[00:00:05] You're listening to casual talk radio where common sense is still the norm, whether you're a new or a longtime listener. We appreciate you joining us today. Visit
[email protected] and now here's your host, Leister.
[00:00:21] Election season is upon us once again. Did you vote already early? If you didn't, hopefully you plan to tomorrow. Today, today we're kind of tied up. But tomorrow, hopefully you're planning to to get your vote in. Make sure your vote, if your vote is counted and your voice is heard, you might feel as though the voice is not heard, that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to disagree with that sentiment or that you should not feel that way because there are legitimate reasons why somebody might think that their voice doesn't count because unfortunately, we are in a society where the individual American voice doesn't seem to count as much as it did. It might surprise you, though, why that happened. I'm going to walk you down memory lane a little bit and give you a little bit of a history lesson because I happen to excel in political science a little bit. But I'm sharing it from my lens. I'm sharing it from my perspective. And that perspective there was an interesting set of things that happened this last four years and it told me I was not wrong in what I was believing. Let me get some personal updates because I think that I always want to have that personal spin on stuff because it might help people. Some point, some point when I'm not here reminds me I have to do that test. So I ordered a new faucet for the kitchen and a new faucet for the bathroom. The first floor bathroom, which will soon be the master bathroom.
[00:01:47] The faucet that I put in the kitchen. I actually had just replaced the darn thing in June of this year and it's already messed up. It works, but it has a filter attachment spigot the filter. The way that it works, this one replacement filter, it didn't fit all. It was kind of snug and it wouldn't fit all the way in there. When I got it in there, turns out it was defective and now I can't get it out. And I've tried to sever it to try to see if I could lessen some of the pressure on it. And I tried to slice it from inside, try to drill in it. Nothing. So it's just hosed. So I figured I'll just replace the darn thing. I then bought an under sink filter because I figured the only reason I Even have the filter spigot is for cleaning. Because I'm one of those sorts that does not like the smell or taste of copper. And of course I had replaced my galvanized pipes with copper pipes. So I went from excessive rust and sediment and garbage and just ultimately a terrible sometimes brown, sometimes orange. It kind of varied with the, with the weather, you know, coloring of the water. I go from that to crystal clear water. But it has this terrible odor because it's copper. So my two part plan was to get an under sink filter later and then get a whole home filter to supplement that. So it's two parts. One is to decrease sediment that heads towards the water heater that tells the hot water. The second is to decrease things like the odor and the smell for the copper wires. Because even if you know, because it's still running through copper pipes when it goes up to your outlets. So the duality of having filtration in line prior to your water heater and then at every outlet for under sink, for shower, et cetera, should give the best experience.
[00:03:49] That was the plan.
[00:03:51] But I didn't expect the faucet to go kaputz before I was ready to do the under sink. So I just bit the bullet and got this under sink deal. Allegedly last five years so far. So good, clean, fresh smells, no smell whatsoever. I'm not going to drink it, but smells great and everything else. So I get that done separately. Then I'm waiting on the faucets and for some reason they were supposed to be delivered yesterday as I record this. But apparently they're going to deliver at the same time as the sink, which I ordered a pedestal sink for the first floor to replace that terrible. It's one of those cabinet type of deals and it's horrible. It's too small, splashes all over the place, the faucets leaks, nobody knows why. So I figured, okay, time for me to kind of put my Tim the Tool man on and just fix it myself. I gotta figure out how to get the old one out of there, but do all that and then replace the mirror because the mirror is absolutely terrible. So I'm going to be doing a lot of first floor renovations, including possibly tile backsplash. I've not committed to that one, but I plan to turn that into a master bath because there's no logical reason that a first floor guest bathroom should have a full shower tub combination, in my opinion. I digress. Let's get to back to the whole election situation. So the story after, after the personal, the story is over four years. And I've said and ranted multiple times about the fact that American citizens are struggling. We're struggling. Even though certain people in the current administration would swear that we're not suffering, or they would swear that our suffering is based on something other than their design. But the truth is, they caused the very suffering that we are still dealing with. I don't know if anybody's been paying attention to the news. There are some places that are reimplementing mask mandates, and they're doing it around flu season because they believe there's going to be a spike of it. And multiple people speculated it was going to be basically a permanent something. It's always going to come around flu season, and they're going to spike. What people didn't expect is the return of mask mandates. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the implementation or reimplementation of mask mandates directly contradicts the messaging coming from Joe Biden himself when he went up on the air to in front of the nation and said, you're okay, you're not gonna. If you get that, you get the vaccine, you're gonna be fine. You're not gonna catch it. Of course, that was not true, because it seems as though having, you know, catching COVID might actually. The odds might improve, as in, you might have a greater probability of catching it if you're vaccinated. Of course, that's the message. So you have this duality of messaging I just referred to first. It's you're okay, you're not good, you're not going to get. You're not going to catch this for taking the vaccine. And then, of course, the boosters and the constant messaging that this is the only way to keep you alive, but yet there's a return of mask mandates. If there's a return of mask mandates, what is it that we're trying to protect from? What they're trying to protect from, and it largely has to deal with the hospital system, is the fact you have immunocompromised, compromised people out there, and they could still catch the virus. Obviously, there are stories around people who are waiting for organ transplants who are being denied because they chose not to take the vaccine. So if the case is made that the vaccine doesn't really prevent you from catching COVID I don't think anybody would have a problem with this per se, because the flu vaccine does not prevent you from getting the flu.
