Left Face
Join Adam Gillard and Dick Wilkinson while they talk politics and community engagement in Pikes Peak region.
Left Face
Military Engagement and the Dance of Democracy
Is the American political landscape teetering on the edge of unprecedented transformation? Join us for an insightful episode of Left Face as we dissect recent events that have left the nation on tenterhooks. We kick off with a curious incident from a Donald Trump rally where a dance session led by the former president bewildered many. However, beneath the entertainment lies a chilling narrative: Trump's alarming rhetoric about the "enemy within" and the potential implications for military engagement with civilians. Our conversation explores the fine line between maintaining military neutrality and the dangers of its politicization, underscoring the critical importance of lawful orders in preserving democracy.
The shadow of Donald Trump's influence continues to cast a long reach over state governors, despite his absence from official power. This episode examines how Trump's enduring impact reshapes political dynamics and could challenge democratic norms if his voter base remains strong, even in the face of Electoral College defeat. We unpack the strategic deployment of National Guard troops during his tenure, questioning the implications of such maneuvers. Through a careful analysis, we highlight the crucial role veterans and citizens play in safeguarding political stability by active civic engagement and participation in the democratic process.
Within the Republican Party, the landscape is shifting, and figures like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger find themselves navigating treacherous waters due to their opposition to Trump. As these political loyalties unfold, we reflect on the historical parallels to past events like Kent State, warning against unchecked power and authoritarian tendencies. The episode is a clarion call for listeners to vote with intention and awareness, urging a proactive stance against misinformation and heightened rhetoric. In this ever-evolving political climate, staying informed and active in democracy is not just a choice—it's a necessity.
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Hello everyone and welcome to Left Face. My name is Adam Gillard. I am your co-host here, along with Dick Wilkinson, the other co-host. How are you doing, dick?
Speaker 2:Good morning. I'm doing great, Adam.
Speaker 1:So Left Face is about the Pikes Peak region, a veteran's perspective on the politics around here, and today we're going to talk about something that's kind of personal to a lot of us. Wearing the uniform and serving this country is something that we obviously are extremely proud of and many of us would not change a thing about. You know, serving and being a part of this, that apparatus right Last weekend, Donald Trump one it's hard to keep up with all the nonsense coming out of him. That's true. Yeah, which one? Which time Right, yeah, which rally.
Speaker 2:More specific.
Speaker 1:You say which one, which time? Right yeah, which rally? More specific Is this morning or afternoon, For sure. Yeah, Because I mean I think after he said this stuff here, he had that 40-minute dance break, dance, break.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Where he just and the, I know we're weaving, we're gonna weave it together. He played full-length songs and just told everyone I'll just keep playing the music, yeah. And then I heard what the music was, what a crazy mix of music.
Speaker 1:and then he called for ymca so that everybody could dance together like like I wish we had more footage of like what the crowd was doing during that time.
Speaker 2:I gotta imagine because, like totally confused yeah, and I don't know, the first whole, like four minute song played right and no one talked and nothing happened. You had to think something weird's going on here and then, 15 minutes into it, you, you're really unsettled, right, yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, 25, 30. Yeah, and I don't think they're a dancing crowd to begin with.
Speaker 2:No no.
Speaker 1:Anyways, back to what we're talking about. Over the weekend on Fox News, trump made some claims about the real threat, not Russia, not China, not the other peer near peer adversaries that we face globally, but the problem is the enemy within. They're more dangerous than these foreign adversaries that we face globally, but the problem is the enemy within. They're more dangerous than these foreign adversaries that we face. This is a terrifying statement coming from. I mean, we see what he's done in the past, right? Yes, so when we look at things like the January 6th riots immediately firing people after he lost the election in the DOD, and stuff like that to kind of weaken our command structure that was all very big.
