Politically High-Tech
A podcast with facts and opinions on different topics like politics, policy, technology especially AI, spirituality and development! For this podcast, development simply means tip, product and/or etc. can benefit humanity. This show aims to show political viewpoints and sometimes praises/criticizes them. He is a wildcard sometimes. For Technology episodes, this show focuses on products (mostly AI) with pros, cons and sometimes give a hint of future update. For Development episodes, the podcast focuses on tips to improve as a human spiritually, socially, emotionally and more. All political, AI lovers and haters, and all religions are welcome! This is an adult show. Minors should not be listening to this podcast! This podcast proudly discriminates bad characters and nothing else.
Politically High-Tech
271- America's Counterfeit Democracy with Michael Anderson
The American political system has been hijacked, but by whom? In this eye-opening conversation with returning guest Michael Anderson, we dive deep into what he calls "America's counterfeit democracy" – a system where the appearance of democratic choice masks the overwhelming control exercised by billionaires and corporate interests.
Anderson's analysis cuts through partisan noise with some startling statistics: when the wealthy favor legislation, it passes 90% of the time; when only the public supports it, the success rate plummets to just 3%. Through his extensive research, Anderson identifies three key mechanisms the power elite use to maintain control: populating the executive branch with their own, funding lobbying efforts, and financing political campaigns. The result? A government that primarily serves the rich while the concerns of average Americans go unaddressed.
Our conversation takes a fascinating turn when examining Trump's presidency through this lens. Despite criticisms of his personal style, Anderson argues that Trump may be "the most important president in 50 years" precisely because he represents a rare populist challenge to the entrenched establishment. This perspective invites listeners to look beyond personality and party affiliation to understand the deeper forces reshaping American politics.
Whether you lean left, right, or consider yourself politically independent, this conversation offers valuable insights into the forces controlling our political system and how ordinary citizens might begin to reclaim their power. Check out Anderson's Substack at https://mikea0418.substack.com/and his book "America's Counterfeit Democracy" for more of his incisive analysis.
Please note that COVID-19 Pandemic vaccine discussion is strictly opinion. Please consult your doctor for any medical needs/advise.
Check out Past Conversations with Michael Anderson
Episode 192
Episode 223
Follow Michael Anderson at
Twitter
https://x.com/MAndersonsblog
His Website
https://www.mikeandersonsbooks.com/
Join Braver Angels- a group aiming to reduce political tribalism
https://braverangels.org/
UniteNY- a grou
Follow your host at
YouTube and Rumble for video content
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxk1oJBVw-IAZTqChH70ag
https://rumble.com/c/c-4236474
Facebook to receive updates
https://www.facebook.com/EliasEllusion/
Twitter (yes, I refuse to call it X)
https://x.com/politicallyht
Welcome everyone to Politically High Tech. With your host, elias, I am back for a new season. I know I haven't been recording for a while. I get it. I've been uploading shorts. I'm not sure that's proof that I've been alive, just working behind the scenes. So being more on your face or more on your audio consciousness, if you want to be a little weird and technical about it. I got a returning guest here and I'm happy that I am starting with and I'm going to use this term on purpose a more established guest, because I don't want to start with someone who doesn't understand at least some of my oddities and the way I flow. I do that once I feel safe enough. I mean, I got to be a little more established bent and then I can be open to be more. Little more established meant like and they're not going to be open to be more alternative, even controversial to some of you.
Speaker 1:But I want someone to start off, just a little safe more of a safe start to the season, because he's great, you know, I don't think he needs much introduction. He's been here twice already. We got Michael Anderson here, okay, and he is not just a political buff, he's also a history buff. He merges the two together just to give a great and unique analysis of what's going on today and even recent history. Well, so that's the lead, that's the most—I'm going to give introductions. I don't do the long introductions, but if you want to expand on that.
Speaker 1:Go right ahead.
Speaker 2:I'm good. Thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here for the third time. Oh yeah, it is because you provide a very good analysis.
Speaker 1:That's what I care about. I don't care you come from the left or right in the center, to me that's not as important. But if you have a good head on your shoulders, you're not bringing political talking points, kool-aid talking points, it's fine. And then, even if you didn't, it'll be like a one hit wonder at best, and at worst it's like well, I'm just going to be to me, I'll just treat that like a lesson. But that's not hidden in the case you can find. Treat that like a lesson, but that's not him in the case. He provided great analysis on both sides of the aisle. Okay, and if you don't believe that, I'm going to put the link of even previous episodes he has done as well, just to give you some taste of it.
Speaker 2:alright, let me start with just explaining myself politically so people understand that, because it doesn't make sense for someone to watch our podcast and then trying to guess well, is he a right or left or whatever? I'm an academic. I try to stay in the middle. Politically I'm a moderate, so I have objections to what both sides are doing, particularly the establishment. So you know, you would probably call me more conservative on the economic side and more liberal on the cultural or social side. But my constituency is the American people, so I'm interested in seeing politicians take care of the American people rather than enriching themselves. So that's why I write.
Speaker 2:Let's start with my fifth book. I published a book last September 28th was my fifth book and it's called America's Counterfeit Democracy Rule of the Power Elites. And it's basically a departure for me, because my first four books were technically a discussion of left-right politics. Why the left and right are different, the fact that they're genetically different. They don't think the same. One side's not going to turn into the other. So in order to have effective government in our country, we have to have both sides working together in a consensus mode. So, anyway, but the book is about.
