EP 2 Borders, Ballers & Boundaries | Politics is Personal

In this episode of Politics is Personal with Leslie and Cole, we connect the dots between immigration policy, the rise and visibility of the WNBA, and the quiet power of gerrymandering in shaping political representation. From who gets to cross borders, to who gets center court, to who draws the lines that define our votes, we unpack how systems of power show up in everyday life and why none of these conversations exist in isolation.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Well, welcome to Politics is Personal with Leslie and Cole. I'm Leslie Harrod.

SPEAKER_05 0:04

And I'm Cole West. Which could be a great show today. We have our good friend and former colleague Joe Salazar, who's going to join us here on the program. And as usual, talking to each other about what's in our feet, what's bugging us, maybe a little bit about Colorado politics, maybe a little bit about national politics, and you know, whatever seems to uh float our boat at at the particular moment. But uh great to be with you as always.

SPEAKER_01 0:34

It's so good to be here with you again this week. Uh, and thank you. Shout out to all of our listeners who keep bringing us back. So we'll keep doing this as long as folks will listen, right?

SPEAKER_05 0:42

As long as they'll listen. That's exactly right. So, what what's what's going on with you? What's in your feed? What uh what's what's showing up?

SPEAKER_01 0:49

Oh man, well, I will tell you my feed has been lit up with the voting rights act stuff. And I know we have talked about that on the show, and then quite frankly, I hope we talk about it until it's no longer an issue because the rolling back of Voting Rights Act and this the the the sacred the sacred cow is one thing, but just the the stealing of black seats across this country is something that we should all be alarmed about, um, and quite frankly, uh ashamed as a country that we allow John Lewis and so many others to fight, some to even lose their lives, for the right to vote, for fair districts, for representation, and that's all being rolled back. And so for me, what's in my feed right now is is definitely a critique of you know the Democrats and kind of how we got here, but also more of a conversation now about what we can do next, um what a strategy could look like in blue states, like making sure that we are also drawing districts that uh reflect our population, which may be more blue than what we send traditionally to Congress. We I've seen a lot of interesting conversation about possibly this act being the thing that spurs um blacks, especially in the South, to get out and vote and actually have a backlash, right? And the opposite effect of what folks um have wanted. But, you know, the big thing that I've been just rem remembering and seeing all over my feed is that we cannot say that we are, you know, this this country that is for all except for in the South. We can't do that. And we can no longer leave the southern states behind when we're talking about what it looks like to to live the American dream, to have the shared values, to be able to live freely and take care of your family, but for the South. And so there's a lot of conversation about that. I'm really um excited or or or feeling very positive that there is going to be a march um now in Montgomery in um in the coming week uh to fight back against the RA. And there's gonna be actions also across our communities, and that's the All Roads Lead South march on May 16th. Um, and we'll see action here as well.

SPEAKER_05 2:50

So tell us about that march. I I don't know much about that.

SPEAKER_01 2:52

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's being led. I know that Fairfight is a part of it. The Bennett Centers, black women across the country, especially those in the South, have called on this and made a basically a national call to to activate, to do something. And of course, Montgomery is is a very important place because that is where really the the the turning point in the movement around voting rights and the civil civil rights movement happened with on Selma. And so so yeah, so we're we're talking through all of that, um, and this has kind of come up from folks in the South saying we need your support and we need you to show up, and that this is where people are showing up.

SPEAKER_05 3:26

So the Democrats seem a little flat-footed to me. Um is it just me or they seem like they're on their heels, they're playing defense. Um in some states they're talking about things that they may want to do to go on offense, but it it it seems like it's uh a very reactive strategy from Democrats. Is that a fair criticism?

SPEAKER_01 3:45

Well well, what what what is the alternative? I mean the the courts continue to strike down efforts for the Democrats to take some of these seats. I know um Jeffrey's just had the ruling against his his actions as well. And so I feel like what else is there to do as maybe it's not elected leaders, but it's the people again that have to step up and say to anyone, I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, I don't care if you're in a deep red seat that we will turn out, we will vote, and we will get you out of office. But we're gonna expose the fact that you don't think we should have a voice. And so what happens when people don't have a voice or when folks tell people they don't have a voice? They get louder. They get louder. And quite frankly, I hope that people show up across the country, not just in the South, and say that we demand better and we demand a a real response.

SPEAKER_05 4:32

Where do you think this is gonna be in November? Obviously, this is a very hot issue now, and and there are those of us, uh I personally believe this, that that I I don't know that gerrymandering will be enough to protect Republicans from the the blue wave that's coming. But will voters turn out? Yeah. Will voters come out? Um I I see it as a wave election, but I also see a lot of anger and frustration from folks, and people respond differently to that. Sometimes it motivates people to vote, and in other respects, people become very cynical about politics and and don't think that it matters if they turn out to vote.

SPEAKER_01 5:08

And you know, my heart of hearts is saying that the the uh primaries, especially on the Democratic side, are gonna be very battering and bruising. Um they already are, uh, but that folks are gonna turn out in large numbers on the Democratic side to make sure that these Republicans who are supporting this administration and these awful policies are uh are removed. And so what I think will happen is more um independence and sane Republicans who um are not racist, who do not believe that we should be kidnapping um mothers on the streets are gonna turn out and vote against the people they voted for for probably um decades. That's what I think is gonna happen. Yeah. So what's in your feed?

SPEAKER_05 5:51

Well, um I I we're about to have the World Cup in the United States, and you know, we promised or FIFA promised all of this great economic activity for all of these cities that agreed to have the games. So, you know, I I saw a video clip the other day of what's happening in Kansas City. Yeah. Um so they they had planned for this influx of international visitors, hotel rooms were going to be booked, and Kansas City, Kansas City is seeing less hotels booked than they would typically see in a given summer. So, I mean, there are a lot of ways to look at that, but look, we're just not that hot of a destination as a country that we were a year ago, um, or maybe two years ago. Uh folks don't want to come here.

SPEAKER_04 6:40

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 6:40

Um, and how sad that is for our country, that in the cunt in the summer that we're gonna celebrate our 250th anar anniversary of our independence, welcoming the world to come here for the World Cup, that the United States is increasingly seen as a pariah in the world, as a country that doesn't frankly walk the walk and uh in in terms of of uh uh embracing and supporting human rights and and respect for dignity uh for all persons. Uh so the world is watching what's happening in our country, and I'm afraid uh for the FIFA World Cup, uh we're not ready for the the magnifying glass that's about the that's about to be shown on our country.

