311- From Deeds to Data: Michael Butler on Safer, Smarter Public Service

We sit down with St. Louis Recorder of Deeds Michael Butler to unpack how AI can make government faster and safer without cutting people, and to map the long game of Missouri politics where policy wins often outpace party wins. The throughline is mission over personality—use tech to serve residents and organize for durable change.

• why back-office AI beats shiny chatbots
• human-in-the-loop workflows for records and filings
• shifting roles without cutting pay
• fixing service deficits by redeploying staff
• procurement lag and outdated govtech
• Missouri’s political pendulum and ballot wins
• candidate profiles that connect beyond cities
• gerrymandering’s dilution and upset math
• organizing timelines and suburban pathways
• practical resources for St. Louis residents

Follow Michael Butler at ...

St. Louis City Government Website

https://stlouiscityrecorder.org/

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/StLCityRoD

Twitter

https://x.com/STL_RECORDER

Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/explore/locations/42799807/st-louis-county-recorder-of-deeds/

LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-butler-12b5012b/

Tiktok

https://www.tiktok.com/@mikeformayorstl

Chapters

• 0:00 An Insider Takes the Mic
• 2:20 Why Representation on the Show Matters
• 2:55 Meet Mike Butler and His Role
• 5:40 Private Sector Roots and Local Entrepreneurship
• 7:55 Setting the Table: Tough Skin and Public Service
• 12:31 AI in Government: Fear vs. Opportunity
• 16:50 Repetitive Tasks and AI Agents in Records
• 21:00 Human-in-the-Loop and Job Shifts, Not Cuts
• 25:32 Service Deficits, Vacancies, and Reassignment
• 29:30 Beyond Chatbots: The Case for AI Agents
• 34:05 Procurement Lag and Outdated GovTech
• 39:20 Missouri Politics: The Slow Pendulum
• 44:48 Policy Popularity vs. Candidate Popularity
• 49:00 Organizing, Long Games, and “Winnable” Maps
• 54:40 Gerrymandering’s Hidden Backfire
• 1:00:20 Strategic Patience and Suburban Shifts
• 1:04:30 Wrap-Up, Resources, and CTAs

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:14

Welcome everyone to politically high tech with your host, Elias. This is a first here. We got someone who is still in the government. Many people I've interviewed, they're kind of outside, trying to make their way in creatively, with some authenticity with some people. But this one's still in the government. So good. We got an insider. Finally, finally. This is a first for the podcast. Yay. And you know what? And I like the fact that I'm having definitely more minorities in this podcast. I've been doing outreach to those groups in particular because look, I'm not, I am not against white people, but I did the statistics, they've been the overwhelming majority. So now I need to try to find a way to balance that out at least a little bit. Because look, at the end of the day, I'm I am a curious person. I I and when I see there's lack, I tend to go more aggressively after. That's my aggression comes. Wait a minute, I need to do outreach to the what's the acronym BIPOC? And I saw, well, the only the only minorities I was getting was more of Arabs and Indians. I said, well, I could put those aside as well. We need the more blacks, Latinos, Chinese, or even different religious groups. It doesn't have to be ethnic and racial either. Definitely more women, too. And that's I saw that there was an imbalance. So I'm happy I'm trying to do my goal. Has it been a success? I don't know. I don't think so. I gotta work on it.

SPEAKER_00: 1:41

This is a success, success.

SPEAKER_01: 1:43

No, no, no. I'm confident for this interview. I'm talking about my personal goal, getting more of people that are, you know, non-white women. I think the women part I'm getting better at, but I definitely need to do more outreach for those. And you know, it's so far it's been, I would say it's been mixed, but there's definitely improvement there for sure. So feel free to comment on that if you want. But let's put that aside, and we are we're gonna talk about AI integration and government and about Missouri politics in general. What's the state of it? You know, and we have the honorable yes right there, Michael Butler. And what this is why I normally do I get started. What do you want the audience, the viewers, and listeners to know about you?

SPEAKER_00: 2:26

Thanks, Elias. I like folks to know that I'm Mike Butler. I'm the recorder of deeds for the city of St. Louis. If you don't know where recorder of deeds is, I'm over all of the land deeds of the city, all the birth certificates, marriage licenses, and all the archives in the city. I'm an elected official that isn't pretty much an elected administrator in the city of St. Louis, serving almost about 300,000 people. Before, I've been the recorder of deeds for seven years. Before that, I was a Missouri state legislator. I was a young state legislature in Jefferson City, Missouri. I served in the state house from ages 27 to 32. Well, 33, about 33, I guess. Did I leave right before my 33rd birthday? Yes. And really enjoyed that job, learned a lot about government, but a master's degree in public administration, and also served as the chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party for two years after I was in the state legislature. Well, I was still the recorder, but after my time in the legislature from 2020 to 2023. So I have a lot of experience in both government from the legislative branch and the executive branch, and from an academic standpoint, and of course a lot of experience in politics and winning campaigns.

SPEAKER_01: 3:44

You have some business experience as well, because I did see some of that as well.

SPEAKER_00: 3:48

Yeah, I do. I I before I got into politics, I worked at a little place called Walmart at their home office in Bennville, Arkansas. I have a business management undergraduate degree. And yes, I and I started my own company back in 2019. I owned a bar here in St. Louis. It was called Open Concept. It was the only open bar concept in the country based off Nomi Hodai's in in Japan. It went well for a good five years, and I closed that back in July of 2025, 24. Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 4:22