[00:07:27] So if they had been transparent and truthful about the messaging to begin with, to say this is not going to stop you from catching it. It's designed to improve your odds of surviving from it. If there have been transparency and honesty, there probably would have been a greater level of adoption of the vaccine. But because that's not the way they work, we now have this spin where some people, tinfoil though they might be, are swearing that the vaccine is actually what's killing people. My point is their messaging has always been, it's always been lacking transparency. It's always been staged to try to calm fear. Even if I have to lie, I don't personally want to be lied to to protect my feelings. And I don't like this narrative that society has to be protected and that we cannot handle the truth.
[00:08:21] That's my beef with the messaging over the past four years. I would rather have the truth. And then here's what we can do with that truth, which could be and really should have been shutting down businesses is not the right answer. But if we have to do it, we need to come up with money to help support the system until we get past this thing. I'm not talking stimmies of little pittances of $1,400 and $600. I'm talking to where companies at will. Employment is null right now. There's a freeze. You cannot just terminate somebody for the hell of it. You could terminate somebody if they're a straight up slacker and you can prove it. And we're going to ask you to prove documentation that they're a straight up slacker. You can terminate somebody if they violate a policy and you have to document what policy, when and how, and you have to have document trails. We will give you the empowerment to fire people, but you must now have a reason. It's no longer at will is my point.
[00:09:23] If we allow working from home, if the employee says I can do the job from home and they can prove that there's no viable reason for them to be in the office, you will allow them to work from home and you will not fire them for wanting to work from home. Meanwhile, we will help support, to a reasonable degree it can't be excessive, but to a reasonable degree, some of the financial burden this places upon you. For example, we'll help with some of the expenses for your Internet, for your VPN access, for the ability to extend more computers, more mobile computers out in the field, for your phone services. We will help subsidize these services by paying those utility providers directly on your behalf so you don't have to apply for it, which Is what they did instead is force people to apply for this stuff. What they should have done is say, go to every utility and say you're not going to send them a bill until we say turn it back on. But right now, Internet companies, phone companies, television, I'm not saying, but Internet, telephone, these two services, electricity that service, water that service, sewer that service, trash that service, these services. You will not send those customers a bill until we tell you it's all good. In the meantime, we'll make sure that you get money because I would rather you send money to those services that are critical for us to survive than to send those money overseas. Some people swear that we're not sending money overseas and that the money that's actually going is in the form of electronics equipment technologies that already exist. No, that's part of it. But there is actual money being shipped overseas in the form of the lack of tariffs against some of these companies where we have to buy that money from some of those countries where we're shipping it overseas to pay them. So let's be honest here. We now are connecting the dots over to what former President Donald Trump, current candidate Donald Trump, he's advocating, which is an increase in tariffs, the increase in tariffs. He's given this wild eyed message about, well, we don't need income taxes anymore. We used to not have income taxes with all tariffs. And he's correct, it was all tariffs. At a point the countries over international whined and complained and here we are saddling the American people with income taxes.