SPEAKER_01 7:26

Well, do you think that it's gonna be a whole bunch of empty seats because many of the people that would want to come and w come to the United States, want to come and watch that game, um, might have to face uh uh ice, face down ice to get into the stadium?

SPEAKER_05 7:40

I mean, I've seen some people say, well, I mean, maybe I shouldn't come because I might get arrested off the street and end up in a gulag in God knows where. Right. So um yeah, if I were uh an international fan deciding whether or not I was gonna come to the United States to support my team, I'd probably stay home and watch on TV.

SPEAKER_01 7:59

And what does that say for the party that's supposed to be, you know, the party of uh uh of economic development, right? And the party of building our economy, that that one of these huge opportunities to pump billions of dollars into our economy, millions into the local economy, uh is failing.

SPEAKER_05 8:18

A huge fumble. Here's another interesting thing that I think it's just a sports reference. Um maybe American football instead of traditional football. But um, you know, I I think a lot of the tickets have been purchased by scalpers and by these companies that are reselling tickets. Um I think it'd be hysterical if a lot of these these ticket brokers got ended, you know, were ended up holding the bag and and weren't able to sell all of these tickets at premium prices. Um that's happening not only in the World Cup but in sporting events, concerts across the country. I am sick to death of of ticket brokers buying up all the tickets and gouging American consumers. And maybe this is the day of reckoning that that ticket brokers have been uh have been fearing.

SPEAKER_01 9:10

I gotta agree with you there. The price of concert tickets nowadays is literally insane. I don't know how young people or any of us actually do go to these concerts, and I I love concerts. Um so one thing positive in my feed though, that's just been tickling me, is uh my my my homie Barack Obama has been in my feed a lot recently. Uh and I think we're excited for the opening of the um of the museum out in Chicago. And he's doing all these cameos and these appearances and these interviews, and it's it's good to hear his voice.

SPEAKER_05 9:41

Um have you have you seen the new library?

SPEAKER_01 9:44

Not yet.

SPEAKER_05 9:44

Okay. No.

SPEAKER_01 9:45

I would like to you've been to a few of them, haven't you?

SPEAKER_05 9:47

I've been to the Kennedy Library, I've been to the George W. Bush Library in Dallas. Um I've I've been to the Jimmy Carter Presidential Center in Georgia. So uh yeah, I'm I'm looking forward to seeing it. Um and I I I was amused by the fact that that President Obama visited um our Prime Minister to the north, Mark Carney, who um in a in a smart ass comment I I made on dreads, I had adopted Mark Carney as my president. But it's sort of like I I appreciate the fact that we have somebody like Mark Carney who's speaking uh maturely about issues, and my friends from Canada certainly are much prouder of their prime minister and the way he conducts himself on the world stage. So I I was amused by President Obama's visit to Prime Minister Kearney.

SPEAKER_01 10:41

Sounds like we need a politics as personal road trip to Chicago to check out that library.

SPEAKER_05 10:45

That would be really awesome.

SPEAKER_01 10:46

Yeah. All right, well, thank you.

SPEAKER_05 10:49

Um so stay with us. We'll have our good friend Joe Salazar coming up next.

SPEAKER_01 10:53

Welcome back to Politics is Personal with Leslie and Cole. I am so excited to be here with my good friend Joe Salazar.

SPEAKER_05 11:02

Our good friend.

SPEAKER_01 11:03

Our good friend, former representative. You all remember when I would talk about even on the show already, about how I grew my relationship with you because I put myself next to the vice chairman of the committee and you as the ranking member, Cole. Well, this is our lovely vice chairman, Joe Salazar, longtime friend, my mentor in the legislature. Welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_02 11:23

It's beautiful being here. So happy to see your podcast. I've been watching it, it's great.

SPEAKER_01 11:27

Thank you so much. So, what have you been up to?

SPEAKER_02 11:30

No good. That's he laughs, but that's my fundamental nature, right? Like, no, I mean, uh, you know, I've been um I've been busy uh doing things in the community just like I did before I became a state representative, you know, helping out where I can, uh both the indigenous Chicano community, um still wrapped up uh, you know, in in uh communications with the black community, just doing what I do, really.

SPEAKER_01 11:54

Yeah, I mean in the legislature you were such an advocate on uh police accountability and oil and gas and just really fighting for the people. And so appreciate all the work that you've done. How many bills did you pass?

SPEAKER_02 12:06

Oh, you know, I never kept track of that. Yeah. I really didn't. Uh I wasn't there for tracking of the bills. I was there to just try to do the good work of the people and and to work with good people like yourselves. And I really appreciated the good work that the three of us did. Um, even though we were on opposite ends of the aisle at times, uh, well, you and I were on the same side of the aisle, but with Cole, you know, it was it was refreshing to have someone to be able to speak with on the other side of the aisle and and have a rational, logical conversation with.

SPEAKER_05 12:36

Yeah. One of my one of my favorite things about when I started at the Capitol was sort of hearing the the analysis from folks in my caucus about who's on the other side of the aisle and what are they really like. And the the the consistent theme that I heard about you, Joe, was you know, he may be really, really tough when we're in committee, or really, really tough when we're on the floor, and he fights like hell for his constituents. Um, but off the floor uh or out of committee, he's a regular human being, you know, and some of the more conservative members of my caucus just love you as a person. Uh and uh, you know, and I I think you modeled good behavior in terms of when we're in the when we're in the arena doing the work of an elected representative, you know, we're advocates, but we don't always have to carry that with us uh through you know throughout our our our tenure as elected officials. And I think you modeled that really, really well at the country.

SPEAKER_02 13:34

I appreciate that. No, we've had I think we've had breakfast or lunch together since then. Um I still keep in contact with uh Justin Everett. I haven't spoken with him in a while, but Justin Everett, who is, you know, super far right. I was super far left, and you know, we we maintain a good friendship. Um it was it was important to do that, right? I mean, it should be important to do that, that your friends outside of the uh outside of the building, because after all, you're just a a neighbor in the neighborhood um even when you're serving, but particularly when you're outside that building.

SPEAKER_01 14:05

And it's hard to find out where that place of commonality is unless you have conversations with people as people. And it was always one of my things, and I know yours as well, and yours was to say, okay, let me think of a bill that I can work on with someone who is least likely to be my partner in crime on a bill. You know, let me see if I can find something that we can all agree on or that we can agree to move forward on together. And one thing that we all worked on was prison reform. And I remember coming at that because of mass incarceration, right? Like anti-mass incarceration, anti-the overpopulation of black and brown people in the system, the overcriminalization. I know you had been working on those issues before I came to the legislature.