Look at that all-round guy, not just, you know, some of the critics, I can really hear them. Oh, he's just an academic. He's not gonna know about business and real life or any of that. It stuck the head in the books and sniffed that dust, you know. And look, can't say that about him. All right, he so far he seems well-rounded, all right? Let's just be clear about that. If you want to be critical, just make sure you're on point when you're critical. Don't say you don't have business experience. He just said it right there. Read. Unless you want to, you know, be on copium and be in denial and just put your comments and expose your stupidity. That's entirely up to you. I cannot help you there. I'm not a shrink. You need help from there. That's all I'm gonna say about that. You know, I don't mind constructive criticism, but silly, like your mama's fat or you're stupid. I think that's a bit old school. I'm sure I'm age a little bit. I used to watch that stuff when I was a much more younger person, you know, middle school and all that, you know. It was offensive, but you have thick skin at that time. Look, I'm not gonna get into all of that, but I I trust me, I could take some verbal not some, I could take violable tax. I've been called about names, so it's nothing to me. You just know that you're exposing yourself at the end of the day. And YouTube will censor you, not me. That's not my job. Just remember that. But Rumble, which it'll be uploaded at Rumble, you have a lot more freedom there. So that's all I'm gonna say. So, alright. Enough, enough about addressing the the haters. The supporters here, I'm sure they're saying, yay, I'm having more um Democrats. Yeah, because if I didn't do anything about it, it would have been right-leaning. And I don't want that. I want it to be as fair as possible, and it's not easy to do. Not easy to do at all. Uh it's why it's purple, not red or blue. Even though my personal favorite color is red. But don't say I'm a Republican because my personal favorite color is red. I will slap you. My my personal favorite color is red too, as well. You got it. And he's with the Democrats, so don't, don't, don't be stupid, people. All right, so about you know, I gotta say, I I'm I'm a I normally I am not this excited because normally, like I said before, a lot of people have interviewed, they're trying to get into government, they're campaigning, they're in the beginning phases of it. Here we got someone who's currently in government that has a lot of experience. So this is exciting. Look, you can do it, people. Um it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter your skin color or your gender, but you're gonna have to go through barriers and have a tough tough mind and heart and spirit. Let me just say that because it's not it's not easy. Politics is not for the weak. I'm just gonna say that right now. If you're very sensitive, you you get overwhelmed easily, it's not for you. I mean, me personally, I'm trying to fight for New York State more in, you know, we're trying to increase voter rights for um independence. We won one part of the battle, we lost the other one. It was discouraging, but you gotta keep going. That's my point. You know, at politics, you you gotta play the long game. You can't just expect everything to happen real quickly. So that's what I've learned, okay, as a as an independent who has joined nonpartisan organizations. You you gotta play play the long game. All right, so let's see. So let's what other question I got here? So let's talk about AI integration and I want your overall opinion of AI and how it can make government more accessible, and I'll even add um efficient.

SPEAKER_00: 7:41

Artificial intelligence to me is can be a game changer and a huge way for government to either save money or save tasks from a lot of labor tasks from a lot of employees that they have. So first things first, a lot of people in my sector are afraid of artificial intelligence. They're afraid for a couple reasons. One, people in my industry are very much interested in safety. And they and if they don't feel that artificial intelligence is a safe space, if they can't, sometimes they can't touch it. If they, if they, if if they're not, they they don't want to be the first mover, they're not the second mover, they don't see that it's been years and decades something that's worked. A lot of times government does not like to be the first mover. I typically say, like a lot of government employees in general, they're not usually entrepreneurial types. These are folks who usually took a safe job. They're getting paid a little less because they're they like the safety of the pension for their retirement. They like the safety of the non-competitiveness of their job. So these are usually people who who are government employees are usually not always. I'm I find myself I'm in the like the 10% of folks who who are looking for safety. So they bring that kind of perspective and decision making that they make, that they make for your tax dollars. And some people like that today. They're like, hey, maybe government shouldn't take as many risks, but it also means government can sometimes be less efficient. I think that government can be both safe and entrepreneurial at the same time and innovative at the same time. So here's why. In the private sector, you eat what you kill and you get a lot of folks who are very who are big risk takers and they and they sometimes lose. People don't want government to lose. But in the public sector, I'm sorry, in the private sector, people have you're you're you're getting investment for money, you're making sales, and you only really get to spend what you bring in. In the public sector, we have a we have a usually a more stable revenue structure because we get a certain amount of tax dollars every year. From that perspective, I feel like governments have a better ability to sometimes take those risks because we know we're gonna get another influx of of cash each month or each year from that from a budget. So we can we can we should be able to take risks a little more than the private sector. And we've seen that sometimes with programs like NASA in the past or things of that sort. So I come from the perspective that we can be innovative as long as we're doing it calculating, we're able to calculate our risk and we have backups where we can make sure we don't go go off site or we are or we are we go black or anything, or we're we're still providing the same amount of service. So I was that tied into artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is and a lot of people in my sector see as a risk and something that's unsafe when quite frankly, it can, if you tie it into your work the correct way, it can make you more efficient and more safe. One way we're looking at using artificial intelligence in my office is there are a lot of repetitive tasks when it comes to dealing with deeds and birth certificates and things of that sort. So I'm not in a very sexy office at this time, not like when I was in the state legislature. I have a lot of repetitive tasks that we do very well. And artificial intelligence, the for the technology that is today, is perfect for repetitive tasks, for things that you do a hundred times a day or a hundred times a week that you can replace that task with artificial intelligence to do for you. One of the things in our office is we approve or reject document filings from title companies online. We do it with what's called e-recording in our in our in our industry. And a title company will be somewhere else in the city, they'll be on our on our software, they will file a document. We have to check for certain things on the document, the the page size, the name, the legal description of the property, every single time. And and if and if the and if that that document fulfills our requirements, we accept it. If it does not fulfill our requirements, we reject it. And we we send it back to them and say, hey, you need to update this to fulfill the requirements. Artificial intelligence can help out with that. It can absolutely take on that task, which which is one of the larger tasks we have in our office. And we can have and we can have a human double check the artificial intelligence. So right now we have about five staff members that are direct clerks, with their titles of clerk that do that 40 hours a week. And then we have another two staff members who are auditors of that work who double check the staff members' work. Well, we're looking to use artificial intelligence is to fill in the job of the clerks, and we'll still keep the auditors to double-check the work of that artificial intelligence later. So a human needs to be a part of the process, but doesn't have to do every single task. And that's where I see artificial intelligence supporting a lot of government work in the future is that what it does at this point, it doesn't, it doesn't repl, in a sense, always replace staff, but it turns one staff member to someone who can do 10 people's work. So that leads into the second thing people are afraid about. People are afraid about losing their job when it comes to artificial intelligence. And here's what I would say when it comes to government. There is always something else to do in government. There is always a service to provide when it comes to federal, state, and local government where I'm at. I plan to shift, and I've already told my employees, if if you won't lose your salary, you may lose your job description. So you will shift you to something else that's more productive that artificial intelligence can't do. One of those things in our office is indexing and actually scanning and indexing documents. So we have uh still tens of thousands of documents to scan into our digital database. And we're gonna, if if artificial intelligence works for what we're building now for those clerks, we'll shift those clerks' job description to well, there's they'll be digitizing documents that will make it easier for citizens to access the documents on the computer and not have to come into the office. So there's if if the digitizing documents gets done, then we'll shift those employees to something else, probably something that is more customer-facing and direct impact with customers that artificial intelligence technically can't do. So there are and there are several other vacancies within our local government from trash collectors to parking attendants to health clinic workers and school programs that we all we that in City Hall, we need more than enough people for. And I want folks to not be as afraid of artificial intelligence, that it can shift our focus of our human capital to things that are more customer focusing that AI can't do.

