Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to willk F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Daniel Moody recording back in the home Bunker, folks.
Speaker 1: Over the week the holiday week, I posted two videos
Speaker 1: on my Instagram and TikTok with regard to the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: the upcoming twenty twenty four election, and the fact that
Speaker 1: we are not voting for perfection, that we are voting
Speaker 1: to hold on. And let me tell you that the
Speaker 1: comments that I have been sorting through on both of
Speaker 1: those videos, let's just say they were not the fucking best,
Speaker 1: with over one hundred people or so commenting about the
Speaker 1: fact that they are not going to vote for Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: that there is no difference between Biden and Trump, that
Speaker 1: they are going to vote their values, that they are
Speaker 1: done voting in fear, and that genocide Joe quotation marks
Speaker 1: is not going to get their vote. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you that I am fucking terrified, and I am trying
Speaker 1: desperately to figure out how in God's green Earth we
Speaker 1: convince people. I convince people that they need to vote
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. Otherwise the twenty twenty four presidential election
Speaker 1: is going to be the last fucking election that we have.
Speaker 1: I want to express to you that the Heritage Foundation,
Speaker 1: up on their website site, has Project twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: which is being aggressively funded at over a billion dollars
Speaker 1: by white right wing extremists to have staff in place
Speaker 1: on day one to begin finishing the hit job that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump started on January sixth, twenty twenty one. These
Speaker 1: people are not playing games. They elected Mike Johnson as
Speaker 1: their Speaker of the House, and the man lives and
Speaker 1: worships the nineteenth century. Just a reminder, women did not
Speaker 1: have the right to vote and black people were still enslaved.
Speaker 1: And that's where he gets his values from. They want
Speaker 1: a chrysto fascist society where there are no elections, where
Speaker 1: they are both the judge, the jury and also the executioner,
Speaker 1: where any dissenters are put in jail or indicted on
Speaker 1: trumped up charges. But who cares because all of the
Speaker 1: judges will be at Donald Trump and his sycophants whim.
Speaker 1: I can't express enough how much of a game this
Speaker 1: fucking is not. And look, I'm folks, I am sitting
Speaker 1: here alongside you and watching the horrors unfold in Palestine.
Speaker 1: I am watching our tax dollars go to funding murder
Speaker 1: of children. This is not an easy pill to fucking swallow.
Speaker 1: But what I also know is that we don't have
Speaker 1: an alternative. It's either we are voting for democracy or
Speaker 1: we're voting for our demise. That's it. It is really
Speaker 1: that black and white, and so I want people to
Speaker 1: honestly understand that, like I am here with you, things
Speaker 1: don't seem much better, but they will never have the
Speaker 1: opportunity to get better if a Democrat is not in
Speaker 1: control of the Department of Justice, of the EPA, of
Speaker 1: the Department of Education, so on and so forth. Who
Speaker 1: do you want making decisions about what your child is learning?
Speaker 1: You know, folks. So coming up next a really important
Speaker 1: conversation with a guest that we've had on the show
Speaker 1: before because she's so brilliant, a not Schenker Osario, who
Speaker 1: is the host of Words to Win By. She's a researcher,
Speaker 1: a message maker, a campaign advisor, and somebody who gets
Speaker 1: it and wants the administration to get it too. So
Speaker 1: listen to our conversation coming up next, folks. I am
Speaker 1: very happy to welcome back to wok F Daily. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, I don't even know how long
Speaker 1: it's been, because time is a vortex. But I'm very
Speaker 1: happy to welcome a not shanker Osario back to wok
Speaker 1: F Daily. She's the host of Words to Win By,
Speaker 1: a podcast about progressive wins. She is included the whole
Speaker 1: chapter dedicated to you in the book The Persuaders. And
Speaker 1: so you are the messenger, You are the message maker,
Speaker 1: as your platform says, and my guy, odd, do we
Speaker 1: need a message? Do we need some fixing? Because as
Speaker 1: it turns out, folks, you know that I am not
Speaker 1: a person that believes in polls, particularly this far out
Speaker 1: from the presidential election. However, much like I just said
Speaker 1: to it not earlier, that much like horoscopes can be
Speaker 1: a form of a guide, you know, just like we
Speaker 1: look at the weather and we decide what code to
Speaker 1: put on or not, two polls can particularly give us
Speaker 1: some guidance as to what is working and what is not.
