Speaker 1: Apparently even the wokest of the woke can't help but
Speaker 1: find reality. Believe it or not, a crazy video that
Speaker 1: will dissect that ultimately concludes with what I think conservatives
Speaker 1: would agree with. Also, no influencers allowed in a very
Speaker 1: posh cool store in Nantucket, and believe it or not,
Speaker 1: influencers are in fact upset crazy California. The now second
Speaker 1: in command of the California Assembly the Minority Caucus, David Tangiba,
Speaker 1: will join us and Woke Wednesday, which is obviously a
Speaker 1: crowd favorite. So much to get to, so little time.
Speaker 1: My name is Jobob. Thanks so much for tuning in.
Speaker 1: The show starts right now. Every so often they're one
Speaker 1: of those videos that you see that you're like this,
Speaker 1: this is crazy, and also it proves a truth that
Speaker 1: I believe in only because it's so crazy and idiotic
Speaker 1: and inane, and that actually gives it some gravitas.
Speaker 2: This is a.
Speaker 1: Weird situation to be in, and every so often these
Speaker 1: videos come up, and we're gonna play one for you
Speaker 1: today and discuss it in real time. It's a longer video,
Speaker 1: but believe me, it'll be worth it because it's confusing, bizarre,
Speaker 1: and also displays truth, which is exactly what we conservatives
Speaker 1: are always trying to do. Before we get to that,
Speaker 1: I got to remind you. TPT at tposa dot com
Speaker 1: is the email dress send along your thoughts, comments, concerns,
Speaker 1: even criticisms. Those are welcome in our email inbox. You
Speaker 1: can also go to our QR code. Scan it on
Speaker 1: the screen or at the bookends of every commercial break.
Speaker 1: It'll take you to all of the links really that
Speaker 1: you'll ever need. I can't imagine a life in which
Speaker 1: you need more links that exist outside of our QR code.
Speaker 1: It'll take you to the sponsors of the show. It'll
Speaker 1: take you to Turningpoint Tonight dot com, where you can
Speaker 1: check your voter registration because thirty percent of eligible voters
Speaker 1: are not registered to vote. It'll also take you to
Speaker 1: all of our social media accounts where you can leave comments,
Speaker 1: engage with us on the social media. Also see footage
Speaker 1: that we can't we just don't have time to get
Speaker 1: to here. It'll also lead you to abundance and fulfillment
Speaker 1: in life. That's you have to scroll down on the page,
Speaker 1: but I do think that's in their right producer. Let
Speaker 1: me put the abundance in full life link there perfect
Speaker 1: it's really just a link to a church website that
Speaker 1: actually isn't the case. But now that I'm thinking, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about it in real time, we should actually do
Speaker 1: that because that would actually work out well. So anyways,
Speaker 1: lost is treind of thought. Scan the QR code, live
Speaker 1: a full and complete and abundant life with all of
Speaker 1: the links that you'll ever need, and leave a comment
Speaker 1: or send an email tptatpustay dot com. And if those
Speaker 1: comments and emails are gross, vile, disgusting and downright nasty,
Speaker 1: we actually could read them here on the show, because
Speaker 1: that's exactly the type of thing that we produce, the
Speaker 1: content that we do here on the show, speaking of nasty, vile, cruel,
Speaker 1: and just downright awful, which is I think the the
Speaker 1: How many times have we transitioned from that? Not not
Speaker 1: transitioned like that, that's not We're not no, no transitioned
Speaker 1: torrically segued rhetorically, not the segways that mall cops right
Speaker 1: around the mall and yell at unruly kids who, by
Speaker 1: the way, I'm on the side of the mall cop.
Speaker 1: You're no rhetorical segue a rhetorical transition. I think it's
Speaker 1: the last like five or six days that the first
Speaker 1: thing we're talking about is nasty, vile, disgusting and downright horrendous,
Speaker 1: and so it actually plays into you know what we
Speaker 1: elicited solicit in our emails. Anyways, pretty much everybody has
Speaker 1: a podcast nowadays. I just I can't if you were
Speaker 1: to throw a dart at a crowd, you'd probably hit
Speaker 1: somebody who has a podcast, because everybody does, and for
Speaker 1: better or worse, it really just becomes a competition of
Speaker 1: who can say the craziest thing that'll end up on
Speaker 1: the internet somewhere. Interestingly enough, and for today's purposes of
Speaker 1: the show, we've decided to pull one of these crazy
Speaker 1: podcast clips from a guy named what's his name, Adam Conover.
Speaker 1: You might remember this guy. He had a TV show
Speaker 1: for a long time, I believe, called like Adam Ruins Everything,
Speaker 1: and he went around and like tried to disprove different conspiracies.
Speaker 1: It turns out he's a radical leftist lunatic. No shock
Speaker 1: there people in TV like ten years ago that that
Speaker 1: was kind of the norm for those folks. But now
Speaker 1: he has a podcast because again, everybody has a stinking podcast. Now,
Speaker 1: if you're a radical left lunatic, you probably on your
Speaker 1: podcast feature lots of other people that are radical left lunatics,
Speaker 1: kind of like an NYU biology professor named Joe Osmond's son.
Speaker 1: In this clip, he is going to tell an absolutely
Speaker 1: unhinged story about potential of child rearing with his best
Speaker 1: friend and her partner and him. Somehow. We don't usually
Speaker 1: do things like this in terms of formatting these segments,
Speaker 1: but we're just gonna play small clips at a time
Speaker 1: and pause intermittently and continue moving forward with it because
Speaker 1: that's the best way to kind of break down this
Speaker 1: journey that we're about to be taken on, because it
Speaker 1: goes from totally insane and in about ninety seconds too. Okay,
Speaker 1: I think you might be circling the periphery of truth.
Speaker 1: I think you might actually be pretty close to recognizing
Speaker 1: something that is actually real, which is crazy in that
Speaker 1: the woke can get so woke that they turn back
Speaker 1: to reality, which is a good thing ultimately, but it's
Speaker 1: evidenced in this video. Let's start it off.
Speaker 3: As sort of my best friend is a woman of
Speaker 3: color and her partner was white, and we all agreed
Speaker 3: that she didn't want to raise a white child.