SPEAKER_01: 15:15

You know what? I gotta say, you mentioned several things I think they are AI best practices. I know some of you are afraid, but responsibilities are gonna change. I mean, that's just the the the inevitable. And I love the fact that you say human verification, because AI, as great as it is, it gets some things wrong. So that's so that's very intelligent. See, see, government can be innovative here. See, now I'm gonna attack the Republicans a little bit. See, government can be a little innovative here, you know. This is the bunk in the, you know, that you know, we don't have to use floppy disk and operate like we're in 1980s. I mean, come on. I've seen some things like that, especially the federal government, which my which was mind boxers. What? Are you stuck in the 1980s? Are you serious with some of this stuff? I said, Oh, they eventually innovated, but it was it was so appalling to me. And look, I say a taxpayer is the most unwilling, forced investor of government. Because we're giving that money rather we like it or not. Look, unless you want to be a criminal, I I don't I don't support that at all. Let's just be clear. I'm critical of government, but I will never go as far as that. Look, I this is why I'm for government reform, not for abolishment. Reformist, not abolisher, because I think abolishing is too reckless, and it'll do more damage than attend. Oh, but I want to destroy this. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. People, we get addicted to breaking stuff. No, no, I don't I don't trust that. The human psyche is not the most, you know, it it's flawed. Okay, let's just say that it's flawed. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, that's that's just no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. You see, this is this see this is this is good here, and look, you know, in New York's New York City, we still got some antiquity prompts. And the way we integrate online, it's not the best. I mean, you gotta do like 10 clicks just to get what I want. You know, and I saw and I saw your website, I do just a few clicks to find what I want. So you see, this is what's needed. Less clicks you need to do the better. And and I've got to give a shout out to a tech guest I had a while ago, Dan Hoffman. He I think I'm I'm butcher's name. It's Dan the man. I'm just gonna call him. He's a tech guy, and he says less clicks the better. I said, Yeah, I agree. Because I always compared a private business website versus a typical government website federally, it's very bad. I gotta do 10, 15 or 20 clicks to find what I want. Private sectors, probably like one to three clicks. And I, you know, that's just a general philosophy. I'm not a tech expert, but this is why I learned from interviewing a lot of um tech experts. And I try to carry a little bit what they have told me. So very good. Yeah, you know, that's just that's just look, that's just something you have to be a lifelong learner. You learn unless you're dead, then you know that's a whole different thing. God forbid. Look, just be a lifelong learner, people. That that's all I I have to say about that. And look at that. And look, see, we we have someone here who's be innovative with AI, and you know, and just like you said, most government people are afraid of, oh my goodness. Oh, unless you look, you look, if you put personal information to AI, of course that's unsafe. Let's be honest. But I'm sure most people don't are not that stupid to do that. Let's just be clear. You know, but it's it's just people look, it this is something that we're gonna have to get used to, and you're and you're you know, your job is gonna shift to something that requires humans, like complicated customer problems. They cannot just automate. I don't know. Can I tell you about that?

SPEAKER_00: 18:39

What I've learned, I I spent a lot of time in the last six months looking at government tech and government AI. I've been disappointed with government tech since I've been in the executive branch really for the past seven years. Really, what I found is that we're government AI right now is focused on the chatbot. I've been to several conferences and I've been to, you know, talked to several folks, and a lot of government AI is just about solving like kind of the phone issue, the direct to the the to to customer issue with the chatbot. Then there's a second level that we're hoping to get to, which is AI agents. So utilizing AI agents to complete tasks. And there are very few. I'm very surprised. I was actually in New York a few months ago talking to a friend and hiring someone from New York to do some of some of our programming and developing. Very few governments, including in New York City, they're complaining about New York City as well, their online stuff. That some places, some places that have so much money and are just even as so progressive, are still far behind on the technology side. And it can it's not that hard. It's not that hard to change your mindset and to utilize AI agents to take care of some of the tasks that you can't do. So here's here's if I had to make a pitch to governments is why they should, is one, you have governments like New York City and in our our region, like a St. Louis County, that have a deficit. They have a budget deficit, and I can guarantee you that deficit, there's which means to some folks, to folks, some of your listeners that don't know what deficits mean, like they're spending more money than they than they bring in, is mostly due to labor. So they have there's they they have a bunch of money they're spending that they can save, they can fill in their budget hole by uh shifting some of these tasks onto artificial intelligence and shifting these and shifting some of these and shifting some of those jobs to things that are more meaningful. Then you have a service deficit. So you have things that people really need you to do that you want that you want to do. Let's say like social workers and uh let's say a clinical, like a hospital workers, thing say if you have a municipal hospital that you don't have enough people to do, that you can shift those workers to that that could that if if you had that free time. The other thing that what we have in St. Louis City, though, is we have we have a budget surplus, but because we have a huge vacancy, a huge amount of vacancies. So we have uh this year about a$20 million budget surplus, and all of that is due to jobs we have that we said we need filled that we can't fill in St. Louis City. So we could we could solve that issue at the same time, those those amount of vacancies we have, because that that vacancy has we have a service deficit. There are things that should be getting done in the city that are getting done because we have folks doing clerk work that could actually be done with artificial intelligence. We can move those same clerks that that we already have in the system that are already working full-time for the city. We can move those folks to fill in some of those vacancies for our service deficit for things like cutting grass, picking up trash, servicing schools and mental health and folks with mental health issues or or intake for for those who for poverty programs. We can move those clerks for other clerk positions or physical positions in our city. So artificial intelligence makes people much more efficient, just like Google did, just like Encyclopedia has done, just like Zoom has done for us, just like all sorts of things have done for us in the past five, five to twenty years, artificial intelligence it should be it can be seen as something that just increases efficiency for low-skilled and high-skilled workers if we do that right with those AI agents. And I'm hoping, and then the largest uh sector of that is of course software as a service. So our government software is just it's it's outdated. And in most cases, because I served on the state budget committee, I was the top Democrat on the state budget committee for a couple years in Jefferson City. By the time we set a budget, get a contract, and fulfill the fulfill that contract with buying software from the federal, state, or local government, usually that we like take the 18 months to three years or four years to bid it out. Usually that piece of technology is outdated by the time we start using it. So that's what makes government technology so outdated. And then to go through that process again, most governments are not really willing to do that within a decade, within 10 years. So and think about that, the type of companies that bid on these projects, they know that and they and they it it gets it when they win the bid, they know they're gonna pretty much be able to get that annual income for a whole decade. They don't really update uh their their technology. So when we're able to use artificial intelligence into government software and be able to upgrade and update more often, that's I think that's the next step that we start to go to. And quite quite frankly, once again, we're I'm seeing I wish we were at the third level already and at the past AI agents at the software level and doing all three at once. Right now, a lot of folks are still focused on chatbots, just on the simple side of uh artificial intelligence and you or and or using it to make small decisions when we can we could be saving people money and providing way better service now, like literally within the next few months, if we can engage with programmers and developers to make the new age of government technology within the next really the next few months, we can transform a lot of these governments and save a lot of money and provide a lot of good service immediately.

