Politically High-Tech
A podcast with facts and opinions on different topics like politics, policy, technology especially AI, spirituality and development! For this podcast, development simply means tip, product and/or etc. can benefit humanity. This show aims to show political viewpoints and sometimes praises/criticizes them. He is a wildcard sometimes. For Technology episodes, this show focuses on products (mostly AI) with pros, cons and sometimes give a hint of future update. For Development episodes, the podcast focuses on tips to improve as a human spiritually, socially, emotionally and more. All political, AI lovers and haters, and all religions are welcome! This is an adult show. Minors should not be listening to this podcast! This podcast proudly discriminates bad characters and nothing else.
Politically High-Tech
286- No Safe Spaces: The Death of Liberal Streak with Evan Turk Esq.
We break the "liberal streak" on Politically High Tech with guest Evan Turk from the American Rights Alliance, diving into controversial political topics while seeking common ground across partisan divides.
• Evan introduces his work with the American Rights Alliance, originally funded by Donald Trump Jr. to defend January 6th protesters
• Discussion of alleged 2020 election irregularities and concerns about media suppression of alternative viewpoints
• Questioning the official January 6th narrative and highlighting inconsistencies in how protesters were treated
• Exploration of parental rights versus government authority in cases involving transgender minors
• Finding unexpected common ground on healthcare reform despite different political perspectives
• Critical examination of partisan politics and the importance of challenging one's own beliefs
• Emphasis on family, religion, and creating a better world for future generations as universal values
The American Rights Alliance welcomes support for their legal defense work. Visit AmericanRightsAlliance.org to learn more about their cases and mission.
Donate at https://americanrightsalliance.org/donation/
Follow your host at
YouTube and Rumble for video content
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxk1oJBVw-IAZTqChH70ag
https://rumble.com/c/c-4236474
Facebook to receive updates
https://www.facebook.com/EliasEllusion/
Twitter (yes, I refuse to call it X)
https://x.com/politicallyht
welcome everyone to politically high tech with your host, elias, for the liberals. I know you've been enjoying your streak. It's about to be broken. This is not a safe dun. This is not a safe space. I'm anti-safe space. I'm not going to push one point of view over the other. You know I've invited conservative, right and even libertarian guests before. I don't favor either. I think both ideologies have their strengths and some got their weaknesses, and there's times I just think both parties are just equally stupid. But anyway, so for the liberal streak it is dead. I'm not sure it's going to recover. That's all I'm going to say about that. You had your wave. I got to be honest.
Speaker 1:The last season I think the liberals had a head start was season three. Ooh, that was years ago. That was almost four years ago. We had that kind of head start. Only it's been right-leaning people taking in, and then I had to invite the left just to balance it out just a little bit. Yes, I'm exposing myself here because I try to balance things out. Even I have to do some intervention, not because I favor them more, I'm just trying to provide balance. Do I agree with everything they say? No, but that's not what I'm doing here. I'm just trying to give you what they do right, show who they are, and then you decide. I want you to decide here.
Speaker 1:So far, a very intelligent audience. The average age is 45, so I'm sure you don't need me to tell. Tell you where to go. Point of directions. You know, you have an idea who you are and what you want. Okay, so with that somewhat random monologue out the way, let's introduce the guest. He is going to destroy the liberal streak here. Yep, is that you know, rest in peace. If it was a person would be dead right now. Be just a dead body bleeding somewhere. Use your graphic imagination. Let's welcome Evan Turk Esquire S. You know he has a lawyer background somewhere, so not easy to pull a, you know, a W in this victory. W is for win for those of you who prefer the traditional language, yes, okay. So to get this started, what do you want the audience and the viewers to know about you?
Speaker 2:I want them to know what I want them to know. That's a good question, that I consider myself objective, that there is another way of thinking. Hopefully they can hear me and be objective and not have what we call opinion bias, because they want the outcome to be one way. I've been an attorney, I've been in finance for quite some time and live in Boca Raton, florida, which is near the Winter White House, mar-a-lago, so that's really very important to how I got started into this charity called the American Rights Alliance, which was technically created about two years ago.
Speaker 2:It was funded by Donald Trump Jr. I was asked to create a legal defense fund especially for people who protested not rioters, protesters during January 6th, and it has expanded exponentially and we're working on various national cases and our goals are fundamental right for families for expression of religion and I, as a father of two, to see my children have a better world when I'm gone than what they started from. And it's really my job to be a steward of their next generation so that they could benefit from what I had from my parents and put them in a better position. And that's really what I'm all about and what we do with the American Rights Alliance, taking back common sense through freedom of speech, expression and making America great again.
Speaker 1:No, for some of you who hate Trump, who has the quote, quote Trump derangement syndrome. You're crawling, some of you, but you know, if you're crawling, that exposes something of you. Look, I am not the biggest fan of Trump, nor I am the biggest hater. You know, I kind of lean in the middle. Like some things he do, I don't like some things he does. Okay, I think everyone could agree with that, depending on their tastes. You know his mannerisms. It's not presidential. I think that's universally almost universally accepted. But that's a charm.
Speaker 1:It brings a base of people that they'll normally participate in politics, because all we talk about these you know old school politicians all they do is talk a good game, but they screw us over, and that's why he got elected. The system hasn't worked out for those people, so so they're just bashing them, and I'm not gonna lie, I've done some of that bashing. To be brutally honest, I decided to understand why they voted the way they vote. There's some there, you know. There's probably some good reasons to it, and some voted because they got tired of the way things were run. The status quo did not work out for those folks. That's why he just decided to be cynical, not give a rat's ass about it and just go on their merry way until he sold Donald Trump.
Speaker 1:Donald Trump was actually very different. He was undoubtedly different. Rather you love him or hate him, I don't care about that as much but he was different. He was not your normal contender. He won and he lost some battles. He's not going to admit that he lost. That's just the way he is. Get him to do that.
Speaker 2:I'll stop you here. One of the cases that we're working on right now is really exposing significant irregularities that would make statistical analysis impossible. So the fact that Biden had more votes than Obama or anyone in the history of this nation and at the time those votes came in during a time that was susceptible to fraud because of COVID, and the way that the system and freedom of expression. When you say that there was voter irregularity, you're shunned on being a you know, disbeliever or a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 2:We really can't, today's society, have an open argument or open conversation about really why we think that there was a lot of voter irregularity that just doesn't add up, especially in the mail-in ballots, and how COVID became something that was a very convenient opportunity for allowing a lot of mail-in ballots that were not adequately validated, and we have some significant irregularities that hopefully we will expose.