Speaker 4: She felt like she would be isolated.
Speaker 1: Okay, so first off, we start there with unhinged racism,
Speaker 1: because of course we do, these guys an NYU biology professor,
Speaker 1: So of course starts with racism. My best friend is
Speaker 1: a woman of color and her partner is white. I'm
Speaker 1: assuming lesbians, and it'll be made clear as we go
Speaker 1: on in the video, but that tends to be the gime,
Speaker 1: or that's what I would have assumed. Anyway. Now his
Speaker 1: best friend, who is a person of color, because she's
Speaker 1: a person of color, gets to say I don't want
Speaker 1: a white baby. Jim Jeffries, who is a comedian who
Speaker 1: is way left of me, made a joke about this.
Speaker 1: His wife is Indian, I think, or some sort of
Speaker 1: Middle Eastern, and he had a standard routine about this
Speaker 1: where he said, my wife would go around, and they
Speaker 1: were pregnant at the time, which is great, congratulations on
Speaker 1: the child. His wife would go around and say, I
Speaker 1: hope the baby's not too white. And he was like,
Speaker 1: this is an exclusive brown privilege. Like he's like he
Speaker 1: He's like, I, as a white person, can't go I
Speaker 1: hope the baby's not too brown. That would be an
Speaker 1: insane thing to say because it's absurdly racist. But the
Speaker 1: problem is, if you put the shoe on the other foot,
Speaker 1: it's totally fine and acceptable. This NYU professor's best friend
Speaker 1: can out loud in public say I just feel weird
Speaker 1: having a white baby. It's very isolating. But believe it
Speaker 1: or not, it gets more unhinged when he starts talking
Speaker 1: about the process of getting a white baby. Is No,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be cut. I don't know. Just watch all right,
Speaker 1: I know what's getting interesting, But I want to jump
Speaker 1: in and remind you about Live on labs. I take supplements.
Speaker 1: I know you take supplements because unfortunately you can't get
Speaker 1: all the nutrients that you need from our food supplies,
Speaker 1: So supplements it is. Now. I know the concern that
Speaker 1: everybody has with supplements, trying to maintain their vitality, their
Speaker 1: youthful energy. The concern is that, well, are these things
Speaker 1: getting absorbed into my body or am I just creating
Speaker 1: very expensive toilet sewer water. Well, the best way to
Speaker 1: ensure that your supplements are being absorbed into your body
Speaker 1: is through lipospheric absorption, which Live on Labs has been
Speaker 1: doing for twenty years. I am particular cularly impartial to
Speaker 1: the vitamin C and the magnesium. But really, any supplements
Speaker 1: you need you can get in the lipospheric absorption form
Speaker 1: with Live on Labs. Make sure that the supplements that
Speaker 1: you're taking are actually being absorbed into your body and
Speaker 1: not just flushed out for lack of a better term.
Speaker 1: Go to Live on Labs order today, and when you
Speaker 1: order Live on labs dot com, use the code Joe
Speaker 1: Bob fifteen job Ob one five fifteen percent off of
Speaker 1: your entire order Live on labs dot com.
Speaker 4: Back to the program, you know, with a white partner
Speaker 4: and a white co parent and a white child, and
Speaker 4: we all agreed on that a long time before, and
Speaker 4: sort of the dynamics of our situation where I was
Speaker 4: going to be the sperm donor and co parent, and
Speaker 4: she was going to give the egg and her partner
Speaker 4: was going to carry, so we would all have this
Speaker 4: sort of very cool and queer biological input into child making.
Speaker 1: Okay, in case you weren't following that, this guy, this
Speaker 1: guy's best friend, woman of color, has a white partner.
Speaker 1: His sperm was going to then be used to fertilize
Speaker 1: his best friend, the woman of color, because they had
Speaker 1: to use her egg because she doesn't want a white
Speaker 1: baby because she's super racist, and then input it into
Speaker 1: the white partner to carry it. Sorry that I'm using
Speaker 1: like hand motions here to describe this, but it's just
Speaker 1: it's it's it's a web of insanity that is apparently
Speaker 1: something that they think is like normal and awesome. We
Speaker 1: were gonna have this super queer, weird family thing dynamic
Speaker 1: that everybody who I don't know has any sort of
Speaker 1: rationality would look at and go, what the.
Speaker 4: What is this?
Speaker 1: But interestingly enough, despite all of the crazy lefty queer whatever,
Speaker 1: even this guy could recognize the human urges within himself
Speaker 1: that would in fact align with truth, and he starts
Speaker 1: to make his way to that point right now, you know.
Speaker 4: And then her part and as I had started given
Speaker 4: up on being a biodad, just my life was not
Speaker 4: headed in that way, and I kind of only realized
Speaker 4: how badly I wanted that when it actually became possible.
Speaker 4: And then similarly, my best friend's partner, as she got
Speaker 4: closer and closer to implanting a baby that wasn't going
Speaker 4: to be her biobaby into her body, she was realizing
Speaker 4: she thought she wanted that but didn't, so I couldn't
Speaker 4: even mad at that because I sort of was experiencing
Speaker 4: that same thing.
Speaker 1: You know why you were experiencing the same thing, because
Speaker 1: that's what normal rational people experience. I hate the qualifiers, like,
Speaker 1: I never thought it'd be a bio dad. Oh, you
Speaker 1: mean just just a dad? Right? If you just you know,
Speaker 1: donate your your fluids to make a kid, you don't
Speaker 1: get to call yourself a dad.
Speaker 5: You don't get to call yourself a father. You have
Speaker 5: to actually raise the kid.
Speaker 1: But also, at the same time, saying well, I'm a
Speaker 1: bio dad is no different than saying I'm just a dad.
Speaker 1: I hate the qualifiers. I hate when people say biological male,
Speaker 1: biological feel it's just a man and a woman. It's stupid.
Speaker 1: But outside of all of that, what he's getting at
Speaker 1: is actually the truth of human emotion and human feeling going.