[00:11:38] However, the income tax itself is not the main problem. The main problem is that American citizens don't have a viable way to keep up with the changes in the income tax structure over time. The whole thing is convoluted. Anybody that's done taxes themselves understands it's a scam. We know it's a scam. If you're an employee working for a company, the IRS already has all the numbers of what you made because the employer is required to report that to the IRS on a quarterly basis. They already know what you make. They already know how much you are entitled to get back. They already know how much you actually owe. They know that already. The reason you're forced to submit your tax return and beg for a refund is because all the tax filing companies lobby year over year over year to keep it on the books, to require that they fill out that stupid form. When Donald Trump was in office, he pushed to simplify the tax form for the regular individuals. I've seen the simplified form it's somewhat simplified, but the problem is in that same Tax Cuts and Jobs act, he introduced other types of changes that were detrimental that people didn't understand. For example, I gave in one of the past episodes the idea that when you get some sort of a bonus for hiring, for getting hired a new company, they're giving you some sort of relocation package or something where they're supposed to be giving you money up front to try to help you when you're going to a different place. That incentive is because a lot of companies started to realize that the vast majority of talents don't exist in their local regions, they don't exist in a local city, they don't exist in the state, or they might have had a mass exodus at some point. And they're trying to entice the best talent to come back there. Because most of them rushed over to the west coast, most notably Washington and California, to those big time companies who throw money on you, they lost a lot of key talent. So in order to entice people back over, they would offer the relocation assistance packages and other bonuses to try to entice you to come in. Now the problem is, unless if you're a C level executive, that's usually a pittance. You're talking 3,000 bucks, 6,000 bucks. I don't know if anybody listening has ever tried to do a relocation for work reasons.
[00:13:54] I almost can assure you 100%. I said almost. Almost can assure you that trying to relocate for 6,000 bucks is a. Is an exercise in frustration, is not reality. It's. You have to have much more than that in order to effectively relocate. I speak from practice in this, having now done this multiple times. California to Washington, Washington to Oregon. Oh, sorry. Washington to Colorado, Colorado to Oregon, Oregon to Nevada, Nevada to where I'm at now. But also all the different traveling that I was doing where I was working for somebody else across the nation. You count it, the situations where I got a relocation package, it was nothing. But at the time it was at least tax free. When he did the tcja, he made it to where that's now taxable and it's treated as income. So you only get like half of it. And of course, the more you make, the more they take. So now it's even harder. Instead of that 6,000 bucks that you were trying to count on to help a little bit with the moving expenses, you're given a pittance of 3,000 bucks that you have to try to make work. And you got to watch out for some of these slimy shady companies that are right in that offer letter that they have the right to take the money back if you leave. By the way, they don't have the right to take the money back regardless, because it's income, regardless.
[00:15:15] You're dealing with this, that tax, what it did is it adds burden on the relocation site for you, the employee. It doesn't add burden on them, the employer. It adds burden on you, the employee. Because now you can't bank on an easy way. And the companies are not going to, as I said, give you enough money to comfortably relocate. They also are not going to pay you according to the true cost of living in that area. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to companies out there in freaking Boston, Massachusetts, where the median price of a house at the time, and that was years ago, was over $700,000. And I was trying to tell these yokels, you are going to have to pay me 250 bucks an hour if you want me out there, because that's what it takes for your cost of living for me to comfortably live there. And of course, they laughed me out the room, as I would do if somebody asked me this, but that's the reality.
[00:16:16] You can't. That's why I'm saying, let people work from home. Let me work from wherever I want to be. Don't force me to come here. Let me live in a place that it does not have this crazy cost of living. I'll drop my rate down. Now, we all get what we want. But you have to live without being able to drag me into a conference room every time we turn around. You have to live without seeing me sit in a cubicle box eight hours a day for no real ad value. You have to deal with the fact that you can't just watch me do nothing because that's what I would be doing the first week or two. You have to deal with the fact that I'm not sitting here being distracted by a bunch of people who are slackers. You have to understand that as long as I'm delivering product, it doesn't matter where I sit because of the nature of my work. Not everybody's the same way. Some trades do require physical presence, like the medical trade. Right?
[00:17:11] I'm saying there's intrigue on all sides to fix this problem, but nobody understands the problem enough to provide a viable solution forward that everybody can be okay with. So now, when you're about to head to the election booths, the one thing I want you to think about is not only your own wellbeing, but that of the entire country.
[00:17:35] I saw an article, this was in the Economist, by the way, and I call them the E Compromise because of what they said in the article. I'm not going to quote what they said because I think it's a garbage rag now, but I will paraphrase what they said. I grabbed a screenshot because I wanted to hold that in perpetuity for how ignorant these people are.