Speaker 2:And we don't have all the answers, but we have questions and those questions are very valid questions as to why we feel we meaning people who think that there was some voter irregularity and that's why people came to speak up during January 6th because it wasn't adding up. Now that some time has gone by, hopefully we could at least be open-minded and if we're wrong, which I don't believe we are we have a lot of evidence to prove otherwise. But if we are, at least we could have a valid conversation about it. And you're all into artificial intelligence. When you try to even use artificial intelligence on this matter, it prevents you. You don't have freedom of speech and AI nowadays on that subject, which I find quite disturbing.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah, I agree with the AI bias. Yeah, it's pretty apparent and well, it's not perfect, which is good, but it does need to improve. On. I get what you're talking about there our battles. I was looking more, I was thinking more about like, the court cases and all that, but hey, let's see if the 2020 you know election you know see the evidence expose irregular there is. I do agree one thing we should have an open conversation, such as shunning at all your election denier or your conspiracy theorist, because sometimes and sometimes I gotta emphasize this they can end up being right sometimes.
Speaker 2:And if you look at and I'm not here to drink the Trump Kool-Aid, so let me clarify that, Trying to be objectionable, objective, I mean I should say and look at things the way I see them, without opinion bias, and there is just a lot of irregularities, a lot of questions, and you know it all starts when Trump went down that escalator and the other side thought he had no chance in hell of ever winning.
Speaker 2:But they use this Russian collusion narrative as an insurance policy call it, and the fact that Hillary Clinton had a dossier that she paid for, that they knew was fraudulent, but they used it to potentially impeach the president. On top of that, when Biden was running against Trump and the FBI colluded with the left and eliminated freedom of speech on Hunter Biden's laptop, which could have influenced the election, because it's not about the amount of votes, it's an electoral college, it's about the swing states and those margins were extremely narrow. And these questions have answers, but we're not allowed to ask those questions, to get those answers which, for all Americans, we should ask why? Not just because it supports your position, but because it's anti-American, it's anti-constitutional and what could happen to one party could always happen back on the other side to the other party.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, I agree. That's why I hate when they start doing this unjust thing to one party. So once that party gets some power, they're going to do it the same amount or they might even double it, depending on. You know their urge of revenge, if you will, for lack of a better word. And yeah, I agree with you in that. That's like. This is the kind of politics you're dealing with. Is like revenge. I'm going to get you politics. And this is going on back and forth.
Speaker 1:The censures and all that, which I find a lot of it to be ridiculous. I don't care if the dev does it to Republican or vice versa, I just say it's. It's ridiculous. And but you know, impeachment is being used as more political tool. Censure is definitely being used more as a political tool. I don't care what side is using it. And yeah, it's. I mean, I'm curious about it. I'm a pro-open conversation kind of person. I can't really have to say that because I just shut down certain opinions. Yeah, let's look at it because there were some. I did saw some data that looked very weird. I never saw one-on-one percent precinct To me that on some of them at the time. Man, I find that very suspicious.
Speaker 2:I know the what's even more suspicious sorry for interrupting Go ahead Is that you can't question that you were shut down. Every time you asked a reasonable question, you were shut down. Why that's the scary part is that you know we are an organization that prides itself on freedom of speech First Amendment, rights to constitution. How our forefathers have envisioned this country, which I believe is what makes this country great today is that we have these freedoms that are unheard of in other countries. Is that we have these freedoms that are unheard of in other countries? Slowly but surely, you take away your ability to ask questions. What freedoms do we have?
Speaker 1:Yeah, that part I always disagree. I said, no, let's just let them say it out. It may sound goofy, it may sound crazy or even smart, you know, but maybe that's you know, sometimes's why those, that's why sometimes it's such a shit happens out, because it's silly and goofy. You could always kind of spin that just say, oh, look at this silly person and I haven't spewing conspiracy theories, I gotta do something like that or but they, but the fact that it's getting that got silenced, and you know, I, I disagree with that.
Speaker 2:I said no, let people say they gotta. They got the evidence to back it up. Even better, you could not, even if you weren't banned which a lot of people were banned. They had 30-day suspensions, they had their timeouts treated like they were babies. But even worse than that, in my opinion, was the fact that they would not spread your message. They eliminated your voice because they didn't agree with it, and that, to me, as a social media platform, freedom of speech for those who are users outweigh the freedom of speech for the business that's running the platform.
Speaker 2:Because in the First Amendment, it's not just freedom of speech, it's free press. How do you have free press when you can't express yourself? You don't have freedom of the press anymore. So it brings a lot of constitutional issues and it just scares me because it's not necessarily my viewpoint. It could be the opposite viewpoint. There's a lot of things I disagree with, but I fundamentally will fight for you, for the right to express that. And that was what was scary, because the first time in recent history, that right, that freedom of expression, was taken away and so many supporters on the left were accepting to it because it supported their narrative. What happens now that Trump's in office. We switch that role. Fortunately and hopefully we don't. But it's a double-edged sword and you have to pick. You know you can't have your sword and your shield at the same time. It's one or the other right now yeah, for sure, I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1:I know you, I know you're gonna have opinions about what law could change before we get into. You said something on january 6th, and I want to just explore deeper in that, even though me, I will personally like to move on, but since you're here, you got more insight, knowledge, my interest has re-emerged a little bit. It's not gonna. It's not gonna last, though, so let me just ask right now what should the public know about j6 in a case? Is that that the media does a report? Or they just simply not aware, or they're ignorant?
Speaker 2:to so. Are you familiar with the name ashley babbit?
Speaker 1:yes, that the one that got killed with the thing. Mike Pence's secret service detail.
Speaker 2:She was just there in there. We have evidence. She didn't have a weapon, she wasn't threatening anybody and she got shot in the face. The fact that the officer who shot her point blank was not ever punished brings the question as to why, the other thing that you have to ask. I mean, these are objective facts, fact-based, not opinions. I'm not trying to speculate here or not to opine there. I'm just trying to state the facts as they are. There are documents of timestamps that were altered to change the timeline, which would ultimately change the narrative on January 6th. We have proof of that. The question is why we have a police officer. We have video evidence of someone who, during the protest, tripped and fell and you have a police officer documented kicking her to her death.
Speaker 2:Nobody talks about it Again, why Nancy Pelosi had the ability to bring in the police, the Capitol Police. They asked repeatedly. She didn't. Why All of these questions that lead to what the outcome was? We can't ask because we are prohibited, shot or one of the things that they call January 6th, which is a protest. They call it an insurrection. Well, in the history of this world, there was never an insurrection without weapons. Why did they call it an insurrection, when it was a protest.
Speaker 2:The people that are referenced that have died during January 6th we find out later that they weren't accurate. The numbers were off and they were of natural causes or of things that were not directly related to January 6th, but they brought them as deaths from January 6th. Why deaths from January 6th? Why there's just a lot to this story. Why do people who weren't there, that really had no involvement in it, but they were a part of organizations that had names tied to it, served 18-year prison sentences the Oath Keepers as an example Not that I'm supportive of an organization or even opining on it but why were they charged with crimes when they weren't involved in it? It makes you think that there's something bigger than what we know, and all we want to know is the truth. They had a committee. The Democrats kicked off the Republicans on that truth committee and they only got the two congressmen that they know that weren't pro-Trump, pro-january 6th, or even the pro-MAGA movement. Why someone like Rand Paul, who is not a big Trump supporter, speaks out against him from time to time. Why wasn't he allowed to be on that committee? They call it the Republicans, call it the unselect committee. It was just a committee full of biased people that did not disclose enough evidence. They didn't allow specific evidence into their analysis. We have proof of that.