Speaker 1: You know, it wasn't until this was a possibility that
Speaker 1: I realized how much I actually wanted this. And then
Speaker 1: the best friend person of colors, wife partner I don't know, says,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is weird that I'm not carrying
Speaker 1: my own kid. It's a mixture of my partner's best
Speaker 1: friend and my partner that I'm carrying, and yes, that's
Speaker 1: crazy and insane, but also both of these parties are
Speaker 1: recognizing this is super weird. Now he kind of brings
Speaker 1: it home right here, and I have some thoughts after that,
Speaker 1: but ultimately, in ninety seconds, this guy kind of touches
Speaker 1: what seems to be truth and reality and something that
Speaker 1: conservatives would probably in a way defend. Launch this last part,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 4: And so it was this queer utopic. K new like
Speaker 4: a three way baby and we're all gonna parent and
Speaker 4: it's gonna be amazing. And then the tensions of our
Speaker 4: needs are human needs that are messy. Yeah, you know
Speaker 4: that her desire to be the bio mom and she
Speaker 4: kind of hated that about herself but needed.
Speaker 1: That because it's true. You can hate whatever you know,
Speaker 1: nature is right. You can do that, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: change nature. It's kind of like people that don't believe
Speaker 1: in God. It's like, well, I mean, you can, you
Speaker 1: can say that, but that doesn't affect God is a
Speaker 1: fact of reality, so it doesn't it doesn't really matter that, hey,
Speaker 1: or you don't believe in all that stuff is real.
Speaker 1: Is just that's what reality is. And so in this
Speaker 1: particular case, like so many, the people that think they're
Speaker 1: smart enough to circumvent norms and human nature and do
Speaker 1: this queer family trifecta thing. I don't know, is this
Speaker 1: technically a thruple? I'm not sure. Regardless, you know, ultimately
Speaker 1: find out at the end of this process, Holy cow,
Speaker 1: my innate human urges actually supersede the crazy ideology that
Speaker 1: I've been convinced of believing. And this isn't, you know,
Speaker 1: shocking at all, because this is how things end up
Speaker 1: working out, regardless how far off the beaten path you
Speaker 1: think you're going. The end of the day, human nature
Speaker 1: doesn't change. Reality doesn't change. And these people found out
Speaker 1: through this crazy process that, yeah, general human inclinations don't
Speaker 1: go away. Doesn't matter if you're an NYU biology professor who,
Speaker 1: by the way, side slight tangent here those people. He's
Speaker 1: obviously a smart person. I'm not saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's a dumb person. He's probably a
Speaker 1: relatively smart person. But those people who are very experienced
Speaker 1: or experts in a specific field for whatever reason, think
Speaker 1: they can also manipulate morality and ethics, Doctor FAUGI is
Speaker 1: a very good example of this. Clearly a smart person.
Speaker 1: We've railed on him for the last week, so you know,
Speaker 1: take that with a grain of salt. Clearly a smart person,
Speaker 1: but thinks I'm smarter than everybody else. Therefore I can
Speaker 1: dictate ethics even though I'm an expert in this, I
Speaker 1: can dictate morality to all the people. That's where all
Speaker 1: of this comes from. But ultimately, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, given the fact that none of their wants
Speaker 1: and wishes to have the queerness extremes queer supreme, I
Speaker 1: don't That's not a word that he used. I just
Speaker 1: that's how I would categorize it. The supreme queer family
Speaker 1: could not remove reality from their own literal biological situation.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, that's kind of
Speaker 1: the whole point of conservatism. Conservatism exists in our modern society,
Speaker 1: and what we're doing in the conservative movement to let
Speaker 1: people know that this is the way the world works. Yes,
Speaker 1: we're always you know, finding I don't want to say
Speaker 1: finding new truths, but we're finding that the truths remain
Speaker 1: no matter what happens throughout the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: and trying to get people to understand that is what
Speaker 1: the entire conservative movement is about. We're here to conserve
Speaker 1: the idea that human nature exists, that reality exists, and
Speaker 1: just because something is old, be it traditions or anything else,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it's wrong. In the modern era, people
Speaker 1: think that, wow, this this has been around for one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years, Therefore it's clearly outdated. They say
Speaker 1: that about the Constitution, this has been around for two
Speaker 1: hundred and what is it after the declarious in two
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty nine years, so clearly must be wrong. No,
Speaker 1: these are just the facts of reality that people have
Speaker 1: to live with, whether they agree with them or not.
Speaker 1: It's just there. It's probably a little bit more I
Speaker 1: don't know, esoteric than we usually did here. But I
Speaker 1: just thought that clip was amazing. It's literally ninety seconds
Speaker 1: and the guy goes from the most and it's like
Speaker 1: this journey he's taking you on of just like the
Speaker 1: what the heck, dude, and ultimately ends up to yeah.
Speaker 1: And then you know, I realized this is what truly matters,
Speaker 1: or at least I realized that this matters to me.
Speaker 1: And the reason for that is because it matters to everyone,
Speaker 1: all right. TVTTPOSA dot com is the email. We got
Speaker 1: a fun one here. We've got some really interesting get
Speaker 1: to the points, really interesting today as well as David
Speaker 1: Tangipa now the second in command over there in California's
Speaker 1: minority caucus and not minority like racially like, they have
Speaker 1: an electoral minority there because Libs control the entire state.
Speaker 1: Coming up in crazy California. Oh, it's also woke Wednesday.
Speaker 1: Holy cow, we got a humdinger of a day. Stay
Speaker 1: tuned scand QRCO. That's gonna come up on your screen.
Speaker 1: Go to all the websites the sports sponsors of the show,
Speaker 1: Turning Point Tonight dot com. Make sure you're registered to vote.
Speaker 1: Go to all of our social media accounts. And I
Speaker 1: think I believe I said earlier in the show, it'll
Speaker 1: click in the qrcode will lead you to total and utter
Speaker 1: fulfillment in life. I'm not sure if that's true, but
Speaker 1: it's worth a shot.
Speaker 6: Scan the QR code will write back, you're keen to
Speaker 6: remove the electoral college and do it based on numbers
Speaker 6: that the quantity of votes free either presidential company.
Speaker 7: And I still can't believe that anybody considers this radical.
Speaker 7: Like to me, it's the thing radical about thinking of
Speaker 7: the person who gets the most votes ought to be
Speaker 7: the winner.
Speaker 1: But I think people haven't thought through.