SPEAKER_02 14:42

And how much it was costing the state.

SPEAKER_01 14:44

And how much it was costing the state.

SPEAKER_05 14:45

Right.

SPEAKER_01 14:46

And I think that's what got your ears up.

SPEAKER_05 14:48

For sure. I mean, we spent billions of dollars to incarcerate people. And one of the things that we had frustration about was our prison population was actually going down, and yet every year the DOC was coming to us saying, Oh my god, we gotta have more money, and the sky is falling, and it's it's crazy. So, um, you know, tell us about where we have have come in terms of prison reform. I I it it continues to be an issue that I know you feel passionately about, but where are we now in terms of that set of issues?

SPEAKER_02 15:19

I mean, I think it was last week, maybe two weeks ago, the Denver Post reported about how DOC came and asking for more money. And they also reported too that there's still a drop, a pretty significant drop in the prison population.

SPEAKER_01 15:33

So I you know and they asked to open up another prison. Right.

SPEAKER_02 15:36

They asked to open up another prison. So where's the disconnect on this? Where is it that for the the past, I mean, uh since we've been there, since we've left, um there's been a decrease in the prison population, but yet here we are, you know, eight years later for myself, uh for yourselves, uh, you know, six years later or however long it's been. Oh, two for you, right? Yeah, two for you. But um I think that they're still asking for more money.

SPEAKER_05 16:00

Right.

SPEAKER_02 16:01

I just I don't understand it. I don't know what the disconnect is.

SPEAKER_05 16:04

And why are they a sacred cow in the state budget? And why are we so deferential to them? Why aren't they subject to the same kind of scrutiny as everybody else? And particularly like this year when we were cutting budgets. Um it seems pretty incredible to me that at a time when we're tightening the belts in the state budget, the DOC uh seems to be exempt from that saying they need more money.

SPEAKER_02 16:27

I think I think we fundamentally as as a uh as a state, as a as a nation, uh we haven't worked ourselves out of that um tough on crime culture. And I think that the idea of tough-on crime means that um you have to build as many prisons as possible, you have to throw as many people in jail as possible. And that is just a a uh a wrong way of thinking. Um the reforms that uh that we've been putting in place for the past, I would say, a good eight years, maybe even longer than that, it has caused a reduction in in crime. It has caused a reduction in in the prison population. That stuff works. So this whole idea that we have to build new prisons when everything else is working, it's still that same uh uh fallacy in the culture that tough on crime means that we have to throw everybody in jail.

SPEAKER_01 17:18

Yeah, I mean that is that is exactly what folks in the legislature, what you know, when you poll people, you know, law enforcement still ranks pretty high, tough on crime ranks pretty high. Um and yet we're cutting um our budgets for higher education, for K-12 education. People again aren't able to afford to take care of their families, but we want to spend all this massive amount of money on prisons and really just opening up prisons, right? Creating new prisons, which is hugely problematic. But I want to I want to shift over to um when we were in the legislature, and I believe either you were there with me or you were there with me on the phone uh when we started shutting down prisons because of the work we did with the prison population um uh interim committee that Cole and I chaired together. Um one uh one of the facilities that ended up closing after the after the reforms went put and were put into place is now being looked at as a geo facility. Um it's being looked at some of these empty buildings, um, are being looked at uh for immigration and for these detention centers, if that's even what you want to call them. Um so let's talk about the state of immigration today, what it looks like here in Colorado, how it's affecting the country. Um, what are your thoughts?

SPEAKER_02 18:28

So, you know, I and I'm very proud about this. Uh it was my cohort of uh of representatives and senators my my year when we came in in 2012-2013 that really started the ball rolling on protecting our immigrant populations. We got rid of SB90, which allowed uh Colorado law enforcement to racially profile people who look like they were undocumented. Um Jesse Uliberry, Senator Jesse Uliberry passed uh driver's licenses for all. And Crysanta Duran and Angela Williams passed um uh asset. And and and and also, you know, uh Representative Javon Milton was working with Jesse Uliberry on the uh driver's licenses for all. And we have asset asset is uh in-state tuition for undocumented students. And so we showed in that particular session, which was a 2013 session, that providing support for our undocumented communities was not a toxic thing.

SPEAKER_01 19:24

Right.

SPEAKER_02 19:25

And we passed all three of them. And then after we passed those three in 2013, more and more bills started to get passed to where we are today, where the state is very protective of our undocumented population fighting back against the Trump administration. We're seeing that also from the city and county of Denver, from our state agencies and what have you. And um what we telegraph to people is what Colorado has always been, which has been welcoming to all individuals, whether you're documented or not, right? And um so the shift that has taken place, and we saw it take place in 20 uh in 2016 when Trump got elected. We saw that shift and we started to prepare for it, right? I moved forward, and I think you guys might remember this the Ralph Carr Freedom Defense Act to protect our state from uh an authoritarian federal government, and then uh after I left, and we saw other people come, you were supportive of it, um, you know, to to uh help protect people from a fascist federal government. And then it came last year with his election, right? And now we're seeing exactly why we started to prepare back in 2016.

SPEAKER_04 20:36

Right.

SPEAKER_02 20:37

We see it now. People thought that we were just crazy, they thought that we were just you know being melodramatic or over dramatic, and but we knew that this was coming because we knew our history.

SPEAKER_01 20:49

What do you think? He's gonna come take people off the streets and kidnap them? Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 20:55

So I I wanna I want to pivot back a little bit because I think, you know, um is it fair to say that the Democrats got some things wrong on immigration policy? It's it's the one issue that I think like Trump or don't like Trump, it's the one issue that he successfully utilized to catapult himself to the White House twice talking about immigration policy. So um you know, be an armchair quarterback and tell us where you think Democrats got it right on immigration, where they didn't get it right, and where they opened the door for Trump.