Speaker 2:Question is why it's scary to think that there's something behind all of this that is bigger than what we know, and we're not seeking anything other than the truth. Why can't we get the truth? It's just it's out there. We have a ton of evidence, but every time somebody brings it up, they are ridiculed or they're charged for some crime. That makes zero sense. People are in jail. Not that I'm necessarily advocating for someone like a Roger Stone in this world, but why did Roger Stone have to go to jail? And yet other people who have lied to Congress blatantly lied rather than what they got Roger Stone on. Why do they walk scot-free? And then why do they say that all we care about is nobody's above the law, and yet people are above the law.
Speaker 2:Why did Biden's son get a pardon for any and every crime you could imagine? You just have to answer these questions as to why and I don't have all the answers, but I have my suspicions. And when you can't get answers, you can't get information. It leads you to believe that your hunch is correct, I may not be. There may be valid answers to answer every single why I just said, but we can't get the answers. And the question is what are they hiding?
Speaker 1:right on. This is for especially those who got a certain bias that you know trump is wrong, even if he resurrects a baby somehow. You know that's how like. I don't agree with that hate and I don't agree that he's the next coming jesus either. Those are two extremes I would never agree with. I just say he's human being. He's a complex character. It's, like everybody else, very entertaining sometimes, if I admit I do get some chuckles for some of this stuff. But that sounds reasonable. You just want the truth, right? You know? This is not someone saying, yeah, trump is right no matter what, even if he bashes the woman's head open. I don't. He just wants the truth.
Speaker 1:I'm sure if donald trump is wrong to some criminal, I'm pretty sure heathen would not agree with it, you know. But I know a lot of I know to some of you who are anti-trump forget about Republican Democrat, just anti-Trump. Or you know, or you just think, or you just see January 6th as an insurrection. I know this is rattling you off or some of you may even tune out. That's fine. At the end of the day, I personally don't care about pleasing everybody, because if you please everybody, you get no one. If you please everybody, you get no one, and I've tried it before, I personally tried it before. You end up alone. That's the biggest irony. You end up alone.
Speaker 1:Me, I write a truth seeking and all that. Am I uncomfortable hearing some of this? Yeah, because there's something hidden, there's, you know, especially trying to tap into something that's probably true. You know you don't have to defend advances, but we, I think we should look into this, we should question these things. This is one of the first amendments, therefore, and yeah, it may sound like a right winger and you know, it's not a right or left kind of thing, it's just look at what's going on and look at it from a different angle. So, just what the media has fed us, or even the politicians, I should say, and because they both fed us the narrative, because, look, the government is capable of lying, politicians lie up through the roof, doesn't matter democrat, republican or even independent, they have lied okay. So I think it's okay to question these things. I mean, I, I'm for it and I consider myself a moderate. Yeah, I think we should. We should question these things. I and one, I'm for it and I consider myself a moderate.
Speaker 2:I think we should question these things, I agree, and one of the questions that I have which perplexes me is if I'm wrong, I'll own it, but why would somebody on a different political side than mine object for finding out the truth? What is prohibiting them from that desire to say you know what? We gave you all the information. We thought you were a nut job to begin with. Now we know, we have the proof that you're a nut job or a conspiracy theorist, like why are you not giving us the answers? Like why isn't anyone talking about this and why do things just disappear? You know something we could all agree on both sides Jeffrey Epstein. Why don't we know what happened? All of a sudden? He did commit suicide. I don't know. A lot of questions aren't answered.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, that one's for sure. That one I was already pretty suspicious about. I was like, oh okay, something doesn't add up right away. Whoa, that one, I already knew something was up with. The Epstein thing in particular. Okay, you just don't commit to this. I got my theories and I say theories because I can't prove it. I could be wrong, I don't know. He somehow killed himself. I don't you know, but we don't have the answer. Go ahead.
Speaker 2:But why can't we ask questions without being told what the answer is? Where is the? You ask questions without being told what the answer is. Where is the? You know? Why isn't this being disclosed? Where is the transparency here? You know, and I'm speaking like at a left side right now because you know, I thought under the current administration we would get that answer, but we don't.
Speaker 1:Yeah, even the Trump administration is hiding some things, you know. So, especially with the, I think. Yeah, well, it was definitely something with the epstein. Yeah, you see, it's not. It's not a left or right kind of thing. Once you think about it, you know I jokingly say that the left has their, their street destroyed because this was more of a old objectivity. You know, I'm not gonna lie, I was trying to paint. It was right for a second, but kind of think about it, he's more oh, he's the oh. But regardless, the liberal streak is dead. It's not the way I suspected it, but it's still dead. That that fact stands. How I came about it? Yeah, it was flawed. I own it, just like he owns I. I own it, that's okay. He's probably. He probably leans to the right, that's okay, it doesn't bother me, I don't care if he leans right, left, independent.
Speaker 1:I don't give a rat's ass about that because, like I said, I'm anti-partisan Because I just go by what I think is best for the country at the end of the day Go ahead.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's three things that I really consider as the that's the strength of this country and we really need to get back to is family, religion and making this country and this world a better place for our children. And if we could agree on those three things, then fundamentally we start off on the same page. We could disagree on how we get there, but at least we have the same foundation degree on how we get there, but at least we have the same foundation. And that's really what we're trying to do with the American Rights Alliance. Although we were originally funded by Donald Trump Jr, as I mentioned, we are there for justice and if we see a cause that's not politically in our favor, it's not like we will turn a blind eye to it. At the end of the day, it's how do we make this world a better place for everyone based on those three criteria family, religion and the next generation.
Speaker 1:Sounds pretty good to me. I think that's a very good foundation starting point, if you will. Now let me ask you some law questions. They say one, but I'm going to ask two because I'm a little ambitious and greedy. If you could change two laws, what would they be?
Speaker 2:Two laws, okay. One of the things that really bothers me is how social media is not considered a news outlet, when 90% of people's news comes from social media and they are free from basically any liability. And social media is so influential that it could change elections, and I think it did in part not maybe this election, maybe, but the one before that. The second that I really have a distaste for is that Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading and yet you have someone like Nancy Pelosi, who can outperform any financial expert on Wall Street, but that's okay.
Speaker 2:You shouldn't be going into public office to make your money, you know, and it frustrates me. You have someone like Joe Biden, who's a career politician. He was a politician his whole life. How does he own three houses, same as Bernie Sanders? You know, practice what you preach, but really the law is you shouldn't be able to make millions and millions and millions, if not billions of dollars from public service, because the only thing you're doing is promoting self-interest. You're not promoting the best interest of the country when you have financial stake one way or the next.
