Speaker 1: Native LAMPID is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 1: This is episode one hundred and five of Native LAMPI,
Speaker 1: where we give you our breakdown of all things politics
Speaker 1: and culture.
Speaker 2: We are your host.
Speaker 1: I'm Angela Rye, Tiffany Cross, Andrew Gillim and Bacari Sellers,
Speaker 1: the non Beyonce of the group.
Speaker 3: Let's start Let's start over. I don't want to do
Speaker 3: this in posts, but I think I should be. I
Speaker 3: don't know why I mentioned last, but keep.
Speaker 2: Going, Sellers and the show continues.
Speaker 1: So anyway, we are here to talk to you all
Speaker 1: about all the things that are happening right now.
Speaker 2: Shameless plug really quick.
Speaker 1: I did an episode with Kamala Harris on election Night
Speaker 1: live in Seattle, Washington from Benner Royal Hall. That episode
Speaker 1: is now up. We hope you all will check it
Speaker 1: out and let us know what you think. But y'all,
Speaker 1: what are we getting into today?
Speaker 4: What aren't we getting into? How about this? How about
Speaker 4: this negotiation in Washington, d C. Around the opening of
Speaker 4: the government. Who won, who lost? Who didn't? Where we at?
Speaker 4: I'm interested?
Speaker 1: I agree, Andrew, I'm right there with you Bacari tip
Speaker 1: what y'all got?
Speaker 3: Go ahead?
Speaker 5: No, I've learned I heard in the intro. Is not
Speaker 5: gonna last.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you, thank you for thank you for
Speaker 3: giving me my due respect.
Speaker 2: Lady, he'll get it tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Keep going, go ahead, Tim, No, well.
Speaker 5: No, lady, first you talking about you anyway, I'm gonna
Speaker 5: have y'all about me.
Speaker 2: She was a bad first.
Speaker 4: Quickly alone.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, mama, mississ Sella's I'm sorry to have to
Speaker 3: use this using this language. There's a lot going on.
Speaker 3: I mean, first of all, to piggyback on Andrew's point,
Speaker 3: we're going to get into all of those things. But
Speaker 3: then the pinky promus with the ACA vote that came
Speaker 3: up on Tammy Ballin's piece of legislation, and they've been
Speaker 3: giving out Michelin stars. I saw a little report recently
Speaker 3: at a strip club in Charlotte, got a ordered a
Speaker 3: Michelin star. I'm checking the veracity of that, and by
Speaker 3: checking it meaning I'm gonna go in and see if
Speaker 3: the Michelin start about food is working. Listen, people gotta
Speaker 3: make this topic. People gotta you know, it's hard out here, man.
Speaker 3: They might get their money and so I want to
Speaker 3: make sure I'm contributing in the community.
Speaker 5: I look forward to that report.
Speaker 3: Thank you, I got you, gotcha, Thank you.
Speaker 4: Please bring evidence, lady.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm really excited to hear from our viewers
Speaker 5: every week. I really appreciate people taking time to get
Speaker 5: on camera and sending us videos, comments, questions, all of that.
Speaker 5: So I'm excited to hear what you all have to
Speaker 5: say about this week, and I'm excited for me and
Speaker 5: the co host to win. And lastly, we have a
Speaker 5: conversation about Donald Trump rigging the twenty twenty six elections
Speaker 5: that has been talked about on this show at nauseum.
Speaker 5: We even have questioned whether or not we should be
Speaker 5: telling y'all how many days are.
Speaker 2: Left until the election.
Speaker 1: Joining us for that really important conversation is Ari Berman,
Speaker 1: an incredible author and a journalist at Mother Jones who
Speaker 1: wrote a piece on what Donald Trump will do to
Speaker 1: rig the twenty twenty six elections.
Speaker 2: Let's get into it, y'all.
Speaker 6: All right, this fight for us is not partisan. It's
Speaker 6: not a partisan fight. It's a patriotic fight. We're waging
Speaker 6: this fight on behalf of the American people. The five
Speaker 6: states that are most impacted by a failure to extend
Speaker 6: the Affordable Care Act tax credits are West Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, Mississippi,
Speaker 6: and Tennessee.
Speaker 3: Forty five percent of the people.
Speaker 6: Of the Americans who are going to lose healthcare or
Speaker 6: be at risk of losing health care if they don't
Speaker 6: on the other side of the out extend the Affordable
Speaker 6: Care Act tax credits. Forty five percent of them are
Speaker 6: registered Republicans, thirty five percent registered Democrats, and twenty percent
Speaker 6: unaffiliated are independent. This is not a partisan fight for us.
Speaker 6: It's a patriotic fight, okay, everyone.
Speaker 1: So we are just on the other side of the
Speaker 1: longest shut down in government history forty one days, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats on the Senate side are being told that
Speaker 1: they caved, that they folded, and are being called losers
Speaker 1: frankly by a lot of folks throughout this country. But
Speaker 1: there are other folks who have also been talked about
Speaker 1: as being losers, Republicans certainly government workers, the folks who
Speaker 1: lost out their snap benefits, so literally losing, and then
Speaker 1: all of the folks who would be covered by the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act, that is the whole of America also
Speaker 1: losing here, So I wanted to have a conversation with
Speaker 1: my colleagues about who they think the biggest loser is
Speaker 1: of the government shut down. So, if we were doing
Speaker 1: a rapid round, really quick, what do y'all think, who
Speaker 1: is the biggest loser?
Speaker 3: Andrew the American people, American people, Tiff.
Speaker 5: I'll be quick, But to put it in context of
Speaker 5: political terms of Republicans versus Democrats, I think it's so
Speaker 5: disrespectful to the actual losers. And that's to everyday people
Speaker 5: who are impacted by this show.
Speaker 3: She said, all I have to say just what we said.
Speaker 5: A lot of people saying like what does this mean
Speaker 5: for Democrats? And what does this mean for the path forward?
Speaker 5: And it's like, I'm thinking about people who ain't got
Speaker 5: food to eat and who backed up name mortgage, Like, yeah.
Speaker 1: We were just trying to do a rapp and I
Speaker 1: was gonna be honest with y'all. It is for social
Speaker 1: We'll do what we can with the clue. What I
Speaker 1: will say here, too, is I actually think the biggest
Speaker 1: losers here are all of the staffers who worked hard
Speaker 1: on an issue and did not get to see the
Speaker 1: what a win might be looked like. And I think
Speaker 1: that folks deserve that, So let's get into this conversation.
Speaker 1: I know that there's a lot behind those short answers.
Speaker 1: Bacari already has his hands up because he thinks he's
Speaker 1: at school. That's what happens when you bring toddlers to
Speaker 1: your podcast platform.
Speaker 2: For and Ma, car, what do he have?
Speaker 3: No, I just watched Andrew struggle long enough to get
Speaker 3: a question out, So that that was me. I'm using
Speaker 3: the tools.
Speaker 4: I've been watching a different a different different tax.
Speaker 3: I think I just have a question for you all,
Speaker 3: which is what did Democrats do it for?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 2: You want us to answer?
Speaker 3: No? No, that was that was I mean, if in fact,
Speaker 3: you have ten people under the cover of dark or
Speaker 3: eight people under the cover of darkness who vote to
Speaker 3: in the shutdown, what were the last sixty forty days for?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 3: What what what was it about? I know what we
Speaker 3: said it's about, but what what what do we what's gained?
Speaker 3: What was gained?
Speaker 5: Well, well, I think those are two different questions. What
Speaker 5: was gained obviously you know nothing from my perspective. I mean,
Speaker 5: they weren't ready for this game and it was such
Speaker 5: a disappointment. But what it was about's healthcare? Which is
Speaker 5: a really big deal.
Speaker 2: For years, for.
Speaker 5: Some strange reason, the GOP has had such a heart
Speaker 5: on for repealing the Affordable Care Act a ACA. And
Speaker 5: more than twenty four million people depend on this, and
Speaker 5: so we're going to see it's not just majorities, but
Speaker 5: vast majorities who are facing their healthcare premiums going up
Speaker 5: by more than one hundred and fourteen percent. So people
Speaker 5: are going to be questioning, do I go to the
Speaker 5: grocery store, do I go see the doctor. Republicans, you know,
Speaker 5: control both the chambers. They control the House, in the
Speaker 5: upper chamber in the Senate, and so Democrats had for
Speaker 5: the first time some negotiating power. And so you know,
Speaker 5: the Kansas are the KFF. They have an analysis out
Speaker 5: about the average cost of what people are going to
Speaker 5: be paying for health care. It can go up to
Speaker 5: more than one thousand dollars for some people. So imagine
Speaker 5: for some people this might be an inconvenience, but if
Speaker 5: you have a life threatening illness and you're depending on this.
Speaker 5: This is why I think we have to draw the
Speaker 5: distinction between structural violence, institutional violence, and physical violence. And
Speaker 5: right now all of these things are being rained down
Speaker 5: upon us by the federal government. So I don't want
Speaker 5: to dismiss the efforts of the Democrats and trying to
Speaker 5: hold the line for healthcare. Sadly though, I think they
Speaker 5: brought a knife to a gunfight. You know, they were
Speaker 5: too eager to capitulate, and they weren't really ready for this.
Speaker 5: They could have had kids out there, like, get real
Speaker 5: live people out there. Get an eight year old standing
Speaker 5: in front of a camera saying, Donald Trump, I don't
Speaker 5: have anything to eat because you know, snap didn't come
Speaker 5: this month. Get somebody sick on camera saying, you know,
Speaker 5: I don't know if I'm going to be able to
Speaker 5: live beyond next year, to even vote in twenty twenty
Speaker 5: six because this president Donald Trump is threatening to take
Speaker 5: away my health care. And I just I feel like
Speaker 5: they were not ready for the moment, and it is
Speaker 5: such a colossal disappointment to so many people because they
Speaker 5: ask us to fight every year, They ask us to
Speaker 5: show up and vote every year, and when it's time
Speaker 5: to show up for us, the rising majority, the base
Speaker 5: for Democrat voters, they don't do it. So I definitely
Speaker 5: understand the frustration all around, and appreciate and understand the
Speaker 5: frustration in your question.
Speaker 4: So I offer a thought on a few thoughts on
Speaker 4: what I think they did it for, and we can
Speaker 4: each check the box or not as to whether or
Speaker 4: not it was accomplished. One, I think they needed to fight.
Speaker 4: At the point that they declared that they were going
Speaker 4: to deny the Republicans culture the sixty votes that they
Speaker 4: needed in the US Senate, they basically laid down to
Speaker 4: the gland said we're prepared to fight. And I got
Speaker 4: to tell you, given the members of the Democratic Caucus
Speaker 4: and the US Senate, they ranged from everything from Republican
Speaker 4: light to the left of the left of the left,
Speaker 4: liberal socialists in the case of Bernie Sanders, who's an
Speaker 4: independent but caucuses with the Democrats. So the fact that
Speaker 4: the leader was able to hold together people who cannot
Speaker 4: stomach a shutdown. I mean, there are members of the
Speaker 4: Democratic Caucus who have decried using the shutdown as a
Speaker 4: way to make up political point and would never have
Speaker 4: never before been in favor of it. Who Chuck Schumer
Speaker 4: got to stick with him for forty days. And I
Speaker 4: think the American people needed to see Democrats do something
Speaker 4: to show that they had a fight to them. And
Speaker 4: I think in the moment that that happened. You saw
Speaker 4: a lot, You saw a lot of people stand up,
Speaker 4: speak out from everyday people who, quite frankly, I think
Speaker 4: inspired this shutdown. The people who were showing up at
Speaker 4: these protests on the streets, who were chasing down ice,
Speaker 4: trying to say, get out of our neighborhood, so on
Speaker 4: and so forth. I think they inspired much of what
Speaker 4: the members of the elected US Senate did so, and
Speaker 4: I think that they were successful in bringing a fight
Speaker 4: number two. I'm not sure that the previous the elections
Speaker 4: of a week ago would have been as successful across
Speaker 4: the board for Democratic candidates as they were at every
Speaker 4: level of government, from dogcatcher to governor of the of
Speaker 4: a state. And not only did Democrats win in many
Speaker 4: of those places, and many of those places they thumped
Speaker 4: the Republicans. I mean rounded lapse races that were supposed
Speaker 4: to be too close to call or down to the
Speaker 4: last minute, got called an hour after the polls closed.
Speaker 4: And in the cases of the two governors I'm sorry,
Speaker 4: the governor of New Jersey and of Virginia, they got
Speaker 4: double digit leads on their opponents when they were not
Speaker 4: expected to. I think that the shutdown the energy around.