SPEAKER_01: 24:50

Yep. So let me just use one of your vocabulary deficit human will. I think that's the biggest problem of them all, willing to change and all. And I and sadly that's part of human nature. So it's just I wish we could just cure that. There's no real cure to that. That's just something that sadly with that's an obstacle we have to deal with. Um it's been repeated. I'm not gonna give you a whole list history lesson. You go to our previous episodes for that, where I gave you, you know, from the medieval to the industrial and now to the AI revolution. And I agree, chat, you know, the chatbots is so 2020 at this point. It's it's you know, it's just I mean, I'm gonna sound like a snob to you, and that's fine. You can call me that. I sometimes I am. So times I I will happily own that label, but it's just yeah, we should be getting to the next level. And I and not just governments, I even criticize even non-for-profits, they have this same unwillingness, just like governments. It's only about the private sector, even though they implemented poorly, but at least they're trying, at least to some degree. And I've interviewed business people, consultants on that, and I want to just know what they're doing in the private sector, and no, and they're just changing they're changing the game, but but some but there's still a gap that needs to be filled. Let's just be honest. I'm not saying that the gap is shrinking. If anything, it's just getting wider and wider and wider. And there's something that I think needs to be done. So the only question I have, and this is gonna be me being like a negative Nancy, what if those clerks don't want to pick up the trash and deal with social work and all of that? How's that gonna be addressed? Because that's a big shift for someone. They're gonna get training.

SPEAKER_00: 26:28

I I can assure you that a lot of folks wouldn't want to shift. But at the same time, I I believe in mission over personality. And we have a and most clerks and government clerks do do believe in the mission of serving the public and serving people. And I've been successful in shifting folks by focusing on what the mission is in our office. And I I can gladly say, at least most of the people in my office, I've had a the overwhelming amount I've had a good response from folks, especially lately when it comes to shifting folks, like they understand the mission. What people do like once again, too, is they like having a job. They like having a government job. They most people take a government job based on service too. They're interested in one of the reasons why I left the private sector and decided to run for office is like I want in my life to have purpose. And if that purpose is in the legislative branch, I feel the same purpose in the executive branch. So I feel the same purpose as someone who is a clerk rather than someone who is as trash worker. So some people can be based on purpose, some people can be based off salary. Another best practice works for me is uh when you shift people's job, don't shift their salary. Make sure that they're making the same or more. Most people would be interested in a new adventure if they knew that adventure can pay them more. One thing I've done in my office that is I've reduced the amount of staff over time through normal retention or or and sometimes through some through some terminations with folks who weren't a good fit in an office. But I would I I I've always reduced our staff and increased the salaries, uh, the average salary of everyone. So when I first took office, the average salary of of our, you know, since our low-skilled workers of the top the bottom 50% was about$39,000. Now that average salary is$52,000. And we are in what I find is that in government you get what you pay for. If you treat folks and pay them like they are uh not uh not having a living not with a living wage, then they'll get a second job, they'll focus on other things that are gonna get them to the living wage. But if you give people respect and you provide them a living wage, they'll treat the mission and the position with uh with the respect that it deserves. So I I say say sometimes, in my experience, most folks are willing to shift if it if that if that is a shift up, if that if there's a shift, if if it has the same mission, and if they are someone who's committed to to service in general. And if and the folks who aren't that wish there will be, make sure you pay them more, man. Most people will be willing to take a promotion, do a tougher job or physical job if you're gonna get paid more. And I truly believe that once we utilize good technology, utilize artificial intelligence to make things to make positions more efficient, you can actually uh as people are retiring out of these positions and uh normal normal change out of jobs, you can actually uh increase salaries and increase what you pay for those certain folks. And if you turn in ten, ten uh five positions in one department into two, you can increase that salary and get the two best and move those three over to another p positions where you have higher salaries where trash truck drivers are making more than clerks, they're making$20,000 more than clerks, then you that's I think that's a win-win scenario for everyone.

SPEAKER_01: 30:06

Oh, that's a very good answer. Look, even address termination, all that. Look, listen, some people it's not a good fit. I mean, that's just reality. Um, not everyone's gonna be a good fit. Maybe one, two years for some, some sadly, even lower, lower than that. And it is just though, I love that answer. They're mission-driven. So, you know, a lot of people don't say that as an answer because you know people mission-driven, they're they're most likely gonna stay there much longer because of the the mission, and that's very true. Um, even though, yeah, you know, salary increase, that's nice. That's nice, that's definitely gonna increase retention. I mean, this is no-brainer. Private sector, take some notes. You know, they did this this should be a no-brainer to people. You know, they perform well. I believe in, you know, agree with a lot of that. I mean, he does this is a very rational answer here. I hope you're listening, people. This is not red pill, blue pill talking point here. This is reality. Okay, and look, I'm anti-partisan, so as an anti-partisan answer, non-partisan answer, that gets an A for me because that's just reality. Okay, you yeah, yeah, you probably criticize the wording, the frame it, but I don't care about that. I just care about the overall i idea. That's for you. You can rant them on the comment section, that's fine. Um, I just hope you're just getting the main points, people. And look, not all thems are anti-business, which that's just that's just nonsense. Even when I started as a moderate democrat, I thought that was nonsense when I heard that. Or communists and all of that. I said, yeah, maybe a few, but that's not that's still not the majority of Democrats. You can criticize on policy. I I'm for that, but let's not throw these crazy names out, especially as no merit. This is why names like Nazi and communists, they lose meaning is because you just throw that at at people. All right. So this is that what I heard is nothing communist. If anything, this is like worker retention, even you know, competitiveness to some degree, because those who are doing the best, they gain that race. So, hey, healthy competition. It's good for business. So, what can what can I say? I'm pro healthy competition, but no, actually, that's not even a but. Um, it's just it's it's uh yeah, this is this is good stuff. I hope we're really listening, people. Now I'm putting a serious hat. I don't like to joke and call you names sometimes. But this this is good. This is good. Now let's shift into the more political, let's bring the little easier part, and and I'm just gonna frame it in Missouri politics. Yeah, so we're gonna get into a little bit of Missouri politics. What is the state of the Democrat Party?