Speaker 1:And based on what you say, you can even get some progressives who agree with you on that one.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean I'm not here to insult people who have difference of opinions. Hopefully I can find a fundamental foundation of truth. I mean, there's certain things we'll never agree on, but I don't have to talk about that and focus my efforts on that, because all we're going to do is further separate ourselves from the narrative. But at least if people who may have a strong belief against mine that we could agree on certain things, there's commonality. You start off with a fundamental understanding of one that we're not so far apart. You just see things differently on a different level.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, that's I mean. Look even some of the things he said. Even some people from the left, right could come together and say if you want a clean house and tertiary Congress which is going to take a long time because Congress does not want to vote on anything that it could benefit themselves, let's be honest.
Speaker 2:Yeah, congress, congress is worthless right now as to what they're really supposed to do, and I always keep saying that, the president, I'm not a big supporter of executive orders, but when Congress doesn't do anything, how do we change the country for the better or worse? Right, and these executive orders shouldn't be the main source of law. What is Congress doing other than having these subcommittees interview people and get soundbites? I mean, that's all Congress does right now, you know, and I watch it just like anyone else bites. I mean that's all Congress does right now, you know, and I watch it just like anyone else.
Speaker 2:There's certain people I disdain in Congress and I really just want to see them, you know, taken down in their viewpoints. But really, how is that changing for the better of this country? You know why can't Congress agree on things? And what's sickening is you always see these votes always across party lines, and there might be someone like Fetterman on the left that will cross the party line and some people on the right will cross the party line More so, in my opinion, on the right to cross party lines than people on the left, but it's usually 95 to 99 percent of one party, if not 100%, agreeing on one position or the next, and it amazes me that we have not evolved, devolved as a nation where we can't agree on the most fundamental beliefs.
Speaker 2:You know, take immigration right. You know this is where I'm going to isolate your audience. But let me speak the truth. You cross over without permission in any country, you're committing an illegal act. But we changed the narrative and we call these people. They could be murderers, they could be rapists. We don't know who these people are, but we just label them as migrants, because it's a softer word than illegal aliens.
Speaker 2:Okay, and then you create these mistruths and there's only one reason why, under the prior administration, they allowed all this illegal activity it's because they want a pathway to citizenship. That's the only obvious answer. And then this is why one party will always have the votes and the power. And yet we can't have an honest conversation about that and we have to pretend that all these people are good-hearted people, although they're not vetted. They could be terrorists.
Speaker 2:I mean, if you want to bring terrorists in, you want to bring drugs into the country. You want to. You know sexual traffic, you let them into the border. But we can't have an honest conversation about this. We can't say no, it's wrong. You have people who are so polarizing on one side that it's just mind-boggling to me how something that is so basic and that's so fundamental to this country is now looked upon as racist or anything other than for what it is. You know someone like Tom Holman, who has this incredible battle to restore order. He's doing an incredible job, but they demonize him for doing his job and it's just everything that comes out of his mouth is common sense and I'm just amazed how polarized and how far extreme people have gotten to discredit what he's doing.
Speaker 1:Another buzzword I'm going to add in there is xenophobic. That's another buzzword we're going to add in. There is xenophobic. That's another buzzword I'm going to throw in there. Yeah, you got racist, also the X word in there. It's going to definitely separate some of my audience. It's okay, but the right-leaning audience is definitely cheering on. Yeah, preach brother, I got a mixed audience, which I love.
Speaker 1:I always pride myself on having friends of multiple political angles. I don't like to have just one side. I mean, that's how you get blinded. You form echo chambers all the time. I'm anti echo chamber, I'm anti same space, I'm anti-partisan. So I'll be a hypocrite. Just have all friends in the left, yeah, and or have too many on the right, which I've gained more of because some of them realize I'm not as lefties. No, no, no, no.
Speaker 1:Some issues I agree with the left generally, no, there's a lot I could agree with you on Quality of life, policing, military yeah, the left I'm more, yeah, more. So if it comes to probably like some benefits and all that, yeah, I probably side with the left a bit more on those issues. Like some benefits and all that, yeah, I probably side with the left a bit more on those issues, but generally speaking, yeah, this is why my logos are purple, because I hate to be boxed into one camp and I will challenge anyone to box me in on the thing. You know me? Just me personally. I don't like that. I'm anti-partisan.
Speaker 1:Once you become partisan, you're destroying your brain cells and this is how this hyper partisanship like you said, with the voting pass, which does expose that very clearly with a ninety nine to one hundred percent, which is very clear I mean you don't have to be a genius to figure out what the heck is going on here, there's got to pay attention is used on the one percent of your brain to see wow, a lot of Democrats vote for this or a lot of Republicans vote for this. Only very few politicians are willing to cross party lines. That's absolutely true and that's a beautiful summary. I mean, there are some laws I see a GovTrack that has bipartisan support but it's things that we don't really care about. School milk Ooh, great bipartisan win. I don't care about that. Nobody cares about that. More like the migrant issues, big issues like that is where the partisan divide really is really shown.
Speaker 2:And you realize, when Trump came into office and he said we're going to build this great wall office, and he said we're going to build this great wall, and I can't understand, other than the reasons I just mentioned, was to get more votes from people who are illegals and give them a pathway to citizenship so that they could ultimately vote for your party. Other than that, I cannot understand. I just cannot. But when we know a wall works because it's a wall and people who are in office, they have walls around their houses, including Nancy Pelosi, let me add to say walls do not work. At what point do you still drink the Kool-Aid in their argument Like walls do not keep people out? Really, because the last time I saw, I never saw a jail that doesn't have walls right, unless it's a studio jail.
Speaker 1:That's fake, you know, but for movie theater purposes. Other than that, you know, it's fake walls, you know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, like you know, it's hardcore murderers next to Nancy Pelosi's house in a prison without walls and tell her that walls well, take your advice. Walls don't work. So good luck with that.
Speaker 1:Ooh, some pettiness. Ooh, I like that, but I don't wish the murderer actually do his thing, you know no, no I wouldn't support that, but I'm just saying it's yeah, you're challenging their logic
Speaker 2:because it's completely illogical. And that's when you start taking away common sense. And uh, you know? Another topic men, biological men in women's sports breaking every record, and woman boxer who they found out recently in the Olympics was a male, and the amount of damage that she or he caused to other people and people's lives. They challenged people who, their entire lives, led to an Olympic moment that was stolen from them because somebody of a different gender. Because of loopholes and an idea of let fairness be fair, let these rights prevail. What about the rights of the other people, women that practiced their whole life to get a gold medal in a sport or make it in a professional business, and their rights were taken away because biologically they're not the same, but we have to pretend that they are oh, I don't know.
Speaker 1:I'm getting mixed reactions right now. The right is cheering, the left are just pissed going nuclear on this.
Speaker 2:But I, I don't get it though. Honestly, like, fundamentally, you know, there is uh, dave chappelle said if you put lebron james in a dress, right, he would break every record in the nba. What is fair, like and um? It just doesn't make sense. And those are the things that you know. I use chat, gbt and I say give me the strongest argument why I'm. Let me understand the other side Before I just arbitrarily say this is what I believe. Let me understand the other side. You know, like squatter's rights was one of those. I just don't understand the idea of squatter's rights, like if you steal something for long enough, it becomes yours. Like it just does not add up. So I said give me like five reasons why I'm wrong in this, like using chat, gpt, and I'm listening, I'm reading the reasons and it just it just doesn't, doesn't make sense oh no, squatters, squatters right.