Speaker 4: The pushback in the fight helped to inspire people to
Speaker 4: go to the wall and go to the mat for
Speaker 4: their elected leadership that they saw was going to the
Speaker 4: mat for them. And I think, I think, I think, finally,
Speaker 4: I would say the ending of the fight was one
Speaker 4: that could have easily been anticipated by all of us.
Speaker 4: You took a caucus who is already reticent to use
Speaker 4: the shutdown as a political cudgel to move public policy.
Speaker 4: You had a caucus that did not appear fractured up
Speaker 4: until the point that they started to negotiate to open
Speaker 4: the government again. Aside from that, none of us would
Speaker 4: have been able to name one Senator who was trying
Speaker 4: to shut the open the government up against the caucus's wishes.
Speaker 4: They pretty much stuck together until after the elections, when
Speaker 4: when when they when they couldn't stomach it anymore. But
Speaker 4: the reason why I say all of us could have
Speaker 4: predicted the end of this and quite the way that
Speaker 4: it ended, is one no one has ever extracted major
Speaker 4: public policy concessions from a shutdown, not Republicans and not
Speaker 4: Democrats over our history. Two of the two party system.
Speaker 4: Democrats were always going to be the ones who could
Speaker 4: never stomach, a president using children, using the employment of
Speaker 4: federal workers, using withholding food to families as a weapon
Speaker 4: against their opponent. We never anticipated a president would be
Speaker 4: willing to go so far against the American people to
Speaker 4: prove his political point. But this president was, and we
Speaker 4: know him to be almost diabolical and in formation. So
Speaker 4: when you compare the two Democrats were always gonna be
Speaker 4: the ones who had a heart for people. They were
Speaker 4: always going to be the ones who buckled under the
Speaker 4: pressure to not see people suffer. And if you're at
Speaker 4: a negotiating table, you'll choose to diabolical one as the
Speaker 4: one who will be the last to fold every single time.
Speaker 4: Could we have gotten more with longer? I do think
Speaker 4: that there could have been more extracted here, But but
Speaker 4: I always felt it would end. I don't think they
Speaker 4: begin with an end in mind. I think they began
Speaker 4: with a fight in mind, and the end would reveal
Speaker 4: itself over time. And what they decided was after we
Speaker 4: thumped folks on election day, that presented the opportunity to
Speaker 4: make this a keystone issue going into the next year's elections,
Speaker 4: and it was there. It was their opportunity for an out.
Speaker 4: That's my guess I think.
Speaker 2: There are a few things.
Speaker 1: One is I'm also frustrated with what appears to be
Speaker 1: the lack of strategy around this particular fight. Andrew, I
Speaker 1: completely agree with you that we never anticipated, and I'm
Speaker 1: saying we, I'm talking about the whole of the American
Speaker 1: people never anticipated having someone like this in the White House.
Speaker 1: But we knew with Project twenty twenty five. We knew
Speaker 1: with Doge, we knew with the last shutdown from his
Speaker 1: last administration. We knew from the last administration we were dealing with.
Speaker 1: The last shutdown that was thirty five days long, I
Speaker 1: believe was over whether or not we were going to
Speaker 1: pay for a border wall.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So I want to be very clear about the fact
Speaker 1: that we knew who the opponent was. The Senate Democrats
Speaker 1: knew who the opponent was and still did not go
Speaker 1: to the battle with the right tools. I think the
Speaker 1: biggest issue here to your point about what they could stomach,
Speaker 1: is you have people who are watching folks lose their
Speaker 1: snap benefits, who are watching folks suffer with healthcare premium
Speaker 1: coming out saying that they're gonna soar. They want to
Speaker 1: make sure if people can survive, you know, a serious
Speaker 1: health crisis and just you know, engage in practices to
Speaker 1: prevent a crisis. But the reality of it is is
Speaker 1: they went and said we're going to hold the line.
Speaker 1: But they were also errant and I think lacking in
Speaker 1: compassion when they didn't consider who was on the front line.
Speaker 1: The people on the front line were those children. The
Speaker 1: people on the front line were the TSA workers. And
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about the folks who make six figures
Speaker 1: or above in the federal government who said we want
Speaker 1: you to hold the line. I'm talking about the folks
Speaker 1: that are members of AFG right, the Medican American Federation
Speaker 1: of Government Employees, those who said we want you to
Speaker 1: reopen the government because we need our paychecks. And I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, when you don't consider the front line in
Speaker 1: holding the line, you are always going to lose because
Speaker 1: who's fighting for you at that point? That is where
Speaker 1: I think the biggest failure was. And it tells us
Speaker 1: that many, not just not just the folks who are
Speaker 1: inn elected office, but we should expect this of our
Speaker 1: elected officials are still not clear about what it is
Speaker 1: going to take to adequately combat the enemy.
Speaker 2: What do I mean by that? I mean, they are fighting.
Speaker 1: Yester year's fight with yesteryear's tools. That is not going
Speaker 1: to work. They are showing you that they are ready
Speaker 1: and primed and poised and it conditioned even right to
Speaker 1: be a resistance party. They are not poised, ready, or
Speaker 1: prepared to be an opposition. An opposition party would have
Speaker 1: shut the government down or worked, you know, to oppose
Speaker 1: the government reopening. Really with fourteen votes in in County
Speaker 1: and said, we need to make sure that we have
Speaker 1: a snap mutual aid fund. We need to ensure that
Speaker 1: we have a fund for people to pull from if
Speaker 1: they're not getting their paychecks, for housing, for all of
Speaker 1: these other things. None of that was set up. They
Speaker 1: have campaign coffers, some of them where they could have
Speaker 1: afforded to make donations to nonprofits to keep these people going.
Speaker 2: That was not done.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even considered based on the people I talked to,
Speaker 1: So I just I don't know what they would have expected, right, Like,
Speaker 1: you're not going to win a long term fight and
Speaker 1: these people don't give a damn.
Speaker 2: You're hoping to pierce the consciences of folks who don't
Speaker 2: no longer have them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but kay, what's your thought?
Speaker 3: No, I think that from everything that I've seen, I
Speaker 3: think that Andrew you did hit something, and I think
Speaker 3: that the largest success was elevating the issue of healthcare
Speaker 3: to the forefront of individual's minds. Again, we saw on
Speaker 3: Tuesday that the number one issue that people faced was
Speaker 3: the economy, in number two was healthcare, and it seems
Speaker 3: as if in number three was a distant immigration. It
Speaker 3: seems as if Democrats are finally able to hone in
Speaker 3: on the message surrounding healthcare. Republicans own all those healthcare
Speaker 3: premiums rising, There's not a fix for it. Those costs
Speaker 3: are going to go up, and Democrats own the issue
Speaker 3: of affordability. Because I see this White House acting a
Speaker 3: lot like the Joe Biden White House when it came
Speaker 3: to issues such as immigration and crime, where Joe Biden
Speaker 3: and I was guilty of this as well, simply wanted
Speaker 3: it was. We would cite statistics when people were saying
Speaker 3: that they felt something, that they saw something safe, and
Speaker 3: we would be like, yeah, nah, but the crime rate,
Speaker 3: filing crime rate gone down x y z, and people
Speaker 3: were like, nah, that shit, I still don't feel safe.
Speaker 3: And so you see that, you see the Trump White
Speaker 3: House doing something similar with affordability. So Democrats are winning
Speaker 3: those two issues. The problem that Angela eloquently and passionately
Speaker 3: hit on is that when we got out of the game,
Speaker 3: uh you know this week, when we shut the we
Speaker 3: we shut at the doors, we did so without a
Speaker 3: messaging apparatus. And so now you depressed your base, which
Speaker 3: was so excited, and now your base is like, what
Speaker 3: what what? What happened? Why nobody told us we were
Speaker 3: going to do this. I mean, if you go out
Speaker 3: in front of a camera, or you go to a
Speaker 3: city and you're talking to people about there's too much
Speaker 3: pain in the streets, Democrats are going to be the
Speaker 3: adults in the room, and we're going to keep up
Speaker 3: this fight for health care, but we're going to reopen
Speaker 3: the government because this pain has gotten unbearable for our constituents.
Speaker 3: We're going to continue to fight. Then, maybe you don't
Speaker 3: have people out here who are struggling to comprehend the
Speaker 3: reason why. I mean, I think the four of us
Speaker 3: get the reason why. We understand the intricacies. We understand
Speaker 3: the ups and downs and all arounds, and we can
Speaker 3: talk to folks, including United States senators and people like
Speaker 3: that to tell us what is going on. But for
Speaker 3: people who are working every day, who don't have time
Speaker 3: to scrow x all day long or on Instagram all
Speaker 3: day long, they just see that the government opened and
Speaker 3: Democrats didn't say anything. And I think that that is
Speaker 3: indicative of a problem we've had since Barack Obama, which
Speaker 3: is even the good things that we do, we don't
Speaker 3: know how to message them. It's what I tell. What
Speaker 3: I tell Black folk call it time. If we don't
Speaker 3: tell our story, somebody else will, and we have to
Speaker 3: do a better job, particularly around this issue of sharing
Speaker 3: our story.
Speaker 5: I agree with everything that you guys said, particularly Angelou's
Speaker 5: point around creating an infrastructure when we're in the fight
Speaker 5: and asking people to hold the line like they're not.
Speaker 5: The people elected office are not the only people holding
Speaker 5: the line. The real people holding the line are going
Speaker 5: to get hurt worse and feel that the fastest, which
Speaker 5: cast a dark shadow across a lot of other people's lives.
Speaker 5: Mine included, y'all's included. But I disagree with you Andrew
Speaker 5: on this point about the excitement around the elections that
Speaker 5: we saw. I do not think that was necessarily excitement.
Speaker 5: I think those voters showed up more as a repudiation
Speaker 5: against Trump more than it was excitement about the Democrats fighting.
Speaker 5: I think it is comfortable to how black people have
Speaker 5: always maneuvered in this country, this misconception that so many
Speaker 5: people have about black folks. So were these Democratic loyalists,
Speaker 5: which is not true. The majority of the country was
Speaker 5: voting in favor of harm reduction because I can't really
Speaker 5: think of a united front of Democrats where I've said, like, wow,
Speaker 5: like they are great job guys, like they are really
Speaker 5: kicking ass. And I don't know that a lot of
Speaker 5: people looked at the shutdown that way.
Speaker 2: Honestly.
Speaker 4: I mean, I respect no, no, no, it's all good. I
Speaker 4: think in some people's minds it isn't. The conscious't. I
Speaker 4: won't say that this was consciously on the minds of people,
Speaker 4: but there are things that happened in the ethos that
Speaker 4: unconsciously motivate us one way or another. And a lot
Speaker 4: of people everyday, people and us on this platform right here,
Speaker 4: have gone through days where we said, what what is
Speaker 4: it going to take? I feel like there's no way
Speaker 4: to stop him. I feel like my head's on a swivel.
Speaker 4: If something's coming at us. Every single day, and what
Speaker 4: that drove a lot of people to was resignation. I'll
Speaker 4: just back up. I'm just gonna take care of me,
Speaker 4: you know, get through my day. And when you see
Speaker 4: people start to form the formations of a front line,
Speaker 4: it starts to buck us up a little bit. I
Speaker 4: think it starts to get us, you know, our spine stiff.
Speaker 4: And he say, you know what, I'm going back out.
Speaker 4: I'm going back out, Send me in, send me in,
Speaker 4: I'm going back out. So I think part of it
Speaker 4: there were candidates, there's the repudiation, but I don't separate
Speaker 4: the repudiation from a demonstrated effect of elected leaders going
Speaker 4: out there and saying, no, we're going to stop it.
Speaker 4: All stop, all the presses, everything stops until we get
Speaker 4: what it is that we want. It would be crazy
Speaker 4: of us to think, and would be foolish of us
Speaker 4: to tell the American people that this campaign of the
Speaker 4: shutdown was going to result, and the Republicans who had
Speaker 4: voted over seventy times to repeal Obamacare deciding, Okay, this
Speaker 4: is it. People are hurting, especially the ones I don't
Speaker 4: care about, and so I'm going to change my position
Speaker 4: and now go back on my word and my vote
Speaker 4: of seventy plus times, and give these folks.
Speaker 5: I don't know, I don't know, what can I say
Speaker 5: really quickly? Half of the people in the marketplace for
Speaker 5: the ACA are in Republican districts, when they.