Speaker 1:Actually, one of the quotes I wanted to read was from Mark Esper, who was the sec-deaf that got fired right after the election in November 20. So, defense Secretary Mark Esper, he warned American citizens to take Trump's comments about using the military against American citizens very seriously. And so this is somebody that's a high-ranking member of the cabinet and he's got a litany of cabinet members that don't support him now, including James Mattis and other generals that he had on his staff, and now he's calling to use our military forces against um, the enemy within, also known as american citizens correct yeah and and that's the the spin that's come out of this comment over the week that the the apologists for when donald trump says something and then they all have to go on the news and explain, explain that what he meant and said directly is not what he really meant.
Speaker 2:And they and that's their, their charge is to go out and do that. Yeah, and that is exactly what happened throughout after this comment, when it was so clear and so blatant, everyone had to start throwing up smoke screens and say, oh well, he means illegal immigrants, he means organized criminals, he means gang members from other countries. You know, that's what he really means.
Speaker 1:It's, it's all the immigrants, you know we gotta have a wall, right, right like oh my gosh, okay, so um, do you? You know that's, that's the smoke screen. Yeah, that's not what he means. No, nobody believes that and that's that's even unattainable. Like you when you send the military into somewhere, like we're not checking ids right exactly it would turn into a whole, an internment camp type sorting of people.
Speaker 2:Right To say, hey, everybody, come down to these locations and we're going to see if you should be here or not. Right, like the military can't do that, wouldn't do that, shouldn't do that. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:Right yeah.
Speaker 2:That would be an unlawful order to even try to execute that type of operation.
Speaker 1:Right. And so when we talk about lawful versus unlawful, you know we all receive those trainings, the low act trainings and things like that. What is like some?
Speaker 2:of the first things that have to happen for the National Guard to even be called in. Well, the rules around the difference between you know. I guess it's important to identify the three components of the military. We'll just start there. Yeah, so there's active duty forces, and most people when they think about the military they think people that do it full time and that are going to get deployed in, you know, a short terms notice. That's usually your active duty forces. Then you have the reserve component, which is a reserve labor pool for the active duty federal military. Hard stop. Now there's the third component, that is, the National Guard. The National Guard looks, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, does all the things that the military does, but they are regulated very differently than the active duty federal forces.
Speaker 1:One of the analogies that I've heard is that, like active duty and the reserves are a corporation that kind of operate across the nation, whereas the National Guard is franchises.
Speaker 2:Yes, I like that, yeah that's a great way to think of it. You get a starter kit. You get a two-star general that you identify as your commander of your National Guard forces. That serves at your pleasure when you're the governor and then, depending on when there's a change of administration, that person is a political appointee, even though they're a two-star general that has a military uniform on.
Speaker 1:Usually three and four stars are political appointees, but in the guard two stars.
Speaker 2:Right, because there's not Senate confirmation for that, because that commission into that two-star position comes from the governor, not from the president Okay. And so they can commission. They're the rules around who they can promote into that position. Lieutenant colonels and colonels get bumped up to be a two-star because they're a political appointee? No way. And so if you're a National Guard colonel, that's a rock star and you're friends with the person who's running for office. Guess what? You're going to be their two-star. Wow Right.
Speaker 2:So you're right, the franchise operation is a lot different than the way that the national level of the military promotes people into those command positions.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because it's always by percentages on the national level. Yeah, because it's always by percentages on the national level.
Speaker 2:Yeah, how many? It's a pyramid, like you say, the corporation is a pyramid.
Speaker 2:There's one CEO and there's a bunch of vice presidents, vice presidents of the corporation, if you will, and then on down to the rank and file members. But in the governor situation, you've got the governor and they appoint that top person and they are the top of the pyramid for as long as that governor is in office. I'm not, I don't know the incidence of turnover, as far as, like, if a governor changes, is there automatically a change in that position? I don't think that always happens. A lot of times that person is well-established and trusted and I think they just continue to serve at the pleasure of the next governor.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah and yeah, that's another one of those things with the National Guard is they get a lot more stability in their positions. I mean even the reserves. Now you know you can't, you know, homestead someplace for too long if you want to move up, right, right, but the National Guard's definitely a lot different, it's designed to be, that, you know, inside insular kind of group kind of group.