Speaker 1:I'm probably very far right on that. I think it's the most ridiculous thing of that one I could say I'm pretty far. I don't even care. They labeled me. Far right on squatters rights. I think it's the worst thing ever I saw. Look, I can understand a good intent okay, that's the most I could say but the execution, the outcome, is what people are going to notice and care about. Is that the intent?
Speaker 1:the intent, as if we freaking curious and have time to care about the intent. But the outcomes have been ridiculous and there's many examples Even. Look, I'm in New York State, okay, new York City. Oh, squatter rights are pretty damn strong over there. All right and yeah, but a ton of person stays there for about a year, actually less than that. Yeah, the property comes there because they got a mail coming in. Say, that's their that. Yeah, the property comes there because they got a mail coming in that's their address. Yeah, no. And then the one who actually was the landlord, the one who actually rent the apartment legally, she had to be kicked out. So I was just so obsessed. Yeah, this issue when it comes to property. Yeah, I have to side with the right leaning the sense people, or just anti-squatter people, period, yeah, that one I don't agree with at all, some like even illegal immigrants.
Speaker 2:I mean, as much as I'm opposed to the other side and the other narrative, at least I can understand, there's certain fundamental beliefs that the other side have. You know there are good people that have come here to make a better living and the access to legal immigration is, you know it favors people who have money. You need an attorney, you need time and you need all this. So I understand it. I don't agree with it, but at least I understand it. But there are certain things like squatters, rights where I'm just, and even the gender sports.
Speaker 2:I just don't understand the argument and I just don't understand if a man can become a woman or vice versa, because biologically they feel that way. I'm not opposed to whatever they do to make them happy, but at the same time, as long as it doesn't affect someone else's ability to be happy. So if somebody has testosterone in their DNA and an XY chromosome and they want to take away someone's chance to be a professional athlete, I have a major problem with that. That woman who got significantly injured in volleyball because there was a man who was playing it and gave that woman a significant concussion, and that woman's career is over, how is that fair to that woman? And then at what point do we say fair is fair? We select which side is fair to that person and ignore the other side and lost opportunity.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think the word fair is being used as whatever is narrative compatible, which is so disingenuous. In general, both left and right has used that, but in terms of Olympic sports, I don't consider that to be the biggest issue. I just want to comment as much. But I have to generally agree with that. Even though there's been few women that have been brutally beaten and injured, I say yeah, but what about the women? I'm not against transgender existing and living their lives. I've talked to several of them in my life. I mean, I'm in New York City, all right, and they can live their lives and all that. But I think we just come up with a different system just to accommodate that, and that's going to let's be honest, it's going to take a long time. That's if it happens at all these changes.
Speaker 2:And I think it's the other side of the other argument. There's a lot bigger things to focus our energy on and it's a very small percentage. It's this, it's that, but it's the slippery slope of ideas that come in and then we say, well, if this could happen, then all of a sudden, you know, if you could be any gender you want, why can't you be any race you want? If you could be any race you want, why not any species, why not any age, why not this, why not that? And the social constructs and the delicate changing of words and their meanings to support a cause. And it's just this is the challenge. I would love to ask people on the left Like I want to know. Like you know, I keep asking people who are at least open-minded to share with me. You know, and I kind of like someone on the left, like a Bill Maher foundation and I agree with a lot of what he has to say, and that's the arguments that we should have, like Charlie Kirk versus Bill Maher. I can understand both sides, but unfortunately we have gotten so extreme that we can't even find a common ground, and that's been troubling. We run a charity called the American Rights Alliance and we're just trying to protect people from really what has occurred. That has extreme.
Speaker 2:We have this one case. Her name is Shana Gaviola. She's a mother from California who has a troubled son. He was 16 at the time and decided he wanted to become a woman and she is very religious and before an injunction came out because he tried to get himself emancipated before all of this, she took him against his will. But he's 16, he's a minor and took him to another state and took him to school there where eventually, after he came back, he's now in his 20s. He's never transitioned. He now doesn't want to be a woman, but at the same time he feels that that desire was taken away from him. And this woman mother doing what she thought was in her best interest of herself and her family is facing real jail time. And these are cases that we're fighting for that. The government should not interfere with the foundation of the family. Sex reassignment surgery can happen at 18. It doesn't need to happen before puberty with puberty blockers.
Speaker 2:I'm just highly against that and I've looked at the other side and I've tried to understand the other side as much as I can, but something like that just does not make sense and the problem that we have as a society that we all live under in the same country is that we can't have an open conversation with this because everybody has one opinion or the next. This is not something where people are like, well, I don't know, I don't know the facts. It's one of those things you either agree with one side or the other, but we can't have an open dialogue and if one person speaks their truth and offends the other side, they're considered a bigot or whatever label they want, and that's the unfortunate truth of society in 2025. And we're trying to protect this and this is what our fundamental core rights of the charity is is family, religion and the next generation. And it just amazes me in California how a mother or a father or parents can be adamant about the upbringing of their children and the state can interfere and take away all their rights and change the gender of the child and keep secrets from the parents. I mean, to me that just makes no sense.
Speaker 2:This is the stuff on the left that I don't understand. And having dialogue with people on the left like I just don't know how they can't agree to say you know what, you have a point, it makes sense. You make sense here, because I, just for the life of me, can't understand the other side. And it's not that I want to have opposing viewpoints and labels of people, but it just amazes me how somebody on the left, you know all these things that make no sense. They're all in line with the same thing. On the right, why can't we have, instead of you know, a smorgasbord like why can't we have an a la carte ideology Like this is what we agree on, but no, you have to agree on 18 things here or 18 things there and there's no in between that I think that the parent should, like I said, the children you don't deserve liberty until you're 18.
Speaker 1:That's my position. All right To jail, let's say, my daughter yeah, I'm against that.
Speaker 2:Have a party and somebody gets my daughter's 13, she has a party. Someone gets drunk, takes drugs overdoses is that I am criminally liable for the actions of my child? Where's the consistency here? There is none. It's okay a child is not old enough to formulate right and wrong, but they are old enough to determine what gender they are. Just don't get it. I know there's a lot bigger things and I keep saying this that we should all focus our energy on, but it's the slippery slope and it just scares me. And this is really how do we figure out how to agree on things that are so polarizing?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I don't care what a person does with their life Once they hit like 18, adult, whatever they want to transition, go right ahead. I mean I have some of a nuanced position there, but yeah, but when the government interferes, arrest the, the parent yeah, I'm against that. And you know, keeping the child secret and withholding it's apparent, yeah, I'm I'm against that, probably with the exception if the parent has been proved to be incompetent or abusive, then I would side. Did I did, I probably did. I probably side with government. Actually, I will side with government.