Speaker 1: And right now, nothing this fucking administration is doing is working,
Speaker 1: and it is being evidenced in polls in swing states
Speaker 1: that show Biden down to Trump by some and in
Speaker 1: some places as much as five or more points. We've
Speaker 1: seen his poll numbers dip over the last two and
Speaker 1: a half weeks below forty percent, because we know that
Speaker 1: he's been unable to get climb out of the forties
Speaker 1: for his entire presidency. So not what is playing in
Speaker 1: what is happening? We know that there is a lot happening,
Speaker 1: as you see it from your vantage point of messaging.
Speaker 1: What's going on?
Speaker 2: Oh, so many things to say besides thank you for
Speaker 2: having me again. It's lovely to see you. Wish it
Speaker 2: were under different circumstances. We can't keep meeting like this,
Speaker 2: But let me dive in and try to make some
Speaker 2: sense here. So the first thing that people need to really,
Speaker 2: really really understand is what does it mean to take
Speaker 2: a survey? What does it mean to have a polster
Speaker 2: call you or to provide you some sort of online platform.
Speaker 2: I didn't check what the sampling methodology was for New
Speaker 2: York Times Enna, but it's probably some sort of hybrid.
Speaker 2: And to answer questions about your feeling in this present moment,
Speaker 2: and how is that like and how is that different
Speaker 2: to being in the voting booth. Act of taking a
Speaker 2: survey and answering survey questions is quite a different act
Speaker 2: than the act of being in a voting booth and
Speaker 2: choosing to go into that voting booth or to mail
Speaker 2: in a vote if that is allowed in your particular jurisdiction.
Speaker 2: So what this survey tells us, and here I really
Speaker 2: want to shout out my frequent colleague Michael Podhorser, who
Speaker 2: wrote a really really important piece monthly. Mike and I
Speaker 2: are you know, famous sparring partners, longtime friends. He wrote
Speaker 2: a cure for mad pole disease. And basically what's happened
Speaker 2: with this New New York Times poll is they've introduced
Speaker 2: the omicron of this new mad pole disease and we all,
Speaker 2: you know, it's just a new virulent strain and we
Speaker 2: all need a booster shot. So why he would say this,
Speaker 2: why I'm echoing it, is people are famously bad predictors
Speaker 2: of what we want for dinner on Tuesday, let alone
Speaker 2: what we are going to want to be doing a
Speaker 2: year from now. But so, what this survey is telling
Speaker 2: us that in the present moment, people are registering really
Speaker 2: strong displeasure with Joe Biden. As you said, so that
Speaker 2: is correct. Does that mean that that's going to manifest
Speaker 2: in the election. The answer is, we have no idea
Speaker 2: this poll does not tell us one way or the other.
Speaker 2: What it does tell us is that right now, as
Speaker 2: you said, the things that are going on, the touting
Speaker 2: of accomplishments is not working. And I have lots and
Speaker 2: lots and lots to say about the touting of accomplishments
Speaker 2: and how that is rubbing people the wrong way, because,
Speaker 2: in point of fact, having looked at it recently myself
Speaker 2: with colleagues through a randomized control trial experiment, which is
Speaker 2: a much more rigorous way of looking at these things
Speaker 2: than surveys, what we find is that discourse about accomplishments,
Speaker 2: with the exception of the jobs, the showing how many
Speaker 2: new jobs have been added, that does with a needle
Speaker 2: a little bit on vote choice. The rest of the accomplishments,
Speaker 2: especially that inflation graph that shows the you know, the
Speaker 2: little line going down that actually backlashes.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, why wait why? Well you'll tell us why
Speaker 1: why is that? Why does that backlash? As opposed to
Speaker 1: I mean, I get the jobs numbers right, like, it's
Speaker 1: very clear for people, these are how many jobs we've added.
Speaker 1: Here's the bar graph. I've added more jobs at this
Speaker 1: point than any other president before. Tell us about the
Speaker 1: inflation piece though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what's going on with showing people that inflation
Speaker 2: line graph going down, or as I like to call it,
Speaker 2: barographs will continue until morale increases that line either because
Speaker 2: Americans don't understand rate of change, and so they look
Speaker 2: at that graph and even though it's about inflation, which
Speaker 2: is about a rate of change, they think that means
Speaker 2: price are falling, and they're like, fuck you very much,
Speaker 2: They're definitely not falling. I go to the grocery store,
Speaker 2: I can tell you that they're not. So it's either
Speaker 2: a reaction to I don't believe that and I'm very
Speaker 2: angry with you, or more simply, even if they do
Speaker 2: understand that inflation is a rate of change, you're telling them, hey,
Speaker 2: I'd like you to think about inflation. Please put inflation
Speaker 2: top of mind. How do you feel about Joe Biden?