Speaker 2:The fifth book is about how our political system is dominated by the billionaires, and the title the words power elite or the term power elite comes from a book that was published in 1956 by a sociologist called C Wright Mills, and it's just called the Power Elite. But he introduced the concept of the fact that there's an organization of the billionaires that work together to control our government, that work together to control our government, and so these are. If you look at the billionaires, there's one segment of them that don't care about politics. They just want to ride around their yachts and go on vacation and play golf. But there is a very serious group of wealthy people who want to influence the government. They have two objectives One is to enrich themselves further than they're already enriched. And secondly, they would like to see the economic operation of the country be stable, because if it's stable then they can make that's the basis for them making more money.
Speaker 2:So how do they influence politics? They influence basically in three major ways. Number one they populate the executive branch typically. So if you look at the Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of Commerce and you look over the past years and you put all their resumes together and look at them, they all have the same profile they all went to prep school, they all went to an Ivy League school. They have, like, a law degree or a business degree. They've worked in large corporations or they've been consultants, or they've been elected officials or they come from academia. So they're all alike. So they are dedicated to advancing the interests of the wealthy, and so you fill the executive branch with these people and they act on behalf of the wealthy. The second way they influence us is through lobbyists, because lobbyists the corporations, fund the major lobbyists and, of course, corporations are owned by or controlled by the wealthy. So lobbyists can provide enough money to elected officials to influence their vote, and they do that.
Speaker 2:The third major way that the wealthy influence our political system is they're the ones that finance the candidates. Influence our political system is they're the ones that finance the candidates. So, both at the level of the primaries and the general election, a scary statistic is if you and I'm talking about Congress, primarily the House, but it applies to the Senate too If you spend more money than your political opponent in an election, you got 90% chance of winning. So that means that nothing else matters except the number of times your face is seen by the public during the election campaign, because most people are not politically aware in the sense that they analyze the issues and they arrive at their own opinion on which candidate represents their political philosophy. They vote because their tribe voted a certain way. Whether they're friends, you know, friends hate Trump, so you know I'm going to vote Democratic, whatever it might be. Friends hate Trump, so I'm going to vote Democratic, whatever it might be.
Speaker 2:And the American people are partly to blame for this billionaire takeover because they have not exerted their control mechanism adequately. The control mechanism is who you elect, and we keep electing people who are part of the establishment instead of getting new people elected, and that's a huge issue. The establishment people are advocates for the wealthy, and that's why we have to get those people out and get new people in. There's always a hue and cry about term limits or age limits or whatever. You don't need either one of those things. All you have to do is vote the incumbents out and replace them with new people, and then you'll have a more responsive government, because the elected officials will now understand that unless they take care of the American people, namely the middle class, they're not going to get elected again. American people, namely the middle class, they're not going to get elected again.
Speaker 2:So and let me talk a minute about the way this has to be done there's a definite strategy. If the public could ever get organized on the same page, this would be very easy to execute. You have to use the primaries as a vehicle for replacement of the incumbent. So if there's two Democrats running for a House seat, one is the longtime establishment politician, the other person is a new person. You have to vote for the new person, because if you wait to the general, then you are left with a Republican, a Democrat, and it's hard for Democrats to vote for a Republican in order to defeat their own candidate. So you have to defeat and I'm talking about Republicans too. You have to replace your candidate during the primaries as a tool to change the Congress. So that is the basic picture.
Speaker 2:The wealthy are in partnership with the major corporations because of their influence over them, and together they influence the politics in the United States. Here's another statistic that's useful Somebody did a study on the likelihood of a bill passing Congress based on specific circumstances, and so there are three data points I'm going to give you. If the wealthy favor a bill that's going through Congress, it has a 90% chance of winning. If the lobbyists but not the wealthy favor a bill, it has a 56% chance of passing. If the public faces supports a bill that is in Congress, it has a 3% chance of passing. Now, of course, there's a lot of bills that the public and the wealthy support, so obviously it has a good chance of being passed because the wealthy are supporting it. So obviously it has a good chance of being passed because the wealthy are supporting it. But there are too many bills and too many laws that the public supports that the elected officials never pay attention to.
Speaker 2:There are so many things we could talk about, like we could talk about homelessness. Los Angeles County has spent $10 billion in the last 10 years to cure homelessness, and it's much larger than it was. Then they didn't do anything, because the bureaucratic boondoggle that gets built when you try to create a homelessness solution like that means there are all these grifters along the way that take money out and then there's no money left when it comes to housing the homeless people. When it comes to housing the homeless people. So there's an enormous number of cases like that where they're just, you know, the politicians and the power elites spend a lot of time propagandizing and telling us that everything is hunky-dory in the country. We're all doing great Economy's, good, don't worry Whatever. That's propaganda. And they're trying to influence the minds of the public to forget about the things that are important to them and just pay attention to what the government's doing, which is wrong. So that's basically the power elite situation. The only way to defeat it is through the election process, because the public will never be organized enough to have enough power to go after the billionaires. And this is where Trump comes in and makes it very interesting.