Speaker 2:So you know all of that.
Speaker 2:For people who aren't as concerned about those mechanics, they matter when it comes to what Donald Trump is talking about.
Speaker 2:As far as using any kind of military organization of any of the three that we mentioned, there's legal ramifications and there's already safeguards that have been put in place throughout America's history to uphold some of these legal outcomes, to make sure that we're protecting our own citizens, our states, as individual kind of operational parts of the larger whole. These things have been worked out and the things that Donald Trump is trying to suggest, or that he's dreaming up in his head, I think is really what we should be talking about. What's he imagining? That reality is completely out of bounds for what the laws and regulations that we built into the country over the last couple hundred years. I believe that his reality of how this all could work is much more on the level of how a kid would think that if you're in charge, then you're in charge of everything right and you can just kind of make up the rules because you're in charge, right, and that is not how the office of the president works when it comes to using the military.
Speaker 2:It's just not like that, and I think when he first took office there was a few instances like that where he was like he thought he was the president so he could just be the emperor and do anything and like no man, like there's rules and laws here to keep you in these, in this lane with trying to put you know, I mean in, and all presidents have done this at different times as needed for border, border support, that is a function that crosses those components Right. And so there is a time when sending military forces from states that don't touch the border but they go to the border to support that mission, that makes sense and that can happen in reserve or National Guard forces. There are opportunities where that would make sense.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we did it a lot in like 2008 timeframe. Yeah, it's happened.
Speaker 2:And it's not necessarily a partisan line of decision on when it's time to use forces like that. But what? But what we saw under Donald Trump's administration, that was, I think, different, or at least it was held up as looking different than choices. In the past there were individual governors, and this gets us back to the whole. What is the governor's role versus what's the president's role?
Speaker 2:The president can ask a governor will you please deploy your forces of your national guard, your state citizen guard, to a location to support the federal mission, and the governors can support that mission or, politically, they could say that's not in the best interest of our state. We don't know that this is going to lead to the best outcome for us. At this first request, that governor could say, nah, national Guard, no thanks. Now we've got reserve units here and you're the federal government and if you need to mobilize our reserve units, send me the order and then we'll process that, and it'll probably be different than the decision that I have to make over my National Guard troops. So that's the you know kind of the cut line.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so that's the you know kind of the cut line is that those reserve forces that may be kind of associated with a state can be mobilized by the federal government and the president could request those forces and I won't say it doesn't matter what the mission is, it still matters what the legal authority to use them. Right but the request is different than using the National Guard.
Speaker 1:OK, so yeah, yeah, they definitely are. It is interesting to me because you look at Donald Trump as he is right now former president, no authority, no nothing.
Speaker 2:Correct.
Speaker 1:But he still has a lot of governor's ears. He does, and he could easily just ask the question, and the governors are in charge. They have their two-star that's probably in lockstep with them. That's pretty scary to think that somebody with no authority has access to authority To some authority, yes, and there's a shadow influence going on there.
Speaker 2:And to finish my thought, I didn't really close the loop there. Back during Donald Trump's administration, what we saw happening that I had mentioned was different than what I believe we'd seen in the past. Different than what I believe we'd seen in the past. Governors were volunteering to send their troops to locations that were popular, politically popular, but that didn't seem to have a direct line of anything to their citizens. And so my item that I'm talking about here northern states, sending National Guard troops to the southern border, not upon the request of, like, the Arizona governor or the Texas governor more out of the. We think that Donald Trump will like this if we send a couple thousand troops down to the border. That seemed to be the activity Now.