SPEAKER_00: 32:31

What is the state of the Democratic Party in Missouri? I I think the the Democratic Party has a lot of potential. And usually in nationally and in any state, we use politics, use the term of a pendulum. And I've been a part of Missouri politics for the past 15 years. Well, I served in the state legislature where the pendulum when I got to the state legislature, we had a Democratic governor, and we had just become in the super minority in both the House and the Senate, and the pendulum had was swinging pretty conservative to the right. And usually the pendulum swings back when one party or or another, in a sense, goes too far away from, in a sense, what's known as uh some people call it a moderate view, but I'd say the average view of because the moderate view can change from time to time. In the 90s, a lot of people felt like the pendulum swing swung away from Democrats in Missouri based upon pro-choice issues and pro-gay rights issues. And they felt like there were a lot of real folks who there were some big bills that were voted on that Democrats took big stands on, especially uh on a on a I think it was the gay marriage the the Bush-era gay marriage ban that Democrats really stood strong against, that shifted some of the state legislative races. And then, of course, really what happened in 2008 when Barack Obama got elected, that shift in 2010, the shift completed based on race, really a lot of race in politics. So, what is happening though is that I think the Republicans have gone too far conservative and too far to the right, and that pendulum is swinging back towards progress and towards ideals. And what you're finding in Missouri is that a lot of statewide Democrat ideas are winning statewide ballot initiatives, like increasing minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, all sorts of things that are and then of course repealing an abortion ban, the state legislature did itself. Then even on the issue of abortion, it seems that the Reds have gone too far to the right. I want to use some states around around Missouri to talk about that. When I was in the legislature, there were after the the Republican that defeated the Democratic governor, we had a Governor Nixon, and there was a Republican named Eric Gridens that defeated, that defeated our, after Governor Nixon didn't run for reelection, he was termed out. Democrats, we lost that election to a Republican Eric Grigans. Eric Grigans only lasted in governor for about two years. He was forced, he it wasn't a force, he resigned upon upon scandal over some actions he did during his campaign for a governor, some sexual harassment kind of me too issue charges that were brought against him. And what I found though is that that might have him resigning and really us a lot of Democrats forcing him to resign might have been a little mistake that we made that kind of made the pendulum not swing too far. You can look at other states around us, like Kansas, Illinois, and was it Kansas, Illinois, and there's one more in even Kentucky, who all had very far right air grinds type governors who in each of those states, that conservatism started to affect the state budget so much, especially in Illinois, where there was a Republican governor in Illinois, everyone. If some people forget this, in 2010 and 2012, there's a Republican governor in Illinois who went so far to cut the budget so bad and cut services so bad out of the state budget that a lot of folks in the middle started to hurt. And the Democrat governors were elected in Illinois and in Kansas and even Kentucky, and they're starting to see the pendulum swing back fast. In Missouri, we forced our Republican governor to resign. And actually, some Republicans joined in on that. Republicans helped to force them, knowing, kind of foreseeing that, I think, and putting in a more moderate governor was in a lieutenant governor was in, moved up to governor, then won uh re-election as governor. And we haven't had that pin, we didn't have such a drastic pendulum shift as there were in a lot of states. So I think that pendulum for us in Missouri is swinging slower than in Kansas, Illinois, and Kentucky, but it's still swinging towards supporting Democrats in the future.

SPEAKER_01: 37:17

That actually kind of answers both both parties' um situations. Yeah, no, you know, I always did agree with that. So look, Democrats have great policies. Even red states, they gain success. You're gonna say about abortions, even minimum wage, those are easy. Democrat W's, yes, cool kids. I'm using W's, not wins. Everybody else's wins, okay, for the more established generation, Gen X and onward. Wins, okay? It's it's funny, and I do agree with that. It seems like the Republican politicians are more popular, but Democrat policies win, which is very interesting. Maybe people like the Republican vibe, and they're they're sometimes they're entertaining, but you know, you're not there for entertainment, you're there to impact lives positively. I mean, look, do I like the entertainment? Yeah, but at the end of the day, you gotta you need to serve the people well. That that's what it all boils down to. If the entertainment overshadows that, that becomes a a problem. And you know, I I will even lump Trump in there as well. Yeah, Trump is funny, but we're talking about policies that impacts people. So that part's not a funny matter. It's a very serious uh matter, you know. And we we are gonna get to Trump, and I won't be surprised. Look, he I'm pretty sure he ain't gonna get another a good approval, okay? I could it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And look, I've been I've the only few times I've been pro-Trump, but with this tick with look, the TikTok ban thing that looked like it's not gonna happen, that's gonna be a stable. It's gonna go a lot of revisions, and Larry Elderson, who's the second richest person, you know, the one that owns Oracle, he's a guy for sharing it. I haven't read all the details, but that's the thing. He he flip-flops a lot, he does a lot of craziness, and look, I've been more critical of his second term than even his first term because it's just it's just very it the cuts are reckless. But you know, it's no, but to your point, Democrat policies, they win if they put they put in the ballot, they tend to win generally. Even legalizing marijuana, another thing that tends to win generally, even some in even in some red states. So it's it seems like Democrats have better policy, but in terms of personality in the person, the Republicans is kind of popular. It's kind I don't want to say super extra popular because they're both doing bad, but it's kind of more popular. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 39:39

So, you know, I I I like to say in our state and I think across the country too, Republicans, especially in our state, tend to out-strategize, out-organize, and outwork Democrats. And the, you know, I I I've I've learned a lot from Republicans and how they work together and how they organize around a few issues and organize to uh in a sense they show up all at the same place. They they have a timeline in a sense where they they're all working hard. And as Democrats, we just have we're we're more focused on we have a lot of organizations that help out, but they're we're really focused on fighting other Democrats in areas where we feel like we can win in our state and not we don't have enough of our best and brightest in areas that are pickup areas that where we could use a lot of that work to push back against a lot of Republican extremism. I mean, there of the geo geography of Missouri, in a sense, our best and brightest are not involved in 70% of the geography in Missouri. And I think if we can get some of our smarter people to take risks and you know get some of their easy wins in the cities, but also, you know, take some losses, losses some time and work hard and build up long-term strategy in the red and purple areas, I think we'll see a I I think we can we can win in this state. I truly believe I tell people, I think we're one reverend candidate who is a strong, emotional, and good speaker who can speak to Christianity and poverty issues away from winning a statewide race. Um I tried that a state party chair to recruit some some strong speaking reverends, but you know, it it's a little harder than I thought it was. But it's not impossible. And I think once again, I the there becomes a motivated, reverend, profile, professional, professional, reverend person who can stir up a crowd. I think we I think we got a winner here in Missouri. And I like how at least it's exactly what you're saying. We seem to be around the policies, not on the personality, not on that per an individual person. And I I tried to take some time as uh when I was state party chair to try to focus on the real right profiles that are gonna win elections at the state legislative and at the statewide level. And we got a few of those people in our state, but they're not convinced they could win to spend the amount of time it takes to win. And one day I hope we can change that.