Speaker 4: So are the people who are at the epicenter of
Speaker 4: impact from Trump's actions.
Speaker 1: Right and.
Speaker 5: Snap precisely, and so their constituents are feeling the brunt
Speaker 5: of this too. Had there been better messaging, forget about
Speaker 5: partisan politics, had there been better messaging from groups the Democrats,
Speaker 5: whichever were you, It didn't matter if they voted for
Speaker 5: a Democrat or not, but you are sending those constituents
Speaker 5: that they're elected leaders saying, hey, I can't feed my
Speaker 5: family because of what you're doing. I don't give a damn. Instead,
Speaker 5: a lot of people sat back and let them control
Speaker 5: the narrative and introduce stupid things like the Democratics shut down.
Speaker 5: There was not enough pushback, and it was too many
Speaker 5: echo chambers regurgitating things that were not accurate, not true,
Speaker 5: and so people are just sitting around like I don't know.
Speaker 5: I mean, the data showed, the polling show that most
Speaker 5: people did describe lame to the Republicans, but I don't
Speaker 5: think people were ready to seize on that and take them.
Speaker 1: The numbers also started shifting, be I know you were
Speaker 1: jumping in here, but I just want to just one
Speaker 1: other quick point. The numbers in the polling data started
Speaker 1: shifting towards the middle. It almost felt like our country
Speaker 1: from looking at just the numbers were evenly split. And
Speaker 1: I got to tell you, guys, I started feeling torn
Speaker 1: myself about not whose fault it was, but whether or
Speaker 1: not this was the right fight because of what Andrew
Speaker 1: just raised around ACA. They've always voted to repeal and
Speaker 1: replace Obamacare. They're trying to get to a point where
Speaker 1: they have trump Care. Trump Care will be HSA's health
Speaker 1: savings accounts where you're not going to be able to
Speaker 1: afford chemo or if you have any other life threatening
Speaker 1: emergency to cover it. Sure, it'll cover your check up, right,
Speaker 1: But one medical for like if your leg falls off,
Speaker 1: is not the solution. Yeah, shout out to one medical
Speaker 1: because I also use it.
Speaker 2: But I'm just saying, off, I don't know.
Speaker 3: That ain't falling off. But yeah, yes, I get your point.
Speaker 1: Now amputated and I'm just saying, what hold on be
Speaker 1: because now you're going to make me forget. The only
Speaker 1: thing I was going to say is when you're asking
Speaker 1: people to start caring about something that they have repeatedly
Speaker 1: told you in multiple congresses they don't care about constituents,
Speaker 1: be damned by the way. I don't know if that
Speaker 1: was the right fight. I will also say that it was.
Speaker 1: I already said that, go ahead, a card.
Speaker 3: I think it's something a little bit more simple than that.
Speaker 3: I think Andrew hit on it. I think Tiffany was
Speaker 3: saying the same thing. Look, we haven't been able to
Speaker 3: say Democrats were winners in a very long period of time.
Speaker 3: We also haven't been able to say Democrats were fighters
Speaker 3: in a very long period of time, not since twenty twenty. Right,
Speaker 3: that mantra hasn't been something. And people like I mean,
Speaker 3: it's very simple. People like winners, people like fighters. And
Speaker 3: I think both of you all are saying the same
Speaker 3: thing in different ways. I mean, you're just saying in
Speaker 3: the inverse way, because Tiffany's right. But what happened was
Speaker 3: those Trump voters were depressed on Tuesday. Last Tuesday. They
Speaker 3: didn't get what they were counting on. They just thought
Speaker 3: that everybody else was going to be persecuted. They just
Speaker 3: thought Trump was going to come in and shit on
Speaker 3: everybody else. They didn't realize that he put them all
Speaker 3: in a toilet together, right, And so you had what,
Speaker 3: to your point, Tiffany, you had a depressed voting base
Speaker 3: on that side and a voting base that wasn't excited
Speaker 3: because they realized that Trump looked at them the same
Speaker 3: way he looks at us. And then to Andrews's point,
Speaker 3: you had people who believed whether or not it was
Speaker 3: it wasn't about them. And I think you're right about this.
Speaker 3: It wasn't necessarily about the shutdown. What it was, though,
Speaker 3: was this movement of energy, and they were just happy
Speaker 3: to be a part of the fight. They were happy
Speaker 3: to be a part of energy, and they saw the
Speaker 3: other side beat down so much. I think sometimes politics
Speaker 3: is more simple than people give it credit.
Speaker 7: For.
Speaker 3: The reason why Trump is very successful is because he
Speaker 3: has pulled off the greatest con in American history. He
Speaker 3: twice twice, but he convinced, He convinced poor people that
Speaker 3: a man who shits and olden toilets.
Speaker 4: Is for them champion.
Speaker 3: He is their champion. It's when we look back at
Speaker 3: history at that simple fact and how he was able
Speaker 3: to do that so successfully. People are going to be
Speaker 3: rich writing that book because it's so so fascinating. But
Speaker 3: those same people who he convinced of that not once,
Speaker 3: not twice, but three times. People forget that he had
Speaker 3: a lot come out three times. Those same people they
Speaker 3: finally came to this resident, they just resigned themselves to
Speaker 3: not even participating in the process. And I think you
Speaker 3: saw and the way, the place you saw that more
Speaker 3: than anywhere was in Georgia, because not only did Democrats
Speaker 3: run up the score in every single county, but you
Speaker 3: saw Republican strongholds just not even come out. That level
Speaker 3: of depression, I believe is something that will be analyzed
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 4: Can I say on the issue.
Speaker 3: What I say wrong?
Speaker 2: Nothing? What you said wrong?
Speaker 5: But I am always hesitant to give so much credit
Speaker 5: in convincing, you know, poor people that he's their champion
Speaker 5: because he didn't do that alone.
Speaker 2: He had a lot of help.
Speaker 5: One I said last week, the Republican base they're united
Speaker 5: in our destruction, so they don't really have to agree
Speaker 5: on the lot except that we hate these black and
Speaker 5: brown folks and they're stealing from us. Two I will
Speaker 5: say this until my death. I don't give a shit
Speaker 5: if it's etched on my tombstone. The media was willing
Speaker 5: to accept his narrative even now. You hear the media
Speaker 5: when they were talking about his beef with Elon and
Speaker 5: they were like, well, you've got these two alpha males
Speaker 5: in what universe? Is he an alpha male? He has
Speaker 5: a mitch if ever we've seen one, I've never seen.
Speaker 5: He wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight like
Speaker 5: he There's nobody I know who would saying this dude
Speaker 5: is an alpha male. But they will take that and
Speaker 5: carry that message. They also have a habit of presenting
Speaker 5: something that is illogical, non factual, and then taking a
Speaker 5: legitimate point and presenting these two things to the audience like, okay, guys,
Speaker 5: have at it. What do you think. So it wasn't
Speaker 5: that he was some genius communicator. It wasn't that he
Speaker 5: was so smart. I mean, if you just read the
Speaker 5: transcripts of some of his speech, if you just watch
Speaker 5: his debate performance, if you listen to things that he says,
Speaker 5: when you watch him on the global stage, he has
Speaker 5: a national and international embarrassment. So I don't think he
Speaker 5: has this charisma. I think what is so seductive to
Speaker 5: America and this makes it harder to beat. So I
Speaker 5: don't know how we beat this, and I don't want
Speaker 5: to depress our audience and sound resign. But what is
Speaker 5: so seductive to the American people is the power of whiteness.
Speaker 5: So Trump might die, but trump Ism is alive and
Speaker 5: well because if you can be white, white adjacent, if
Speaker 5: you can abandon your people and get favor on their
Speaker 5: side of the divide, that will always appeal to low level,
Speaker 5: incurious people who are willing to cut their nose off
Speaker 5: to spite their face, even if it means they're going
Speaker 5: to hurt themselves if it hurts us, They're okay with that.
Speaker 3: So let me just let me clarify my point real quick,
Speaker 3: because I do think and I just I just disagree
Speaker 3: with you, Tiffany, because I do think that it's I
Speaker 3: think we all have this resignation that we don't like
Speaker 3: the man, like a disgust right for what he stands for,
Speaker 3: how he carries himself, how he treats people. But what
Speaker 3: I'm talking about is the candidate that Trump was. Now,
Speaker 3: mind you, he used racism as political currency in a
Speaker 3: fashion that we have not seen in a very long time. Right,
Speaker 3: not only is he racist, but he used racism as currency. Yes,
Speaker 3: And what I mean by that for people who are
Speaker 3: listening is I remember I recall being in the studio
Speaker 3: one day when he was being interviewed by Jake Tapper
Speaker 3: and they were asking him to disavowed David Duke. It
Speaker 3: was a Sunday, and he was like, man, I don't
Speaker 3: even know who that is. But what was happening on
Speaker 3: Tuesday was Mississippi was voting in their Republican primary. Right,
Speaker 3: And so there was always this how do we use
Speaker 3: this racism as politics? But there was also something else
Speaker 3: about Donald Trump that a lot of poor folk, a
Speaker 3: lot of poor white folk, a lot of people gravitated
Speaker 3: to one. He has this perception of wealth. He has
Speaker 3: this now he'dn't been bankrupt thirty seven million times, all
Speaker 3: this other stuff, it's this perception of wealth. He also
Speaker 3: gave off this perception of I'm a winner, right, He
Speaker 3: talked about it all the time. I'm a winner, You're
Speaker 3: a loser. I'm a winner, you're a loser. It's very,
Speaker 3: very simplistic. But he also gave out this if I'm wealthy,
Speaker 3: I can teach you how to be wealthy. I'm strong,
Speaker 3: I can teach you how to be strong. And it
Speaker 3: was very simple messaging that resonated to those same people
Speaker 3: that came out and voted for him. I mean, eighty
Speaker 3: million people voted for this guy. Eighty million, and we
Speaker 3: have to wrestle with the why. I mean, I just
Speaker 3: think we can't discount the why of that. And it's
Speaker 3: not giving him props because I refuse to do that.
Speaker 3: But what I am saying is, as a candidate, and
Speaker 3: something we even saw recently in this kind of pull
Speaker 3: and tug of snap and healthcare benefits, et cetera, is
Speaker 3: the why people voted for him also leads to the
Speaker 3: disappointment they're facing today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, especially because Angela, before you go to Bcar's last
Speaker 4: point on the why people feel more connected, because there
Speaker 4: have been six that's what wealthy people, all of them
Speaker 4: been wealthy and successful that will run for president. The
Speaker 4: difference is as I actually think he's like he reflects
Speaker 4: for them, like that guy's like me, right, he he
Speaker 4: overdoses on McDonald's and cheeseburgers and and happy meals or
Speaker 4: whatever it is that you know, they say about him.
Speaker 4: He he he is, to use the term from from
Speaker 4: from from tiffany sort of incurious in all ways, right,
Speaker 4: he doesn't.
Speaker 3: Care about the man. He's dumb of the difference.
Speaker 4: He is dumb, but he's not. He knows the difference.
Speaker 4: He knows the difference. But what he does is he
Speaker 4: played dumb, and he speak dumb, and he and he
Speaker 4: put he portrays himself like if you're sitting at home
Speaker 4: and you are one of those people who are like
Speaker 4: all of us, who aspire to one day have the
Speaker 4: means for everything you want and need without a care
Speaker 4: in the world. This man has or demonstrates to have
Speaker 4: everything he needs and I have not a care in
Speaker 4: a world. But he also looks like he may have
Speaker 4: come from around the block, down the street, you know,
Speaker 4: across the track, and there's a relatability to that because
Speaker 4: the majority of them are that too, not just the
Speaker 4: majority are the our our recipients of food stamps, which
Speaker 4: I'm not shaming. I had him grown up as well,
Speaker 4: so I'm not shaming that. I'm simply saying, this is
Speaker 4: the guy who looks like he may have started from
Speaker 4: the bottom. Now he's there, even though he started with
Speaker 4: a millionaire, a loon from his daddy and flushed that
Speaker 4: away and got mar You know, we know the story. However,
Speaker 4: he cannote it connotes something else when it's when it's
Speaker 4: when it's him, and you can't fake it. It is
Speaker 4: what it is, and it has electual electoral persuasion. What
Speaker 4: may distance them at some point is if their ship
Speaker 4: gets bad enough where they have to reach up, look
Speaker 4: up for an alternative. But it hadn't the heat ain't
Speaker 4: come strong enough yet, it's still hasn't come.