Speaker 7: How much benefit would come from that we did that.
Speaker 7: There are so many votes in red and blue states
Speaker 7: that you couldn't ignore anymore. Like if you were running
Speaker 7: for president as a Democrat, you'd have to go to Texas. Yeah,
Speaker 7: and even if Texas is still going to vote mostly
Speaker 7: for Republicans, you'd have to turn out every Democratic vote
Speaker 7: you could in Texas. And I just think we'd be
Speaker 7: so much better off if a Republican and Democratic candidate
Speaker 7: were competing over Texas, and by the way, new York.
Speaker 7: Even if New York is definitely going to vote more
Speaker 7: for Democrats, a Republican candidate would have to come to
Speaker 7: New York and states from Alaska to Rhode Island. So
Speaker 7: it's small states too that get ignored. Now would finally
Speaker 7: be part of this competition. So yeah, elector college for sure.
Speaker 7: I have a real weird take on this. Here's what
Speaker 7: I think.
Speaker 1: Sobviously, getting rid of the electoral college is crazy, but
Speaker 1: that seems to be like a lib mainstay, Like you
Speaker 1: have to be on the side of yes, so you
Speaker 1: gotta get rid of the electoral college because the popular
Speaker 1: vote rap he boota judge is no dummy. He recognizes
Speaker 1: that in order to win the nomination for twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 1: which he's clearly gunned for, he has to adhere to
Speaker 1: that idea of oh, the electoral college is stupid. Now.
Speaker 1: I actually think the second part of his answer, though,
Speaker 1: is him giving a warning to other fellow Libs, because
Speaker 1: he actually makes a good point, but it's not a
Speaker 1: point that would be advantageous to his political side. See
Speaker 1: many of the population centers that control the deep blue
Speaker 1: states like New York and California or even Oregon Washington,
Speaker 1: the rest of the state is all red. And now
Speaker 1: you might say, yeah, well, the population centers is where
Speaker 1: all those votes are. But in actuality, if you were
Speaker 1: to get rid of the electoral college, and it would
Speaker 1: be strictly a population based vote, a majority rule type
Speaker 1: vote for the president, it would fundamentally change the way
Speaker 1: that presidents run. And just statistically and by the numbers,
Speaker 1: there are more conservatives in blue states than I there
Speaker 1: are liberals in red states. Just so we're clear on that.
Speaker 1: If it were to be strictly a popular vote, and
Speaker 1: that would be the goal of the campaign. Conservatives would
Speaker 1: win a lot I'm not saying every time, but they
Speaker 1: would win a lot more. You know how many voters
Speaker 1: are in California that don't just don't vote because they're yeah,
Speaker 1: i'm gonna We're not gonna win in California. So here's
Speaker 1: the thing. Buddha Jedge knows that. I think he's smart
Speaker 1: enough to say, yes, I'm for getting rid of this,
Speaker 1: but then issue a warning guysed as like a positive
Speaker 1: spin on this. Well, yeah, you know, Democrats would have
Speaker 1: to go to Texas and Republicans would have to go
Speaker 1: to California. Yeah, the problem is the math doesn't work
Speaker 1: on that. I think he knows this would be a
Speaker 1: terrible idea for Libs. The only way that Libs can
Speaker 1: actually win is if it stays the electoral college. And yes,
Speaker 1: we may lose some we may lose the popular vote sometimes,
Speaker 1: but generally we win the popular He may be thinking
Speaker 1: that there would be a shoe in to win the
Speaker 1: popular vote. That's the numbers don't The numbers don't suggest that.
Speaker 1: I think he realizes this is a bad position, But
Speaker 1: I have to take it in order to ingratiate myself
Speaker 1: to my fellow libs as I try to run for
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. Pete's smart and allegedly gay. All Right,
Speaker 1: tvttvs dot com is the email. If you got thrown
Speaker 1: off by that last part, I don't know, good luck
Speaker 1: is TVT is the email? Leave the comment. You can
Speaker 1: contact us on all the social media accounts by scanning
Speaker 1: the QR code on the all of the things. And
Speaker 1: I just say that to set this up that we
Speaker 1: are going in to get to the point.
Speaker 8: Get to the pond, to get to the phone.
Speaker 1: All Right, a lot of California today, and I see
Speaker 1: the emails, I see the comments. Why we're talking about
Speaker 1: California again, it's it is worth the warning to get
Speaker 1: to It's not a not a regional show. Do we
Speaker 1: talked to everybody all over the world or all over
Speaker 1: the country. And because of that, you need to be
Speaker 1: aware what's going on in California so it doesn't happen
Speaker 1: to you. This from the California Go study says sixty
Speaker 1: two percent of California's Medicaid expansion enrollees are likely ineligible. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're an agile eligible it's illegal. The whole thing is
Speaker 1: a Ponzi scheme wrapped up in corruption. But at least
Speaker 1: it's costing taxpayers and estimated ten billion dollars. Paragon Health
Speaker 1: Institute analysis found that an estimated three point one million
Speaker 1: California Medicaid expansion enrollees in twenty twenty four, or sixty
Speaker 1: two percent of the state's entire expansion population, probably don't
Speaker 1: meet the requirements to be eligible for Medicaid, and that
Speaker 1: actually costs taxpayers of the federal government ten billion dollars.
Speaker 1: So it's not just California, it's you, folks, which is
Speaker 1: why we talk about this. You folks in Oklahoma, or
Speaker 1: in Kansas, or in Ohio, what name a state, any
Speaker 1: of the other forty nine states, you are paying an
Speaker 1: extra ten billion dollars a year to Cammifornia because they illegally,
Speaker 1: it seems registered three point one million people who are
Speaker 1: ineligible for this state subsidized healthcare benefit. Why do we
Speaker 1: talk about California so much? Because the flipping matters, because
Speaker 1: you need to be aware this is where your tax
Speaker 1: dollars are going. They go into all of the different
Speaker 1: reasons as to why people are ineligible. I mean that
Speaker 1: kind of it's pretty rudimentaries like, hey, yeah, you don't.