SPEAKER_01: 42:14

Yeah, well, it's funny. I did interview one of them from the outside. I was trying to flip one seat blue, Dan Schaefer. Shout out to him. I'm supporting his campaign. You know, he's in Missouri as well, progressive. He thinks he has a winning chance because the incumbent is gone, because you know, and I think that's smart because incumbents they do have an advantage of fortune. Name ID is I wish it wasn't that important. I think I like track record and policies to be the most important thing. But people pay attention to name IDs much more than even policies, and that's when the Republicans are good at honing that and their simple messaging, linguistic discipline, and organization. Like you said, they are they are good at that. State coordination, they're very good at that. I mean, if the Dems could just be more organized and for the cool kids to have some Riz, charisma, gravitas, then then you know you could flip some seats and even you know, and and it actually gain some ground that that's even politically not feasible. You know, pull some upsets. Maybe, maybe, maybe the crystal ball be wrong. The cook report would be wrong in some of them. Pull some upsets. I would love I love an upset. Upsets are interesting to me. Instead of just, oh, Kelsi says 80% chance, if you're New York City mayoral race, Zoran Montani's gonna win. He's the most progressive candidate. He has the highest chance of winning because the two moderate Democrats are filled with scandals and corruption, and they're both more establishing. Name IDs are even better, but corruption overshadows him so bad that name ID is not good enough anymore. And the Republican, well, he don't even matter. It's so blue, it's so blue that he's a non-factor. And and I like and and and I know um currency. I I I've talked to him before, and he's a very moderate Republican, anti-MAGA, so I voted for him before. I felt good about that. But you know, I know he was gonna I know he was gonna lose because I said let's let's listen. New York is blue, even though everybody hates Eric Adams, but he is a Democrat. Maybe you should have been a Democrat, maybe infiltrated, flip Republican when you're mayor, I don't know. Is it is it unethical? Yeah, but you know, I I'm a strategist at the end of the day. I said, look, we gotta go for the win. I'm a pragmatist, let's get it done. You know, these are things that I think if Democrats get the branding and the right people, and you already said who could speak well, draw crowds, they then then things could turn around for the Democrats. And look, Democrats lost, but the Republicans over exaggerated. They say by long miles and they beat them. No, it's only by margins across the board, margins in the House, even in the Senate. Yeah, the exec well, the executive, yeah. Well, for now, you know, if and look, the Supreme Court's the only thing I can say the Republicans won for that's per that's a permanent win, that's a long-term win. But the rest, it it could be flipped, except if Democrats learn how to outmaneuver that gerrymandarin that Republicans are doing, and they might keep the House because of that. Like Texas, they already done that, and California's gonna do that when he put in their ballot. I think it's it's it is gonna pass, I believe. But it's not, I don't think it's gonna be enough. It's gonna be at still net positive one just based on on the hypotheticals of the gerrymandarin. So look, and if if more red states join on that, like moderate-sized red states, not the super small ones, it doesn't matter for those, then it's gonna be plus one, plus two, and then Republicans are gonna keep the house because they know right now if they keep this current trajectory, they're gonna lose the house. And I agree. I said Democrats are gonna take the house. I would say this though.

SPEAKER_00: 45:40

I I mean, I I I like for always the long game. I have a saying, always the long game. And then politics, always choose the long game. If anybody wants to get in politics that's listening or who's in politics, always choose the long game. I think the long game for this gerrymandering, I think it's better for Democrats. Because what Republicans are doing, and even in our state, they are they are they're making districts that are winnable today as Republican districts, especially in a state like Texas. It's very silly to make districts that are gonna be a little more winnable for Republicans, but they how can I say this? We're gonna take some Democratic districts away and we're gonna split that 60% Democratic district and spread it amongst Republican districts. So you're making a little, you're making your, you're, you're making your Republican district, you're making more Republican districts, but you're making them less winnable for Republicans. So a lot of Republican districts in Texas were 60, 80 percent, 60, 70 percent districts, some of them were already in the high 40s. Now we're making more Republican districts, make them in the lower 40s. Here's here's my my hope and my prayer is that we're gonna win some of those districts. The districts that are drawn for Republicans to win, Democrats can win some of those. In Missouri, this happened in Missouri, where one of my favorite congressmen in all of Congress has been not drawn out of his district, but he's drawn, his district has been changed from a 50-something percent, like I say, a 52% Democrat district to a 40, that's I think it's a 44, 42, or 43% Democratic district. So it's a it's a majority Republican district now, but I think he can still win it. I know the the math doesn't is not necessarily totally in favor of him. That's why Public is doing it. But I think this is the election where there are some people in the middle who are gonna say, this was wrong. I'm still gonna vote for this guy who's clearly a more experienced congressperson to represent me than this new guy who just because he's red. Now, I think there's gonna be just enough people that are gonna be able to do that, and where Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver can still win a district in Missouri, win the district that was drawn, that he was supposedly supposed to lose. And that's gonna create a scenario where the other two districts where some of that Emmanuel Cleaver's Democratic voters were were pushed into, those districts become more winnable now. And in that case, Democrats could, not necessarily, may not this cycle, but Republicans are being too short-sighted in two cycles from now, in a presidential election or a election after that, where Democrats can win, can can pick up a seat in Missouri and pick up some seats in Texas. Um quite frankly, we've seen this happen before. In 2010, it went the other way, where uh there was a district game done, and there were some some districts that were drawn to, in a sense, protect Democrats, where Republicans beat out the polling, and they beat and they beat out the statistics, and they were able to win the House by winning districts that were drawn for Democrats to win. Democrats is gonna win them at a very low margin, but it got so close or and or the polling was so old, and some of the Democrat data was not accurate to where people shifted in that election to uh and and I'm hoping that this election or the next one is gonna be one of those elections where where where political, where hopefully we have strong uh I love how you put it, I think some of the problems in Democrat policy, you don't have enough strong voices where strong voices emerge and we can shift the political waters to where some of these districts that we're drawn we're being drawn out of are actually gonna create other districts that are gonna that were gonna that are gonna be beneficial to us in the in in the later. And most of them will be in suburban areas. We're we're gonna see those in suburban parts of that are combined with marginally beneficial rural parts of states like Missouri and Texas, and we can shift this thing and then get a supermajority. My my cross fingers crossed is that one day uh and this is pie in the sky, but this kind of mistake that Republicans could be making is that we can get enough districts we can win by a slim majority, and then we're smart to get a supermajority and hopefully maybe improve the constitution and and you know get rid of citizens united, do all kind of constitutionally changing things within those two years when we get a supermajority in uh in both the House and the Senate and a president. That should be the goal for for Democrats. That should be us working to turn out folks in some of these districts that are being newly drawn. And I think I I think this could be uh maybe Republicans win this and get some benefit, this election in a few districts. But let's hope that they that this backfires and things shift in in this year and this cycle next in 26 and 28, and we can win big. So Republicans don't hesitate to use a crisis or a change as a benefit. Let's do it for ourselves too. Let me let me end that by seeing how this is possible. Is politically, when you shift a district, all of a sudden you got a new new voters to present yourself to. So Cleaver is gonna get in front of new people. Now, is he gonna be a disadvantage with some of those new people, maybe conservatives? Yes, but it's gonna be new people. Is a person who's gonna be running against them gonna be in front of new people too? Yes. So it's uh are they gonna be at disadvantage? Is it the the you know maybe a D2 school versus LSU? Yes. But I've seen Appalachian State beat Michigan in a in a football game before. It can happen. It can happen, and I want that to happen across the country and get some upsets, like you said.