SPEAKER_02 21:30

So I think uh Trump stepped through the door of demonization. He wanted to demonize immigrants, and the Democratic Party didn't quite know how to deal with that, right? They they you know once again they want to appear I'm I'm I'm tough on on crime. I'm you know, these undocumented immigrants are engaged in criminality. Well, that's not true, right? It's not a crime to be here undocumented, right? But he stepped through that door, and where Democrats have really failed is is stepping. Up to the plate in saying, because it is a confusing subject for Americans, is saying this is what it means, this is what our immigration laws do. We don't provide public benefits from taxpayers' dollars. That has been grounded in federal law for God knows how long, right? And um, you know, we still want to have protected borders, but we also want to be welcoming, right? And one of the things that we don't want is we don't want ICE terrorizing our communities. That's where Democrats have really stepped up in the past, oh, what is it, six, seven, eight months, especially after Minnesota, right? Right. Democrats have really stepped into that, into that place. But they don't know how to work around Republican messaging about this whole criminal aspect of things, or you know, falling into Trump's uh little, you know, tirades about uh, you know, they're not the best and the brightest, and they're they're criminals and they're gonna murder everybody. That's where Democrats have fallen on the job. The policies that Democrats have brought are good policies, and we've seen that they're good policies. Why wouldn't you want to have undocumented folks have driver's licenses? For God's sakes, that's the way you get insurance.

SPEAKER_01 23:06

Right. Don't you want them insured or put everyone in your word? Right. Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 23:11

Why, why, why, why do we prohibit law enforcement from racially profiling? Because they wrap up people like Paulybaca. Polly Baca was stopped. Pollybacca's a former state representative and senator, right? And she was wrapped up by police on a racial profiling thing, right? And she had to talk to them about it. Um my family's been here before there was a state of Colorado, right? And um, and so we've we've gotten it right where that's concerned. It's our messaging that sucks, but our messaging always sucks. It always does on pretty much everything.

SPEAKER_01 23:41

But you're but you're talking from the state level, and I agree with those state level policies, but I'll push back a little bit and say, why have has it Congress, when Democrats have control of Congress and the White House, the times that we have, why haven't we moved this conversation forward more productively on immigration reform so that we wouldn't be in the space where we're demonizing people and people have a pathway to citizenship here? You know, the one thing I was really concerned about when we did Asset and DACA was that we were creating a database for people, you know, who were undocumented, um, who were here for you know forever and were students to find them. And now we know that some some of that is being put in is being utilized to um to kidnap people and to do uh these immigration ice raids. Um and so let's talk about that. Like what what needs to happen at the federal level?

SPEAKER_02 24:30

So it's not so much of a pushback because Democrats did move on that in 2012 and 2013. I was I was there in Congress right after I had been elected. And this was the only time that I really was proud of Michael Bennett, right? Michael Bennett was there, the gang of eight, I believe it was, where they they tried to get comprehensive immigration reform moved forward and it passed the Senate. And then it got to the Republican-controlled house. And it wasn't even brought to the floor, so it eventually died. But you asked the question, which is the relevant question, yeah, but then we got control of the house again, right? Why didn't they move it forward? And it's because they haven't learned the lessons of Colorado, where this issue is not a toxic issue. Well, when you talk about it rationally with people, then they're like, oh, okay, I get it, right? And people in Congress don't do that, they don't have those conversations with uh the you know with their constituents or the rest of the nation saying this is why we have to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. So instead, Obama he developed DAC on his own, right? And he moved forward with that, which now the Trump administration has dismantled in many ways. So you're right. We've done a good job here in the state of Colorado, we haven't done a good job in Congress, and hopefully, if we get uh, you know, the House back and maybe even possibly the Senate back, we can move forward with those things, but then we still have to deal with Trump, who'd be who's the president.

SPEAKER_05 25:51

So let me layer one thing on top of that, and that is um the role of the Catholic Church and the fact that we now have an American Pope who's been very outspoken about a number of things. Uh, but I think for the first time we've seen American Catholic bishops speak up on a number of issues. Immigration, of course, being one in terms of of the teachings of Christ in terms of welcoming the stranger. So uh is there a is there a different is there a shift um that you think might come from the new leadership of of American Catholic bishops on the issue of immigration?

SPEAKER_02 26:25

Sure. Keviva al Papa, number one, you know, long live the Pope. Uh I I I love this guy. He's he's he's awesome. I'm not Catholic. My wife is Catholic, but I've been watching him, and he's not he's not politicizing, he's preaching the word of God, right? Like, welcome to stranger, right? Be kind, be kind for pretty much fundamental things in the Bible, right? And um, and and you know, but but seeing the Catholic Church and some of the bishops coming out, I just watched a uh an interview of three of them, uh, one from Chicago, New York, and I forgot the other place, Pennsylvania possibly. And they were talking about how this is the fundamental nature of what we are, which is to be welcoming and to love, right, love our neighbors, right? And uh to have that out there finally, because the Catholic Church has been so silent on this issue, um, and the ones that weren't silent were not nice.

SPEAKER_05 27:15

And as a Catholic, that frustrated me, I would say. Right.

SPEAKER_02 27:19

So now seeing that, right? Um, hopefully there there is a shift. Hopefully, people who have a struggle between politics and religion are able to reconcile those things and and follow a a more humane path.

SPEAKER_05 27:33

That was very short-sighted by Republicans. If you saw, and you I don't think there's any denying this, that Trump made great headway uh with particularly Latino men in the last election. Um I think you've seen those numbers shift pretty dramatically away from Trump because of of tactics with ICE. So I mean i it it is sort of a head scratcher that Republicans had this new opportunity with the with the segment of of the electorate, and I think they fumbled it.

SPEAKER_01 28:04

Yeah, I mean Trump has what the lowest approval ratings that he we've seen right now. Uh and you know, I kind of wonder whi why, right? Like what is what is moving the the the right, uh what which issue is it, or is it just the combination and they've decided that it's it's too much, you know? But his approval ratings are down, and I think, you know, we talk about the church and we talked last week about the black church and the voting rights act and just the the attempt to say, you know what, it's almost like it's almost like he knows he's not gonna win again, and so let's change the rules. And I remind folks, and and we've talked about this, you know, Hitler was popularly elected. Did he change the rules before that election came? Yes, and then obviously we know what happened from from there. But this this this dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, uh, what we're seeing of stopping elections while they're going on, the erasure, erasure of black districts. Uh, what's your take on everything that's happening? I know there's a lot more to talk about, but Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 28:58

So it's fascism and authoritarianism uh playing out for us, right? Uh it's it's not as if we haven't seen this before. Uh this is what authoritarian governments do. He had his first term to place a bunch of people on the bench. And the lower courts and and the appellate courts have by and large held fast to the rule of law as well as to starry decises and and and you know just uh precedents. Now he's in his second term, and now these cases are starting to move through on Voting R Voting Rights Act, and now he has a 6'3 court. And we saw what happened last week, two weeks ago, whatever it was. We saw what happened. But this has been set in motion since his first election, right? And so this this isn't a surprise to me, and it shouldn't become a surprise to anybody. This is how authoritarians do things. They are stamped with approval by the courts that they pick in order to dismantle constitutional rights. And that's where we're at at this point.