Speaker 2:I personally don't like Trump's behavior. I have philosophical disagreement with him, how he's in your face and rude and all those kind of things that are lacking decorum that befit the office of the presidency. But he's also probably the most important president elected in the past 50 years, and I'll explain it. You can draw your own conclusion when I'm done. The only way to go against the establishment is through populism.
Speaker 2:Trump is a populist. He calls himself a Republican. He's not really a Republican ideologically, he's a businessman. But because he's a businessman and there are very few businessmen in Congress, that's kind of good. Because he understands efficiency. I mean, if you can build high-rise buildings in Manhattan. I mean I can't even imagine how hard that must be. You know the payoffs and the holdups and the crookedness and everything. So if you could build a business on that, I mean you've got some capability.
Speaker 2:So you know both parties, both establishment groups in each party, which are most of the elected officials, oppose Trump. You know he's hated equally by the Republicans as he is by the Democrats, because he represents the people and doesn't represent them. So he's kind of like a analog for the case I'm describing where, if the people rose up and exerted their choice I mean they did in 2024, because they elected a person who they're convinced represents them better than somebody else. A populist has never been elected in our country before because the two parties are too powerful. So it took this tribal age of fossilizing of the Congress, where nothing gets done because both parties just fight each other, to a draw. The country doesn't move forward, there is no consensus. But by Trump's election we've blown that whole thing up because, particularly through the executive orders, he can have a lot of impact on where the country's going. And there are so many oddities about this because the Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful that it puts Democrats that have the syndrome or that live in the echo chamber in a strange position.
Speaker 2:For example, we have to support a Venezuelan gang member who is a multiple felon. We don't want him sent out of the country. I mean, how many people really believe that that is right? First of all, he's here illegally. He's committed crimes when he was here and two judges voted to deport him. So how can you defend that? And you know, potentially, I guess the left ideology is you've got to defend everybody, because if we're saying that it's bad to be against open borders, then we've got to protect everybody that's here.
Speaker 2:So, and then there's the Doge stuff. I mean, there's so many things we could go into. How can anybody in Congress, neither party, oppose the government being more efficient? It's ridiculous. I mean, I just look at I don't look at Trump, the person, I look at the things he's doing. And you know, nobody has ever done that before. Nobody has ever gone into the deep state and started firing people. Nobody's looked at like USAID and all the corrupt money. It's all grifting, it's all bribes going to other countries. You know how to introduce opera into Tibet or whatever. I mean here's $100,000. It's incredible the amount of money that is funneled to corrupt purposes that should go to the American people. It's our money, we pay the taxes. The government should be servicing us, and so I mean it's. Another thing that's good about Trump is he's America first, and the past few presidents haven't been America first, and I'll include the Republicans in that group Because you know, since probably Clinton, we've had a neoliberal operation in the executive branch which is basically globalist capitalism first, which is against the nation state ideology basically, and I'm extremely opposed to the whole globalist concept because that's how we get to 1984.
Speaker 2:Look what's happening in Europe Free speech is suspended. They're telling the Dutch farmers how much they can plant or how many animals they can have because they're releasing methane in the air. I mean, so they go out of business because of the climate scare thing. Digital ID, I mean if you go. The next step to digital ID is controlling. If you can get somebody's bank account, you can control how much they can take out of it. Or you can get somebody's bank account, you can control how much they can take out of it, or you can take their taxes out of it, or you can fine them and take the money out of their bank account if they don't behave.
Speaker 2:But the neoliberal philosophy is under attack all across the world, or the Western world, certainly in most of the countries in Europe and in here we're very far, much farther along in attacking neoliberalism than Europe, because the EU controls Europe and the EU is a neoliberalist organization. So it's the nation-state versus neoliberalism, it's populism, representing the people against the establishment. Who is opposed to the people? The establishment on both sides. And that's where we're at.
Speaker 1:Listeners, listeners, listeners, all viewers, all viewers pay attention to that. That was a lot of value. What he is saying, and I'm sure you're going to disagree with some, that's okay. It's okay if you disagree with some, but some are just objectively true. Okay, I mean you can debate on some parts. I don't know about this whole El Salvador man. Some people defend him, especially the left, especially. Who was the senator that went there? I think Chris Van Hollen, who did a little tour visiting him. I find that a little strange to me. I was like, huh, they really trying to make this a big political issue and it didn't land that well. The senator was like, uh, why don't we visit someone who's over there? And I don't we visit someone who's over there and I don't know? The only question I have is why would the Supreme Court instruct Trump to retrieve him? Or is this something that I misheard, right?
Speaker 2:They voted against Trump. They said that he should be brought back because he wasn't taken through the final stage of due process. He'd be brought back because he wasn't taken through the final stage of due process, because there was a hearing scheduled that somebody lost track of and that hearing was never conducted before he was deported. So, technically, the Supreme Court is correct. But there's some the issue that I don't think people understand and I watched a whole did this video. Somebody did a video on oh, it was Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer. He did a whole video on immigrant law and immigrant law is very vague. There's never, I mean no one has defined due process for an immigrant in the way it's been defined for American citizens. It's very well defined Miranda rights, all this stuff, court hearings, everything it's set in concrete. If you're an immigrant, it's not, and technically, the president has the power to deport anyone who's here illegally. So it's a question of refining all these different, these conflicting precedents because they're not really laws into something that is concrete.