Speaker 2:Actually, I will side with government. Yeah, we all agree, because the process is emancipation and there's a process to fix that. I mean, it's not like a perfect process. Nothing's perfect, but at least there is a process in place. But at the same time is when the school system or the government is becoming the parent against the parent's wishes.
Speaker 1:my God, yeah, I mean I'll say 99% of the time I'll agree with you, because those like probably like that 1% or 2%, whatever small percentage when you use, just for those, I probably would say what government? Yeah, now that's crazy. Yeah, when I heard about that, I said what I said what I said wow, I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I even want to have a family in New York because of that. I've got to think about another state, maybe a moderate, a purple or a red state. At that point, yeah, that's a bit of a slippery slope. I've got to be honest. I have my opinion right there. I'm just gonna say it. I'm not as vocal. But yeah, that one, yeah, I have to agree with you on that one for the most part.
Speaker 2:And this is a case a woman is a client of ours is facing real jail time. I mean you should go to jail for crimes.
Speaker 1:Like being the kid to death. That would be understandable, exactly.
Speaker 2:But by they're charging her for crossing state lines, which is considered trial trafficking. That sounds horrible, right? Yeah, but that's the term. And so you have these real cases with actual trial trafficking, but they're clumped together with a case where a mother's falling on her heart, doing what she thinks is in the best interest of herself and her son, and even though her son may not agree. At age 16 I mean, when I was 16 I thought I knew more than I know at 48.
Speaker 2:Right now, like you realize as you get older, how little you do know and it's amazing how, even though I think that I have a good head on my shoulders, a good, sound, solid understanding of life, that doesn't mean that I'm right all the time. But I know that at age 48, experience has proven how to make wise decisions, because I know the consequences of making the wrong one. But at 16, I felt I was invincible, like I thought that there was nothing that could bring me down. Sometimes you need a punch in the face to realize the path where you're on is not going to lead you to the promised land.
Speaker 1:Oh no, I agree 16,. You're such an arrogant, unquote, invincible, invincible asshole. Okay, and the hormones led the way, Not logic, not intelligence and most definitely not experience. Okay, so let's be real. You think a 16-year-old, all 16-year-olds, the exception of a few, I'll say 99% of 16-year-olds yeah, no, you, led by arrogance, hormones and all that, you're going to make a whole lot of terrible decisions. I mean, I thought I made okay decisions for a 16-year-old, but I'm probably not bald, but I don't know. They're making terrible, stupid decisions. They're led by emotion, hormones and you know, and arrogance and peer pressure. Yeah, peer pressure, true.
Speaker 2:You know, like I said, I have an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old and God forbid I drop them off at school with music that they like. They can't be seen. I'm like do you think all your friends drive to school when they're dropped off? No one's listening to music. It's just music, you know, and God forbid. They wear anything other than sweatpants to work at school so that they could fit in with their peers. I mean, it's just, it's crazy, and but these are the decisions that are influencing our lives. But they could switch genders like that, because it's the hot topic.
Speaker 1:Well, we went through a good amount.
Speaker 2:We actually went through that one long enough, but hey, I don't mind a good conversation, no no, you told me I may be a little bit more neutral, so I come up with my conservative viewpoints there you go, isolate my audience and to make this more polarizing. So I hope I did a good job.
Speaker 1:That you did. Oh, that you did. If I'm saying the right is cheering and the left is doing that, yeah, that's where you signal, right there, without saying you're doing a good job, and you're doing a great job, that's just Okay. Thumbs up for the right, thumbs up for the right, thumbs down for the left. That's polarizing. There you go A conservative touch at the second half, right there. Oh well, this is not a safe space. I don't believe again. I don't believe in echo chambers. I don't believe in partisanship. Partisanship is stupid. Echo chambers are dumb. Just it puts confirmation bias on steroids. That's what they do and it makes you dumb.
Speaker 2:I'm gonna be just yeah another activity talking about ai, because you have an ai driven show is you know, whenever you have a viewpoint, even if it's wrong, you can go on to ai and articulate an argument to support your confirmation bias and say nope, see, I was correct. I recommend not doing that, and especially in an argument with your significant other, because it will not work.
Speaker 1:Yep, do something that I know is going to be uncomfortable for most of you Challenge your own narrative. That's what I do. I challenge wrong. That's why I lean to the center. I mean, if I started in politics, I was a moderate Democrat when I first started. Moderate meaning there were some things that I instinctually agree with Republicans and like war and family and certain things. Even you know, I was like you know, 18, started to vote, I was a blue dog Democrat. I mean, if the Republican was able to use the right language and convince me through, I was actually convincible and I will go to the other side. I swear to someone considered me traitor the liberals because I was with. I was actually convincible and I will go to the other side. That's why some of them consider me traitor the liberals because I was with. As I look, I think they have a good position. I mean fiscal issues I'm with the right Fiscally, I just think they got it right. Healthcare I'm actually leaning more with the left. They ask me to be the purple.
Speaker 2:I think we need a different healthcare system, but that's a whole. Other day I had this whole conversation with the congressman, who's a Republican congressman. He said I wish I could have a left viewpoint on healthcare. But the cost of healthcare is so expensive that if we did what we all would agree on, 90% of our GDP would be spent on healthcare. I just think that the system that we have is completely flawed. I don't think Obamacare was the solution, but if we keep the cost down, the profits of the pharmaceuticals down. If you looked at the COVID vaccines, how much money these companies made with no liability of malpractice.
Speaker 2:I'm now sounding a little far on the other side, but my point is just because I'm a conservative doesn't mean that I drink every single. You know I drink the Kool-Aid and I subscribe to every single thing that they say. You know. It would be wonderful if I'm not feeling well today, I could say you know what I'm going to. Just go to the minute clinic down the street and not have to worry about getting a $500 bill right or having to figure out my health insurance how it actually works. I could go today and get a health visit and it's free, but I follow up the next week, or I go to a specialist and I have a $2,000 bill. It makes no sense and I don't think that it needs to be so complicated. So that's something I think we could agree on. I just don't know how to implement it. That's the problem.
Speaker 2:Bring down the cost but at the same time, will the medical profession or capitalism succeed to get the cures? Like, for example, when I was growing up, my health class said you know, if you have intercourse and you're not married, you'll get HIV. Like that's how they convinced you, and HIV at that time was a life sentence, right. You might have lived 10, 15 years, right. And then you see people like a friend, mercury, die of HIV or AIDS actually, and once Magic Johnson went public with it, we didn't know he was going to be alive 30 plus years later.
Speaker 2:It was very scary and you know, big pharma was able to get us out of that by having some you know financial incentive. So how do you balance those two and I don't have answers to this because nobody does. It's just a matter of how do we subsidize those costs at a way where Big Pharma is motivated to do what is in the best interest of the population without taking away from the solutions that we need. I don't have the answer, but just scary to think about it. But I agree, you know we should have some sort of health care system that is streamlined. But people from other countries, in particular Canada or England, tell me their system is horrible. Whenever you need real care, they have to come to this country.