SPEAKER_05 30:00

So why do you think Democrats are are losing the the gerrymandering war? I mean, and I think it's a pretty fair assessment that you know what happened with the Virginia Supreme Court last week, but I mean, candidly, the Democrats are losing this battle. Why are they losing? And should they be stepping up their game and trying to do different things to try to counteract what the what the Republicans are doing pretty effectively.

SPEAKER_02 30:24

So what I'm gonna say, I I've said it before, I said it on Facebook. Mike Mike Litwin uh he he commented on it. Um this gerrymandering has demonstrated to me that we've lost our republic. It's lost. The moment that we are no longer a representative government, um, a fairly representative government, that means that we've lost. And our country is in is it's on life support. Virginia, to me, and and I'm not about gerrymandering up until recently. Um you know, I I talked about it on Facebook and on social media that you know this to me was the death knell for our our our constitutional republic. And um and then I saw what the Supreme Court did, and I said, all right, look, if this is how they're gonna play it, if they're gonna get this the seal of approval from uh what I feel is a very criminal Supreme Court, um, then fine, let's go ahead and gerrymander. But going back to your question, they did that in Virginia, and that Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional just a week before the other Supreme Court, our national supreme court, said this is just fine, right? So I I I I'm caught in a really weird position because I'm like, okay, California passed theirs.

SPEAKER_01 31:38

Um it's those, it it's that the the Democrats, weak neat as as as can be sometimes, um, when we have our blue states, and instead of saying we're gonna do what they do did or are doing, which we never would have said, we wanted to draw fair districts. And so we weren't looking at unfairly expanding the map and wiping out the voices of people of color, but we did create the this this scenario in which we were willing to lose a few districts in this name of being fair or drawing fair districts or competitive districts. And I think why?

SPEAKER_02 32:13

That's how we're supposed to be. We were there, all three of us were there when when when we got the commission up and running and you know the constitutional provision was passed. I mean, we were there for those things because that's the fairness that we see here in Colorado, and that's why it was so hard for me to to make a mental shift and to saying, fine, if that's what you want to do, then let's go ahead and gerrymander the state, right? And it still doesn't set well in my soul. But I see what's happening, we're being destroyed from the inside by these games. And there's only one way it plays out, yeah. You know, and so I don't know, you're you're so right, though. I mean, we're we're always looking for the fairness in things, and and and there are a lot of Republicans out there looking for the fairness of things too. I don't, you know, I don't I I don't want to throw all the Republicans, although our GOP is a little weird, a little weird, but but not you know, not everybody in who's a Republican in Colorado is is you know follows along that same path. We enjoy fairness because that's how this state was built. And um we don't have that anymore.

SPEAKER_05 33:16

So on this point, um, it seems to me as a lawyer, and you practice law in our state for a long time, it's it's probably never been more important that we have somebody as attorney general of our state and and in AG's offices across the country, uh folks that are uh very comfortable in courtrooms uh are gonna need to be sort of uh fighting, you know, uh toe-to-toe with the Trump administration on a number of things, as as Phil Weiser has done. And Joe, you came very close to being the Democratic nominee for for AG eight years ago.

SPEAKER_02 33:50

Yeah. Um 4,888 votes out of 600,000, but I'm not counting.

SPEAKER_05 33:54

Yeah. So, you know, talk talk to me about the the AG's office in Colorado, AG's offices across the country, because that's where it seems that that these battles are are being fought.

SPEAKER_02 34:08

Yeah. So, you know, I I tip my hat to to Phil Weiser. Uh I think he's been a really good AG for the past eight years. He's been selective on which cases you know he's gonna take against the the Trump administration or that he's gonna join against the Trump administration. And I believe he's won like 98% of them, right? And um, you know, that that's who we needed. That's who we needed uh uh as as our attorney general. And um this next race is super important, right? We we we can't have someone who's never been in the courtroom, who's never argued in front of a trial court, let alone the US Supreme Court. We need to have someone who understands from start to finish what a complaint looks like and what arguing in front of a Supreme Court looks like, right? What motions practice is about, you know, all of that. And uh we have candidates running right now, the majority of them have that knowledge behind them, have been practicing for years in front of courts, and then we have one candidate who hasn't had that experience, and that's where I'm worried because she seems to be the um you know the leading contender for the for the Democratic primary. And you know, she's a friend of mine. I mean, Jenna Griswold is a friend. I've I've been there to back her up as Secretary of State. I developed the hashtag hashtag uh what I love about Jenna in order to protect her from a lot of the um a lot of the attacks. That's when she was Secretary of State. Attorney General is a different creature altogether. In fact, it is one of the most different kinds of constitutional creatures for elected office in the state of Colorado. It's that important. You can't have somebody who's that doesn't have that experience.

SPEAKER_05 35:48

And you you can't remove politics from the AG's office. It's it's an elected office, but I think it's different from other statewide elected offices in the sense that the i i you're really heading a large law firm and you are leading legal policy for our state and you are litigating on behalf of of the people uh of our state. So um I'm like you, I I want to make sure that who we elect to that job not only is comfortable as a politician, but is comfortable as a lawyer. Right.

SPEAKER_01 36:20

Yeah, and hopefully we can have some of those uh candidates on to you know speak for themselves and to s and to speak about why they should have have the position. Um but before we let you go, I wanted to give you uh a last word. Um a lot of folks since our last show, and just in general, because of you know who we are uh and our backgrounds are asking, like what can we do in this time, in this movement, you know, in this moment. And I know a lot of folks are talking about the Voting Rights Act and then talking about immigration. What what can we do or what should we be doing as people, as a community to fight back?