Speaker 1:Lots of it. I think it's been long overdue. I think the last time we did something comprehensive was like what over 40-some years ago.
Speaker 2:Reagan did something.
Speaker 1:Reagan, yeah, reagan was like the last In the 80s, that's 40 years ago. First, last big thing yeah, no, yeah, exactly, it was during the Reagan time. I remember clearly it was something that was done for immigration, but it needs a lot of work. Let's be clear, I don't care if you're left, right, center, it needs a lot of work and you say it's vague, which is very problematic. So it's open to all this weird conflicts that we are having now. And this is, you know, america is a pretty reactive country when it comes to a lot of things. This is just many examples of it. Look, I just think immigration needs to be fixed. Me personally, I just think I want a system that is strict but fair and protective, you know, and I don't want it to be to the point that we don't have nobody coming in, but we also want to help those. You know who has gone through very chaotic situations abroad.
Speaker 2:The way it should really start, if you're trying to do this correctly is to take care of the illegal immigrants that are here. Give them a path to citizenship. Clean up what's here before you deal with those on the outside that are coming here. I agree.
Speaker 1:I think who was the Republican that said that before. I think Charles Kraufhammer said something similar to that, so we've got to clean up what's already in here. Give it a pass.
Speaker 1:He said something similar along those lines. I watched enough Pranky U videos so I know who's there. He proposed something similar. I said you know what? That makes a lot of sense. Someone in the Senate? That makes a lot of sense. Someone in the center? That makes a lot of sense. They're ready here. I don't think.
Speaker 1:I think the ones that should be penalized like that I call the Republican raft, like the violent, filthy criminals that have done chaos and all that, oh yeah, do whatever, even if you have to take them down with a gun because they be violent, go right ahead, as far as I'm concerned. But they got to be a proven, they got to be a criminal, as far as I'm concerned, but they gotta be a proven, they gotta be a criminal as far as I'm concerned. I don't want that. I don't want to be.
Speaker 1:You know I'm sure you're not proposing that, but I'm sure and I'm what? What is it? Nativist, ultra, far right, the fringe groups would probably want to do something like that, but that's not the majority of even republicans. Let me just be clear about that. I don't want to lead in that direction as well. The reason why I say that is because sometimes I get too concerned I might go deep into the future. I hope it's just paranoia. I don't want it to become reality, but some things that become reality is getting a little scary. But let me just get back to the thing I had.
Speaker 1:I got a lot of things to say here, but thank you for that clarification. I think people need that clarification about how the American law is so well defined and clear that you can't then be open to misinterpretation. Misunderstanding is a lot less excusable as opposed to the immigrant law, which is vague and open to kinds of mess because it hasn't been well defined. I think people need to be very understanding of that. I'm not a law expert, but it's good to have clarity on that, because I think a lot of people have clarity of that on both sides, on both camps. Definitely the left doesn't, and I would say some on the right too as well. So that's so, that's see. That's refreshing. This is why I like to talk to people with good head on their shoulders, because you look, I don't care, it's Trump derangement syndrome or you hate Biden that much. Y'all go crazy. Y'all want to reject reality. You just want to support the guy, no matter how vicious they are, and I'm going to stick to my own opinion here.
Speaker 1:Biden and Trump are just to me. They are two old white fools with different ideologies and different approaches to government and, regardless of my criticism, I do hope they succeed, regardless of my criticism, I know, for especially the Trump lovers. You think I'm a Trump hater? No, I support when he's done right and, to be honest, I eventually. Personally, I could say I have supported Dolch Now in the beginning. In the beginning, I was very skeptical about it, especially Elon Musk being in charge. I was like whoa, whoa, whoa, what the hell is this? But they are uncovering a lot of waste, even though it's ugly. But they are uncovering a lot of waste Spending on woke globalist stuff. I'm against that entirely.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean. The point is any program that the federal government institutes for foreign policy purposes should be ideologically neutral. You know I don't want when a Republican is. If the Congress is Republican. I don't want them passing laws to do Republican ideology in Romania either, because the country has two sides it has a conservative and liberal side and it should operate as a consensus and the government should be ideologically neutral.
Speaker 1:I agree.
Speaker 2:Otherwise, if you're pushing a progressive narrative in the Far East, then you're leaving out the opinions of half Americans. That's wrong.
Speaker 1:I agree. I definitely don't want to probe Republican. I don't know programs and animals. Let's throw in an African nation, probably like Uganda, for example. I don't want that either.
Speaker 1:I believe in self-determination. To a, I would say to like 80 of it, let them be their own nations. We got our ways, they got their ways. Showing our shower. Our agenda, rather, is super patriotic or woke. I agree it's actually wrong. I should be clear on that. By the way. See, see, this is why I like talk to good people. See, that's a blind spot. I don't know me just a lot.
Speaker 1:So like, look, let only America could do pro America, and even the woke crap. I don't like the woke crap personally, but I think they have more legitimacy doing that in America. And if the foreigner is interested in it, let it just be for target audience. That's the most compromise I can say. But if it goes beyond that, we got a problem. We're just shoving it down people's throat. That's why the African nations have been throwing US people out in the agenda, and some even said we don't care about your woke dollars or even your gay dollars. They said it just like that. I've been trying to pay attention globally. This is why we are not liked and I can understand. Globally, this is why we are not liked. I can understand If I was in another country. They're shoving things down our throat, I said, but we're not America.