Speaker 1: Actually you make too much money to be included in
Speaker 1: this program, so therefore you're ineligible, and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other things. This versus is not a citizen, so they're
Speaker 1: ineligible to you know, you get the picture. Bottom line
Speaker 1: is you are spending ten billion dollars to subsidize California
Speaker 1: registering ineligible Medicaid recipients under their new expansions. So congrats
Speaker 1: vote them out Californians, and also, you know, encourage your
Speaker 1: California voters to show up. All right, Moving on, this
Speaker 1: is kind of interesting from CBS News. Airlines are banning
Speaker 1: humanoid robots from flights. Why question mark? So earlier this year,
Speaker 1: Southwest announced a ban in May passengers boarding with robot companions.
Speaker 1: I feel like there's so much setup that probably needs
Speaker 1: to get done, we just don't have time for it.
Speaker 1: Wh who was bringing their robot onto the plane? I
Speaker 1: just like I want to know who that is. American
Speaker 1: Airlines instituted a ban on humanoid robots and animal like
Speaker 1: robots in cabins and check bags effectively July twenty third,
Speaker 1: and Delta Airlines is the most recent one banned human
Speaker 1: or animal like robot robotic devices in both cabins and
Speaker 1: checked luggage in June. Okay, so they're not the most
Speaker 1: recent one, the most recent one that I heard of. Now,
Speaker 1: you may be wondering why are we banning robots, and
Speaker 1: some of the answers could be, well, maybe the robots
Speaker 1: can because it's their goal to take over the human race,
Speaker 1: take over the plane, and do whatever they want once
Speaker 1: they've taken over the plane, and you can't stop them
Speaker 1: because they're robots.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: Actually, unfortunately, the reasoning is way less cool. It's the batteries.
Speaker 1: Like a lots of the robots have like lithium battery,
Speaker 1: and so the airplanes are like, you know, correctly, hey,
Speaker 1: we don't this. We don't want this airplane to burst
Speaker 1: into flames, so you can't bring your robot. I don't
Speaker 1: think that'll affect most people. Maybe maybe wealthy pervs who
Speaker 1: are trying to bring their robotic girlfriend on vacation. Other
Speaker 1: than that, I think everyone's going to be totally fine
Speaker 1: with this. But unfortunately, Yeah, the reason for banning humanoid
Speaker 1: robots is not the fear that they will attack us
Speaker 1: and drain us of our vital fluids. It is because
Speaker 1: the batteries and they don't want the batteries, which, again,
Speaker 1: that's a good ris fine, I'm okay, I'm cool with that,
Speaker 1: but also not that exciting. What is exciting is going
Speaker 1: on in Nantucket, a Nantucket shop. This is from the
Speaker 1: USA today. Nantucket shops say no influencer sign goes viral,
Speaker 1: prompts backlash because everything pomp prompts backlash. Okay, so here's
Speaker 1: what this sign looked like. The Four Winds Craft Guild
Speaker 1: in Nantucket posted a photo that says no Influencers on
Speaker 1: their Instagram July twenty seventh that immediately went viral. The
Speaker 1: shop seeks to stop influencers from creating content in their stores.
Speaker 1: Obviously major backlash because the influencers, the influencers are the
Speaker 1: narcissists of the day and they do not like to
Speaker 1: be stifled. One Home decor influencer, Stephanie Hannah, with over
Speaker 1: four hundred and thirty six thousand followers, commented that she
Speaker 1: felt uncomfortable and unwelcome after seeing the sign during their
Speaker 1: first family visit to the island. Too bad, I just sorry,
Speaker 1: don't care. Also, I would take this to the extreme. Uh,
Speaker 1: the question obviously can be asked, well, what is an influencer?
Speaker 9: Then?
Speaker 7: What what?
Speaker 1: I don't care? Be broad, hey, Nantucket, Four Winds Craft Guild,
Speaker 1: be broad with your definition of influencer. You don't like, say, hey,
Speaker 1: you're you late, you lady with the hat that's too big? Uh,
Speaker 1: influencer you watch too much Real Housewives and we can
Speaker 1: tell go buy botox too. They look you all the
Speaker 1: face that looks like an inflated balloon. Animal influencer, Nope,
Speaker 1: audio astlla bye bye.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 1: Obviously, companies have the right to review service study ones,
Speaker 1: which I think they're taking the ability to do. But
Speaker 1: I actually hope that this. I hope this moves into
Speaker 1: more stores. I'm tired of seeing kids I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't really frequent fashion stores, so I guess I don't.
Speaker 1: Uh of the times that I've been into like an
Speaker 1: h and M, even like a Kohle's, there still are
Speaker 1: kids like doing tiktoks in the aisles. Nah, just let's
Speaker 1: blanket ban on the influencers in the stores. Now, ironically,
Speaker 1: this Four Winds Craft Guild gotten massive online virality from this,
Speaker 1: which is what they try to use influencers to do,
Speaker 1: which makes me think maybe that was the point of
Speaker 1: all of this, but I still actually stick with the
Speaker 1: original premise ban all the influencers and use a broad
Speaker 1: brush when describing influencers. Let us know if you cre
Speaker 1: tpttbusa dot com. Lastly here and this will lead into
Speaker 1: our crazy California segment. Heath Flora ousted by the California
Speaker 1: Assembly GOP after campaign spending revelations. Okay, the bottom line
Speaker 1: here is that hopefully, hopefully Conservatives continue to be good
Speaker 1: at policing their own This guy spent eleven thousand dollars
Speaker 1: in campaigns fun at some bar and grow and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different problems coming out against him. And
Speaker 1: so the California Conservatives say, nope, no more audios Astilla,
Speaker 1: Bye bye, see you later. And they replaced their minority
Speaker 1: leader with someone else, which makes the guy who's now
Speaker 1: the second in command over there at the Conservative caucus
Speaker 1: there a friend the show, David Tunguip assemblyman from California's
Speaker 1: gonna come up next. The newly minted second in command
Speaker 1: of percentage Why it is probably the smallest majority of
Speaker 1: Conservatives in really any state, but nevertheless it's a success.
Speaker 1: Conservatives policing their own. Get that guy out of there,
Speaker 1: too problematic and insert our friends more. I like that.