Speaker 2: And the answer is boo, yeah, we don't want to
Speaker 2: bring up the things that are people's pain points. Now.
Speaker 2: The jobs barograph, in contrast, doesn't rub people the wrong
Speaker 2: way because it isn't felt personally. You can have a
Speaker 2: sense that you know, maybe there are more jobs being created,
Speaker 2: maybe there are not. I have no kind of way
Speaker 2: as an individual human being living within my own community
Speaker 2: to assess whether there's X million jobs. But I can
Speaker 2: buy that, whereas I do go to the grocery store,
Speaker 2: I can tell you I don't feel like I have
Speaker 2: enough money I feel personally. But the other thing that
Speaker 2: we see is that across the board, touting agenda is
Speaker 2: much more effective than touting accomplishments. And there is a
Speaker 2: reason why it's a canard about campaigns that campaigns are
Speaker 2: about the future, they're not about the past. And so
Speaker 2: talking to people about we've done this, we've done that,
Speaker 2: we've created this, we've created that, they either don't buy it,
Speaker 2: they feel like it's not enough, they don't like it,
Speaker 2: and they're frustrated about it.
Speaker 1: So it's like it's the idea of don't tell me
Speaker 1: what you've done, tell me what you're doing right, or
Speaker 1: what you're or what you're going to do, what you're.
Speaker 2: Going to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And so when we contrast examples of quote unquote accomplishments
Speaker 2: against stating a second term agenda, and to be very specific,
Speaker 2: a second term agenda that includes protecting our freedoms, our
Speaker 2: freedom to decide whether and when we have kids, protecting
Speaker 2: our freedom to vote and pick our own leaders and
Speaker 2: have those votes counted. Protecting our freedom to retire in
Speaker 2: dignity with social security, Protecting our freedom to see a
Speaker 2: doctor and not have a freak out when the bill comes.
Speaker 2: Protecting our freedom to send our kids off to school
Speaker 2: and know they're going to come home safe at the
Speaker 2: end of the day. First of all, just the act
Speaker 2: of touting a second term agenda, does this thing we
Speaker 2: call presupposed, don't assert? It suggests that this is going
Speaker 2: to be the administration in the second term. Because going
Speaker 2: back half a step to your question around pulling, what
Speaker 2: happens with the reporting of pulling is that it creates
Speaker 2: social proof that people don't like this guy. And when
Speaker 2: we have more discourse around people don't like this guy,
Speaker 2: they think he's too old, they think he's to this,
Speaker 2: they think he's to that, that actually increases the number
Speaker 2: of PEP people who don't like him. It's like we saw,
Speaker 2: for example, reporting on vaccine hesitancy increased vaccine hesitancy because
Speaker 2: people are reading their environment for social cues to understand
Speaker 2: what does a my kind of a person think. You know,
Speaker 2: a young person, a black person, a you know mom
Speaker 2: who lives in Oakland, like, whatever, what does a my
Speaker 2: kind of a person think? And when the social cues
Speaker 2: in your environment are telling you will they think that
Speaker 2: vaccines are scary, or they think you're kind of a
Speaker 2: person thinks that Joe Biden is too old, then that
Speaker 2: actually creates license for you not just to have that feeling,
Speaker 2: but to think that that is kind of the social
Speaker 2: norm within your case.
Speaker 1: It's pervasive inside of the community. Right. So essentially, there
Speaker 1: are ways first to gather information that are more accurate
Speaker 1: you have what you stated at the top, but also
Speaker 1: in the types of information that you're putting out, there
Speaker 1: are ways to make people feel like, one, this is
Speaker 1: what I can do for you in the future versus
Speaker 1: what I have already done for you. And then to express,
Speaker 1: not to reinforce the things that are upsetting people, right,
Speaker 1: which is like you're you're totally right because let me
Speaker 1: tell you something and I never even thought about it
Speaker 1: until you say it. When I see those inflation gap
Speaker 1: inflation charts, I'm fucking annoyed. I'm like, why are you
Speaker 1: showing me this?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Like, I go to the grocery store just like every
Speaker 1: other person in this country, you know, go every week
Speaker 1: and I'm just like, how how is the register saying this?