Speaker 2:Securing the border is in everyone's interest, and so any governor could argue that, like there's there's no other border between here and there. If I'm in South Dakota, the Texas border is the only border between me and Mexico, right, so I have a reason to support that border. But it wasn't really based on, like Texas or Arizona or New Mexico, somebody saying we need more help. Can these States, other States, come and help us? It was definitely done as a show of support and political, some degree of political gamesmanship, and that happened during his administration. I had not seen what I'll consider random states that aren't directly connected to a problem set just throwing forces at something. For longer deployments too, when we have like a national, like a hurricane, like hurricanes right, sure people get put on 30 day, 60 day orders. They get just get on the bus and go down there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so, but that's not what happened that we're talking six months deployments to what seemed like an active duty type mission, without any request, really uh, in the obama administration, uh, the national guard would put out calls for serve for troops and to any state, and they would do onesie, twosies type things where, like you know, we need 100 people. So they put it out to all governors and or you know, you apply for it and you go, and then that'd be a six-month thing like that. But you're right, it wasn't a big show of force. I don't think that was really something in the news until I got into Arizona and my friends were doing it.
Speaker 2:So there would be no headline associated with those types of calls for forces, but these things were done with the intention of getting headlines. Yeah, and that was different. So where that plays back into the modern like today issue is still all modern, but the today issue is that you know from where Adam and I sit. There's this opportunity for Donald Trump who, like you said Adam, is not in office or doesn't have any legal authority for power right now, but has.
Speaker 2:so much influence, that there's a belief that there are people that, yeah, like there's an acknowledgment that there's a regime that exists separately from the United States and that there's some value in being a member of that regime, and I don't understand.
Speaker 1:You kind of brought up an interesting line of thought here. Like Trump lost by seven million votes last time, I don't think he's done enough to endear folks to him anymore. So like I think he'll lose the popular election one way or the other, the Electoral College obviously up for grabs. If he loses the Electoral College but still has 70 million voters, like he had last time, do you think he's going to try something drastic Like break Florida off?
Speaker 2:We're conjecturing now right, we're out here in pundit land and we're out here in scary nightmare land um, uh, but it's important because what really the point of this conversation is is, in the end, I think, a call to action to veterans and and we'll talk about that in a minute but, yeah, there is an idea there that, essentially, I have a following, I have a body of people, I maybe have something that looks like a militia. How much of this apparatus do I have where I can essentially declare that I am in charge, even if I'm not right, and how many people will support that? That is, that is the weakness of any political society, is that eventually, you could have you know enough people just decide. Well, yeah, those were the rules until today.
Speaker 1:And now we're done.
Speaker 2:And now we're. Those aren't the rules anymore, right? And unfortunately, you know, a person who is bent on whipping up that type of thinking has the advantage in breaking things versus maintaining things and get them to support your bidding than it is to get people to acknowledge that they're in a democracy that requires give and take. They're in a culture and community that wants their input, but it doesn't. We vote right for a reason, and if you're really motivated, you need to use the same method and the same apparatus of political progress in the voting booth to get things done. There's enough people that you know it's.
Speaker 2:We talk about the popular vote versus the electoral vote. Right, the popular vote has gone one way consistently and the electoral vote has been back and forth. There are a lot of people that even just that alone is enough to motivate them to say, hey, I don't think we're ever going to win the popular vote again and at some point we're going to stop winning the electoral grip that we have. And then, what Like? Are we really ready to become dinosaurs? Are we ready to be in the history books of America versus the future of America? No, they're not.
Speaker 1:They're not. There's a lot of people in that group of loyal subjects that are willing to say I'm OK with being in Trump's America if it's different than the America that I grew up in. Right, and nothing really reaches them. When you talk about numbers and other facts and like economic status and things like that, it's all driven on emotions.
Speaker 2:Oh, logic is just checked at the door immediately.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I mean they've been I can't remember the gentleman's name from like the 1920s or 30s, that kind of like. Figured that out that like you can stand in front of a constituent and throw them all the facts in the world, yeah, but it doesn't matter. No, If you get them emotional, they will not, maybe not even listen to you.
Speaker 2:But just do what you say Exactly.
Speaker 1:Yes, they're ready to take action and kind of like I said a minute ago.