Speaker 2:You're talking about the conflict again between neoliberalism and conservative government, in the sense that Republicans, if they try to influence our allies, it's influenced them economically. We don't have the Republicans don't really have an ideology. You know, the conservative ideology is status quo and protect traditions. It's not like trans issues or anything like that. So we shouldn't be trying to change the culture of other countries. That's kind of like a missionary does you know you represent the Catholic Church or something and you go to Ecuador and you try and make everybody Catholic. I mean, I can understand the motivation behind it, but there's also the culture. To me the culture shouldn't be disturbed, but there's also the culture. To me the culture shouldn't be disturbed because of course that's the nation-state concept, that's the unique language of that culture, that's the history of that culture, economics of that culture and it's theirs. But to the neoliberals.
Speaker 1:There's one world and it should be controlled by ngos. Yeah, well, that one. I'm not a liberal now, when I'm actually proud, considering that issue. I'm more self-determination. I, yeah, I'm proud on that one. I'm not gonna be. I gotta pretend to be a neutral on that one. One world, no, no, no, no, that's that's, that's that's someone on that has super ego trip. No, no, people got their own cultures. Just respect it.
Speaker 1:And then we attack the YouTubers who have violated that. You're the reason why they hate America too, because your controversial takes your over-the-top nonsense, that total disregard of other cultures. And I'm going to bring back this classic example this is more for the Gen Zers here Logan Paul, when he did the Suicide Forest Disrespect that was filming dead bodies. This is a forest where they go kill, you know, kill themselves, and you know he had total disregard. He was doing it for fame and what the cool kids call clout, so you know, and that to me, was doing it for fame and with the cool kids called clout, so you know, and that to me, I'm against that too. That's why I I praise, I think, one youtuber who's doing well, as I show speed. He's bridging between china and america. That's more of a positive example, but there's a lot more bad examples of youtubers having total disregard for other cultures once they go over there and fill their content.
Speaker 2:You're describing the worst problem with social media.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Which is the truth, dies to get clicks. So you know you can't trust. It's very hard, I mean. People ask me all the time how do I know what the truth is? And my best answer is pick a source that you trust at both sides, read it and divide it in the middle.
Speaker 1:Ground news plug in ground news. It's a very good source. Ground news, there you go, or even 1440. I could throw sources out there. I will link them too. They will give you the left wing, right wing, incentrous flavor. I'm going to call them or perspectives of the news and I think those are very good sources and they'll even let you know that the left doesn't really cover this particular issue, the right doesn't cover this particular issue. You know, they say blind spot the left, blind spot the right.
Speaker 2:There's another tool I recommend. There's something called allsidescom, allsides, and they publish a graph and it's updated, I think monthly. That shows all the news media outlets and where they fall in the political spectrum. So you can see like MSNBC is way on the left, fox News is way on the right, for example. But the ratings of each news outlet are based on consumer input. So five or six or 7,000 people for their opinions on is this left, is it right? And they take a consensus and that's how they build their chart. So it's a very quick and useful way to find opposing views to whatever you're reading typically and get the other side.
Speaker 1:All sides. That's another one, that's the one that, even though I had my source, but I follow them to pretty, I would say pretty religiously. Now Because, yeah, because I just believe metadata I think they try to form here of what you know the bias of these mainstream medias are at, I still say I think ABC is sort of center-left, the last time I checked, compared to all the other ones. But I could be wrong, I haven't been checking that particular piece, but we know, we know Fox is right but Newsmax and OAN are further right than Fox.
Speaker 2:Let's be clear there's way more on the left than the right. You know that because of the traditional media is left-leaning yeah.
Speaker 1:MSNBC, cnn, cbs, right, right. Easy to list those New York Times. Throw that one in there. Easy to list those New York Times. Throw that one in there as a paper. They lean left. Even though some of their reporting is good, especially cultural art reporting.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm a subscriber to the New York Times. I know it's left, but I don't discount that because I want. First of all, I want to read stuff on the left. That's well done, and not all the stuff that they publish is left stuff. So I'm a big Trump opponent but still there's a lot of good content in that newspaper. So I also subscribe to a socialist magazine, jacobin. So I mean I've got to read it and I got to understand those people's points of view. To be objective, I live in an echo chamber all the time. If you live anybody, if you live in an echo chamber, you can't have an objective opinion about the other side. Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 1:Jacobin oh yeah, that's oof. Yeah, socialist, that's really. Yeah, pure socialism, yeah, I've read a few of Jacobin. Oh yeah, that's oof yeah, socialists. That's really cool, pure socialism. Yeah, I've read a few of Jacobin. Yeah, I was like oof. I'm not sure I was comfortable with reading all that. I was like, oh yeah, they're like socialists overthrowing the government, changing.
Speaker 2:America from inside and out.
Speaker 1:I'm not sure I support that. Ah, it wasn't worth that either. Look, you got to deal with the situation now and just make the best out of it and make America irrelevant. I don't know how long we're going to stay as a superpower. You know there's been. You know the empirical decline America's been facing, especially economically, where we no longer you know the super petro, or you know world global dollar petrol dollar, you know, especially with BRICS.