SPEAKER_02 36:53

Coales. That's what we did in the legislature. We formed coalitions in order to move legislation forward. But we weren't just coalescing in the community, we were coalescing outside of the community. You know, I go into the black community, and you guys would come into the into the Latino community and the Native American community all the time, right? Because we know that we were more powerful that way. We could have our voices heard that way, and I'm not seeing that right now, right? I see a lot of lot of dissension and a lot of division, and and that's not okay, especially in this time. The other thing is that what I tell people is that look, we are in a stage, some people are believing me, some people aren't, but we'll see what happens. We are in a stage where people have to learn how to be self-sufficient, how they have to have sustainable, um, like sustainable food sources and water sources and things of that nature. I mean, the downstream effect of harsh immigration is the fact that we will not have produce coming to us, that we will have other things that we have enjoyed as Americans not being there for us, right? So we have to be sustainable with ourselves and with our families and our communities. People need to form um, you know, co-ops, uh, and they need to be able to grow food and be able to exchange it with each other if food becomes scarce or if it becomes too expensive, which it's becoming for a lot of people.

SPEAKER_01 38:18

And you're a beekeeper as well.

SPEAKER_02 38:20

I'm a beekeeper. I got stung a couple of days ago. I'm still feeling the effects of it. But but yes, I mean, you know, I share my honey with my neighbors, and um, you know, it's it's um it's it's just a good thing to do, right? I mean, my family has been here before there was a state of Colorado, and it's been here before there was a United States, right? Both indigenous and Spanish side. And so we grew up with this state, and my grandfather always told me Colorado was built by community for community. It's never built by individuals, right? It was built by us for each other, and we need to get back to that, and we have to do it really, really soon.

SPEAKER_01 38:58

Yeah. Well, thank you so much for being on today. Thank you for coming. We appreciate you. Thank you. We appreciate your friendship, your mentorship, and your continued fight and community for all that is all that is Colorado, but all that is uh our community.

SPEAKER_02 39:10

So I miss you.

SPEAKER_01 39:12

Oh, I miss you too.

SPEAKER_02 39:13

I need to bring you a breakfast burrito.

SPEAKER_01 39:15

I'll take it.

SPEAKER_05 39:17

Great to see you, Joe. Great to see you. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 39:21

Welcome back to Politics is Personal. Uh, each week we like to uh ask our viewers what's bugging them in our what's bugging you segment. And this time we have my good friend Mark Lida, who is telling us what's on his mind.

SPEAKER_00 39:35

Hey, Leslie and Cole, longtime listener, first-time caller. Here's what's bugging me. There are too many laws. The Colorado legislature introduces over 600 bills each year and about 500 become law. Sure, budgeting requires a package of bills and we have to do sunset reviews, but that still leaves hundreds of new laws every year. It's great for attorneys who get paid to help people navigate these changes, but how's the average person supposed to keep up with hundreds of new laws governing their lives each year? Remember the code of Hammurabi from like seventh grade? Almost 4,000 years old, it's the first known example of publishing laws for the public. And we still teach it in school because it stands for this idea that people have a right to know the laws they're living under. Sure, all these new laws are available online, but do we really expect people to spend their precious time on earth keeping up with all this stuff? So here's my question. What if we just took a year off? Do the budget, do sunset reviews, constituent services, but no new bills. There are states with biennial legislatures. Do you think we could survive until 2028 with 2026's loss?

SPEAKER_05 40:32

Bravo. How are that guy?

SPEAKER_01 40:37

Apparently someone's paying attention.

SPEAKER_05 40:40

Um, I wanted to run that exact piece of legislation when I was in the legislative when I was uh state representative, and that is I think that we give short shrift to the way we do our state budget. And you were on the very powerful joint budget committee, so I'm sure you love the way that we did the budget, but we've got this what it five people on the joint budget committee, six who get to decide the way we spend what was the budget this year, seven billion dollars. Um and I instead I think our entire legislature should be invested in the way that we spend taxpayer dollars. So my proposal would have been let's spend every other year in just a budget session and have the committees of reference in the General Assembly dissect the entire state's budget, go through it, because that's really how we express policy uh most effectively, and that is where we're putting our money. And then uh in the off years, we have a general session and and you know the legislators legislators can introduce their bills and go through the process. What do you think about that idea?

SPEAKER_01 41:46

I'm it's so interesting. So I I was the chair of appropriations, so I sat on the joint budget committee and we worked year-round to build the budget, but it was a quiet group. We had our own offices outside of the outside of the Capitol, across the street.

SPEAKER_05 41:59

Yes um, your own little club of the own little club.

SPEAKER_01 42:03

We worked really closely with staff, we had hearings on a daily basis, and we really dug into the budget, and quite frankly, I do think we come out with a fairer budget and a balanced budget because of that process. And then we give the the House one week to look at it, and we give the Senate one week to look at it, and then we close the book. The in part might not seem very fair for people who are not on the joint budget committee, but I tell you what, it does kind of blow up stuff. And so if we only focused on the budget for an entire short session, if you will, would that be would that have a better outcome? Maybe. I guess yeah, members wouldn't have time to work on other issues, other laws that that are passed, and we'd have to probably get rid of everyone gets to introduce five bills. I mean, in Colorado, because of Gavel, that is that is the law. Everyone gets to introduce bills in other states where they have short sessions or where they're not there as long, and not every member even gets a bill. And it definitely doesn't have to have a hearing. And so I think if we were going to do something like that, we'd also have to roll back some of the Colorado laws that make our legislature what it is, which is in Gavel.

SPEAKER_05 43:05

Are there too many laws passed? I mean, I think the point was well taken.

SPEAKER_01 43:09

Absolutely. You know, so let it let it go into effect before you make another bill to change it. That that that that was always a a thing to me.

SPEAKER_05 43:17

So where did you come up with your bill ideas?

SPEAKER_01 43:20

Most of them actually came from community. Yeah, same.

SPEAKER_05 43:22

I mean, I had you know, folks c constituents coming to me with, you know, real world issues that that you know could be particular uh potentially solved um with legislation. Uh but I are are there too many bills passed? Um I mean I I I'm gonna just express my frustration with the limited time that I was down at the the state capitol this year as a private citizen. Um and going in to testify on a bill, they give you two minutes to provide testimony. Now I understand, you know, every bill gets a hearing and is gonna get an up or down vote. In in committee or if it gets to the floor and up or down vote. But when you only allow people two minutes to come in and provide input on the bill, um i is that good representative democracy?

SPEAKER_01 44:10

Well, but that's not the only time. I mean, uh hopefully people are involved in the bill throughout the process. And as someone who, you know, it was my bills that I was running, you know, um, I would have community engagement and stakeholder processes before we even got to the building. What is said there is really just for the record. And then of course we have robust debates. But we sat on judiciary together, you know, state affairs. The more bills that come through, the shorter amount of time folks have. Oh, yeah, sorry about that. State affairs was the kill committee, and a lot of Cole's bills went to that committee, and unfortunately less than my last two years. Yeah, so that was that was that's a soft spot for the Republicans. Sorry about should have given you a trigger warning on that. But um uh I l I lost my whole train of thought, but yeah.