Speaker 2:You know every politician should understand the call to action. And here's the problem is that Trump does understand that. He understands it really well and he can do it in ways that are extremely for. You know, anybody that wants to say that he's like bumbling over himself.
Speaker 1:he's never bumbling over himself, so before you showed up today, I was listening to a video out there and it was Trump speaking. I can't remember where he was speaking, but he said that they couldn't get me on January 6th because I said peacefully and patriotically that first term was that they couldn't get me. That shows intent. You knew what? You were saying you were dancing around something here. He says these things and people don't hear it.
Speaker 2:Yes, exactly In your crafting of the plan we're building. In your get out of jail card, You're building it in.
Speaker 2:This is my loophole. I'm going to build my own loophole and I'm going to go out here and convince you that, that you agree with me, that this is my loophole. Even when he's met with staunch like, that is not what that means. You can't just say those two words and then the other whole other thing that happened Like that's that doesn't. Oh yeah, it does. It sure does, Cause I thought it up that morning and I said it out loud, so of course it makes sense. Yeah, you know, that's the appeal is like well, I said it, so it must be true.
Speaker 1:Yeah, During his recent Bloomberg interview there was a point where he just sat there and crossed his arms and kind of like pouted and like it's that same mindset Like you, Just that juvenile mindset of like I'm right, you're wrong. Yeah, this is it and there's nothing else to talk about. Right.
Speaker 2:And so the problem there is is that that you know we'll use the term strong man. That's not a strong man position in my book, but the being obstinate, being difficult, being just it's my way or the highway man that's his brand.
Speaker 2:You know, that is the appeal, and so the more he does that, even in the face of clear, like we say, logical things that make sense and that are like hey, you're breaking the law right now. No, I'm not Right Like that, that wins votes for him. Yeah, because, people, this is what it appeals to. No-transcript the voter base for Trump right now, and I don't even want to call it the republican base because I hate to sully the party me too, me too like I.
Speaker 1:I know so many like good republicans that like are decent people.
Speaker 2:You can talk to them and like they want to have a logical conversation, right and like you can talk about taxes reasonably, you know um.
Speaker 1:So yeah, I'm right with you.
Speaker 2:Like I hate lumping republicans in with maga yeah, so I'll be'll be careful with that and just throw the party under the bus. But I will throw the thinking under the bus of I don't like what I see around me and I feel too small to do anything about it. But this guy, he's a big guy, right? He's got the money, he's got the tie, he's got the crowd behind him, he's got the everything that I think I would be if I was a big guy. He's it, yeah. And so I'm not going to go out and tell anybody how I really feel. I'm not going to go out and make my opinion known in a way that, like, might affect change in my community. I'm just going to vote for this jackass because he's going to go out and say the things that I can't. I don't think I can say you know, and even if they don't like him as a person, it's that champion, yeah, it's the champion, piece, right. And he champions something for so many people that, um, I don't want to be mad at him.
Speaker 1:I don't want to be mad at them.
Speaker 2:I don't want to be mad at a voter wanting something right, but the the problem with the fact that you're trying to deliver that thing through donald trump is the issue right is that he does not care about the thing he told you he cares about right, he cares about him, his family and his bank account.
Speaker 2:and if he tells you that he cares about you because you're a veteran, because you're a veteran, because you're a labor worker, because you're in Asheville, north Carolina, because your home was destroyed by a hurricane, he's lying to you. Yeah, and people just they made a choice in 2016 to either care about his lies or not care about his lies. Yeah, just block it out and from that point forward. It didn't matter.
Speaker 1:Well, and you used the word obstinance there. I think that's a good word for um, a lot of the uh. What is it like political coyness that people use when, like they do stuff that you know that they did but they won't admit to it, and things like that? We saw it here locally where the uh? Uh recreational cannabis campaign that's going on right now. I got a text message saying that, like the Democratic Party does not support recreational cannabis Blatant lie. Yeah, you know, looks like propaganda.