[00:17:54] What they said, in effect, was that Kamala Harris is inept. Effectively, that's what they said. But she's not as inept as the others, as in Democrats that were trying to go. Mind you, Kamala Harris was not selected by the people. Kamala Harris was basically forced into it. They just want to rush into something because she was already in office. They didn't want to have to go through the Rick and Moro of having the American people choose the candidate to represent the Democrats. So people now are holding her under a microscope about her policies and about how she would handle things. And the Economist essentially said, essentially, she sucks on the economy. She's not really going to do a good job there. She's a machine politician. That's a quote. That basically she's just going through the motions and she doesn't really have clean answers and she doesn't really have solutions to problems. But when we talk about climate change and abortion, she's greatly better. So you should vote, vote for her, not Trump. That this is all we're caring about, all we care about is climate and abortion. And I want to stress that messaging is exactly how you turn off male voters, because what you're doing is you're focusing on one subset of the population. You're focusing on the subset of women who support abortion, but also the subset of women for which it matters because it's not all of them, just to be clear. And you're completely disenfranchising those who religious beliefs do not follow that line of thought. So you what they don't get is they don't get how those kinds of messages easily turn off certain subsets of the populations that you think you have a lock on.
[00:19:37] What you should do is focus on the thing that affects us all first, the economy. If you don't focus on the economy first, you will disinfect. Nobody would disagree that we are financially hurting. Even the wealthy want things better. The poor to the wealthy to the middle. The economy affects us all and we all think it sucks. We all see the damage. There are many of us who remember 2 for 5 on the Big Macs and used to be a dollar and whatnot for gas and, you know, simpler times, simpler prices, easier ways. I would argue, though the rush to technology contributed to some of the spikes that we saw. I would argue that the rush to digital banking and things contributed to some of the spikes we saw. I would argue that companies forcing text messages, which forces you to own a phone, which is a saddle plan I'll talk about in a second, contributed to a lot of this. I would argue that the rush to all these technological things contributed to a lot of it. And that's not the fault of either side. I'm saying though, if you don't position your messaging around fixing the economy at whole. So I'm talking about imports of said technology. I'm talking about making sure if we're going to be pulling stuff from China that we're actually nailing them for the privilege of taking American dollars instead of letting them take American dollars back overseas on a discount. Kamala Harris has talked a little bit about regulations and tariffs, but she is not anywhere near as aggressive as Donald Trump. Now, I think it's an understanding gap of people that don't understand why you can't just go all in on tariffs, but that the lack of tariffs that we have right now, or at least the lackadaisical approach to tariffs is hurting all of us. They don't understand it. So let me simplify how this all works. When you have tariffs on these imports. The vast majority of what we consume is coming from overseas, usually China, Japan, but Mexico, but usually it's China. So if we say the vast majority of what we're consuming is coming from China as consuming. I'm talking about consumers. When I talk, we have to ask how complicit is Amazon in that rush. Amazon is the vast majority right now of where you can get diverse products. You can't get the same diversity of products from Walmart or from Best Buy. You simply can't. And then they're rushing to shut down malls and rushing to shut down local stores and mom and pops can't survive. What does that leave you with? It leaves you with this one subset of products that are all coming from overseas because that's all you can get for diverse products. Number one, quality declines because when we get it from overseas, they're not hold held to the same quality standard that we would get if it was United States under those regulations. So if we don't get the same level of quality, what are you paying for? You're paying to Replace those within two years or whatnot. If it lasts that long and you're contributing to waste, which does what damages our landfills and overflows them, which does what causes land constraint, which does what causes the government to then start seizing land and doing all sorts of garbage with it. No pun intended. My point, if people are feeling as though they have to go to Amazon to get certain types of products that they would like to have because their options otherwise are being taken away, you're steering them to a certain way of living. And when you steer them to a certain way of living, it might sound good that your prices go down. Buying from Amazon and getting prime and getting free delivery and everything else, but that money's being shifted elsewhere. The money's going overseas. As the money goes overseas and they're benefiting off of our money, they're making bank we. Meanwhile, you're still struggling. So all that savings didn't do you any good. Why? Because you're having to replace all this garbage when you really shouldn't have. I remember the messaging about light bulbs where there was a theory, there was planned obsolescence, where it was strategic that these bulbs would fail when they otherwise could survive, and they choose not to. Well, guess what? Most of the bulbs that you're using are not manufactured here. The argument or the excuse has always been that if we hire American citizens, it's going to be too expensive to pay them because payroll, you have to pay them a good salary in order to retain them. The truth is, if we were to give them better quality at work, as far as an experience working, we might be able to keep them a little bit easier than we currently do. So, for example, instead of in the white collar where we force them to sit in the chair for eight hours a day, how about we actually respect the rules of why salaried became a thing in the first place? And if they get the work done in four hours, they get to leave. Who cares? The reason they don't do that is because most companies tie productivity to the amount of hours you sit in a chair, despite multiple studies confirming it has nothing to do with how long you sit in a chair doing the work and more about