Speaker 1: TPTTPUS state dot com is the email a dress sent
Speaker 1: along your thoughts, commons, concerns, even criticisms. All are welcome
Speaker 1: at our email inbox. Scandal q RCA, go support the
Speaker 1: sponsors of the show Turningpoint Tonight dot com, where you
Speaker 1: can check your voter registration. Thirty percent of people who
Speaker 1: are eligible to vote are not registered to vote anything else.
Speaker 8: Nope, we'll be right back after the break.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Turning Point tonighttpostate dot com is the
Speaker 1: email dress. I've never said welcome back. Wow, that's actually
Speaker 1: kind of fun. Usually we have seats clips that lead
Speaker 1: us into the segment, so welcome back. It is a
Speaker 1: new phrase, not often used, but I guess we're using
Speaker 1: it today. We've we got to take a look at
Speaker 1: California's poopius state, sorry, the nation's POOPYUS state. California in
Speaker 1: a fun thing we like to do like once a
Speaker 1: week called Crazy California. Crazy California where sanity goes to
Speaker 1: die here with us as always in the Crazy California segment,
Speaker 1: We've got California State Assemblyman David Tangipa. Dude. Okay, so
Speaker 1: there's quite a bit going on in California, as there
Speaker 1: always is, but now specifically around drug use. There's a
Speaker 1: big report in the California jur or the California Globe
Speaker 1: talking about the fact that, well, there's no way to
Speaker 1: track any of the money that's being spent. They basically outline,
Speaker 1: there's two hundred billion dollars in the state of California
Speaker 1: going to rehabilitate drug users, and all of the data
Speaker 1: that is necessary to decide if it's working or not,
Speaker 1: half of it's missing. Why how is this going to
Speaker 1: get resolved? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 10: Well, this is a problem that we have here in
Speaker 10: California is.
Speaker 2: That the way that we measure our metric of success
Speaker 2: is on spending and it's not on outcomes.
Speaker 10: And when you have.
Speaker 2: The issue of sometimes what I refer to as the
Speaker 2: San Francisco School District policy of passing, which all they
Speaker 2: need is a twenty eight percent to have a passing grade,
Speaker 2: you realize that they have just shifted the bar of
Speaker 2: what failure.
Speaker 10: Really is and they've lowered it.
Speaker 2: So if you know that you are failing, and if
Speaker 2: you know that what you're the.
Speaker 10: Money you're spent on is not working.
Speaker 2: All you have to do to justify the continuous spending
Speaker 2: is to get rid of all the reports, is to
Speaker 2: actually not know if you're failing. And if you just
Speaker 2: close a blind eye, then no one can say that
Speaker 2: you're doing the wrong thing because you just don't know.
Speaker 2: And what that really creates as an endless money pit,
Speaker 2: a homeless industrial complex to where they need the problem
Speaker 2: to justify the spending. And it's why they keep going
Speaker 2: back to the people of California and saying, well, look,
Speaker 2: we need more money to solve this issue, because they
Speaker 2: measure their metric of success on spending and not on outcomes.
Speaker 1: You know, this is the question, the moral internal dilemma
Speaker 1: that I have so often. I don't know what's stopping
Speaker 1: me from starting Joe Bob's meth rehabilitation and just accepting,
Speaker 1: I don't know, a billion dollars from the taxpayers of
Speaker 1: California and enjoying my nice island vacation lifestyle that I'll
Speaker 1: probably get from doing that because nobody's checking anyway, except
Speaker 1: for there's some reporters that are doing so, which is great.
Speaker 1: The guy guys like Nick Shirley and more recently Chris Ruffo,
Speaker 1: who has an article, Well, there is an article about
Speaker 1: the thing that he did, which I'd like you to
Speaker 1: expand on. That said, California homeless what is it called
Speaker 1: harm reduction policies, gave us meth pipes. So that's great
Speaker 1: your thoughts.
Speaker 2: They went undercover to see what was actually happening in
Speaker 2: this harm reduction And remember that's very important because framing
Speaker 2: matters more than anything else. You just say it's a
Speaker 2: good thing, and then you realize what they're really doing
Speaker 2: is giving homeless people and drug addicts the ability to
Speaker 2: continuously do drugs. Some of the way that I like
Speaker 2: to describe the policy that we have in California, it's
Speaker 2: like the cool parent in high school, and the cool
Speaker 2: parent in high school give their kids the keys to
Speaker 2: the car when they know they're going to go drinking
Speaker 2: and they know that they're going to be at a
Speaker 2: party with drugs, and the it's like, I love you,
Speaker 2: I want to be your best friend, go out and
Speaker 2: do it, gets in an accident, UI and k people.
Speaker 2: That is how the State of California policies, and it's
Speaker 2: what is happening right now when we're giving people who
Speaker 2: are on drugs, and if you are on meth, you
Speaker 2: are a zombie, if you have been on meth for
Speaker 2: such a long time. I know that because I come
Speaker 2: from a family that has people who have been addicted
Speaker 2: for years. In years and years, there reaches a point
Speaker 2: where there is no logic in reason. And if somebody
Speaker 2: was crazy and they thought the toaster was speaking to them,
Speaker 2: you don't tell them, yes, the toaster is speaking to you.
Speaker 2: You take away that ability, and then you put them
Speaker 2: in treatment centers that actually treat the issue, whether it's
Speaker 2: a mental health issue or it's access to.
Speaker 10: These drugs, you have to pull these tools away.