SPEAKER_05 44:55

Um so what uh you Well, I was gonna say that's right.

SPEAKER_01 44:59

So sorry, it takes like though that sh shortens the amount of time people get to talk. And so I think if we try to condense the sessions, um you're gonna have less time for community input. Um but it it could just be the way that I'm thinking about it. I think if we had a whole new paradigm to think under, we would think differently and we would do what we could um with the time that we had. And so uh at the end of the day, how do you limit the number of bills that get passed if there are good ideas that are brought to the table?

SPEAKER_05 45:25

You just hold to the limit. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 45:27

Right?

SPEAKER_05 45:27

I mean, there are technically five instead of twelve. Right. I mean, so everybody gets exceptions to run more bills, and you know, I was I was a violator of that rule. I think my last year I I passed 20 some odd bills. Yeah. Um but at the end of the day, um, is 120 days long enough? Is it too short? Um, is it an effective legislative session the way we do it?

SPEAKER_01 45:49

I think it should be year-round, but um I think it should be year-round. I think that would provide the time and space in a full-time legislature with professional staff. That's what they that's what we need in Colorado.

SPEAKER_05 45:58

Do you know what do you have any idea what the breakdown is nationally in terms of how many states have part-time legislatures versus more?

SPEAKER_01 46:05

I don't, but I think I think the more blue leading states have full-time legislatures, um, which is interesting. So something to look into.

SPEAKER_05 46:12

So, what what are you hearing about potential uh vetoes from Jared Polis this year? It's his last year. Any any parting shots that you think he might take?

SPEAKER_01 46:20

I don't know. It sounds like there's a lot that could be on the chopping block, but I think he's real proud of that AI bill that they finally got passed. Uh there was a big signing today on that, and I'm not sure it, you know, I feel like it just rolled back the AI reforms that had happened in the legislature. They all were debated in the la last minutes of session. Um and so it'll be interesting to see how Colorado makes a play uh in AI this this throughout the nation.

SPEAKER_05 46:43

So did you follow the state budget this year? Are are are you happy with how the the budget shook out?

SPEAKER_01 46:49

Um, it's fine. We you know, a balanced budget is what it is. I think there actually is a lot more that Colorado could do when it comes to figuring out where there is waste, uh wasteful spending, especially in our um entitlement programs. Uh and so I think we can go a little deeper.

SPEAKER_05 47:05

So one of the things that that I think seems to be catching on nationally is an issue, and that is uh, and JD Vance is now the the czar of of of fraud, right? And he's looking for fraud and and all all these states. Um one state that I think that I've heard is is sort of cooperating in terms of looking at Medicaid fraud is Maryland, which is a very which is a very blue state. And and I don't know why, you know, battling fraud should be a partisan issue. We should all be about the government being effective stewards of taxpayer dollars.

SPEAKER_01 47:37

Government, nonprofit hospitals, uh pharma, all of it, all of it needs to be looked at and as to you know, again, how can we bring down the cost for consumers? Um, where is their wasteful spending, and where can we then use this money somewhere else? So I mean there's so much that is that is bugging me about the way that our system is is working right now, um, with the end of session just just looming on us. So I appreciate Mark uh calling in about that. Um but what's what's bugging you these days?

SPEAKER_05 48:06

Well, we're we we've have uh an uh a delegation of of US representatives in China right now, and what is really bugging me is it's not the president and the secretary of state, um, and and they're there, okay, but instead the official US delegation is a bunch of billionaires who are there to advance their own economic interests. The president's kids, I mean, Eric Trump and Laura Trump are getting off the plane with him. Um, so I don't really understand what the mission here is. Is the president there to advance the the the policy interests of the United States, or is the president there to advance the policy interests of billionaires and the American business community?

SPEAKER_01 48:52

Um are these type of delegations normal?

SPEAKER_05 48:55

I I've never seen, frankly, uh an important trip like this where the president's going to a foreign country and gets off the plane with with you know ab essentially the richest of the rich from the United States who are there. And I and you know, I don't know what Elon Musk is doing in China.

SPEAKER_01 49:13

You it makes me wonder if that delegation is really to advance what is best for this country and for the people of this country or and what is best for these corporations that he brought out ahead of people. You know what I mean? And so it does make me wonder whose interests they are really advocating for in those closed door meetings.

SPEAKER_05 49:31

Well, we've seen a lot of grifting in this administration. So, you know, forgive me for being cynical, but when I see the billionaires there on an offici as part of an official delegation of the United States, I'm thinking they're probably there to advance their own interests. Uh I mean one other thing that that bugged me this week, and and it was sort of a rare moment of honesty from Donald Trump, and that is that he said he didn't think about American Americans' financial interests when he was was talking when he was thinking about what was gonna happen in the Middle East. That was a stunning observation.

SPEAKER_01 50:08

I'm should be thinking about the American people every second, every day, every action. Right. Wow. Well, speaking of billionaires, though, did you see that Trump is now suing the country himself, really? I don't I don't know how that works for $10 billion uh in uh for taxes. Suing himself. He's suing himself. How is that okay? Isn't that cor corruption? I don't tell me how it's not corruption.

SPEAKER_05 50:31

So what I've heard about that case is that the judge assigned to the case has asked the lawyers on both sides to brief why this is not a conflict of interest. Because you have, on the one hand, the lawyers representing the president in his personal capacity, um, and then the former president's lawyer, who's now the the acting attorney general of the United States, essentially on both sides of this case. And Scott Bessant has has clearly said that if Trump recovers money through this lawsuit, it's coming from the U.S. Treasury, it's coming from taxpayers. Wow. Um, and this could double or triple the president's net worth. So uh I mean it it's hard not to be cynical about that.

SPEAKER_01 51:17

I'm so sorry. On his way out, because he's not getting re-elected. I mean, come on, like it's not it's not happening, and if it is, it's not gonna be an election, right? Like it's not happening. But like, so on his way out, he's taking ten billion dollars and people still want to talk about Obama's tan suit? What is going on?

SPEAKER_05 51:33

Well, rather than you know, I was talking about how the judges asked the lawyers to to advise on the conflicts of interest. My prediction is you're gonna see a settlement in this case so that they don't have to file those briefs with the court, and then we're gonna have to rely on, you know, is someone gonna sue to set aside the settlement?