Speaker 1:BRICS has been a big challenge to that. But that's going to. I'm going too much into economic stuff I don't want to get too deep into that, but that's one big example of the empirical decline.
Speaker 2:Yeah, go ahead. The bottom line of what you're saying to me is you have radical left and a radical right that, to the average citizen, should be discounted and ignored, so you look for things that are closer to the center, I mean like MSNBC or Fox. I mean you're in an echo chamber if that's all you watch, one or the other. So don't get yourself other sources of information that are more objective, instead of relying on the extremes, because the extremes influence. We're tribal because of the extremes, because both the conservative left and the conservative right have co-opted it to the radicals and, of course, to the media. The radicals. They get more clicks because their ideas are more radical. I mean, it's just this horrible, you know circular firing squad, basically.
Speaker 1:Attention is the most valuable currency. I'm sorry, I cut you off.
Speaker 2:No, no, I was just going to say you know, american people have you have to think for yourself now. You know, in 1980, you could listen to Walter Cronkite on CBS and say well, I really trust that guy and of course he was. Cbs then was more objective than it is now. You could just go well, I heard this on, walter Cronkite said it, so it's right. Now you can't say that.
Speaker 1:Cronkite said it, so it's right. Now you can't say that little skewed a little to the slight left, slight right, whatever. Nothing's perfectly in the middle, which is fine by me, but you know just yeah just have something that's more objective.
Speaker 1:Don't go to your. I don't know if you're left. You know watching a view alone will be a disservice. You need to watch. Even I know this is going to piss some of you off, but I'm fine with it. I don't know A Greg Gutfeld. That's your counter to the view. That's more on Fox, and vice versa. You can't just pay attention to a Greg Gutfeld show either. Watch the view to see what's going on.
Speaker 2:The other thing we haven't even addressed is critically important is the new media, which is basically substack and podcasting, because that's where people are going to get their information, because they could pick out you have a, you know, on substack and I write on substack, but you could pick out a variety of views and there's a lot of people that are near the middle and you know, like I subscribe to five or six different Substack sites that I'm interested in and so anybody can do the same thing, and I'll guess you got a Substack as well. Go check that out.
Speaker 1:Shake this plug in. I'm doing it for you. Listen, look, you got a Substack as well. Go check that out. Shameless plug-in, I'm doing it for you. Like, listen, look, you got a sub stack as well. So go check him out and I'll put that link um as well. So just like that sub stack and um. You know you find it in the description of the episode so you'll check out his work.
Speaker 2:It's it's unique it's definitely refreshing.
Speaker 1:It's the cool kids will call it base because they don't care about the powers that be. It's truthful opinion, without giving a rat's behind about the establishment approval, and that's what anyone with a good Substack account would have Opinion that needs to be heard. That is definitely anti-establishment.
Speaker 2:Yeah, let me give you the URL. It's Mike 0.
Speaker 1:so that's going to be in the.
Speaker 2:I published an article weekly there, so it's sort of a quicker way to get information out to people than writing a book so there you go, another shameless plug in here.
Speaker 1:I got the new book. I call it democracy such a great title because it is such an illusion. The rich controls a heck of a lot. That's the main point. If they like something, that's the aim, set, chance passed through. If only the commoners like something, it's only 3% Oof Very, very depressing odds. And then if both like it, it's 56%, which that's interesting. I would have thought that would have been 95%.
Speaker 2:No, that's not both. That's if lobbyists like it. Thank you for that correction Only if lobbyists like it's 56%. Even the lobbies are not the most powerful.
Speaker 1:They're like second class when it comes to the power of money based on those numbers. Okay, that makes more sense. I was wondering.
Speaker 2:What I brought together the 3% and the 96% is because there are bills that the public supports, that the elite supports too. So the public gets the benefit if that bill passes, because they have an interest in it. Problem is, there are many, many issues that the public is interested in that the government ignores.
Speaker 1:Yep. So again, let me say it now correctly If it's the rich, only they have an overnight cent chance of having to pass. If it's the lobbyists, only it's 56. If it's only the public, only public, without the other two higher classes two higher classes okay, yeah, lobbyists is kind of the middle class when it comes to this power structure. Three percent, all right.
Speaker 1:So let me re-summarize that so I can get it right this time, because I just care. I care about getting it right, not my own ego. It was my own ego, I would have been yelling at the guests, right? I don't dare correct me in front of my people. No, I don't care about that. To me the ego is not that important. I care about getting it right. If that's me being corrected during a recording, so be it, because I don't want misinformation being spread, and that means even challenging my own ego, which some people don't do, by the way. But I care about that more than anything. My ego is not that important. My ego has been crushed and destroyed many times. I will live, I'll be okay.
Speaker 2:You people don't think. You, you, you know, your ego dies you'll live.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's the main point.
Speaker 2:It's going to feel just emotionally painful, but I think that's something that everybody makes mistakes and everybody uses incorrect information when they don't know any better. Right, I mean, I always say that if I mean I have to have whatever I believe tested by other people, because if I'm sitting in my office and I'm just thinking about my ideology or something, it's not criticized. I'd rather talk to a Democrat than a Republican, basically because I want to hear the basis for their belief, because probably they just have a different point of view than I do. Like I talked about liberal and conservative, so it's understanding. I mean, again, the key thing to understand about the two groups is that they're not going to turn into each other, so you have to work together. So the tribal thing is bad because it keeps people from talking and it keeps consensus from forming, so we tread water instead of moving forward.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, we need to restore that level of consensus, and I just want to point back to what you said about the EU, which is very interesting. I perfectly agree with this. I don't want us following the same path as the EU. That part I'm very clear about that, because you already mentioned all the specific examples Digital ID oh, freedom of speech. Forget that.