Speaker 2: But instead California is specifically giving homeless meth addicts the
Speaker 2: actual tools needed to take the drugs, and as long
Speaker 2: as they don't get whether it's ciph or other diseases
Speaker 2: from it, that means they're doing a good job instead
Speaker 2: of actually pulling them off and putting them in drug
Speaker 2: rehabilitation centers and locking them down. In a way, my
Speaker 2: family member became clean only because she almost died, ended
Speaker 2: up in a hospital for months, and she couldn't get
Speaker 2: out of the hospital, so that was the only way
Speaker 2: that she remained clean, and it's up to us to
Speaker 2: make a difference here in California and not provide the
Speaker 2: tools so that way they can stay on drugs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hitting rock bottom is the best thing that happens
Speaker 1: to anybody who eventually gets clean. And that's actually what
Speaker 1: you want for people. That's a weird metric of success. Hey,
Speaker 1: I know your brain is ruined on meth and now
Speaker 1: you have drug induced schizophrenia and you pulled all of
Speaker 1: your teeth out, But hey, you didn't get AIDS from
Speaker 1: the needle, So great job, California. You know, at the
Speaker 1: risk of lingering this on a little bit longer than
Speaker 1: it probably should, I am just curious. So do you
Speaker 1: see any sort of swing back to sanity from your
Speaker 1: perch in the legislature. Are there any of your lib
Speaker 1: colleagues that are like, Okay, this is getting a little
Speaker 1: bit out of hand and we need to rein this
Speaker 1: in Or do they cynically look at the voting populace
Speaker 1: and go, eh, they can take more abuse.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't see it in the legislature, but I
Speaker 2: do see it with the general population. You know, think
Speaker 2: that the normal, whether you're Democrat, Republican, or independent. You
Speaker 2: just say that we have a homeless epidemic here in California.
Speaker 2: You know that when La County has more homeless people
Speaker 2: than most states, large scale cities like you know, La
Speaker 2: I believe has about one hundred and like twenty five
Speaker 2: thousand homeless people in the LA region alone.
Speaker 10: I mean that is a major city to the rest
Speaker 10: of the nation.
Speaker 2: And when we're looking at that and you just talk
Speaker 2: to the normal person who's out there, they say, yes,
Speaker 2: there's a homeless issue. There's also an affordability issue, and
Speaker 2: we've got a crisis here in California. But instead of
Speaker 2: actually solving it again, my colleagues are like, let's just
Speaker 2: put more money into it.
Speaker 10: And if we've lost twenty four billion.
Speaker 2: Dollars already and we have no idea when and if
Speaker 2: we are measuring again spending with no ability to track
Speaker 2: any of the outcomes, the general population knows that there's
Speaker 2: something wrong, and it's what we're hopeful that a lot
Speaker 2: of the general people will actually start pushing on that
Speaker 2: significantly more. We've seen that with valid initiatives that really
Speaker 2: demanded change, like making fetanol. If you deal fetanol in
Speaker 2: the state of California, you can be charged with murder.
Speaker 2: You know, that's something that I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people are seeing, and it's where again, we want to
Speaker 2: wake people up, because if they just go back and
Speaker 2: they look at the last ten years when it comes
Speaker 2: to drug overdoses in the United States, we have lost
Speaker 2: more people to drug overdoses than almost all foreign.
Speaker 10: Wars combine, not including the Civil War. That's it.
Speaker 2: More people died in the United States from drug overdoses
Speaker 2: in ten years then all of our wars combined, including
Speaker 2: the Civil War.
Speaker 1: You know, this goes against everything I believe in. But
Speaker 1: there's a part of me when you say that we've
Speaker 1: lost twenty four billion dollars, is can you can you
Speaker 1: try to lose it into my bank account or my
Speaker 1: wallet at some point? That'd be fantastic for me. You know,
Speaker 1: speaking of money and money getting yanked, big, big discussion
Speaker 1: over the last couple of days over the Trump administration
Speaker 1: politically yanking money from his political adversaries in California. Regarding
Speaker 1: this train. People might not be hip to this story,
Speaker 1: but can you kind of fill in some of the
Speaker 1: gaps of what actually went on?
Speaker 2: Yes, So what we've seen is that Governor Newsom and
Speaker 2: a lot of the legislature were yelling at for pulling
Speaker 2: dollars from California Rail. Really found is that the legislature
Speaker 2: and the Attorney General Rob Bonta actually dropped the lawsuit
Speaker 2: against the federal administration on high speed.
Speaker 10: Rail because they actually violate.
Speaker 2: The contract that California High Speed Rail Authority was supposed
Speaker 2: to purchase actual trains for.
Speaker 10: The project.
Speaker 2: But instead they saw that this is a project that
Speaker 2: will probably more than likely never be finished in our lifetime,
Speaker 2: as Governor k Newsom said in an expose video from
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, and they decided not to purchase it because
Speaker 2: they know they know that this will never actually have
Speaker 2: a train on it.
Speaker 10: They know that tracks will never be laid.
Speaker 2: This project is actually a justification piece to backfill into
Speaker 2: the coffers of certain special interest groups and those It's
Speaker 2: just a justification reason for why we need to tax
Speaker 2: more people and allocate money.
Speaker 10: Former Speaker of.
Speaker 2: The Legislature here in California, his name is Willie Brown,
Speaker 2: also former boyfriend to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 10: He made this puct.
Speaker 2: He made this quote about infrastructure when it comes to
Speaker 2: California is never tell the people how much it's actually
Speaker 2: going to costs, but once they approve it, you dig
Speaker 2: a hole so big that they can't stop it and
Speaker 2: they have to fund it forever.
Speaker 10: That is the California ideology when it.
Speaker 2: Comes to infrastructure, and I think we all should listen
Speaker 2: to Kamala Harris's ex boyfriend when it comes to these
Speaker 2: types of policies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's so effectively for everybody at home. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration said, hey, you're not going to get this money
Speaker 1: because you violated the contract, and then Gavin Newsom said
Speaker 1: they're not a bit, I'm a political prisoner or whatever,
Speaker 1: when in reality, they just didn't follow the agreement that
Speaker 1: they had already agreed to. Wow, fascinating, that's well exactly
Speaker 1: what I would think of California politics. Unfortunately, David Tugy
Speaker 1: is an assembly person in California Assembly. There I go,
Speaker 1: there I go, using the language of the left, an
Speaker 1: assembly man in California. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate you taking the time.
Speaker 10: Always great to jump out.
Speaker 1: All right, Hey, you got a lot more coming up
Speaker 1: here on the show. TPT ATPUSA dot com is the
Speaker 1: email address, scan the QR code. It'll take you to
Speaker 1: a turning point. Tonight where you can check your voter registration.
Speaker 1: It'll also get you to all of our social media accounts,
Speaker 1: which are just bananas. By the way. You can leave
Speaker 1: a comment on the social media account, but you actually
Speaker 1: want to email because there's no way we can get
Speaker 1: to the literally million comments on social media, So emails
Speaker 1: TPTATPUSA dot com will be right back after the break.