clarity of the requirements of the task. They don't want to build that clarity because to do that requires a level of competency that is not taught in the college system anymore, the same college system that is increasing in expense. So when I talk about how you are being saddled upon, it all connects together. People look at prices of bread on the shelf, no it's more than that, because let's just take for a moment what it takes to apply for a job. The simplest, easiest task. In the olden days, you would simply pull out the regular newspaper. Yes, I'm talking the physical piece of paper, newspaper. And you pull out the classified ads. And there was tons of jobs listed there that simply said, email your resume, fax your resume, or give us a call for an interview. Was that dumb? Simple. You email the resume, you got a response back. To set up an interview, you give a call, they say, when can you come in? Bring your resume, you fax it in there, you get a call, when can you come in there? Computers were not part of this initially. It was simply, I get the resume, I take a look at it, and I call you for an interview. And if it seems like you fit, I give you the opportunity. Used to be that simple. In the current situation, when you want to apply for a job, in almost every situation I can think of, that's not fast food, and even some fast food do it. They'll require you to go to some website. They'll require you to create an account, even though you're only going to use it one time. After you create the account, you fill in all this basic information that's already written on the resume. Do you know why they make you duplicate that information? Because what you're doing is your data entering into what's referred to as their ats, AKA the Applicant Tracking System, so that they don't have to hire somebody to do that same keying, because that's considered low value work. After you enter your basic information, it asks you to list all your job history, which is already on the resume as it is. They ask you for the date ranges, they ask you for the reason that you left. They sometimes ask you for the salary, and in some cases that's actually illegal, but they still, they'll ask it anyway. If you don't answer the questions, you are automatically disqualified. And in some cases, they're looking for certain buzzwords in what you say or you get trashed by the ATS system. In many cases, they're discriminating against not only the college that you went to, but the type of degree that you obtained when you went to college, assuming you did go to college. And if you didn't go to college, they'll discriminate because you didn't go to college or didn't say that you did. Even if you have 50 technical degrees that tell you that you're 100% competent, even if you've got 10 years of experience in the craft. Even if you've got five different references willing to back you, they still won't accept it if you don't have the kind of degree that they're looking for. All of that's programmed in the ats. Assuming you get past this, that, number one, assumes that you had some sort of computer technology, if not a phone or something else, to be able to do that. You can always go to the library and make use of their computer in order to do the application process. Many people don't know that because that's not broadcast or advertised. It's kind of assumed. So if your parents didn't have the wherewithal to take you to the library to help you understand the way libraries work and the kind of resources available to you, you have no way of knowing that that's a resource available to you. So you might assume that you need to have your own technology. And that's fine if you do, because you might have other reference sources that you need that are sitting at your house. Well, between the technology that you must own in order to do this process, you have to pay for some form of Internet access. That might be a mobile plan, or it might be regular home Internet. If it's home Internet, you probably are paying at least 50 bucks a month for said Internet. If it's mobile, you're probably paying at least 30 bucks a month for said mobile access, assuming it's not prepaid. You put this all together. You need electricity in order to power the same device that you need to do this application process. You need Internet in order to make the connection to go. So what used to be essentially a free endeavor, minus a telephone line that was like 10 bucks a month, you now might be spending upwards of 100 to $150 a month just for the privilege of applying for jobs. But you have to do that because they forced you online instead of the local paper. That overhead of monthly expense is something you must have. People take for granted that you must have Internet of some kind. We don't even care about phone service. We care about Internet service. That's on top of everything else that you do. Some people choose to keep the cable. I don't know why, but some people do. That's an extra expense. But that's in addition to the other utility bills that you're required to pay in order just to survive. The electric, the water, the sewer, you take this tier. Many people don't account for all the utilities that are necessary just to apply For a job. Let's assume that you get a job and let's assume it lets you work from home. If it lets you work from home, the amount of money that you spend for sufficient Internet to be able to work from home, it bites into the amount of money, the amount of salary that you would make. Not many people make significant amounts when they're working from home. Some people might only make $40,000 a year, that's fine. But when you have this tier of 100 to $150 per month, that eats into your disposable income. A lot of people don't plan for that. If you're not working from home, you're still paying those expenses. It's just that you're not using it. So it actually behooves you to work from home simply so that you make use of what you're paying for. My point only is that it sucks that you have to pay for those things. What the government could have done is say no. Internet is a critical utility. Everybody's going to get basic Internet access that they do not have to pay for. It must be wired in every home like they once did with basic landline service. They chose to get away from basic landline service because it benefited those utility companies and added money to their pockets. That's how the game works. The money is shifted to the businesses. The money is shifted overseas and away from you and I. That's why when we hear our candidates not speaking about those, we should speak up against that. We should be in support of things that flow money back towards us because it's all hard on us. If we don't do that, it's going