Speaker 1: I feel like the alternative piece is what's missing, and
Speaker 1: I think that is where the opposition, if they will
Speaker 1: rise to the occasion, are currently failing so on that
Speaker 1: I don't know if they picked the right issue. To
Speaker 1: your point, Andrew voted seventy eighty times to repeal and
Speaker 1: replace something, taking it to the Supreme Court how many times,
Speaker 1: Like this is probably not the thing that they're going
Speaker 1: to agree with you on. They called it obamacare. We
Speaker 1: called it obamacare because we were celebrating. They called it
Speaker 1: obamacare because they're racist, Like it's just that simple, and
Speaker 1: so Angela, can.
Speaker 4: I disagree with you just on this point, which is
Speaker 4: I think it may have been the wrong issue to
Speaker 4: get a negotiated settlement with Republicans, but the right issue
Speaker 4: for the American people because it is cross partisan in
Speaker 4: the sense that everybody has to deal with health care costs.
Speaker 4: When those premium come down, we all got to see
Speaker 4: and we all got to pay for them. Those people
Speaker 4: on the exchange, they all got to deal with it.
Speaker 4: And it's cross pots and that's why Speaker doesign jeffreyd
Speaker 4: Jesus New York. Jeffries has said this is non partisan.
Speaker 4: This is non partisan, of.
Speaker 1: Course, and that's how we open the show with Hai
Speaker 1: Kim Jeffrey's clip saying it's a nonpartisan fight. However, if
Speaker 1: people are still moving their issues aside and what is
Speaker 1: in their best interests aside to side with someone who
Speaker 1: is highly partisan in this area and to vote against
Speaker 1: their interests, I think therein lies the problem. Even Bakari,
Speaker 1: I know you wanted to bring up Tammy Balwin's amendment
Speaker 1: in the Senate that was voted down. They had the
Speaker 1: one thing that Democrats have been asking for for the
Speaker 1: last two weeks is at least this messaging vote so
Speaker 1: they get Republicans on the record, just so we're really
Speaker 1: clear and we're not ever accused the lines to the
Speaker 1: American people. That has been the play for two weeks.
Speaker 1: That has been the play for two weeks. They were
Speaker 1: willing to open the government back up with at least
Speaker 1: eight Democrats in the Senate for a messaging vote, and
Speaker 1: that still wouldn't have been a win for the American people.
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson, when challenged on Jake Tapper Show yesterday, says
Speaker 1: that he's not willing to commit to considering right these
Speaker 1: subsidies again, even after the House reconsiders this. It's not
Speaker 1: clean but their version of a clean continuing resolution. He's
Speaker 1: not committing to considering a bill that would reinstate these
Speaker 1: healthcare subsidies.
Speaker 4: But he's not committing. But it's not just to Democrats.
Speaker 4: He is now telling the American people who now side
Speaker 4: with this issue that I can't afford what is coming
Speaker 4: down the pike. And the Speaker of the House Republican
Speaker 4: is telling you, I don't give a damn.
Speaker 5: I hope moving forward, everybody knows what the Tammy Baldon
Speaker 5: Amendment is. Soakari, did you just want to say, oh, yeah, no.
Speaker 3: It just extended the subsidies for one year, which is
Speaker 3: the bare bones minimum that people were asking for, so
Speaker 3: that for one year you would have those subsidies. And
Speaker 3: there was a question of whether or not the subsidies
Speaker 3: should be paid directly to the insurance company or be
Speaker 3: paid to the person. That's a that's a cute, little
Speaker 3: legitimate inside the Beltway fight that people are having. I
Speaker 3: have to dig a little deeper on my analysis to
Speaker 3: see where I land. But the fact is the subsidies
Speaker 3: are needed to drive down costs. Andrews Andrew, and that
Speaker 3: amendment failed across party lines. We didn't get one Republican.
Speaker 3: But and Andrew was right. And again I feel like
Speaker 3: I'm like learning how to mediate you guys, because Andrew
Speaker 3: was right, and and Angela was right too, Like it
Speaker 3: was it was. It's politically it's a no win issue,
Speaker 3: and we know that for every reason that Andrew said.
Speaker 3: But politically, you know, in terms of political constituencies, it's
Speaker 3: a win win issue. You're never going to get them
Speaker 3: to change on this, however, because the issue is so transcendent.
Speaker 3: It talked to the end. Democrats won on changing the
Speaker 3: political conversation very rarely. I mean, you got to remember
Speaker 3: a year ago, we were trying to figure out what
Speaker 3: bathrooms people could use. We were talking about we were
Speaker 3: talking we were, they were but it was but it
Speaker 3: was it was monopolizing, right. You remember you had that,
Speaker 3: you had the ad, you had that, they ran ads
Speaker 3: on it. I mean that was an ad leading up
Speaker 3: to the election. We were This was the conversation that
Speaker 3: was being had, right, and now the conversation in the
Speaker 3: prison whereby people are evaluating their elected officials has It's
Speaker 3: hard to do it, but they were able to parallel
Speaker 3: park a submarine. They were able to literally shift the
Speaker 3: political discourse and conversation to things that are substance of
Speaker 3: that we went on, like health care. I just think
Speaker 3: that's that is the win, and I think that we
Speaker 3: just have to we have to take that. Now. The
Speaker 3: question is in like always, where do we go from here?
Speaker 3: I mean, that's that is the question that I struggle
Speaker 3: with all the time. It gives me, It makes my
Speaker 3: anxiety rage because.
Speaker 4: I don't they should not let up. If if now
Speaker 4: affordability and health care is where we want people to
Speaker 4: be thinking and deciding when it comes to elections, then
Speaker 4: then then where to your point, Angela, where the strategy
Speaker 4: must not fail, us must not fail Democrats. Is in
Speaker 4: the time between now and the time between the next
Speaker 4: election of when it is really pivotal to make the
Speaker 4: decision of whether or not we're about to keep charging
Speaker 4: forward with this man or bring his administration to a
Speaker 4: pretty much halts. That's what's on the ballot in the
Speaker 4: in the mid terms, and unfortunately, my level of expect
Speaker 4: but my level of what I expect the mcare it
Speaker 4: is like at the body.
Speaker 1: I know, I know we we have to close this out,
Speaker 1: but I have a quick, for real wrap around, especially
Speaker 1: in tip way in here too if you want, but
Speaker 1: the car because.
Speaker 3: You are what's the question, I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, because you guys are formerly elected officials. I want
Speaker 1: to know if you were in the United States Senate
Speaker 1: today or really yesterday, in the day prior, where what
Speaker 1: would you have been?
Speaker 2: Don't answer what.
Speaker 1: Would you have been? What would you have been thinking
Speaker 1: in the caucus meetings? And then how would that thought,
Speaker 1: that strategy, that idea have translated to the Senate floor?
Speaker 2: How would you have voted?
Speaker 3: So that's a that's not a rapid round answer. I
Speaker 3: got to I'm going to do my Tiffany cross right here.
Speaker 3: Let me and then you know what Tiffany, lean up
Speaker 3: into the camera. Let me do my let me, let
Speaker 3: me do some context for the people. So I, in
Speaker 3: all likelihood, I would have voted to reopen government on
Speaker 3: the condition, on the condition that we message around the why,
Speaker 3: because I am in the streets enough to see the
Speaker 3: pain that this shut down is causing, and I've seen
Speaker 3: it at the airports, and I know people aren't getting
Speaker 3: paid and that gives me consternation. But the only way
Speaker 3: that I wouldn't have done it in the middle of
Speaker 3: the night. The only way I would have done it
Speaker 3: is if I would have been able to either myself
Speaker 3: clearly articulate the why, or as a caucus we clearly
Speaker 3: articulate the why. That would be the only way that
Speaker 3: I would do it. I would have.
Speaker 4: And the caucus probably argued more for politicos will get this,
Speaker 4: but what about the everyday people who we asked to sacrifice.
Speaker 4: They won't get this, They won't understand the why, and
Speaker 4: they will likely be let down by the fact that
Speaker 4: last Tuesday they thought they voted for change around the
Speaker 4: country and this looks like the same old, same old.
Speaker 4: I would not have voted to open the government. What
Speaker 4: I would have done and I would have done this
Speaker 4: from the start is I would have identified the the
Speaker 4: the most vulnerable eight Republicans. I could the most vulnerable
Speaker 4: in the US Senate to go to places where you know,
Speaker 4: maybe there were split tickets, right they voted a Democratic governor,
Speaker 4: maybe a Republican president, whatever, But those eight seats would
Speaker 4: have those senators would have been under duress. Their communities
Speaker 4: would have responded so much because we would have been
Speaker 4: dialing ads into there. We would have had a volunteer
Speaker 4: operation that was making calls into homes.
Speaker 3: We would have it.
Speaker 4: Won't be astro turf. It may have began as astro
Speaker 4: turf because it would have come out of the beltwagh,
Speaker 4: but it would have been serious activation in those places.
Speaker 4: So those senators would have had no choice. I have
Speaker 4: been on plenty of votes, and the ones that have
Speaker 4: caused me the greatest stomach pain, or when the calls
Speaker 4: and the emails and the letters to the editors start
Speaker 4: to flood, and hell, it may have been from the
Speaker 4: same five hundred people. I wouldn't have known. It would
Speaker 4: have felt like the whole world had collapsed on my shoulders.
Speaker 4: And it would have it would have would it would
Speaker 4: have cost me all my loyalties to make sure that
Speaker 4: what I was in line for was to be on
Speaker 4: the right side of this issue. And I think from
Speaker 4: a strategic standpoint that may have been the failure is
Speaker 4: you ain't you know how we say, you're on television,
Speaker 4: You're not talking to the person I'm right directly across
Speaker 4: from talking to people who are through that lens. That's
Speaker 4: what we're not talking to our colleagues up here. Yes,
Speaker 4: the negotiation requires an action from them, but we're talking
Speaker 4: past them. We are talking to the American people, and
Speaker 4: we're talking to these people in these eight particular places
Speaker 4: that their folks are right now trying to do a
Speaker 4: shuck and drive. They're trying to steal, they're you know,
Speaker 4: they're taking your livelihood away right now in public daylight,
Speaker 4: and we got to go get them. And I would
Speaker 4: have sick them on them, right as they said with Doug, sick,
Speaker 4: sick them, sick the people on them. And I think
Speaker 4: they failed by trying to talk to all of them.
Speaker 4: They failed to talk to eight of them. And that's
Speaker 4: what we needed.
Speaker 3: Tiff.
Speaker 1: You know, Andrew just said that they that they that
Speaker 1: they would have done a shuck and drive.
Speaker 2: I signed us up for that?
Speaker 1: That sound like no, it sounded like I could drive
Speaker 1: by shoot, So sign me and no, I'm not for that.
Speaker 2: Sign us up for that, not enough for.
Speaker 1: That, not literally but figuratively, because I think right writing
Speaker 1: on the.
Speaker 2: Food, literally, I can't even get.
Speaker 3: Much. I'm gonna be in an interrogation room snitching. All they
Speaker 3: got to do is feed me.
Speaker 1: I'm telling them, you don't take much for you, but
Speaker 1: the thing that give.
Speaker 3: Me, give me some chicken Chick fil A.
Speaker 2: I'm trying. I'm trying my best.
Speaker 1: Well, all I was trying to say was I think
Speaker 1: I believe and Tip, maybe I'm not gonna speak for you,
Speaker 1: but I believe we would have been on the side
Speaker 1: of the caucus that would have us stand up mutual
Speaker 1: aid efforts and support for the people on the front line,
Speaker 1: and then we can make a decision about whether or
Speaker 1: not the government it can reopen. Hopefully we can hold out,
Speaker 1: but you can't have people holding out and suffering. Then
Speaker 1: you're just making them pick their poison. And that ain't
Speaker 1: never right. Know, nobody knows, Okay, everybody. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: to that listener question later on in this episode. But
Speaker 1: right now it is our pleasure and privilege to welcome
Speaker 1: to Native lampod Ari Berman, an incredible journalist and author,
Speaker 1: to talk to us about Donald Trump rigging the twenty
Speaker 1: six elections and perhaps the presidential as well.
Speaker 2: Ari.
Speaker 1: Before we bring you on, I just want to roll
Speaker 1: this clip from Steve Bannon, and.
Speaker 7: I will tell you right now, as God is my witness,
Speaker 7: if we lose the midterms and we lose twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 7: some in this room are going to prison, myself included.
Speaker 3: They're not going to stop.