SPEAKER_01: 51:37

Yeah, no, I I love a good upset. And I think I I think you were alluding to this, but you know, these red district become a little less red because you're stretching out their base, which I think we were alluding to that. So that's a very good point. I've ever heard anyone say that's a good point. That could be the hidden disadvantage or the subtle disadvantage of gerrymander. You're just stretching what's you know R plus 20 could be R plus 5, and that's enough for an upset right there, based on how it's been broken up. So I, you know, I you know I didn't think of it that way, but that's a very good point.

SPEAKER_00: 52:10

Yeah, that's a very good point. And if I can get I I love that I love that you mentioned it. It's a lot of these R plus 20 districts, they're turning into like a more of an R10. Republicans and Democrats are like we bank on this notion that if if a district is now within five points or less, it is not winnable for either side. So you have to be a R plus five. If you're R plus four, that's a district that's winnable. And and then and then both parties throw millions of dollars into those districts where it's a a four, a five, four, three, or less. What I'm saying too is like, and and because some folks say, oh no, because they're being really smart, they're turning from a 20 to a 10. What I'm saying is that if they turn it it, and I like it, so I like this is your scenario first. From a 20 to a five, which is in some cases happening, man, we we could we could, it's not easy, but we that that is a very good chance for us to take advantage of that. Even if it's a 10, I would say you you spend this cycle getting it down to a five, and if that shift continues to happen, then you're gonna then you can win that seat. What most likely will happen is that as things shifts, especially in a state like Texas, you you create an R10 district and you get that thing down to seven this time, you get it down to four next time, and then you can either win it or get it down to one. This is what Republicans are much better at us and doing. They'll say, We're gonna win that in eight years. I had a Republican Speaker of the House tell me we knew we were gonna do well in 2010 against you guys in Missouri because we didn't do as bad as we thought in 2008. They literally lost all the statewide elections except one in 2008. They and Democrats say in Republicans lost, I think it was seven seats, but they said we thought we were gonna lose like 14. So because we didn't lose 14, we knew the pendulum was gonna swing back well for us in 10, and we're gonna, and then and and they were so they didn't get oh, woe is me. They said, oh man, we only lost seven. Do you know they picked up 17 in 2010 in the state? They picked up 17 seats, and then in by 2000, they didn't win in 2012, but by 2016, they took every statewide, well, every statewide seat but once. The moral of the story is that we got to play in long term. And to your point, I love how you you mentioned the R20, RTLing. That giving us that that much in one redistricting cycle and allow it, and if we can chip at it over two or three years within the next redistrict cycle, two or three cycles, I think we can I think we can win big if we organize and we work and we strategize right.

SPEAKER_01: 54:54

Oh, yeah. I mean, well, guess what? I'm gonna cancel one thing. We only talk about Trump, and besides, we I could probably predict what he what he's gonna say about that. So, well, you know, you know, this is this has actually been so enlightening for me. And I I love this because it opens new pathways for me to think about this. You know, that's true. It's a it's it's a short-term advantage now, but if you work and adapt with all within those gerrymandered um districts, yeah, it's still wendable. And I like the fact that you say, yeah, if if it's super strong or you know, public condition, they they're just they are stretching themselves thin if they keep on doing this. And that you know, those solid red states are gonna become likely red, and it's gonna become even lean red, and then it's gonna be swing or toss sub, whatever term you want to use. And yeah, I think that's yeah, that that that is a very good point. I'm still stuck in God. That's that's pretty enlightening. See, you gotta think things differently, people. Always listen to what media tells you, because media is always fear-mongered. You know, you're gonna go all crazy and stuff. You know, you want to you want to be more logical and smart. Don't let the amygdala take over. Take let make sure your pre-forectoral cont uh cortex takes over, you know, because you can think of things very differently, you know. This is not just for them, this is for Republicans as well. Um, even though one of my guests genetically said that, you know, the the fear mongery part is actually stronger than the Republican brain than the Democrat brain. That's a shout out to Michael Anderson right there. Check his stuff out. But but you know, let's do the you know what this is, I think it's a good time to wrap up. Um yeah, I'm gonna cancel the Trump thing. We only talk about Trump. Trump, I you know, probably everybody got Trump fatigued. I'm getting Trump fatigued. So you know change your mind on that one because look, listen, I everybody's set on Trump. They they love him, they hate him, or they just think he's a wild card. What whatever. And they all have valid points. So let's forget about that. Actually, I I this is this is a good way to all man it. Anything else you want to add? You know what? Actually, no, before I do that, let's let's do a Seamus Puck refer to go to Saint Lou Louis CityRecorder.org. Okay, check that website out, especially for the Missourians. Check that out. And look, it's great services. I never seen a website that is so simple, it's so organized. And I'm not just saying this just for shameless plug-in. It's actually much more better than the New York City and definitely the New York State design. And this is coming from a New Yorker, yeah. Okay, and we could do better. And you know, I don't think the New York cool, oh, New York is best no matter what. Yeah, we got the tallest buildings, yeah. We got, you know, we got economic engine. Yeah, that's true. But when it comes to implementation government, we suck. I'm just gonna say like that. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. We suck, and we can do a lot better. We got potential that's not that's not being used because you know what's funny? Despite being despite you know, Democrats running in it, they're conservative when it comes to holding power. Yeah, I'm gonna say that and not changing things. Yeah, they're conservative on that one. Get offended. I don't care. The AOCs and Jerry Natler's all you know, your conservative comes to holding your power. And Brad Lander, yeah, yeah, yeah, progressives. Well, actually, not Jerry, not Jared on Natler. He's not he's not really progressive, he pretends to be. But yeah, y'all conservative when it comes to trying to holding power. And I've seen how y'all talk in in some of your meetings that the media don't show. And some of it's quite appalling, and y'all, y'all intentionally misunderstand things just to maintain power. And that's something that the the right has done as well. So to me, when it comes to maintaining power, you're no better than the right. This is why I'm an I'm independent, I'm more for policies and people if the person's great, but but at the end of the day, policy is what sticks, not the person. So that's ironic. So let's just be clear about that. Any other plugins you want to do? Oh, he has plenty of social medias as well. He has the Facebook and Twitter, I'm not calling it X, Instagram, LinkedIn, and the TikTok that was supposed to be banned, but it is here to stay. And you know, me, I I grown a soft heart on it. I used to be anti-Tik tock, I wanted it banned. That's been my position, but now I'm like, it helps small business, even though they got a lot of stupid people in there, mostly from one camp. And I'm gonna sound like I'm part, I agree with the right on that one. There's a lot of ignorant, left-leaning youth in there that spread such foul things, but I don't promote them. I'm not gonna say their name either because they're part of the problem as well. And they've been in, I believe they've been indoctrinated. That's my position. Yeah, I will join the Republican camp on that criticism. Yeah, I look as an independent, I'm not I'm not partisan, but there's things I agree with Democrats. Let's play things. I like I like how this government is being run, and shoot, maybe I might want to move here, see some government efficiency, you know, it'd probably be cheaper, and shoot. There's a good job there, and it's cheaper rent and all that. Get out of this crazy city that's getting too damn expensive, to be honest. The rent's too damn high, should have been a popular party, but that's been hijacked. So that's just my little ramblings, first world problems. You know, that that's all I'm gonna say about that. I can rant much longer, but I'm gonna keep it nice and short because you get the point. From here, anything else you want to uh plug in before I wrap this up?