to get even worse. In a world of rushing to EVs and all this garbage because they're not doing anything to subsidize it. You might say there's tax credits if you buy an ev. You do, do, do. The tax credit is a one time thing. It's a burden because you have to ask for it. In some cases the dealer has already padded profit to negate it. It's not helping the problem. This assistance of the problem is against the monthly bill you pay for electricity. I would love to see solar panels are essentially zero cost to you because it benefits the government for us to have solar that they're collecting the power that goes back to the main grid. Instead we have the utility companies pushing back on the buyback process where they don't want that and they want to charge you more money for the privilege of routing the energy back to them. So instead of what we should be doing, which is saying we'll help you do your job by collecting this natural source of energy so you don't have to do it and you give us a credit so we don't have a bill, they're figuring out ways to still charge you. Same with the EVs, where the gas taxes are going to go away. They're figuring out ways to charge you based on per use and the rolling of the tires and all this garbage. I'm saying to you all, when you hear the different candidates tell you what their focus and priority is, I am a firm believer that the primary focus for everybody should really be about the economy. The economy affects all of us and nobody benefits from a candidate who ignores it. You have one candidate here who has at least spoken about fixing the economy. Some of what he says is wild eyed, but he at least speaks about doing it. The other candidate doesn't seem to give a damn about the economy whatsoever and instead is focused on climate change, which means a rush to EVs, which is going to damage the economy. That's what it is. Or abortion, which again disproportionately aligns to one set of people within that population and not everybody. One can support abortion.
[00:32:58] The other candidate has said, I'm cool with abortion, I just believe it needs to be state specific. That gives you choice, your choice, which is a hard choice, I understand, but at least it's a choice that gives everybody equal weight. It just asks you uproot and move to a place that is more in line with your values as opposed to screaming and squawking because your local doesn't want to support what it is. And so you want to enforce it at the complete disrespect of everybody else's belief system just because it's what you want. That's not the way the country was intended to work. The country was intended to work, to allow us the choice and flexibility to move where these places align with our values and our principles. Right now, where I live does not align with my personal principles. I get sick and tired of getting flyers every single time talking about one side of the equation. And it's not equal, it's not fair. But I ignore it because I'm here, because I choose to be, because I had to make some moves for my customer. That's fine. The point though, you have to decide, and I'm asking you to decide for yourself. What's so bad about a world where you're given additional choices even though it means uprooted move and go somewhere that more aligns with your values and principles. Some might say, I'm dealing with somebody who's an invalid, or I'm dealing with somebody that's a personal something, or I don't have the money to do it. These are valid concerns. That leads me back once again. The economy's got to be fixed, because no matter what, no matter what you want or believe, no matter which way you swing, everybody's harmed by the economy right now. If we don't fix it, it limits the same choices that we would otherwise have. So I'm imploring people, consider a world where you have individual choice without trampling on other people's choices. Let other people choose whatever they want. That's their business. It doesn't matter. I have nothing to say about what they want to do or what they choose to do. This whole Amber Rose situation was hardcore. You talk hardcore Democrat, 100% all in because she came from the same era that I was brought up in, which is, quote, this family always was Democrat. And then she listens to the message, and all of a sudden it's like, you know what? This isn't what I believe, and I don't support it. Messaging around, you know, supporting this person puts us back in chains. And this type of rhetoric that nobody believes it, nobody with common sense believes it. Some people are afraid to speak out against the nonsense that we hear when Joe Biden goes there in front of Charlamagne, the God, and says, if you don't vote for me, then you ain't black. We know intelligent people know when you're being spoken down to and you're being talked to like a child. And some of those we don't support. Well, that hasn't stopped. Kamala Harris just went up and did her whole spiel about what she's gonna do for, quote, black men in total disregard of the Asian Americans out there that are struggling. And yes, there are some, believe it or not, of the Mexican Americans out there that are struggling. And yes, believe it or not, there are some. And, oh, by the way, there's white Americans out there that are struggling, too. It's not just black men. And to try to isolate black men is called pandering. And when you pander, it's transparent to anybody who's intelligent paying attention. They're pandering to one set. I don't want a world where you're pandering to one set of people. I want where you're doing something that benefits everybody. I don't care about this. 01% of squawkers of the Greta Thunbergs of the world who don't like a little bit of smoke in the air. I don't care about them if I know hybrid vehicles are perfectly fine. They minimize reliance on fossil fuels. They get you from A to B. They're cheaper than EVs. They're the right answer for where we are as a society. I'm going to support that, not EVs, because I understand the game. That's one example point. I am not supportive of catering or pandering to one group of people. And that's what Kamala Harris has done, despite my every effort to discourage her from doing such a thing. I don't know that we do or don't have smarter people this time around. I don't know that. Because we have some people who came of age who are now eligible to vote and they are younger people who don't understand. There are people talking about, we strike communism. That's the most offensive thing other than this whole black man situation I've ever heard, because these are. That tells me our education system is failing people. People who are screaming, wanting to quote, try communism. People saying, well, what's wrong with socialism?