Speaker 9: Don't go away, lesbians. Steal this line the next time
Speaker 9: you need to turn someone down on a date. I'm flattered.
Speaker 9: My plate is full. That's it. I want to hear
Speaker 9: you say it. I'm flattered, plate is full. Now send
Speaker 9: this to a lesbian you love. What are we doing here?
Speaker 1: What are we even doing? I'm tempted to start off
Speaker 1: every social media video post like that camera to my
Speaker 1: face influencer style. I get kicked out of this nantucket store,
Speaker 1: But just start off lesbians. Attention lesbians. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what you said half of that. Why didn't you say,
Speaker 1: oh my, use this when you need to turn someone down.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if she has any experience using that line,
Speaker 1: but she did say she said, uh, my plate is full.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try that on my wife. She says Hey, uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know you need to redo the sprinkler in
Speaker 1: the sideyard. I'm sorry, my plate is full. Attention lesbians.
Speaker 1: If I go what, my plate is full, and I'd
Speaker 1: sit on the couch and then quickly get up because
Speaker 1: I want to stay in her good graces for obvious reasons. Okay,
Speaker 1: tbttvusay dot com is the emil addressing along your thoughts, comments, concirams, criticisms.
Speaker 1: It's time for Woke Wednesday. Now, this is obviously a sketch.
Speaker 1: It's not real, but it does it does give realistic
Speaker 1: woke vibes effectively. No, I'm not trying to say that
Speaker 1: because we're not trying to. This skit is playing off
Speaker 1: how the woke view this actual real world scenario. That's
Speaker 1: all say. Watch this.
Speaker 10: All right, stop.
Speaker 11: That is not how you pass a woman on a trail.
Speaker 11: I'm moving into her personal space. I'm initiating conversation without
Speaker 11: her consent, and I don't look very friendly. Here's a
Speaker 11: better way. I'm avoiding eye contacts and crouch saying low
Speaker 11: while keeping most of my body hidden so that I
Speaker 11: look less physically intimidating. I'm laughing. So the woman knows
Speaker 11: that I'm friendly and I've raised my voice outside of
Speaker 11: the masculine range, which is more comforting. This is how
Speaker 11: you pass women on my trail.
Speaker 1: I'll have to try that. I think that feels like
Speaker 1: great advice. I think that's not at all creepy, not
Speaker 1: at all suspicious and weird. But again, you know, we're
Speaker 1: trying to make women comfortable out on trails because remember
Speaker 1: that pole. It's like an Internet pole like earlier this
Speaker 1: year where it's like would you rather pass if you're hiking,
Speaker 1: would you rather pass a man or a bear? And
Speaker 1: like most women were like, oh, a bear, which is
Speaker 1: the dumbest possible answer you can conceive of. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, this guy's actually some great advice. I'll try
Speaker 1: that next time I'm on a hike. When I'm passing
Speaker 1: any women, I'll just crouch creepily behind a tree, start giggling,
Speaker 1: and that should make them feel totally comfortable and safe,
Speaker 1: at least I think according to this advice. Okayttbusa dot
Speaker 1: com is the email dressing along your thoughts, comments, concern
Speaker 1: even criticisms. Scan the q rcoe go follow us on
Speaker 1: all the social media accounts. Don't miss the party. There
Speaker 1: is a party. There's lots of footage that you don't
Speaker 1: see here on the show, and we don't have time
Speaker 1: to get to it at all. All of that's in
Speaker 1: our social media accounts. You can get to all of
Speaker 1: it by clicking the q RCO. That's kind of come
Speaker 1: on to your screen. Now, what are we watch it? Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, all right, okay, So that's trans bat girl
Speaker 1: at a church somewhere. Okay. Uh, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say about that. Go good
Speaker 1: luck fighting crime. I guess I just got you know.
Speaker 1: What's funny too, though, is thee There are probably people
Speaker 1: there and they probably feel like they have to applaud this,
Speaker 1: like after this dance routine was done. They're probably like yeah,
Speaker 1: and like the like weird faint clapping like this is
Speaker 1: it's too uncomfortable to no clap, so I'll go ahead
Speaker 1: and clap. Okay. TVTTPUSA dot com is the email address.
Speaker 1: Lots of fun ones from you folks today, yesterday, over
Speaker 1: the last couple of days. Do we emailing about libs
Speaker 1: promising medicare for all? I'll summarize really quickly here he's
Speaker 1: talking about I think we played a commercial for was
Speaker 1: it else? I had a couple of days ago talking
Speaker 1: about we're gonna give Medicare for all, and effectively, Dewey's
Speaker 1: point that he's trying to make is that's not great,
Speaker 1: Like Medicare is not a good system, so it's kind
Speaker 1: of a weird thing to advocate for, which great point.
Speaker 1: I think the term well, I mean, the new single
Speaker 1: pair system that would inevitably come if LIBS gained control
Speaker 1: is not gonna be any different. It's gonna be any
Speaker 1: better than Medicaid. So yeah, Medicare, Yeah, great point. Do
Speaker 1: we gotta fix the system? Dan emailed some concerns about
Speaker 1: data centers who don't have time to get to that.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get to this. I tweeted the other
Speaker 1: day and I talked about on the show that I
Speaker 1: am going to pursue a career in the w NBA
Speaker 1: considering the fact that they're gonna let men play, I
Speaker 1: think according to some of the coaches. My uncle responded
Speaker 1: to that and said, sweet, does that mean you'll be
Speaker 1: buying family members new cars? No one, because I'm not
Speaker 1: a an urban NBA star In two the w NBA's
Speaker 1: like league minimums, like seventy grand I can I can
Speaker 1: buy you a nineteen ninety five Toyota Corolla. That'd be
Speaker 1: That'd be the extent of my generosity with my WNBA
Speaker 1: status now sorry salary, Now I would I would imagine
Speaker 1: that I would grow in popularity just dominating the post
Speaker 1: and the league overall. So maybe endorsements would get me
Speaker 1: a little bit more money, But nevertheless, no cars for
Speaker 1: the family. Okay, tpttbusa dot com is the email. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for tuning in. We'll see it tomorrow, same time,
Speaker 1: same place.
Speaker 5: God bless America.