SPEAKER_01 51:52

Um So he's gonna quietly walk away with one billion.

SPEAKER_05 51:55

And then the other part of this that I think is very important to Trump, and that is he's trying to negotiate um no audit going forward. So with all of the grifting that's happening right now with the Trump family, um, and all that the scrutiny that should be flowing as a result of that, I think in addition to sort of getting some some taxpayer dollars on his way out the door, he's trying to buy himself some comfort in not being audited by the next administration.

SPEAKER_01 52:24

Well, that that's a we know what's coming, you know. Uh it's just it it's it's still shocking, but it's not, you know.

SPEAKER_05 52:32

Well, I mean it it's what happens when you don't have oversight by Congress. Um you know, and I I think we understand that it's unlikely that a Republican Congress would do oversight in in this instance, but when you see the kind of grifting and the kind of corruption that we've seen in the Trump administration, it's shocking to me that there is an oversight even by a Republican Congress. And you can surely bet that if the Democrats retake the House andor the Senate, there will be oversight in the next Congress. The question is, is it too late?

SPEAKER_01 53:06

Yeah, yeah. Well, before we go, I'll just mention what's bugging me. And I gotta tell you, it is the start of the WMBA season, one of my favorite seasons. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Do I know much about what's going on on the court? Not really, but you play hoops? And no, I was a cheerleader, okay, um, of course. And but I did enjoy being at the games. And what is bugging me is that my feed is constantly full of this Caitlin Clark, um, Morgan, Wallen, Whalen uh uh situation. And and Caitlin Clark herself really not standing up to her audience who have has been racist and bigoted throughout her social media, throughout her career, um, since since being uh in in the WNBA and also through college sports as well. Um and then to for her to walk out with Morgan Whalen, she didn't have to do that. She didn't have to do that at all. But it felt to me like she was siding with um with the racist. I mean, he says the N-word in his songs and openly and thinks it's okay, right? Still selling out concerts though. But what's bugging me and with the Voting Rights Act that we've talked about and everything going on in this country, what's bugging me is the fact that it has seemingly become okay, and maybe even in fashion, to be a racist again. To just openly say the n-word, to openly say black people don't deserve a vote, to openly say that immigrants don't deserve to be here and they are subhuman, you know? What's up with that? Like when is that o when did that become okay?

SPEAKER_05 54:31

So I mean, um I I I I don't really uh ha have uh enough uh of a fit basis here to to respond in terms of what what Kate Caitlin Clark's motivations are, but I mean do you think she's uh trying to express a view on these issues that she's just sort of going along with it, or what's what's your take on where she is? Because I think she she's obviously a person with high visibility, yeah. Somebody with a lot of followers, somebody who's gonna people are gonna be looking to her. So do you think it's intentional on her part?

SPEAKER_01 55:01

I do. I didn't maybe I I I might could have been persuaded before when she didn't respond to her fans, um, and definitely not quick enough, and where you saw the rest of the WMBA really stepping up and saying that none of this is okay. She remained quiet. Now that is a strategy. I know that people get PR training and media training around that, so that is a strategy to stay silent. Uh and then to have an approved, nice written letter that you send out saying, you know, we're not racist. But then to make a choice to mar walk out with this man who is a racist, who is openly a racist, who openly says the N-word and doesn't care that it's harmful to people, to me that is making a very clear statement and it is taking a side. Um and you know what, it's showing up on court too. She's not playing as well. Um I think we'll see some rolling back of her deals. The WMBA um is is is is dominated by, you know, women of color and particularly black women. This this whole like racist undertone that's happening because the WMBA is getting so much bigger, it's gonna have to stop and it's gonna be led, I think, by the by the by the teams and by the players. So, you know, I think there's a positive end to this, and that will be that, you know, more folks are gonna watch women's basketball, and that hopefully more folks are gonna come out and say, um, we're not okay with the racism that's happening on the court, the racism happening on social media, at the voting, at the ballot box, and all of that, and and I hope that's way the the direction that we go in.

SPEAKER_05 56:23

So I one of the one of the quotes that I saw this week, somebody said that that MAGA was sort of the last breath of the Confederacy and um which I thought was a pretty shocking statement, but when we we haven't had these conversations as a country since the 1960s um in terms of what's happening now, in terms of the way that communities of color are represented in in government. Um so you know, I I've never felt like we were more in in a state of raw emotion when it comes to ra race relations in this country, at least in my lifetime. Um so I'm I'm w where where do you think we go from there?

SPEAKER_01 57:02

I need my friends like you to step up and speak out, you know. I mean, I think folks thought we were gonna age out of racism, homophobia, you know, uh sexism and all of that, and it's the younger generation was gonna be fine. And what we're finding is that's not true. And so I think it's because of the silence, you know. I think it shouldn't just be black poor women like me speaking up and saying that it's not okay, that everyone needs to step up and say that it's not okay. And that's where I was disappointed with someone like a Caitlin Clark who had the opportunity to use her megaphone, right? Um, to say that racism is not acceptable here. And I feel like if she truly believed it was not acceptable, she would have said it, right? And she didn't. And so I'm looking at everyone who is not saying anything right now, um, as someone who must believe it. You know, who must believe that it is okay to side with, quite frankly, the Klan, you know?

SPEAKER_05 57:48

So before we leave this issue, why do you think it's that's happening in the WNBA specifically? We haven't seen it in the NBA, at least uh as far as I can tell.

SPEAKER_01 57:56

I don't know why. I think it is this this really burst uh of of attention to the WNBA, the players coming from uh or the the fans coming from the college level uh of sports and then being able to go to the next level, but it it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me as to why. It's also shocking to me that there still is so much homophobia um on social media in the comments around the WMBA when a lot of the players are out. Um I don't know why, but it's here.

SPEAKER_05 58:21

It's enough to make you want to get off social media.

unknown 58:24

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 58:25

It's true. I mean, definitely don't read the comments all the time, right? Yeah, for sure. Well, that's all the time that we have today. Thank you so much. When you're having fun, it always does. Or when you're having real conversations, right? Uh I want to thank all of our listeners, those watching. Um, thank you so much for tuning in again this week and continuing to tune in. We appreciate you always.

SPEAKER_05 58:46

And hopefully these uh these conversations are helping you to have conversations with your friends, with your family, uh, because remember, politics is personal, so keep talking.