[00:37:47] That is a failure of our education system. These people have never lived through it. That's why I think some of their voices, and I know that they're being influenced by other people, but I think some of their voices are dangerous voices. Yet what we're told is that this person has a dangerous voice because of locker room nonsense that he says or because of some celebrity comedian that he hired or whatever that has nothing to do with is nowhere close. Nowhere close to the kinds of things we hear from the other side. So when Amber Rose flips the script and says, I don't like that rhetoric, I don't like what I'm hearing. This is really what I believe, and this is what I think is the right answer. And then she gets completely attacked. Now look at the narrative. Look at the messaging. The messaging is, we'll embrace you as long as you follow our groupthink. We'll support you as long as you follow along with the sheep and the herd. But the moment that you decide your choice is, this isn't for me. And she didn't say anything offensive. She said, this isn't for me. This isn't what I believe. I actually believe this over here. So I'm going to go here and just show my support here and you attack that person. Guess what? Now what you have is the border, the straight up definition of wolf and sheep's clothing. Because that herd, they're all wolves that are putting on sheep's clothing. And they'll gladly attack somebody for making personal choice because they're not, along with the group, think that becomes a cult. People swear that MAGA is a cult magazine, but not everybody that supports Donald Trump is in maga. But this side over here, it's like it's all or nothing. You're either part of the cult or you're an enemy. Why is it that way? Why can't somebody be like a Joe Rogan? Joe Rogan doesn't identify as Democrat or Republican. I believe he's libertarian. He's on the middle and he looks at both sides. But he's also critical of some of the stuff he hears from the Democrat side. Some of the stuff he gets wrong, he doesn't always get it right. But yes, he's critical of some of the rhetoric on this side. He's critical of the idea that somebody can't just change their mind. Candace Owens has said, I don't know why somebody can't just change the mind. Candace Owens talked about how the moment that I woke up and said, you know, this is what I believe, all of a sudden she was getting criticized by the Republican side. What about this? How about this? What do you believe? That that set. That's the cult.
[00:40:05] That narrative is dangerous. It's unhealthy. It's what got Obama elected in the first place.
[00:40:11] I'm putting it in passion plea out to anybody who cares to listen. And I don't. If you don't care to listen, you didn't care to listen that long, that's great, but hopefully you care to listen this long. I'm putting impassioned plea and the only plea I've ever put now vote with your mind, not with your heart.
[00:40:27] Which means the policies are what matter. Right? Listen to both sides. Listen to them. I'm talking. Listen to the policies. Ignore the rhetoric. Ignore the insults. Ignore the personal, ignore the nonsense. Listen to the policies.
[00:40:47] You'll hear very clear, in this case, delineations of what they believe.