Speaker 7: They're getting more and more and more radical, and we
Speaker 7: have to counter that. And what do we have to
Speaker 7: counter it with. We have to counter it with more action,
Speaker 7: more intense action, more urgency. We're burning daylight if you
Speaker 7: look across every aspect of this. We have to codify
Speaker 7: what President Trump has done by executive order.
Speaker 1: So we wanted to get into this first, Ari, because
Speaker 1: if you let Steve Bannon tell it, he's making it
Speaker 1: seem like where are the riggers? We're gonna be the
Speaker 1: one who are gonna rig the twenty twenty six elections,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna go to jail because I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe the January sixth insurrectionist never did and got parton,
Speaker 1: So I wanted.
Speaker 2: To just bring you on.
Speaker 1: Are you have always been doing incredible work around the
Speaker 1: voting right space, voter suppression, this piece that you wrote
Speaker 1: for Mother Jones recently on Project twenty twenty six Trump's
Speaker 1: plan to rig the next election. Would love to talk
Speaker 1: to you about how you're seeing this, particularly after the
Speaker 1: Partons this week, so we'll talk about the Partons as well.
Speaker 8: Yeah, thanks so much guys for having me on. Really
Speaker 8: a pleasure to be here. And you notice how Steve
Speaker 8: Bannon has a new jacket, another jacket on every time,
Speaker 8: like he used to have three layers and now it
Speaker 8: seems like is more five every time he talks if
Speaker 8: he's Trump is a gimmick, and didn't he already go
Speaker 8: to prison? So he's saying we're going to go to prison,
Speaker 8: but I think he's already been there, so he must
Speaker 8: be worried about a return trip. But I think what
Speaker 8: I learned from twenty twenty and just the crazy attempt
Speaker 8: to try to steal the election was we have to
Speaker 8: take these people seriously. I think a lot of people
Speaker 8: thought when they started throwing on all these schemes that
Speaker 8: like Originally they were joking and it wasn't going to happen,
Speaker 8: and then momentum just started building. And so when they
Speaker 8: say they're going to do these kind of things, when
Speaker 8: they say they're going to seize voting machines, or they're
Speaker 8: going to put ice at the polls, or they're going
Speaker 8: to declare a national emergency over elections to give Trump
Speaker 8: more power, I think we have to take all of
Speaker 8: these things seriously. And what's different about Trump's second term
Speaker 8: compared to his first term is he has figured out
Speaker 8: how to use the full power of the federal government
Speaker 8: to his advantage. And they're much more open about what
Speaker 8: their plan is. They're not trying to hide their authoritarianism anymore.
Speaker 8: It's right out in the open, and they're basically saying,
Speaker 8: we know we're going to lose this election if we
Speaker 8: don't rig it in our favor. That's why he's going
Speaker 8: all out to jerry Mander and doing all these other things.
Speaker 8: So I think the plan is really as opposed to
Speaker 8: being done in the shadows, it's really out in the
Speaker 8: open in terms of what they're planning to do. Now,
Speaker 8: the question is is it going to work? And are
Speaker 8: people going to be able to stop it.
Speaker 5: Well, we're seeing this week Ari, and I want to
Speaker 5: echo Angeline saying, I love your beat you covering voting
Speaker 5: rights from Mother Jones, and please people subscribe read the piece.
Speaker 5: Journalism costs money, so please support journalism. But we saw
Speaker 5: this week that Donald Trump part in dozens of people
Speaker 5: allegedly tie to overturning or attempting to overturn the twenty
Speaker 5: twenty election. He pardoned Ed Martin, a Justice Department attorney
Speaker 5: Jenna Ellis. Of course, Giuliani, Mark Meadows, his former chief
Speaker 5: of staff. Now this was federal gardens. Of course, there
Speaker 5: are prosecutors in Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and I think
Speaker 5: another state I can't remember off the top of my head.
Speaker 5: So he can't pardon those state selections. But I don't
Speaker 5: think enough people really understand the concept of how he's
Speaker 5: consolidated power to the executive branch. In March of this year,
Speaker 5: he issued an executive order that essentially there are three
Speaker 5: key pieces to this that I find very concerning, and
Speaker 5: I want to get your thoughts on them. The three components. First,
Speaker 5: there's this show your papers type initiative where you would
Speaker 5: have to show a passport or something similar to show
Speaker 5: that you're registered to vote using a federal voter registration form.
Speaker 2: That's very scary.
Speaker 5: Second, he attempts to make a bipartisan commission very partisan,
Speaker 5: the EAC, which oversees voting equipment, and he wants to
Speaker 5: access these voting machines, which obviously that is a very
Speaker 5: pronounced risk. It can also push states to do hand
Speaker 5: counting ballots, which is error prone as we know, it
Speaker 5: can cause delays, which I think is very intentional. Third,
Speaker 5: this is the most frightening of all these frightening components.
Speaker 5: He's calling for DOZE, this made up department and the
Speaker 5: Department of Homeland Security, led by the puppy killer Christy Nome,
Speaker 5: to obtain state voter files and other records kept by
Speaker 5: election officials. That's including voterless maintenance records. This is a
Speaker 5: very frightening thing. Now, you remember what happened when they
Speaker 5: gave DOZE access to the NROLB, the National Relations Board system.
Speaker 5: We immediately saw Russian IP addresses making several attempts to
Speaker 5: use to access that database. So putting this in the
Speaker 5: hands of Elon Musk is very scary. So when you
Speaker 5: look at the collection of what he's done already. I'm
Speaker 5: curious your thoughts on how we as regular people, what
Speaker 5: we should be doing to combat that, and what do
Speaker 5: you think the next steps are in this very Zirphonian,
Speaker 5: scary process.
Speaker 8: Yeah, those are all really good questions, Tiffany. I mean,
Speaker 8: I think the first thing is just to go back
Speaker 8: to what you said about the pardons. People are looking
Speaker 8: at it as a get at a jail free card
Speaker 8: for what happened in twenty twenty. But it's not just
Speaker 8: that it's a get out of jail free card for
Speaker 8: future election stealing, because basically the message is if you
Speaker 8: try to steal the next election through violence and force
Speaker 8: and intimidation and illegality, we're going to have your back
Speaker 8: here too. So the pardons aren't just backwards looking, which
Speaker 8: I think that's how it's been reported. They're forward looking
Speaker 8: as well. They're trying to send a signal to all
Speaker 8: the insurrectionists who now are off the hook, basically absent
Speaker 8: state courts, that they can do the same kind of
Speaker 8: thing in twenty twenty six or twenty twenty eight without
Speaker 8: any kind of accountability. Now again, we'll see if that
Speaker 8: holds up. But that's clearly why he's doing it now,
Speaker 8: to send a signal that this kind of behavior can
Speaker 8: happen in future elections. Now on to your points about
Speaker 8: the executive order. These were all really good points. First off,
Speaker 8: on proof of citizenship to register to vote, this is
Speaker 8: a real misconception because people say, oh, it's just voter ID.
Speaker 8: It's not voter ID. People carry around their driver's license
Speaker 8: with them most places. People do not carry a passport
Speaker 8: or a birth certificate around with them when they register
Speaker 8: to vote in their day to day lives, and a
Speaker 8: lot of people don't have those documents to begin with.
Speaker 8: And if you don't have those documents, like a birth certificate,
Speaker 8: it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain them.
Speaker 8: And so you guys know very well there are people
Speaker 8: that were born in the Jim Crow South, couldn't go
Speaker 8: to a hospital, never got a birth certificate they could
Speaker 8: use in the kind of functional way we think about it.
Speaker 8: So it's much more draconian than voter i D. A
Speaker 8: lot more people don't have, and a lot more people
Speaker 8: will fall through the cracks if it's required. The good
Speaker 8: news is that part of the law at least has
Speaker 8: been blocked by a federal court. Now they're still going
Speaker 8: to appeal it, but for now it's blocked in court.
Speaker 8: The second thing is what you said about the EAC,
Speaker 8: which is kind of this obscure body that was created
Speaker 8: after the two thousand election fiasco in Florida to try
Speaker 8: to help stay It's run their elections more smoothly. It's
Speaker 8: not really functioning that way. And you mentioned the voting machines.
Speaker 8: This is really important. Basically, what Trump said in his
Speaker 8: executive order from March was that essentially all the current
Speaker 8: voting machines are not certified anymore, and that they need
Speaker 8: to be certified based on technology that doesn't actually exist
Speaker 8: on the market right now. And this is important because
Speaker 8: this could be a pretext to Trump doing things like
Speaker 8: you wanted to do in twenty twenty, seizing the voting machines,
Speaker 8: saying the elections were rigged, saying that we didn't vote
Speaker 8: on proper voting machines and therefore we have to do X,
Speaker 8: Y and Z to try to overturn the election. At
Speaker 8: the same time that people in his administration, the Justice
Speaker 8: Department are going around asking states, can we access your
Speaker 8: voting equipment From twenty twenty, which is totally unprecedented for
Speaker 8: anyone from the federal government trying to do. Remind me
Speaker 8: what the third question.
Speaker 5: Was, that's about essentially putting state election sensitive data in
Speaker 5: the doze dose.
Speaker 8: Yes, yeah, yeah, So they're really actively trying to do this.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 8: Remember it was a huge deal when Trump, Remember he
Speaker 8: lied and said that he lost the popular vote in
Speaker 8: twenty sixteen because three million people voted illegally, and then
Speaker 8: he had this whole quote unuote Election Integrity Commission, and
Speaker 8: they asked for voter file data from all fifty states
Speaker 8: and they were rebuked overwhelmingly. The Mississippi Secretary of State
Speaker 8: famously told the vice chair, Chris Koboc to go jump
Speaker 8: in the Gulf of Mexico back when Republicans still called
Speaker 8: it that. And now they're basically trying to do the
Speaker 8: same thing through the Justice Department, but it's getting far
Speaker 8: less attention. So they're trying to get voter data from
Speaker 8: all fifty states so they can run them through these
Speaker 8: immigration databases that are not designed for this purpose, so
Speaker 8: they can get a lot of false matches. In basics, say,
Speaker 8: we have found the fraud, we have found the non
Speaker 8: citizen voting that Trump said exists, and therefore we can
Speaker 8: call on states to enact of citizenship laws, we can
Speaker 8: remove people from the roles, we can file new lawsuits,
Speaker 8: all of those things. And this is happening, unlike in
Speaker 8: Trump's first term, very much under the radar. The Justice
Speaker 8: Department's already sued eight states, seven of which are run
Speaker 8: by Democrats, trying to get this kind of data.
Speaker 3: So this is something that.
Speaker 8: I'm still actively reporting on that I'm very concerned about
Speaker 8: because it's going to seem very technical, it's going to
Speaker 8: seem very bureaucratic, and then all of a sudden, you're
Speaker 8: going to see these insane headlines saying that all these
Speaker 8: people illegally voted, and then Trump and the whole MAGA
Speaker 8: universe are going to go nuclear around this evidence. And
Speaker 8: so I'm just saying, prepare for this to happen, because
Speaker 8: they're laying the groundwork right now for them to do.
Speaker 4: So I'm glad you went there. I was thinking about
Speaker 4: their first administration attempt to get that data, and I
Speaker 4: do remember feeling hopeful by the number of secretaries of
Speaker 4: states and governors who stood up and said no way.