Speaker 1:That's catch 22. Well, you may not have the idea, but I think you have the right criteria. At least compassion. Cut down. Yep, people over profits. So far is profits over people. We definitely got to flip that. I mean, that's that's for starters, but I don't got the answer on either. But definitely needs change and I'm I'm open to it. The reason I say I'm open with the left so far because they're the only ones. I have to have an idea. Um, until there an alternative that's containing costs and improving efficiency and getting outcomes healthier, better outcomes. That's what I'm generally open to.
Speaker 2:And I think we have to really and now I'm going to go back to my conservative roots is we have to really figure out what the cause of these problems are in the first place. When you have autism at levels that were unheard of a generation or two ago, I don't think they're the vaccines. I don't know what's causing it. Maybe it's just people who are procreating at older ages. I mean, it could be numerous things, but we have to understand obesity, alcohol Today I heard on the news that alcohol is not bad. Yesterday it was, tomorrow it will be Our food. You know when we can't understand what we're eating.
Speaker 2:I was overseas, I was in Dubai last week and I was drinking Coke because it tastes so much better because they put sugar in instead of high fructose corn syrup. Like, why are we putting so much processed shit in our food? I mean, perhaps maybe anything that we buy has to be regulated a little bit more so that it's more natural ingredients. Maybe that will keep the cost of healthcare down, because we're not getting cancer at the rates. And why is the chemo industry so? My mother died of cancer two years ago and why is the chemo industry the same as it was 20 years ago.
Speaker 2:There really hasn't been much progress in a lot of these cancers. I don't have the answer, but I think a lot has to do with diets and a lot has to do with the environment. Now we can fix that. Maybe if we could fix that we could bring the cost down in healthcare and the healthcare solution is a healthcare issue becomes a solution that we can create a solution to Not when we are injecting all this crap into our bodies. You know we can create a solution to Not when we are injecting all this crap into our bodies. You know we don't even know what we're eating, and God forbid. You read something on a label and it has three ingredients or less. You're shocked and the only thing I think I've eaten in the last two weeks that has less than three ingredients is coconut milk and Tabasco sauce. That's it.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, you definitely answer something there. I think I agree with the food, the environment, and maybe having a and this is a big maybe, so I'm not a health expert Maybe just having children when I'm older could contribute to that as well, because you know the egg and the sperm. You know sperm lasts a lot longer than the egg inside of a man and isn't a woman, but you know they're not at their prime, so to speak, so that's the nicest way to put it. I guess let's contribute to the autism. I, I, I will theorize and I'm just gonna say there's a theory, because I don't got the answer. But I think we are on the right track with that, because I don't think, I don't think it was vaccines, because we're doing, we've been doing vaccines for a while, and if that was the case, I'm sure we would have figured something out by now. But at least, again, this is just my opinion, just an opinion.
Speaker 1:I'm not a health expert. Go to your doctor, consult the real health experts on this issue, okay, because the only thing I don't want to do is, you know, I don't want to be, you know, responsible. Oh, elias told me to, you know, drink hydroxychloroquine. I said I've never said that. Are you stupid?
Speaker 2:or what. But when you talk about like it's a good point, when you talk about you know Joe Rogan and when he had COVID and he said that he was doing that and they're like the far left was like or the left media was mocking him and then found out, like he had the right products and the right regimen. You know what was this whole anti-hydroxychloroquine? It was a cheap, time-tested, safe solution. Is it because of profits? I mean, you just got to ask questions. I mean here I go into my conservative hole again. But like when you have and someone who I usually don't agree with is Jon Stewart, but Jon Stewart said it best. He's like in China, in Wuhan, china, they have the Institute for COVID, covid and they also have these wet markets. Where do you think they came from? Why did the institute for covid get knocked as not a likely suspect? And the wet markets, which have nothing to do with covid? I mean, if you want me to go conspiracy theory there, I'll lose all of your audience.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, I'm going to have to put a label. This episode contains conspiracy theories as a label.
Speaker 1:I mean, I don't mind entertaining it Just for the sake of it, you know, because, again, this is an asterisk point. Sometimes they're right, yeah, and that's a gamble. It is a real gamble, it really is, and that's why I just say, ah, let us be entertained. And so look, if it ends up being wrong and wacky, so be. You can just say this host is wrong and wacky, I don't care, it's just words, and if I end up being correct, I'm brilliant, awesome. Actually, the originator of that conspiracy theory is brilliant. Even though I want to take the credit, don't get me wrong. I want to be brutally honest. But you know, yeah, this has been a great conversation, though you know we jumped to different things, which is fine, like I said, natural flowing. I would say I hate interrupting unless I really really have to, but that's like my absolute last resort there. So let's do some shameless plug-in. You don't got much social media. You're that anti-social media, you don't got much social media.
Speaker 2:No, I should say. I would say I don't have time because I run a national charity. I also practice law, I'm a father of two and a family man when it's all said and done.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no bandwidth at all for that.
Speaker 2:Exactly.
Speaker 1:Understandable.
Speaker 2:You could find me. My name's Evan Turk. Turk Law Group is my law firm, but mostly known nowadays for running the American Rights Alliance. That's the AmericanRightsAllianceorg. You can find us at DonateARA. At most social media handles DonateARA.
Speaker 2:Right now we're working on various numerous cases. Cases that we really need help. Funding is Tina Peter's case. Basically, she was in Colorado as a supervisor of elections and they told her to get rid of all the data on the Dominion machines and she refused to do that after the election and now she's been in jail for quite some time. We're trying to get her out. Shana Gaviola is another case which is the mother which we discussed, trying to protect her son and not have the state usurp power over the family in this sexual or sex transition, gender transition, gender assignment, and we have numerous cases of people who are in jail Boggle your mind while they're in jail. And one was a congressman from Arkansas. We're working to get him free. For 18 years he'll be in jail for the alleged crime of taking a handout which was actually used to go to his church, which had every legal right to do it. It was a Jack Smith situation. We're just trying to get common sense back in and we can use help.
Speaker 2:One of the reasons I go on these podcasts is, you know, help, donate to this cause. The cause will go into protecting freedoms that you may or may not agree with now, but we're not just publicly driven on one side. We want to help all Americans who have been wronged and have seen the legal system be used for something other than what it was there and is there for. It shouldn't be used to combat free speech and we should have the ability to be able to speak freely. And it's scary how many people have talked to me, especially pro-Trump people, that say I love what you're saying, but I don't have enough balls part of my language to say it because I'm scared. You know at what point has this country gone down? So far that we can't speak our minds because we fear consequences. And you see real people in jail for crimes that you and I don't even know or would recognize as crimes. You know love or hate the man Trump, but tell me why he should be in jail for crimes that there are no victims to, for example, the bank loans, when the banks say, no, we got paid and we have no problem with it. We're just here for justice Again, protecting family values, religious rights, making sure this place is a better place for our children and our children's children.
Speaker 2:We're the American Rights Alliance. My name's Evan Turk. Please donate if you can. You can go on our site, comment as you may, but we're not here to discriminate. We're here to eliminate the issues that drive us as a nation to a pathway we cannot recover from. So, elias, I thank you for your time. I really appreciate this and I like to be on a site that's a different viewpoint, but it's tolerant enough to hear what I say and not criticize my opinion and the viewpoint. So thank you again.