[00:40:53] Kamala Harris essentially is campaigning on four more years of Joe Biden with slight changes. She even said, I don't see anything that should change. Okay, Donald Trump is basically campaigning. I want to do what I did before, but I gotta get more aggressive with it. That's essentially what it is. I didn't finish. I didn't get a chance to finish. Why ever he didn't Get a chance to finish whatever. But that's essentially what he's going to do. He said, I want to do what I was doing, but I want to do more of it. Because now it's a different. It's different. The economy's jacked up, China's winning, there's war. We're trying to lock this down and get this cleaned up. And he doesn't have a new pandemic. Or at least the theory is, if it was man made, there might be another one. But he doesn't believe that that's going to happen, which would give him the chance to do something. Of course, if he has an inept Congress, it won't matter. Which is why I'm asking you not to pay attention to all the rhetoric, because again, the President is not the one who makes the rules. The President says, I'm going to push to have these things happen. Their job is to push Congress to make the laws that are in support of what they're trying to do. To do that, he has to have a Congress that supports or she has to have a Congress that supports what they're going to do. What's the likelihood that Kamala Harris will get Congress on board with what she would talk about? I would emphasize she would struggle to get Congress on board with anything that she advocates, which makes her, what, a lame duck president? So I am not telling you which way to vote because I can't tell you which way to vote. I am asking you to listen to the policies on both sides and vote with your brain, not with your heart around the policies, not around what personally triggers you about either candidate. If all you care about. And this is, this is in the Economist, if you don't believe me, according to the Economist, the only thing Kamala Harris is essentially good for is climate change and abortion rights. That's a pair. According to them, that's all she's really good for. If that's all you care about, you have your marching orders. Everything else. Everything else. According to the Economist, at least Donald Trump has the edge in terms of policy. Now, they would say, regardless, all that he's dangerous. How is he dangerous? If the. If you're saying that everything else he's superior in policy, that would seem to make the case that you probably should vote for him. They're going off emotions. They're triggered off emotions. But they had to reluctantly acknowledge that this woman is inept on everything else but climate change and abortion. Is she really logical with the abortion argument? I would say no, because I believe it should be a state decision because it gives choice without offending other people. It gives certain groups who want it the ability to uproot and go. The counter was, well, what if they want to cross state lines to get the care? That's not the way it works. You can't just cross over there, get the care to come back. It's just uproot and move. Like literally move and say, okay, that's where they support it. It's what I want. I'm going to uproot and move and then figure out a way. And I'm not suggesting it's easy. I'm suggesting figure out a way to embrace the new place that you go. Because chances are if the place that you're in does not support or align with the values that you have, they were never on your side to begin with. And that's part of the problem that got us this far down the road of danger is we have states that cannot agree, and so then the default is to request some guidance from the government, and then the government gets involved, and then we end up with Roe v. Wade. And Roe v. Wade tramples on certain people's rights. What Trump is at least proposing is let's, let's go back, let's fix that and give the power to the states. Giving the power to the states essentially undoes the damage that Roe v. Wade did to the subset of people that supported it by saying, there are stor states out there that want you to have that right. So move to those states. And if you don't want those rights or you don't support those, move to those states that don't support it that align with your values. But yes, it does mean you have to get out of your safe space and go to another place that's different than what you're used to. I'd love to hear casual talk radio.net or the comments. I'd love to hear why that's a bad approach, not why you disagree with it. I want to hear why it's bad to have choice of where you go and why there's such a fervent push for the government to have oversight. Because that is another form of communism and I personally don't support it. I support individual freedoms and personal choice and the ability to uproot and go somewhere that more aligns with your values. I just support that. You might not. You might not care.
[00:45:45] I would hope everybody listening cares about a solid, robust economy that benefits all of us if you do. Kamala Harris According to the economist Kamala Harris, ain't that you have your marching orders, then if you do. But you have to also understand that sometimes you're not going to be able to win everything. Sometimes the candidate supports one thing, doesn't support another thing, and you can't have both. And sometimes you have to pick what's more important. So if truly climate change is more important to you than the economy, you have your marching orders. That's Kamala. That's clearly Kamala Harris. Because Donald Trump does not subscribe to the narrative that we're going to die in five years. Because that same thing's been said for 30 years now. And it's, you know, you might look at, okay, weird weather conditions and all that kind of stuff and say, that's important to me. You have your marching orders is an obvious choice. Tariffs, you might understand them to be able to pick, but both of them support tariffs, just to a different extreme.
[00:46:48] Do the research and understand the policies and then choose which one matters to you. I'll just tell you in all fair disclosure, I believe the economy has to be fixed before we can do anything else because it's so far bad. I speak as somebody who remember when Bill Clinton was the first to get us balanced and then it all got jacked up with Bush. But I would like to see a fixed economy. I would love to see that it's easier to buy a house. And I don't mean socialist giving money away for down payments. I'm talking about, let's get the rates back under control so that we can get some of these people who are sitting on 2% rates and refuse to sell. Get them up out of the homes so that we don't have to keep excessively building houses that I don't think we need. Let's free up the red tape. Let's get it away from the nonsense. Like right now, I have to have a permanent for basically anything I want to do. Let's free up the red tape and let homeowners improve their homes without a permit for every damn thing. Let's make it easier to do things, including easier to get a job, by the way. Let's fix the regulations around employers who discriminate against people, which is still a thing. Let's make it easier to do stuff so we don't have to have the government get too much in the business. The reason that they have to get in the business is because, unfortunately, they've made it too hard to do stuff. And then they dangle the carrot in front of your face of all these stimmies and all this free money. Quote. Which does what? Jacks up the deficit. That's my opinion. I will stick to it. Nobody will change my mind on it. Get out and vote tomorrow. Again, vote with your mind, not with your heart. But make sure you're comfortable and confident in whatever way you choose to lean.