Speaker 1: And I got four things in my car? How does
Speaker 1: that make sense? Right? So not reinforcing the pain points right,
Speaker 1: it just seems logical a not but clearly is not logical. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And other.
Speaker 2: Things that I think it's really important to lift up
Speaker 2: is that this discourse around the horse race when we
Speaker 2: live in a country where the election pathetically, horrifically undemocratically
Speaker 2: is decided by five states, you know, not the one
Speaker 2: I live in, which, by the way, is the most
Speaker 2: populous state in the Union, California, but is decided on
Speaker 2: a margin of one percent, in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: in Nevada, in Georgia, et cetera. So what does that mean.
Speaker 2: It means that if you look at any of these poles,
Speaker 2: the margin of error on all of them is always
Speaker 2: more than one percent, and the election is going to
Speaker 2: come down to and hinge on a smaller margin than
Speaker 2: any of these polls are able to. So essentially, what
Speaker 2: you're doing is you're taking out a yardstick and you're
Speaker 2: trying to measure, like, you know, something that an orthodontist
Speaker 2: is trying to move a millimeter Uh, I don't know
Speaker 2: why I've decided to use a dental analogy. It's probably
Speaker 2: a pretty far fetched one, but I'm down this hole.
Speaker 2: I've gone down this commit doing it. Yeah, commit, commit
Speaker 2: makes total sense. So, first of all, it's just a
Speaker 2: fundamentally blunt instrument to measure something that is extraordinarily fine grained,
Speaker 2: because our elections hinge upon an extraordinarily small set of
Speaker 2: voters in an extraordinarily small set of places. And then
Speaker 2: the other piece of it is just from the vantage
Speaker 2: point of actually having a responsible media. And this is
Speaker 2: where it's really really just sick. How is it possible
Speaker 2: that we have a media instead of reporting on the
Speaker 2: actual news, they are creating this news around these what
Speaker 2: I would call deeply irresponsible pulling numbers because they do
Speaker 2: not take pains to say it's a year out. You know,
Speaker 2: people actually have no idea. And the way that we
Speaker 2: win or lose national elections in this country hinges upon
Speaker 2: who turns out to vote. In the first place. The
Speaker 2: operative question is not really who are you going to
Speaker 2: vote for? It's are you going to vote? Because what
Speaker 2: we find and we saw this in the midterm right
Speaker 2: the red wave, it was coming. It was overtaking us.
Speaker 2: That's what all the pundits, the polls, et cetera said,
Speaker 2: because historically that's always been the pattern that the incumbent
Speaker 2: party takes a shal lacking in the midterms. That's always
Speaker 2: been true, with the exception of the election after nine
Speaker 2: to eleven, for I think obvious reasons and the one
Speaker 2: we just had. What happened in twenty twenty two, it's
Speaker 2: important to look under the hood and note that in
Speaker 2: the states where Democrats won, the fifteen states where Democrats
Speaker 2: won and staved off the Red wave, turnout was at
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen levels, which was historic and so even more
Speaker 2: historic because we managed to do that again, but we
Speaker 2: were the incumbent, so basically unheard of. In the thirty
Speaker 2: five states where Democrats did not win, and that is
Speaker 2: why we have the House of Representatives that we have,
Speaker 2: turnout among Democratic base was down, as we would predict
Speaker 2: in a midterm, and so it's always been the case
Speaker 2: that in these battleground states, it hinges on who is
Speaker 2: going to turn out to vote, and so the question
Speaker 2: is really why why did we have this mass turnout
Speaker 2: in twenty eighteen, in twenty twenty, in twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: despite the incumbency, and it was because it was a
Speaker 2: repudiation and a rejection of Maga that was the force.
Speaker 2: You know, it's fantasy to say it was some sort
Speaker 2: of love of an embrace of and you know care
Speaker 2: or rats.
Speaker 1: Yeah of course, or by yeah yeah, it wasn't yeah.