Speaker 4: You know, one of the things that I've said on
Speaker 4: this show when we talked about elections being stolen that
Speaker 4: kind of thing was I've always fallen back on or
Speaker 4: relied on the fact that, you know, our elections are
Speaker 4: probably one of the most decentralized structures of structure in
Speaker 4: the United States, meaning the power exists at almost such
Speaker 4: a local level, from your county supervisors of elections, you know,
Speaker 4: up through the ranks of the you know, and through
Speaker 4: the states. And that the law I believe should come
Speaker 4: down on the side of the states every single time
Speaker 4: when when in contradiction with the federal government over the
Speaker 4: way in which it runs its elections. That being said,
Speaker 4: I'm curious if the president is this time able because
Speaker 4: he has figured out ways and is manipulating the powers
Speaker 4: of the presidency, declaring emergencies and so on and so forth,
Speaker 4: and is able to secure voting equipment, uh from from
Speaker 4: from states. For instance, we know he wanted to direct
Speaker 4: the military to go in and seize the actual voting
Speaker 4: machines and and ballots. I'm if you were forecasting out
Speaker 4: assuming he were able to successfully uh be allowed to
Speaker 4: seize the voting equipment or voting data. Those are two
Speaker 4: separate voting equipment very specifically, or ballots from states. Are
Speaker 4: there states that you would list as sort of flag,
Speaker 4: you know, burning red, as in if they were able
Speaker 4: to corrupt this system, that's the you know, that's the
Speaker 4: kid in kaboodle. Are the states that ought to be
Speaker 4: perking up thinking about and I'm very specifically thinking about
Speaker 4: states that might go D or R or are reliably
Speaker 4: D that may or may not have democratic secretives the
Speaker 4: states or democratic governors defend back against that kind of
Speaker 4: federal attack.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, Andrew, I can think of one state
Speaker 8: that you're familiar with, the state of Florida that I
Speaker 8: think would love nothing else but to help Trump accomplish
Speaker 8: this kind of saying a thing, a state that is
Speaker 8: already criminalized voting in so many different ways that in
Speaker 8: many ways was a precursor to a lot of what
Speaker 8: Trump is trying to do, because, I mean, they gave
Speaker 8: people the right to vote, and then they basically said
Speaker 8: we're going to turn you into criminals simply for exercising
Speaker 8: your right to vote, and did so in a very
Speaker 8: intimidating way. So I think that you're right that Trump
Speaker 8: is going to run into a lot of resistance in
Speaker 8: terms of his plan to try to just take over
Speaker 8: the election system, because there's built in protections. The courts
Speaker 8: have said that he doesn't have the power to tell
Speaker 8: Congress and the states how to run their elections. There
Speaker 8: are election officials in both parties that have pushed back
Speaker 8: against these efforts. As far as I'm aware, only two
Speaker 8: states so far, Wyoming in Indiana, have willingly given their
Speaker 8: voter files to the Justice Department. So it's a nerving
Speaker 8: that that's happened, But it hasn't been like all of
Speaker 8: the red states have come forward and say, we want
Speaker 8: to do this.
Speaker 3: To give this to you.
Speaker 8: Similarly, when they tried to ask for voting equipment in Missouri,
Speaker 8: a very red state in rural counties, they were told no,
Speaker 8: that's not how it works. So I am hopeful that
Speaker 8: the coalitions that stood up to defend democracy in twenty
Speaker 8: twenty still exist in some form or other, in a
Speaker 8: bypl artisan or nonpartisan way. But I am concerned about
Speaker 8: the pressure here that if Trump just kind of grounds
Speaker 8: people down. So even if they say no once, they
Speaker 8: say no once, they say no twice. We saw those
Speaker 8: are the jerrymandering right. When he wanted states to start jerrymandering.
Speaker 8: Republicans didn't actually want to do it. Texas Republicans didn't
Speaker 8: want to do it. Missouri republicans didn't want to do it.
Speaker 8: North Carolina Republicans may have wanted to do it a
Speaker 8: little bit more. But the point is is that eventually
Speaker 8: they complied. And so the question is are they going
Speaker 8: to comply in the same kind of way or will
Speaker 8: this be beyond the pale. The reason for Hope Andrew
Speaker 8: is that they may say, if we do it now,
Speaker 8: it's going to set a precedent, and we may not
Speaker 8: want this being weaponized against us in the other direction.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 8: And the thing about Trump is what's going to happen
Speaker 8: is as he becomes more popular, he is going to
Speaker 8: become more authoritarian, but he will be a less less
Speaker 8: effective authoritarian the more unpopular he becomes, meaning that if
Speaker 8: people see him as a lamb duck, as if people
Speaker 8: see and we know that the Republicans are going to
Speaker 8: do the right thing based on principle, right, but they
Speaker 8: might do the right thing based on politics, which is
Speaker 8: they want to save their own ass. And so if
Speaker 8: they start to see that becoming a reality, they may say,
Speaker 8: we're not going to go along with some of the
Speaker 8: more extreme things that he's trying to.
Speaker 3: Ask us to do.
Speaker 1: I want to get to get back to this pardon piece.
Speaker 1: So on November ninth, Ed Martin tweeted out this laundry
Speaker 1: list of seventy seven individuals that Donald Trump wanted to pardon.
Speaker 1: As you all know, Ed Martin serves as the pardon
Speaker 1: attorney for the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: So he's saying, this is a.
Speaker 1: Very important parton list of the twenty twenty electors. We
Speaker 1: call them the fake electors. As tip as reference earlier,
Speaker 1: he listed particularly Georgia and Michigan fake elector in this
Speaker 1: laundry list. What I find fascinating ari is this list
Speaker 1: that again Ed Martin puts out November ninth. The last
Speaker 1: time the DJ Clemency and Pardon website was a web
Speaker 1: page was updated was on November tenth, But somehow they
Speaker 1: didn't put this up. It just so happens to be
Speaker 1: while we're in a government shut down, And I think
Speaker 1: what is disheartening is the way in which they move.
Speaker 1: They will spread certain messages to their base, but they
Speaker 1: don't move necessarily in great transparency. And so when I
Speaker 1: think back to your piece and some of the different
Speaker 1: flags that you kind of raised that would be the
Speaker 1: ways that Donald Trump would rig a midterm election in
Speaker 1: his and the administration and the people who support him,
Speaker 1: the folks who could have told him, no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to do this, but fold him. Every time we're
Speaker 1: talking about folding to day. It's not just Democrats who
Speaker 1: follow y'all right, These Republicans haven't launched much of an
Speaker 1: opposition to stay Donald Trump's authoritarianism. So when you talk
Speaker 1: about the ways in which he's using ice in federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement to flood the streets, the ways in which
Speaker 1: they would undermine the integrity of elections, the ways in
Speaker 1: which they've weaponized the Department of Justice against his political opponents,
Speaker 1: even naming Barack Obama as of late, I think he
Speaker 1: would be probably not able to be prosecuted given the
Speaker 1: criminal immunity now that the Supreme Court has.
Speaker 2: Given to presidents. But I just want to hear from
Speaker 2: you on this.
Speaker 1: How do you think these partons also go to support
Speaker 1: the piece that you put out around Project twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six and Trump bringing elections.
Speaker 8: Well, I think it just sends a signal to people
Speaker 8: that they can get away with this kind of election rigging,
Speaker 8: that if they try to do it again, they won't
Speaker 8: face any consequences for their kind of actions, and therefore
Speaker 8: it's going to embolden them to try to do some
Speaker 8: of these more extraordinary themes. You know, I started reporting
Speaker 8: this article over the summer, and I was asking people
Speaker 8: hypothetical questions, what could the president do? These hypotheticals became
Speaker 8: much less hypothetical over time when Trumps started sending the
Speaker 8: National Guard to places not just California, but started sending
Speaker 8: them to DC and Chicago and other places, and basically
Speaker 8: started focusing only on democratic cities and urban areas in
Speaker 8: terms of where he would send troops. Then when the
Speaker 8: Supreme Court said ice could engage in racial profiling, and
Speaker 8: then you had people like Steve benn And say we're
Speaker 8: going to have ice at the polls. So these kind
Speaker 8: of things are not theoretical anymore. And it's very possible,
Speaker 8: if not likely, you're going to have the military engage
Speaker 8: in some kind of election activity that has never happened
Speaker 8: before in American history. That you could have ice raids
Speaker 8: in democratic neighborhoods, you could have ice at the polls.
Speaker 8: I'm not saying any of the stuff will be legal,
Speaker 8: but I think they're going to try to explore these
Speaker 8: kind of things. They were going to try to say,
Speaker 8: for example, that they want to see the voting machines.
Speaker 8: The last part of my piece was about just refusing
Speaker 8: to swear in people all together. What we saw that
Speaker 8: happen too. I mean, we've never seen a situation where
Speaker 8: someone has had to sit this long to be sworn in,
Speaker 8: and people saying, why do they care? Are they just
Speaker 8: worried about the Epstein files? And to me, it wasn't
Speaker 8: just about Epstein. It was about the fact that they
Speaker 8: are laying the groundwork for if the House is contested,
Speaker 8: if it's within a seat or two, for example, and
Speaker 8: there is a member from California or another state where
Speaker 8: Trump alleges fraud, they're going to try to say, we
Speaker 8: don't have to sit this person so that Mike Johnson
Speaker 8: can remain Speaker of the House. Now, again, we don't
Speaker 8: know if they're going to get away with it, but
Speaker 8: they're laying out the groundwork to do so right now,
Speaker 8: and so all of these things that might have been hypotheticals,
Speaker 8: they're becoming very real. And I think that's why we
Speaker 8: all need to really pay attention to what's going on
Speaker 8: as it happens in real time.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this question, how do we talk
Speaker 3: about this without depressing voter turnout? Yeah, that's a really
Speaker 3: good question.
Speaker 8: I mean you've thought about that probably more than I have.
Speaker 8: I mean, I think you you. I think you have
Speaker 8: to activate people about the threats that they face, but
Speaker 8: I think you also have to say that people can
Speaker 8: overcome them, people can do something about them, and that
Speaker 8: you're raising awareness not to scare people, but to try
Speaker 8: to activate them. And that's what That's what I said earlier,
Speaker 8: which is that as Trump becomes more unpopular, he will
Speaker 8: become more authoritarian, but his authoritarianism will be easier to
Speaker 8: defeat because he's more unpopular. So I do think that
Speaker 8: the elections Tuesday send a signal that Trump can be defeated,
Speaker 8: that Trump is can be defeated. I also think it
Speaker 8: sends a signal that there were some problematic aspects to
Speaker 8: the voting. Bomb threats called into polling places, for example,
Speaker 8: but by and large voting went smoothly. And so I
Speaker 8: think that can be something that you can And I
Speaker 8: think it goes back to the message and at the
Speaker 8: protests around the country, which is that the president doesn't
Speaker 8: have the power of a king, that he might want
Speaker 8: to do all of these things, but that he doesn't
Speaker 8: actually have the power to do so, and that the
Speaker 8: way to prevent him from doing these kind of things
Speaker 8: is to check his power. So I would argue it's
Speaker 8: going to be much harder for Trump to try to
Speaker 8: steal the election in twenty twenty eight, either for himself
Speaker 8: or forever his successor might be. If there's a democratic house,
Speaker 8: then if there isn't right because if Trump is constantly
Speaker 8: looking over his shoulder, if he knows that there's some
Speaker 8: level of accountability coming, then he's going to be less
Speaker 8: likely to try to pull off these schemes than if
Speaker 8: the government stacked with his enablers. But I also think Bakari,
Speaker 8: I mean, to just ignore it doesn't seem like the
Speaker 8: answer either, because if he's going to do these things regardless,
Speaker 8: then I feel like you have an obligation to fight him.
Speaker 8: And you look at the jerrymanderin battles for example. I mean,
Speaker 8: Democrats could have just said, like the we're like the
Speaker 8: elect we're completely screwed, Like they're just going to go
Speaker 8: state by state by state and gerrymander and that's what
Speaker 8: they did initially, and then California said, no, no, we're gonna
Speaker 8: come up with something creative to try to check them.
Speaker 8: And then once California came up with something creative, Virginia
Speaker 8: started saying, well, we're going to come up with something
Speaker 8: creative too to try to do something about it. And
Speaker 8: now the gerrymandering wars, in which the GOP won the
Speaker 8: first three or four battles, is looking much more like
Speaker 8: a draw than an outright victory potentially. And so I
Speaker 8: think that's the example of how you can take something
Speaker 8: that ultimately is scary to people, can demobilize people, but
Speaker 8: then use it to try to activate them to realize
Speaker 8: that the right to vote is still worth fighting for.
Speaker 4: I just doubled down on that point. I think it's
Speaker 4: so important we oftentimes take away the brilliance of everyday
Speaker 4: American people to not be able to balance multiple things
Speaker 4: at one time. And my fear is is that when
Speaker 4: we don't bring these things out into the sunlight, right
Speaker 4: into transparency, people end up getting stunned by what they
Speaker 4: end up walking into. And when they're stunned or they're
Speaker 4: shock they tend to recess, not go headstrong through it,
Speaker 4: and so I think we talk about it as often,
Speaker 4: as frequently and as empowering as we can so to
Speaker 4: prevent people from showing up at a poll and seeing
Speaker 4: the National Guard and deciding, oh no, back up, reverse,
Speaker 4: I'm out of here. I don't know what this about,
Speaker 4: but I'm leaving. It's best we tell them what to
Speaker 4: expect so they persist, hopefully in charge right through it
Speaker 4: and full command of what their rights are to vote
Speaker 4: and to win. I am sorry, Angela, you got it.