Speaker 1:No problem. I mean again, like I said, certain things, certain things that disagree the right, left and all that, but I'm, but, like I said, the audience, if I haven't been clear enough, I just want to get to know what evan's about, what's his mission. That's why I ain't pushing back or just having a political debate. Okay, now, probably next time, once I get more comfortable, maybe if he becomes recurring guests, I'm sure we're gonna spat and disagree. It's inevitable.
Speaker 1:But it doesn't mean we hate each other. It's just idea, just picture ideas just hitting each other. Okay, instead of people. All right, and see which one you know prevails, or maybe it's a draw, or maybe it's a mix of the two, we don't know, but you know at some point. Look, that's why I try to do. There's some things I agree with the left, there's some things I agree with the right, and I love the fact that I'm not part of the political box and I'm a proud independent on that, because I just believe, I just want. I'm in Team America, not Team Republican or Democrat, because both of your parties are crazy and corrupt, let's be honest. So it's like sports teams.
Speaker 1:Okay, no, I hate that part the sports teams of politics. So yeah, so one more thing before you before you finish that the website for um, let me see, I got that right American rights allianceorg. That's going to be the link. The link is going to be in the description of the episode. Awesome, go ahead.
Speaker 2:Thank you. No, I was going to say. One of the things that drives me nuts about sports teams is maybe all of us can agree is when somebody is a fan of a team and they say you know my team, like as if they are on the payroll and participating in this sport. You're just watching it, you may wear the shirt, but you're not on the team, you're not getting paid by it.
Speaker 1:So it's one of those pet peeves when they say my team has won. No, no, no, no, no, that team has won. That you watched. Oh, you're going to piss off so much sports fans with that across the board. It's the A, the Boston Red Sox, the Yankees, the all the other teams are going to be pissed about that comment. You just piss the baseball league off. You just piss all of them off.
Speaker 2:At the end of the day. I remember watching I think it was. I'm a New York Giants fan, so I have every reason to love the Patriots because that's the only team we could actually beat in the Super Bowl. But what I love about football, one of the best lessons is I was watching this years ago and I was really disappointed that the Giants lost and I was just really pissed off Until I saw the players afterwards shaking and laugh, shaking hands with the opposing team and laughing. I said if they don't care, why should I exactly me?
Speaker 1:I'm on team whatever invites me to the thing. Yeah, that's the team. So I had to be Mets. I'm team Mets fan for that one day. Yes, call me a traitor, I don't care. I was team Yankees when I got free sweet seats. Yeah, I was team Yankee that day. But as soon as the event was done, I was like what? I'm in no sports team. I'm in whatever invites me to the freaking party. Okay, it could be a team in California, like the Dodgers, for example. You heard what they're doing with the ICE agents defying them and all that blocking them from doing it.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, I heard that this morning. Yeah, I don't know if it was true. Now they're saying it was misunderstood, but it's a crazy rule. I mean, that's something that we'll probably not agree on in this whole ICE and its role and all of these states that are protecting sanctuary cities I couldn't think of the name sanctuary cities and how it's acceptable to break the law and to not work with the federal government. Yet you're receiving federal grants to work with the federal government, but you know, maybe you shouldn't work with the federal government if you're not receiving the federal grants from the government when they're paying 80% to 90% of your tax liability on the most matters. I think you should kind of find a way to work together, like instead of VORSE.
Speaker 1:Being called out. Oh, I like it, I like that. Well, let's see, I was going to say something pretty profound. Well, yeah, california, well, it's a sanctuary state. That's how far they've gotten. The whole state is covered, but New York is only not the entire state of New York, the five boroughs, you know Bronx, brooklyn, queens, manhattan.
Speaker 2:I don't think Staten Island is, I mean, they seem to be a little bit always the forgotten child of the five boroughs but yeah, staten Island doesn't give a rat's behind, even though that's a official position.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's an asterisk. It's like no, their politics. That's the only borough that is Republican majority.
Speaker 2:I don't even know if they're connected by the train. Don't you have to take the Staten Island ferry to get back to the city?
Speaker 1:No, they're not and that's not going to be for probably another 100 years. At this point you already said that the Forgotten Child I mean. That's where you aptly describe the situation.
Speaker 2:It's going to be like that for another century, for sure, the Unlocked Stepson that bears the same name as the family.
Speaker 1:Not bad for you Staten Islanders. Look, I like some of you Staten Island folks and some of you, I think, are weird, just like all the boroughs.
Speaker 2:And Practical Jok folks and some of you I think yeah weird, just like all the practical jokers. They're all from staten island, so you gotta love it right. At least I love that show the last time I watched it now, you know all borrows are great, even staten island.
Speaker 1:And yeah, look, all borrows I have a love and hate relationship with for different reasons or whatever. Let me just be fair. But if I'm gonna like, if I'm gonna like my two borrows and I'm going to sound a little biased here It'd be definitely Brooklyn and Manhattan, even though I'm not a native to either one of them. But you know, they all part of New York, even Staten Island, yep exactly.
Speaker 1:But you know, this is a thing that always struck me when people fill out the application, some put New Jersey as a fifth borough, which should be super disrespectful to Staten Island people. When they truly answer the five boroughs, they will put New Jersey over Staten Island, even though New Jersey is a completely different state.
Speaker 2:Well being from Jersey, born there, raised there before I moved to Florida, I completely agree with what you're saying, but you have two of the New York football teams playing not in Staten Island, they're playing in New Jersey. So at least they get some credit somewhere, right?
Speaker 1:True, true, true true, true, True, true true.
Speaker 2:Even their practice facilities. The Jets used to practice in Long Island, now they practice in New Jersey. They trade the state of New York for Jersey. Those are close to New Jersey, but they never leave Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1:Yep, that's another thing to get into for the sports people, even though I am more of a nerd and a sport addict, if I'm going to be brutally honest. But to me that's the bottom of my totem pole. If all the important stuff is straightened out, then I'll pay attention more to the sports issues and all of that. But sadly we're both aware of there's much bigger problems Hyper-partisanship, corrupt offices, not just in the Congress or federal level you can say it, even state level to some degree and some local governments to some degree. I'm more focused on things like that and trying to bring at least some people together. That's my main focus, basically these hot topics here immigration, genderism, all this other stuff that people just have strong opinions and they refuse to talk to the other side. They just think they're the devil, you're a demon. I want to fight you. It's in the talk, yeah.
Speaker 1:I know that's unfortunate. All righty, let me wrap this up before we can be here for another three hours. I'm sure you got better things to do.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I have that work thing to do today.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I already pressed my luck here, so let me wrap this episode up. So once you complete this audio or visual journey, you have a blessed day, afternoon or night.
Speaker 2:Thank you for having me have a good one, and I hope that I'm able to at least pick up an audience for you instead of just taking an audience down we'll see.
Speaker 1:The holy top will tell. With that one Bye.
