallas.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
Yeah, but you you've already said you you take the
opposite position on on the on the border. You you
kind of want a more kind of lax.

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
No, no, no, I definitely don't. We didn't even get
to the border, all right, you you didn't even touch
the Robert E. Lee thing? Why yes, you would name
a military base after a racist trader to the United
States of America? Other than do you think the black
soldiers on that base are happy to serve under Robert E. Lee,
who fought to keep them enslaved, who thought of them

(01:00:48):
is less than human beings, who literally whipped their ancestors,
was a slave owner himself. Why would you do that again?
For me?

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
For me, that where I get frustrated with these conversations,
where where the folks focus lies Like I said, like
I said, let's say I I agree, I agree one
hundred hundred percent with not only kind of your take
on the ship thing, but like give it, I'll give
even give it the strong strong position that like that,
like yeah, that the whole reason they're doing is because
like they don't like gay people and they love racists,

(01:01:20):
like uh okay, like that. I've said, I said that,
I said that was bad. I said I don't support that.
But I also have also said, and I think it's
important to contextualize this whole conversation is is is where
where are we going to put our focus on on
our outrage. Is it going to be on the name,
the name of ships or is it going to be
the the the the thousands of people who are crossing

(01:01:43):
the border illegally, uh, some some of which some of
which are leading to the murders, some of which are
are leading the rape, some of which are leading to
thousands of people dying of of fentonol and and other things. Uh.
At least in my opinion, Again, we may just disagree.
This may just be one of those clarity, those moments
of clarity where we're just we're just not going to

(01:02:03):
agree on where where we should put our out the
focus of our outrage. I put more focus on on
the border, the legal crossings as part of a big
part of the problem. We need need to clean that up.
The Trump administration is doing a much better job than
the previous administration, and that that's where that's where I
put part at least part of my focus. And so

(01:02:25):
you I.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
Can won't room in your brain to be offended by
homophobia and racism?

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
What's that?

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
No room in your in your brain to be offended
by homophobia and blatant racism and placating to racists.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
Did you did you miss the part where I said,
right that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:44):
You can do both. Yeah, and you could be outraged
by it too, if you want, I'll support you. Yeah,
you could say that's fed up. I don't like that,
not in my name.

Speaker 2 (01:02:56):
Yeah. Again, assuming let's assume assume that the case you're
making that that is that is the reasoning. Yeah, that
that that would be uh and and maybe maybe that
maybe that is the reasoning, you know, and and it Yeah,
like okay, it it still doesn't change the fact that, like,
that's that's not where my primary Uh. Okay, I can

(01:03:17):
be I can be outraged by that, sure, Yeah, like
I agree, Like we we both agree in the who
you know, we can walk in che them at the
same time. Yeah, like you know, I I would be
outraged by that if that is the reasoning. But it
still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's
a major issue. It's one of the top major issues,
uh to be concerned about.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
Yeah, now you know how I feel about drag Drag
Queen Story Hour.

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
Do what now?

Speaker 1 (01:03:43):
Now you know how I feel about Drag Queen Story Hour,
except in the case of racist military based names, that
is an issue. But I'm just saying, uh, that wasn't
my focus. And yet that's all I heard about from
the right was that some library somewhere let a guy
and address fantastically and glamorously read stories to children that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
Said, well, maybe that can be a little bit of
a transition into talking about the problems that I think
that electoral problems that I believe the Democratic hold on.

Speaker 1 (01:04:18):
Before we get there, let's clean up the immigration issue,
because that was a side note. So the deal was
come to America, we got these jobs for you. This
is the system that we set up. The right and
the left all agreed on it. Ronald Reagan gave amnesty
to all illegal immigrants when he was president because he understood,
should people cross the border illegally? In my opinion, no,

(01:04:44):
should the people that have been here for five, ten, fifteen,
twenty years, that have a job, a home, their kids
are in school, be allowed to stay here and be
given a path to citizenship, if not just legal status
of some kind. But I say citizenship, yes. So Donald
Trump is egregiously doing this the exact wrong way. It's

(01:05:07):
not good for America. It's not good for our economy.
It's not good for our image with the world to
have armed men pulling children out of their mother's arms
and arresting innocent people who are doing nothing more than
working a hard day's work and possibly their second job.
So he's doing a terrible job with the border. He's

(01:05:30):
doing the worst possible job with the border. Illegal crossings
are down great for the wrong reason. Because if you
come here, will fucking arrest you and put you in
a third world prison and throw away the key. That
can't be the reason. That's not a good reason. That's
a bad reason. We shouldn't do that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
Maybe you know something that I don't know, But I'm
pretty sure that the illegals that come over, we don't
just lock them up out a trial or something like
we did.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
Yeah, we do called stee cott in l. Salvador. Did
those people get a trial?

Speaker 2 (01:06:12):
Oh? Well, are you are you? Are you claiming that
we that America somehow has control over the UH, over
the the the jails in L Salvador.