Speaker 1: No, I just wanted to say, Ari, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Ari Berman, you are incredible. We
Speaker 1: are so grateful to have you and your brilliance on
Speaker 1: Native Lampod. We hope this will not be the last
Speaker 1: time you join us, but certainly are going to be
Speaker 1: voting rights fights on every side, and we would have
Speaker 1: no other person that we'd rather be in that battle
Speaker 1: within you.
Speaker 2: So thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 3: Great to talk to you. Welcome well, brother, welcome home.
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: Who cares about truth? When the last morning's seen it?
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, it is that time of the show
Speaker 1: where we are getting to action. These are our calls
Speaker 1: to action, and this time, because we don't want to
Speaker 1: spend too much time asking you all to come in,
Speaker 1: send your videos, send us your thoughts and questions. We
Speaker 1: are going to yield some of our calls to action
Speaker 1: time to viewer questions.
Speaker 2: Let's get started.
Speaker 9: Podcast gave me a headache. Steve stephen A Lenard is
Speaker 9: a provocateur? Is that menstrel and all he did was
Speaker 9: ask you questions. He didn't add anything in the conversation.
Speaker 9: How do we get these black men to realize that
Speaker 9: black women, this is why we're dying young. They're expecting
Speaker 9: person to do everything and to talk to everybody. Our
Speaker 9: community is not a monolith and we have never been
Speaker 9: this kumbaya loving thing where the women all talk to
Speaker 9: everyone and go on everyone's podcast. Now do you how
Speaker 9: do you communicate that to them? It's not about the
Speaker 9: people who agitate each other talking because two agitated people
Speaker 9: are never gonna are. It just doesn't work. I send
Speaker 9: you so much love because that was just tough and hard.
Speaker 10: What's up Native Lands is Craig. I just saw a
Speaker 10: recent episode. I thought it was brilliant, which driving me
Speaker 10: to God. And everybody was on the panel and I
Speaker 10: just wanted to say this topic really resonated with me
Speaker 10: because I feel like at times I've been on both
Speaker 10: sides of that black intellectual versus, you know, the view
Speaker 10: of the everyday guy. I've been on both sides of that.
Speaker 11: There have been times when I felt like I was
Speaker 11: out of place in both arenas. So I just wanted
Speaker 11: to say that I really appreciate this episode. It really
Speaker 11: made me think about a lot of things in a
Speaker 11: different way, and I want to say I appreciate y'all
Speaker 11: and welcome home.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you guys for taking the time. I don't
Speaker 5: know if there was a question in that, so for
Speaker 5: forgive me. I think the first woman was asking I'm
Speaker 5: not sure what she was asking. I think she was saying,
Speaker 5: how do we communicate to provoctive tours? What black women do?
Speaker 5: Sorry if I have anything about what you were saying, wrong,
Speaker 5: But what I'll say, what I appreciate is the conversation
Speaker 5: that this sparked in so many spaces. My dentist was
Speaker 5: like a really close friend of mine, Doctor Richard Forgore
Speaker 5: was telling me that people were in his chair telling
Speaker 5: him he didn't they didn't know that we even knew
Speaker 5: each other talking to him about the converse. So no
Speaker 5: matter where you fall on, whichever side of the divide,
Speaker 5: I really appreciate everybody tuning in and listening, and I
Speaker 5: still maintain my thoughts. Like I said, my thoughts don't
Speaker 5: slay in the wind of public opinion. The first time
Speaker 5: that I respond to something based on public opinion, I'm
Speaker 5: a slave to those thoughts, and it would, you know,
Speaker 5: take away the integrity I have. I do my thinking
Speaker 5: about a thing before I say it, So I am
Speaker 5: glad that other people had so many strong thoughts about it,
Speaker 5: and I hope the conversations continue.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm just going to weigh in here.
Speaker 1: I really want to get black folks to the point
Speaker 1: where we can have disagreements without name calling. The ad
Speaker 1: hominem attacks are unnecessary. I think they're divisive. I don't
Speaker 1: think that you, and I'm particularly talking to the first
Speaker 1: syst You don't have to call somebody a minstrel or
Speaker 1: a minstrel show or whatever. It's just unnecessary. You can
Speaker 1: disagree with someone, you can say that they were factually inaccurate.
Speaker 1: You can say you know, this is something that I
Speaker 1: think encourages people to go a different way. Whatever but
Speaker 1: I just I really I don't like that it makes
Speaker 1: it hard for me to respond to the substance of
Speaker 1: the question. When I hear and at hominem attack, I
Speaker 1: try very very hard not to engage in those I
Speaker 1: will say that one thing I value very much about
Speaker 1: our show, my conversations with my brother Lenard, is I
Speaker 1: am stretched often to reconsider my position to think through things.
Speaker 1: To Tip's point, I don't think it means I'm blown
Speaker 1: by public opinion or swayed by public opinion, but I
Speaker 1: do think hearing different perspectives informs my opinion.
Speaker 2: So I'm grateful for that.
Speaker 1: Grateful for you Craig who said I've been on both
Speaker 1: sides it is, brother, I'm with you. I've been on
Speaker 1: both sides of it too.
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: So I'm appreciative of those thoughts, and I hate that
Speaker 1: the podcast was difficult for anyone to hear. But I
Speaker 1: hope that we don't run away from these conversations. The
Speaker 1: math ain't math and without the whole of us, so
Speaker 1: we don't have time for any mathematics that would cause
Speaker 1: us to divide and subtract in this moment.
Speaker 5: Can I just sounds a quick question because I hear
Speaker 5: you about the name calling, but when we I just
Speaker 5: wonder if that line flides, you know, because I know
Speaker 5: I've been the phrase turned the phrase before and talking
Speaker 5: about people, and certainly, like on this podcast frequently you
Speaker 5: call like Clarence Thomas so Hucci like, and I think
Speaker 5: you're right. I think you nail it. I think that's
Speaker 5: very accurate. Do you like, is there a line where
Speaker 5: it's like, it's okay for these people who are on
Speaker 5: this side of the divide where you can say that,
Speaker 5: or do you feel like, well, I'm not gonna refer
Speaker 5: to Clarence Thomas that way anymore, which I hope you
Speaker 5: always do, because I think I don't think it's name calling.
Speaker 5: I think sometimes it's an accurate description.
Speaker 2: Let me let me clarify. Thank you for that question. Tip.
Speaker 1: I'm always going to rest squarely in the fact that
Speaker 1: I'm a human with hypocrisy, right, I got blind spots blind.
Speaker 3: I never heard nobody say that out loud, and I'm
Speaker 3: stealing it because that is a beautiful state.
Speaker 2: It is so true.
Speaker 1: And I and I hate the fact that we but
Speaker 1: that we when we issue these purity tests that we
Speaker 1: can't pass ourselves, like We talk about people all the
Speaker 1: time on the show that don't get to come on
Speaker 1: and defend themselves. We had a conversation last week where
Speaker 1: it was like, oh, well, this person's not on to
Speaker 1: defend themselves.
Speaker 2: So we have these blind spots.
Speaker 1: Now here's my real blind spot, Tom's I reserve the
Speaker 1: right to call a Tom a Tom. Now other than that,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to disengage from an hominem attacks. I
Speaker 1: think that black people who are striving for the betterment
Speaker 1: and liberation of black people, I do not.
Speaker 2: Want to call names. So that is really what I mean.
Speaker 2: Can I be pushed on that? I'm open to it.
Speaker 2: So I love to be challenged.
Speaker 1: I love to hear from people who are like, we
Speaker 1: want you to exist at a higher a vibration system.
Speaker 2: I'm open to it.
Speaker 1: Right now, I'm higher vibration, but I got a petty
Speaker 1: side that comes around every hour.
Speaker 2: So I'm willing to be stretched their.
Speaker 5: First another prices, you know, like Steve might feel strongly
Speaker 5: about her position.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'm not gonna do that.
Speaker 1: So one again, Lenard is I'm not gonna let anybody
Speaker 1: call y'all out your name to me. Ever, So Lenard
Speaker 1: is my brother. Y'all are family me. I'm not doing
Speaker 1: that like that is a hard line in the stand
Speaker 1: for me. I don't play about it. Me and him
Speaker 1: will go total told rumble on policy stuff, on strategy
Speaker 1: all the time. Do not call him out his name
Speaker 1: to me and think I'm not gonna say that.
Speaker 3: So, Andrew, do you have a call to action today?
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't know. Welcome, Welcome to the show. Brother,
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: I'm saying no, we have more to say.
Speaker 5: But I appreciate both callers' perspectives and thank you for
Speaker 5: sending it in. And you know, they have a right
Speaker 5: to say what they want, but you know people have
Speaker 5: a right to respond. You still mute because you're still singing.
Speaker 5: Probably Andrew, take it off, mute, take it off me mute,
Speaker 5: be you go because Andrew is so. Butkar you had
Speaker 5: a call to action? What what's yours? I know you
Speaker 5: wanted to talk about veterans.
Speaker 3: Yeah, man, I just think that you can't. You cannot
Speaker 3: live in this world and not appreciate those individuals and
Speaker 3: get people their flowers while they're living, or those individuals
Speaker 3: who passed, or some of our unsung heroes, My grandfather
Speaker 3: passed away, Reverend W. Williamson decades ago, but he was
Speaker 3: a World War Two Armie chaplain. It's those type of
Speaker 3: stories about the faith that led us, and so I
Speaker 3: didn't really care what nobody was talking about. I just
Speaker 3: wanted to make sure that I honored my family and
Speaker 3: lifted up those people who sometimes don't get the credit
Speaker 3: they deserve in space as they deserve it.
Speaker 2: Ma'am, Do I know that.
Speaker 1: We were talking about another listener question for a call
Speaker 1: to action? Are we doing another question?
Speaker 2: Y'all?
Speaker 4: Happy to yeah?
Speaker 12: May Gleam podcast.
Speaker 13: I feel so good about this week's episode. I'm not
Speaker 13: sure if I haven't listened well, but take me and Andrew,
Speaker 13: like you two really expressing why some of us did
Speaker 13: not find a humane vote for Kamala Harris really touched
Speaker 13: me deeply.
Speaker 12: She's being over qualified. I think she was the best choice.
Speaker 12: I have to deal with the conscious that I did
Speaker 12: vote for her in New York City, but I knew
Speaker 12: I was doing it as a selfish American in the
Speaker 12: sense of self preservation and readis reception, especially after I
Speaker 12: start Trump Raley in New York, which I didn't think
Speaker 12: was possible. However, I can't say I'm sad that she's
Speaker 12: not in the sense of she aligned herself with genocide,
Speaker 12: but that does not mean she wasn't qualified.
Speaker 9: But thank you guys.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that was a comment. So I the
Speaker 4: other thing I'll say is it is Kamala the pronunciation
Speaker 4: of her name, and that's it for.
Speaker 5: Me, and it got something to say.
Speaker 1: I just don't know what it's gonna take for people
Speaker 1: to stop saying this like she's she was on the stage.
Speaker 2: She's not just been on the stage with me.
Speaker 1: She's done a full book tour talking about where she
Speaker 1: feels like they've made a miss. She was the first
Speaker 1: person in the Biden administration to call what was happening
Speaker 1: there a genocide. I don't understand why that's not penetrating.
Speaker 1: I certainly understand frustration, tensions being high, but I just
Speaker 1: I really don't like that.
Speaker 4: And I think possibly because when it matters, that distinction
Speaker 4: wasn't there we were seeing, and when it mattered was
Speaker 4: when she was running for president and what her position
Speaker 4: was at the time. I think it was even further disappointing,
Speaker 4: you know, at the convention when and I know she
Speaker 4: didn't run every detail, every stop every whatever. But at
Speaker 4: her convention, we didn't get to hear from the Palestinian
Speaker 4: speakers who who wanted to take the podium, which on
Speaker 4: this show we created a platform for it. But you know,
Speaker 4: this is a big tent party and one big enough
Speaker 4: where the voices of people who were very directly affected
Speaker 4: by US foreign policy wanted to make you know, wanted
Speaker 4: to make their opinions and depressions known to a larger audience.
Speaker 4: And the DNC would have created that. But I think,
Speaker 4: you know, look, this is gonna be a hard one
Speaker 4: for her to shape because very few people are willing
Speaker 4: to accept that when you're that adjacent to power, you
Speaker 4: have your own power. But then you are that adjacent
Speaker 4: as a as A as A as A as a
Speaker 4: listening and sharing and thinking partners to the president and
Speaker 4: the US policy. It did not translate that there was
Speaker 4: anything other than support for the the Nehu regime and
Speaker 4: and and just the rot of death that has encircled
Speaker 4: that entire region.