Speaker 2: And so that repudiation that what Mike, who I referenced
Speaker 2: earlier calls the anti Maga majority, which we have seen
Speaker 2: turn out in eighteen, in in twenty two, in Kansas,
Speaker 2: in you know, fingers processed what happens tomorrow in the
Speaker 2: various states where we're seeing elections, but in various you know,
Speaker 2: ballot initiatives, that anti Maga majority, it turns out when
Speaker 2: it understands, when we understand what is at stake, that
Speaker 2: our rights, our freedoms, our future, our children's lives. And
Speaker 2: so every moment that the media is not reporting on
Speaker 2: the fact that a criminal is currently the front runner
Speaker 2: for the Republican nomination, that a white Chrysto fascist is
Speaker 2: now the speaker of the House representatives, that they're passing
Speaker 2: initiative after initiative after initiative, or at least trying to
Speaker 2: to destroy our lives to take away our money, to
Speaker 2: harm our children. Every moment that they're not reporting on that,
Speaker 2: they're just reporting on the horse race. It's as if
Speaker 2: they media doesn't realize that they're actually impacting the horse
Speaker 2: race by making the discourse be about you know, this
Speaker 2: is how people feel about Biden instead of saying, hi,
Speaker 2: there's an authoritarian fascist takeover underway.
Speaker 1: But that's why that I feel like the media is complicit,
Speaker 1: right that for them, having a Donald Trump in office,
Speaker 1: running for or running for office is good for their ratings.
Speaker 1: This idea of people living in this twenty four seven
Speaker 1: fear and anxiety and the solace being cable news or
Speaker 1: the breaking news headlines coming out of the New York Times,
Speaker 1: is what is driving a dying market, right And so
Speaker 1: for them, I think to alert people, which is what
Speaker 1: I try and do on these shows, and what you
Speaker 1: do by the research and the work that you do
Speaker 1: and on your show. Like, the reality is they don't
Speaker 1: want to do that because it's not good for their
Speaker 1: bottom line, even though we believe that telling the truth
Speaker 1: to people would have them tune in at record rates
Speaker 1: because they want to be kept in the know. But
Speaker 1: the media is choosing, is picking and choosing what to
Speaker 1: keep them in the know about. Apparently Joe Biden tripping
Speaker 1: right is more important than the front runner of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party having been found liable for rape, right, Like
Speaker 1: so that like it's just like so Joe Biden being
Speaker 1: three years older than Donald Trump somehow makes Trump's incompetent rants,
Speaker 1: whether at a rally or in court, seem Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean obviously I'm not in there. I think that, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's ratings, but I also think what you said. I
Speaker 2: think that they would be getting ratings about the coverage
Speaker 2: of the authoritarian takeover as well, because there's a lot
Speaker 2: of conflict, there's a lot of drama, there's a lot
Speaker 2: going on there. I think what it is is this
Speaker 2: kind of congenitally instinctive need for what they call quote
Speaker 2: unquote neutrality, as if the human mind were actually capable
Speaker 2: of not having emotions and beliefs and ideas about the
Speaker 2: information that we're provided, which we know is just simply
Speaker 2: not how cognition works. I think that because there is
Speaker 2: this kind of crusty thinking that the job of the
Speaker 2: reporter is to in fact present both sides. How could
Speaker 2: you possibly present both sides? Of an authoritarian takeover, you
Speaker 2: have to try to find something negative to say. And
Speaker 2: I mean the irony is that there's plenty of negative
Speaker 2: things to say, not like there isn't negative things to
Speaker 2: say about what's going on with democratic leaders. There is,
Speaker 2: but the tripping or the age or the reporting on
Speaker 2: the pulling results itself and thereby making that into the news.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's not where it's at. I think that
Speaker 2: it's this, you know, it's it's the same thing as
Speaker 2: when they used to have a climate scientist and a
Speaker 2: climate denier on, because otherwise you're not presenting quote, both
Speaker 2: sides of the story.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, because that's both.
Speaker 2: Sides of the story. And you know, I mean it's
Speaker 2: just the absurdity of that, it's really Yeah, it's like
Speaker 2: giving the iceberg that the Titanic crashed into a microphone
Speaker 2: because like, doesn't the iceberg deserve a say?
Speaker 1: And in today's media, yes, yes, it would deserve a
Speaker 1: say in a full press conference, and like you know,
Speaker 1: and wall to wall.
Speaker 2: Coverage, ice lives matter too, they do.
Speaker 1: With just a couple of minutes that we have left,
Speaker 1: which is not enough time at all. How is how
Speaker 1: do you see the multiple crises that are unfolding in
Speaker 1: both the Middle East and Israel and Palestine as well
Speaker 1: as Ukraine and Russia right as well as what China
Speaker 1: is making moves and doing, what Iran is making moves
Speaker 1: and doing right now, playing into how Americans are seeing
Speaker 1: US as a country not exactly being the good guys, right,
Speaker 1: not exactly being you know, who they thought America was
Speaker 1: at the moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So if I can dig really, really, really deep
Speaker 2: and say the one bright spot, believe it or not,
Speaker 2: this is where I'm going to that New York Times Sienapol,
Speaker 2: and most people didn't notice this because of everything else
Speaker 2: about it was that they finally admitted and credited that
Speaker 2: the voters that matter are surge voters as opposed to voters.