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
Yeah. You know who agrees with me, The president of
l Salvador. He just said it. That just said it
to a UN commission. He said Donald Trump controls the
fate of those people, not me, of course, of course,
we give them hundreds of millions of dollars, support them,

(01:06:42):
send our prisoners over there, and then go what we
had nothing to do with it?

Speaker 2 (01:06:46):
Okay, So this this is where again I don't have they.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
Did Al Salvador come here and take those people? Or
did we send them to Al Salvador?

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
This well, yeah, well this is where i'll I'll get
to that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:59):
Did we get them a trial?

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Where this is where my my bullshit met or starts
to go off a little bit like a maybe maybe
there's certain things going on that that I don't know,
but at least in terms of in terms of just
a common sense like perspective, like just asking the question,
does does the American president have more control over the
jails in L Salvador than the L Salvadorian president? Maybe

(01:07:23):
that's true. I don't I don't know how that right?

Speaker 1 (01:07:25):
Right, how they get into the L. Salvadorian president at jails.
Let's just take it at Let's say that uh bu
Kelly is a liar who just said Donald Trump has
control over the fate of the Venezuelan immigrants in his jails.
He just said that because of course he does. Donald
Trump's a liar. What I have no control over how

(01:07:47):
they get there? And did they have a trial?

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
Well they all of that. Wouldn't that all that be
dependent upon on the L Salvadorian government in terms of
whether or not they they decide to give him a
trial once they once they're in the country of El Salvador.

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
Dallas, you can't be serious. So you think it's okay,
we load them. We load people.

Speaker 2 (01:08:14):
President has more control over the country of L Salvador,
and so they're gonna.

Speaker 1 (01:08:18):
Try them for what yea, crimes they committed in America?
Do they commit any crimes at L Salvador? Most of
them have never been to L. Salvador. Do we have
trials for Russians for crimes they committed in Russia? Over here?
If they committed crimes in another country, you send them
to that country. That's where they get their trial. You

(01:08:39):
don't send them to some random country, throw them in
a prison and throw away the key with no due process.

Speaker 2 (01:08:44):
So does does the does the ELK I'm just trying
to I'm just trying to reason it works through this.
Uh so does the Elf Salvadoran president have like no
control over over his prisons. Like I'm trying to under
I'm trying to understand how this works, to be honest.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
Okay, So we rounded up people in America, gave them
no trial, put them on planes that a federal judge said,
you have no right to do that. Turn those planes around, ignored.
The federal judge landed them at Al Salvador, where they
were locked up under an agreement with Donald Trump's administration
and Bukelly, And no trial was given to them, and

(01:09:22):
no release date or no information about their whereabouts or
when they'll ever get out is available to us. They
were disappeared into a third world goolog by President Donald J. Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
But what control does the l Salvadorian president have over
the situation?

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Why is Al Salvador in the mix at all? They
didn't commit crimes at Al Salvador. They're Venezuela and most
of them.

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
Yeah, I mean, I don't exactly know how this whole
like weird relationship works.

Speaker 1 (01:09:56):
Weird weird relationship. It's called extra judicial punishment. We went
around our judicial system and locked them up in some
third world countries prison where they received no trial. That's bad,
that's not the American way. If they committed crimes in America,

(01:10:21):
they should have been put on trial in America.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
Well, if they're here illegally, you hear a look, report them.

Speaker 1 (01:10:31):
Right right to port it straight into a prison where
you reserve no trial. Is that the American way?

Speaker 2 (01:10:46):
I can't I can't comment on the details because I
honestly don't know how. I honestly don't know how all
this worked, and it just sounds very strange to me.
They El salvadoran just just the way, just the way
it Again, maybe I'm trying to be like totally honest
upfront about here, meant maybe you have a greater understanding

(01:11:06):
of this relationship. I just don't understand. I just don't
understand how how all that that were. I don't understand
how the agreement with with El Salvador works. I don't
understand how they're what what authority their president has over
the jails and his his own country. I would just
I would like to maybe before saying too much more

(01:11:28):
about this subject there there there'd be some more I
would like to learn, if or at least what what
is possible to be learned. I'm sure there's problem for it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:37):
I would say, you should look into it because knowing you, Dallas,
I think you might find it to be some of
the most offensive, fucked up ship you've ever heard about.
And I want to ask you now about uh Abrego Garcia,
who was returned from Seacott after he was mistakenly sent
there and immediately arrested. And I believe that that is

(01:12:01):
the sign that we've changed the way we do justice
in America, because nobody ever heard about this human trafficking
thing before. I believe that what is happening to him
is now evidence that we Donald Trump decides he doesn't
like somebody and tells his Justice department to go find
a crime to charge them with. But I'm going to

(01:12:22):
have you answer that in the Patreon only section of
this show, if you would be so kind as to
stick around, because I'm very curious what your answer is.
And to get that part of the show, you got
to go to dogmatibate dot com and join our patreon
dogmatibate dot com