SPEAKER_00: 59:59

No, not a lot. I've really enjoyed the conversation, man. Let's not just let this be the last time. Love to keep in touch. And I just like to plug politically high-tech, man. This is a I'm sure this is a great podcast. I enjoy being on, my friend.

SPEAKER_01: 1:00:12

No, I want to definitely maintain contact because, see, look, I don't go by if I was a partisan hack, and let me just use the right-wing one for example, I would have said to hell with him just because he's a D. No, people. No. I go by character. I go by policy. I go by track record I don't care where you lean. If you're too far left or too far right, I'm my reaction, whoa, you lost me as a voter. You lost me there. You lost me. Anti-far whatever. Okay? And I'm more of a fluid moderate. I mean, there's times I'll swing a little to the right, a little to the left, depending on the climate. As of now, I'm swinging more to the left because of Donald Trump and their aggressive cuts that are really hurting the country. I is irresponsible. They're just think of a surgeon just chop, just carelessly chopping you apart. That's what they're doing. It's graphic. They're hitting major organs and even fats. Yeah, they're attacking all that. Vaccine cuts, the our weathering system, all of that. That's bad. That's bad. Yeah, you could be skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine, but don't destroy all vaccines just because of that. That's crazy. They have worked, people. They have worked. Okay, let me calm down. Let me calm down. I'm getting worked up. But look, let's end in a good note. Follow him. And look, government can work good. I like I said, thank goodness I never agreed to government abolish because look, I I would not probably I will not talk to him. Look at that. So I believe in government reform, and he's definitely doing that. So this is this is good for me. I don't care if you're a D and R, as long as you're doing good work, I would support that. That's all I'm gonna say from there. Now let's do the little mind. This is the most selfish. I'm saying this plugin. Like, comment, subscribe, share this with anyone who could benefit for it. I want particularly the Missouri people to watch this and either in the neighboring states because impact could be pretty wide, and sometimes you'll pay attention to it. And you know, anybody else in general, but Missouri are the most important people, and I do see gains overall that it's becoming a little more Democratic, slowly but surely, especially when the right is acting too crazy. I think we I think reinstating duel was a crazy idea to try to push and say, whoa, that's insane. Yeah, we're gonna go back to we're gonna go back to 1700 1800s, wonderful. Just sell out with a gun. Yeah, great. So see, this is why you can go too crazy. That's that's a moral lesson for both parties, not just Republicans. But y'all the ones acting crazy in that state. That's what happens when you when you trip, when you when you drink the red, when you know when you just eat the red pills crazily, or or even a blue pill, but in this case it's a red pill for Missouri. So, you know, when you come too arrogant, you will lose it. You will lose it, you will lose your power, and that's what's gonna happen. Um eventually. It's slower than I would like, but I you know, I like it when things are changing more fluid. So, all right, enough of me. Yammerin. So, and give a review, give an honest review. I don't want perfect five stars. Thank goodness I already achieved that. A hater gave me one star without saying anything. I you you know, I like you too. You're interesting, and then I won't got a four-star, but mostly it's been five stars. And to me, that's more authentic than having a perfect five-star because I don't know, there's some manipulation there over there. I don't trust it. I don't trust this podcast for me. And some of them are not the greatest, in my opinion. I'm trying to be nice here. I could be aggressive, but I'm just trying to be nice here. So, and one more thing. I and then give a review. If this episode's great, give one at least one reason why. If the episode was not the best, give a reason why. Specific constructive criticism is the way this podcast could grow. So saying, oh, you stupid, oh, Michael Butler's a communist. That doesn't help. I'm just gonna ignore it. And I'm sure some of you are gonna just want to say it because you want to feel good. You know, this is just cheap dopamine hits for you keyboard warriors, and and you know, and that's I'm gonna say. And um, oh, give it if you're feeling generous, give a donation to this podcast as well. I have thought some ideas about exclusive episodes. The action Bible, yeah, Bible in a comic book format. And I'm gonna start reading certain chapters and one more thing. And I'm gonna start having wild conversations to a little paywall. If I'm gonna be wild, you're gonna pay for it. I need to hurt you somewhere. If I'm gonna be wow, you're gonna pay for my for my crazy performance. But this here, this is for the general public. These are free, okay? Because I think that these things need to be free. One wild entertainment, you're gonna have to pay for that. That's behind a golden vault of craziness, okay? And it's probably gonna be even super informative stuff. I I will see where it goes from there. And if you get a shout-out, you get custom emotes and things like that, all right? So when you complete this audio or visual journey, have a blessed day, afternoon, or night.