Speaker 2: That's the interesting thing about that poll right they're reporting
Speaker 2: on It is the disaffected Democratic base that is at
Speaker 2: risk here. And while all of the things that I
Speaker 2: said before about crediting that with being accurate and true
Speaker 2: in an arena in which we need to measure tiny, tiny,
Speaker 2: tiny percentage points a year out and a survey is
Speaker 2: not a vote and so on, is still holds. It's
Speaker 2: something that The New York Times is actually being honest
Speaker 2: about which voters matter, because traditionally, the only voters that
Speaker 2: they give a shit about live and eat and sleep
Speaker 2: and breathe and never leave Midwestern diners. Right, They're like
Speaker 2: white early dudes. I mean, that is like an entire
Speaker 2: yes thought. Yes, I wish I were joking. I'm not joking,
Speaker 2: so that at least is noteworthy. Why am I saying
Speaker 2: that in answer to your question? I'm saying that in
Speaker 2: answer to your question because we have this base that is,
Speaker 2: you know, sometimes turns out, sometimes doesn't, and really is
Speaker 2: the crux. It is the hinge for our winning and
Speaker 2: losing in these elections. It's not about swinging. I mean,
Speaker 2: who is left in America? But it's like Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, I don't know. I still haven't made up
Speaker 2: my mind. Like pretty much that person, if there's one
Speaker 2: of them, they live in a test tube. Like that's
Speaker 2: a very strange person. The decision is am I going
Speaker 2: to turn out or not? So these things that democratic
Speaker 2: leadership is doing, and I want to focus in particular
Speaker 2: and the most heart wrenching, heartbreaking, horrific one, which is
Speaker 2: the situation in Palestine Israel. I think that there is
Speaker 2: a very very relatively simple, morally unambiguous position, which is
Speaker 2: that we choose life, that we believe that all of
Speaker 2: life is sacred. It's sacred here, it's sacred there. It's
Speaker 2: sacred when it's sacred when it's Muslim, it's sacred when
Speaker 2: it's Israeli, it's sacred when it's Arab. And what it
Speaker 2: means to hold life sacred is that we need to
Speaker 2: have a life saving mission, a campaign, not a pause,
Speaker 2: because what applause suggests is that the main stay, the
Speaker 2: ongoing thing is the war, and that you're still kind
Speaker 2: of tacitly supporting that. But you know, there are many
Speaker 2: many things that messages don't fix. When the policy is
Speaker 2: not okay, the message does not fix it. The message
Speaker 2: is wrapping paper. If what's inside the box is not okay,
Speaker 2: the wrapping paper is not going to do it. And
Speaker 2: so what I hope, not even from a political dimension,
Speaker 2: but really from a like I actually care about people's lives,
Speaker 2: I'm absolutely devastated dimension, is that we change course here
Speaker 2: and we do what is right, which I think is
Speaker 2: pretty straightforward. And there is a counter terrorism mission or
Speaker 2: a counter hamas mission that can be conducted precisely and surgically,
Speaker 2: and there is a life saving mission that needs to
Speaker 2: be conducted absolutely immediately.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, I could not agree more. When the policy
Speaker 1: is wrong, right, the message does not matter, and the
Speaker 1: policy should be about centering humanity above everything and anything else.
Speaker 1: That will not be the last that we will hear
Speaker 1: from you as we head into the most critical, scary
Speaker 1: election time in our lives. So I hope that you
Speaker 1: will come back and join us again soon and please
Speaker 1: tell people where they can find you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Check out my podcast words to Win by It's
Speaker 2: a happy, hopeful, uplifting example each episode of a win
Speaker 2: somewhere in the world. We are making our first or
Speaker 2: third season right now. It'll be out in January. I'm
Speaker 2: barely ever on the thing, and I refuse to call
Speaker 2: other than Twitter at a not a source, but also
Speaker 2: all our messaging guides, all of our research, anything that
Speaker 2: we don't have prohibitions against we make open source for
Speaker 2: free at Asocommunications dot com. Same with our ads.
Speaker 1: Don't check it amazing. Thank you. That is it for
Speaker 1: me today, Dear friends on wo gay app as always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke a spot