Speaker 2:Hate, speech, hate speech laws is a real thing in the EU.
Speaker 1:You say something wrongful, you will be arrested and you will be locked up here. It's just you lose your job. You know your social media access, but if we don't do anything about it, we will be heading that same direction as the EU, maybe even worse.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's really. I don't know if you've read what's going on in the UK, but the free speech laws there I mean it's unbelievable. People are getting arrested because they posted something on Facebook that offended somebody else, and then three cops come to their house and arrest them. I mean no American can conceive of that happening. You know where is a probable cause? I mean it's absurd, it's scary. Oh, it is scary. No, I read about this.
Speaker 1:Wow, so this is becoming more authoritarian. Yeah, so you gotta have the right opinion, you gotta have the right speech. You cannot, oh god, forbid your offense. So the the offended has more power than you. Yeah, exactly so for example I don't, he will never do this. And my uh, my answer post something that seems like it's criticizing immigrants. I'm gonna say he's racist if we live in Great Britain.
Speaker 2:He will be arrested. That's a bad, bad account. He's a racist bad white man.
Speaker 1:Some of you. Americans are familiar with that. The most consequences that happen in America is, sadly, to get swatted by police. That's the worst that happens, which is still tragic, but you don't got your right to be lost, maybe except for lost access to a social media account and a loss of employment. That's the worst it gets in America.
Speaker 2:The COVID thing, I mean their COVID policy basically is, if there's another pandemic and you don't get the shot, you go to jail because you're risking the lives of other people by not getting a shot, even though it's been shown that the shot doesn't. Because you have the shot doesn't mean you're not going to get it again. It also doesn't mean that you're not going to transmit it. So the whole thing is built based on a lie. I know people I had four shots. I had the first two and then two boosters but I stopped then. I know people have had all the shots and they've had COVID three or four times. So it was built. There were so many lies during that rollout that it's going to be important to uncover what Fauci was really doing.
Speaker 1:Yeah me personally, all I got was one shot and I didn't bother with the boosters. I started catching on to. Whoa, I'm not the most right-leaning person. You know some things. It sounds like I'm a right-wing. If you talk to me about woke issues, you'd think I'm a very right-wing because I'm very critical of the woke language and policies in their belief. I'm very critical. They've got lean, definitely more liberals. Look, I'm for multiculturalism, I'm for a lot of these things. I'm, you know, lgbtq got their rights fine, but if you shove a woke agenda down people's throats, that's what you shouldn't think of a right wing.
Speaker 1:I'm very critical of those issues. So you know, I think culturally I still lean to the, culturally and societally, when it comes to those cultural issues, I think I lean to that, but fiscally a little more with the right, generally speaking, because it just to me this just makes more sense. The left, I say, um, yeah, culturally I definitely agree with the left. Culture policies I definitely favor the left. And maybe health care. Health care definitely lead to left these major changes on that one. You know, health care definitely I'm almost like progressive left on that issue. I don't like the current system so I'm like eh To hell with it. So that's just my thinking. Can it change until I see a better idea? Of course it can. That's the only term that I see for now, only in terms of healthcare. I don't want everything else being socialized either. I think it should be only for, like, the poor people and all that.
Speaker 1:You know that part grew to the left. And then that's an incorporate taxing the corporations. I definitely side with the left on that one. They can pay, they can, they can pay more taxes, they can. They may give record profits. So it's showing over again. Yeah, yeah, I can afford more taxes and they can help the country. I don't know, Corpor.
Speaker 1:Oh well, I'm not like by many people anyway, so I'll be okay, I'll live. But um, so that's that's my take on some of these things. That's where my I lead politically. I'm politically hybrid, if you kind of think about it. That's why I don't fit with them. So the republicans I think they both are pretty obsolete, but, like you said, they got too much power.
Speaker 2:That's why they're still here well, there's more more people like you than a radical. I mean, I already talked about that. I mean the average traditional Democrat believes that we need to stop tribalism and work together with the right. It's only the radical left that doesn't believe that. They believe they're the only ones who are right and anybody who doesn't have their opinion is wrong. Not just wrong. You're a racist. You're this, All the name-calling ones who are right and anybody doesn't have their opinion is wrong.
Speaker 1:I'm not just wrong you're racist. You're this all the name calling, I mean even the far right got their own name calling.
Speaker 1:yep, it's all you know. They both were saying. I don't want to just bash one side of the aisle, but I I'm overall a centrist, if you, if you want to give me, if you want a simple description of me, I'm more independent centrist at the end of the day, because I i't believe in fitting to the box. I don't care about the political parties, I care about America, not the political parties. To hell with the political parties. As far as I'm concerned, they both die out. I think it would be a good thing personally, even though that's a radical take, but if they die off or maybe even change for something more relevant.
Speaker 1:I'm even open to that as well, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Speaker 2:It asks if there were a third-party possibility here.