Speaker 1: I guess what I'm curious about is how what like
Speaker 1: what people expected the vice president to do? Let me
Speaker 1: just finish this, but she also and she also did
Speaker 1: the same at the foot of the m and Pettis Bridge.
Speaker 1: Before she was running, she did the same thing. So
Speaker 1: I just I'm not clear about this. And I also
Speaker 1: will say that she talks about in the book several
Speaker 1: closed door conversations where she voiced very clear opposition to
Speaker 1: what was happening.
Speaker 2: I would love for people to articulate what.
Speaker 1: They believe a vice president can do, other than disagree
Speaker 1: on messaging, what they believe the role of the vice
Speaker 1: president is in that situation.
Speaker 4: But disagreeing on messaging when you're the vice president or
Speaker 4: a president who has a different position as a big deal.
Speaker 2: She did that at the foot of the m and
Speaker 2: Pettis Bridge, she did.
Speaker 4: And I will also say life was brightest on her
Speaker 4: as a candidate for president. I could not see daylight
Speaker 4: between she and President Biden.
Speaker 1: There was daylight in her speech on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Convention. And I will tell you, and
Speaker 1: I will tell you that I also agree with you
Speaker 1: that it wasn't far enough. I do agree with that,
Speaker 1: and I will also tell you that she agrees with you,
Speaker 1: had said as much in the book that she did
Speaker 1: not go far enough. So I agree on all of
Speaker 1: those points. What I don't agree with are the people
Speaker 1: who did not see this. Man says in this question
Speaker 1: or in his comment that he couldn't believe there was
Speaker 1: a rally, a Trump rally in New York. Well, now
Speaker 1: we can't believe all these other things that are way
Speaker 1: far beyond a rally. And if you don't understand the
Speaker 1: distinction between a Donald Trump presidency and a Kamala Harris presidency,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 2: And yes, there is a lot of light between.
Speaker 5: I think he so, just to honor his point, I
Speaker 5: think he very much probably understands the difference. And I
Speaker 5: think it's really difficult to have frustration with people who
Speaker 5: saw the daily onslaught of atrocities that we saw, of
Speaker 5: imagery of hospitals being bombed, knowing that the United States
Speaker 5: was funding it, and having the responsibility to call out
Speaker 5: our leaders to say, yes, we demand more. And so
Speaker 5: if you're bombing people who look like me, if you're
Speaker 5: doing this people who don't look like me, I want
Speaker 5: you to do everything possible to stop it, even if
Speaker 5: that means disrupting norms. So I don't have smoke for
Speaker 5: people who feel that level of pain, for dying children,
Speaker 5: dying men, dying women, that it is clearly an ethnic cleaning,
Speaker 5: while some people were walking around with a shoulder shrug
Speaker 5: an indifference. I just I understand that level of humanity
Speaker 5: from folks.
Speaker 4: So I hear you.
Speaker 5: I think I think there, I think there's ability to
Speaker 5: understand the policy of it. But I'm not mad at
Speaker 5: people who were conflicted and who still have a lot
Speaker 5: of frustration around it. I'm sorry if it sounds at
Speaker 5: all like I'm mad at anybody. What I'm just saying
Speaker 5: is there is deep frustration for for me personally. I
Speaker 5: don't want to project this on y'all, but to understand
Speaker 5: how vastly different they would be on these policies. The
Speaker 5: fact that Donald Trump has given cover to a war
Speaker 5: criminal in that Yahoo's currently under like in a corruption
Speaker 5: trial like this is not Those are not her people,
Speaker 5: and she made that very Some.
Speaker 4: Of us would interpret that the previous administration also gave cover.
Speaker 1: The previous administration did, but not Kamala Harris, so where
Speaker 1: there was distinction.
Speaker 4: But she's in she's in the administration.
Speaker 1: Yes she was, And the only way that there would
Speaker 1: have been any change is for her to have had
Speaker 1: an opportunity, and sadly there was. And again I agree
Speaker 1: that you could have gone further, she says in the
Speaker 1: books she could have gone further, but she's still articulated.
Speaker 2: Where there was difference.
Speaker 1: And I think what's unfortunate about it is not only
Speaker 1: did we not get difference, we got far worse with
Speaker 1: the administration that we have and sadly, in this country
Speaker 1: until there is not a two party system, there were
Speaker 1: only two choices, and Kamala Harris by far was the
Speaker 1: better choice. I know we all believed that as rough
Speaker 1: as this was, there were those of us who sat
Speaker 1: out of Christmas parties.
Speaker 2: We wrote letters letting them know that.
Speaker 1: There was a lot going on with Gaza that we
Speaker 1: could not turn a blind eye to. Do not hear
Speaker 1: me say that I'm turning a blind eye to this suffering,
Speaker 1: but please hear me say that in a space where
Speaker 1: there were only two choices, there were only two choices,
Speaker 1: or you could sit it out and you still made
Speaker 1: a choice.
Speaker 4: That's what we talked about that though last week Angelo.
Speaker 2: Yes, we talk about it again.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, I mean the point is this, I think
Speaker 4: while we may be voters who can consider the full
Speaker 4: range of the issues that may be at impact on
Speaker 4: the ballot, there's some people who have a smaller window
Speaker 4: by which they view these things. And what I mean
Speaker 4: by smallers, I don't mean pejorative. I just mean single issues,
Speaker 4: narrow limbs, more narrow lens to what it is that
Speaker 4: they make these decisions on. And I get it. I
Speaker 4: try to. If I could force people to have to
Speaker 4: care about the range of it, I would, but we can't.
Speaker 4: And just because we can't doesn't make necessarily their motivation
Speaker 4: for going to vote or not to vote the wrong
Speaker 4: with the right one.
Speaker 2: It is frustrating. And I'll just tell y'all this too.
Speaker 1: And I know we have to wrap to sit with
Speaker 1: her last week and to have not one, not two,
Speaker 1: not three, not four, not five, but six folks protest her,
Speaker 1: someone who like if they read, if they even read
Speaker 1: the articles, let's say they can't read the book, they
Speaker 1: read the articles about where she's at. Why are you
Speaker 1: not protesting Trump events? Why are you not protesting the
Speaker 1: Republican senators, the folks who have said that they will
Speaker 1: continue to get support from APAC donors. Why are you
Speaker 1: not protesting them? They're protesting someone who is essentially an
Speaker 1: ally and honestly, I hope she doesn't mind me sharing
Speaker 1: this was like, I want to have a roundtable discussion
Speaker 1: with some folks who are Palestinian leaders in this space
Speaker 1: so I can understand where else I can may be
Speaker 1: able to lend my influence.
Speaker 2: She's that type of person.
Speaker 1: I've always known her to be that type of person,
Speaker 1: So it's good.
Speaker 4: But I think part of the protesting Angela is that
Speaker 4: we liked we go places where we think we may
Speaker 4: we may be heard. Yeah, that's I think a lot
Speaker 4: of times are protest and where there is care, I
Speaker 4: ain't going to. Trump can come to here all day long.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to. I don't care for him. He
Speaker 4: don't care for me, and my protests are not going
Speaker 4: to equal concern by him for the things in which
Speaker 4: I'm experiencing. So a lot of times when we've organized
Speaker 4: protests within our own movement circles, within our own community,
Speaker 4: we go to places where we think, one, there is care,
Speaker 4: you might see me as human just like you, And
Speaker 4: then two I expect more, and so I want to
Speaker 4: say that and now we can get to the then
Speaker 4: happens after. But I think people make those choices very consciously,
Speaker 4: like this is where we're targeting. I used to I
Speaker 4: remember I told you when I first got mayor and
Speaker 4: they protested me. I was like, I was just watch
Speaker 4: all at the problem, bring food to you at night.
Speaker 4: This is that a third Well, now occupy a different space.
Speaker 4: Now you're the mayor and you represent a system, and
Speaker 4: that system is not gone just because you're here. It's
Speaker 4: it's continuing to thrive. So now it's on you. And
Speaker 4: I know you see me. I know you have love
Speaker 4: for me, and I know you care, and that's why
Speaker 4: I'm here demanding more. Whether that's the right tact, I
Speaker 4: don't know, or rather I don't think it should be
Speaker 4: the only exclusive tact. I think you put heat on everybody.
Speaker 4: But I do know why people make those choices, and
Speaker 4: its largely because you're going to a target who you
Speaker 4: think will see your humanity, who cares. And then two
Speaker 4: to say I expect more, well, I aree.
Speaker 5: You to how people feel. I'm not dismissing anyone's feelings.
Speaker 5: And I please fact check me on this, because I
Speaker 5: haven't fact checked. But Angela and I were talking about
Speaker 5: this earlier and I think I have not FactCheck. But
Speaker 5: I think this might be the only full broadcasted book
Speaker 5: conversation that she's had. Forgive me if if I'm wrong
Speaker 5: about that, but you all please be sure to check
Speaker 5: it out on NLP's YouTube page. It was a really
Speaker 5: great conversation and you can also see Angela's outfit, which
Speaker 5: I loved.
Speaker 2: God, thanks TIF. It was a repeat.
Speaker 5: I know what Paris, Yeah, yes, I was like, yes,
Speaker 5: you better. I loved it, loved it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's sadly it's because Inga's gonna kill me. But
Speaker 1: the Sergio outfits that I got, apparently I'm not tall
Speaker 1: enough to wear some of Sergio's pants, so I had
Speaker 1: some fashion fails and had to run that old thing back.
Speaker 2: It looks, you know, sometimes you got to do that.
Speaker 2: I really.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you, guys, I so appreciate you
Speaker 1: for stretching me, for stretching the audience, for stretching each other.
Speaker 1: I think it's so important that we always look not
Speaker 1: only at our politics, but policies and the impacts that
Speaker 1: it has on people's lives.
Speaker 2: And the one thing that you can rest assured that you're.
Speaker 1: Going to get on Native Lampod is a policy consideration
Speaker 1: that centers people. And so I'm grateful for y'all, even
Speaker 1: when it sounds like I'm getting callous, like I got family.
Speaker 2: That'll that will loop me.
Speaker 1: Wrote me back in And I appreciate y'all even on
Speaker 1: this last question and this comment.
Speaker 2: But car you are quiet. I don't know if you
Speaker 2: have anything before we wrap.
Speaker 3: No, I'm just tired of relitigat in the past. I
Speaker 3: look forward to talking about tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: I like our disagreements. I think it's get to see
Speaker 5: that in other places, so they have some people call
Speaker 5: it nuanced, but I don't even think our disagreements are nuanced.
Speaker 5: I think they are hardcore disagreement. But in other spaces
Speaker 5: we get lumped in the same category, like you're here
Speaker 5: to represent this person, but here we get to be
Speaker 5: free to explore ideology and ideas. So I do appreciate
Speaker 5: you guys for that.
Speaker 1: All right, y'all, well, thank you so much for tuning
Speaker 1: in to today's Native Lampod episode. As always, we want
Speaker 1: to remind all of you to leave us a review
Speaker 1: and subscribe to Native Lampod. We're available on all podcast
Speaker 1: platforms and YouTube. If you're looking for more shows like ours,
Speaker 1: check out the other shows on our Reasent Choice Media networks.
Speaker 1: Politics with Jamel Hill, Hey j Off the Cup with
Speaker 1: se Cup and Now you Know with Noah Dibasso. Be
Speaker 1: sure to give those a follow, and don't forget to
Speaker 1: follow us too on social media and subscribe to our
Speaker 1: text or email list on Native landpod dot com. We
Speaker 1: are Angela Ride, Tiffany Crost, Andrew Gillim and Bacari Sellers.
Speaker 1: Welcome home, y'allrease order.
Speaker 2: There are three hundred and fifth way Pacari. There are
Speaker 2: three hundred.
Speaker 1: And fifty six days until midsterm elections.
Speaker 14: Welcome home to the Native Landing on the podcast space
Speaker 14: tests and for greatness, sixty minutes is so hit, not
Speaker 14: too long for the grave shit, high level combo politics
Speaker 14: in a way that you could taste it then digest it.
Speaker 14: Politics touches you even if you don't touch it.
Speaker 3: So get invested.
Speaker 14: Cross the t's and doctor IDs, kill them, got them
Speaker 14: ass sellers stand on business with Rick. You could have
Speaker 14: been anywhere, but you truse us. Native Lampot is the
Speaker 14: brand that you can trust.
Speaker 1: Native Lampot is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership with
Speaker 1: Recent Choice Media. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.