Speaker 1:but the system's rigged to prevent third parties from operating, so unless they change the laws about that, there'll never be a third party, which means we're stuck with these two parties that are establishment-driven by billionaires. And let me do my own shameless plug-in for two organizations One of them you introduced me to. I officially joined them, the Braver Angels. Join that organization. I will put the link on how to join them. I enjoy my time there.
Speaker 1:I think the national side of it is a bit better than the local side. If I'm going to be honest and I'm in the New York City, of course, alliance, so far I think I buy more with the national team because I think they just have more stuff going on. But the debates and workshops and anything like that to try and bridge the gap. And sometimes they got intra-workshops, because sometimes you know, the blue tent don't get along with each other. You already said the traditional Democrats and the progressives. They fight among each other very aggressively, I might say. And the neocon and the conservatives can't stand each other either within the red tent Intra-conflict. They even got workshops for that as well. I didn't even know that. That's all. This is fascinating because it's true they're both big tents and they both fight among each other because of some issues I mean what's the most famous example I could get?
Speaker 1:for the Democrats, it's Israel and Hamas conflict Very good example. And when it comes to Republicans, it was the Ukraine conflict that split that party.
Speaker 2:So just because you're in the same party doesn't mean you're always going to agree.
Speaker 1:Sometimes, certain times, the intra-conflict is stronger than the external conflict Certain times. So that's what I'm going to say about that. So check them out. I think they're a good organization and you can donate you don't have to donate a lot Bucks a month.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's a monthly donation.
Speaker 1:I personally donate 10. I'm thinking about donating a little more. I just want to give them a shot to get a feel how they are.
Speaker 2:There's a second alliance.
Speaker 1:I've joined as well, but this one is more. This is only if you live in New York. Unite NY. The reason I'm mentioning them is because they're trying to change the term limits open primaries in New York State. This is more of a state thing. I'll put a link for that as well. So if you live in New York, that's something. While Braver Angels is more national, they even got their local charters. Unite NY Is pretty straightforward it's only for New Yorkers. You can be in Buffalo, schenectady, niagara Falls, new York City. You can be in Buffalo, schenectady, niagara Falls, new York City, long Island, westchester County. So as long as you're within the New York state, I think you should join that, because we're trying to change the election process with that and you kind of disagree with term limits and age limits. That's one of the things that's being pushed, by the way, I like the idea.
Speaker 2:It's just how you're ever going to get that pushed. By the way. I like the idea. It's just how you're ever going to get that. You're going for the perspective of practicality if we get our act together.
Speaker 1:We won't even need that.
Speaker 2:So I get it. I get it. That's one of the things. Oh and well, race choice voting. I say the Democrats love that one.
Speaker 1:I like it too, but the one I liked was the open primary because, as as an independent, it's such a pain in the neck, I've got to wait until the general election. It's because it's a closed primary. New York, new York Democrats, if you care about accessibility and democracy, fix your crap. Get your house in order first Before you criticize the outside. You haven't got this one right. You haven't got to call out the Democrats because you're the power, you're the powerful party of New York, you're the dominant party of New York.
Speaker 2:So I got to call you out more than Republicans.
Speaker 1:Republicans are almost non-existent. They like dying dodo birds Okay, in New York City. So that's all I'm going to say. All right, enough of my rambling and self plugins for those who want to make change. Um, is there anything else you want to add before I wrap this up?
Speaker 2:do not. I think we covered a lot.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we definitely cover a lot and I'm sure there's going to be more to cover based on this trump speed. I can't keep up with it, most people can't keep up with it. Most people can't keep up with it.
Speaker 2:Maybe I don't know, unless you're super close to him.
Speaker 1:Those are the ones I can keep up with him, but none of us are there and I don't think we're ever going to be there, unless, I don't know, miracle luck comes and that could happen probably once in a lifetime, I don't know.
Speaker 2:I'm not going to hold my breath.
Speaker 1:I'm a realist. The odds look pretty bad for both of us to beat Trump, so I'm sure we're going to have a lot more to talk about regarding Trump midterms. All that, I'll talk about that later in the episode. About what I think could win either chamber.
Speaker 2:I'm just going to say right now very briefly.
Speaker 1:I think the Republicans excuse me, I think the Republicans could maintain the Senate. The House of Representatives, however, is a lost cause. Probably. Probably is. I think they might get net gain one seat, because Democrats have a very narrow chance of taking the Senate. Out of the 23 seats that are up, I think only three seats are vulnerable and even when they lose three seats, they still maintain that 50-50. Jd Vance, you know vice president's job is to be the tiebreaker in the Senate, so that's technically still in the Republican control. Even if they lose three seats, annette lost three.
Speaker 2:I think they might get.
Speaker 1:Annette game one, but I could be wrong. It's just predictions, like to do for fun. You could bash me, criticize me, say I'm a crazy person, but whatever, I'm willing to take that chance. It's just for fun for me. I don't care about my ego, so go ahead and destroy it. It's been killed many times already. So with that, enough with these future teasers. So if you enjoyed this episode, give it a like, subscribe. Give a review on the Apple Podcast Check out the.
Speaker 1:Buzzsprout link as well to the website of my podcast, and so for whenever you're listening to this podcast, you have a blessed day, afternoon or night. Thank you for watching.