Speaker 2:Right yeah.
Speaker 1:There was no like real like how to find these people who posted this information on there. But the Democratic Party had to use their resources to come out and say no, we do support this, we do want this, and you know. So they're just wasting resources. And I know like if you go talk to the person that put it out there, they're probably going to be like what?
Speaker 2:would you mean yeah, you know shit like that.
Speaker 1:It's like how are we acting, how would we pretend to be adults when we can't have a conversation, eye to eye with somebody and speak truth?
Speaker 2:truth. Yeah, and I've been in the room. I'll be honest with you, adam. I've been in the room when I've seen that spark take off and ignite in a group of people who are well motivated to do the right thing but understand they're doing it under the means of politics. Right, and so I, I.
Speaker 2:It puts you in a weird spot when you have to decide do I want to raise my hand right now and say this not the game we should be playing, or do I want to stand back and watch this thing and see if it unravels itself? Right, you know, maybe the clear, like false motivation or poorly placed motivation will just stop this thing in its tracks. Enough people will realize this is you're not really saying, you're not telling me that you're going to get to the end in a way that I feel comfortable with. So I'm not going to support this movement. We'll say that.
Speaker 2:But I've seen the spark happen. Where a juvenile type of activity starts to get credibility right, it starts to get the well they do it, and if they're going to play dirty, then we have to play, and there's always somebody in the room that's willing to raise that hand and say, well, if they're going to sling mud. We should get a bigger shovel and we should sling more mud, and for me that's not usually a helpful approach. But what you mentioned a minute ago is actually a very well-known political tactic that if you throw out a lie about your opponent, they're going to spend twice as much energy and effort on doing that lie. It costs you nothing, unless you think your base or your voters care about whether you're being truthful or not. If everybody expects that all politicians lie, then you've got some room to work and you can say some things that are sensational, and then that's it.
Speaker 2:You just close the book, walk off the stage and you don't ever have to talk about that topic, ever again.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right, yeah.
Speaker 2:But if you put the turd in the punch bowl, the people who run in the party, who are the hosts, they have to get rid of the punch bowl. Yep, they have to get a new punch bowl and they have to put more punch in it.
Speaker 1:Right, it's a great analogy. We can do it again, right?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so that's a tactic that Trump has mastered for sure.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and a little alibi. When I said I don't like lumping Republicans in, I'm OK with lumping in the Republican Party, ok. Well, it is fully his apparatus, because it is his party and we see it coming down now, like the people that are being charged, the Colorado State, guyave williams like straight maga.
Speaker 2:Yeah, uh, just yeah, he's a nightmare. Yes, sure, and there are. You know, the headline is increasing um, that republicans are campaigning with harris. Republicans are on the trail with harris. Oh, rallies at this place, rallies at that place with the republicans. There there's a handful of high visibility people, but you know what I'll take it. I mean like from a partisanship perspective. Again, they're speaking. Here's the thing those folks, like we're talking about liz cheney she's talking to. I think her message gets completely lost in the wind because the any conservative leaning swing voter has already made their decision on how they feel about her and Adam Kinzinger and the whole.
Speaker 2:January 6th commission, and so I love the fact that she is ringing the bell, but she's been ringing that bell since the commission started and she got fired for it basically. So her voice is powerful, but I don't think any Republican out there is like, because Dick Cheney said this, like that's going to sway my vote Right.
Speaker 1:Do you think if uh W Bush came out and said something, it would swing?
Speaker 2:It would re, it won't matter.
Speaker 1:No, I didn't think so. It would matter. Nothing would matter yeah.
Speaker 2:The loyalists are loyal and there's really no such thing as a swing voter on Trump anymore. I just don't, I can't, I don't understand.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't either.
Speaker 2:Maybe they're out there, but I don't know who they are, and it's again. He's taking that away from himself in that he is. His brand message is so strong that there should be no misunderstandings around. What do you get if you hire Trump as your president? What is your life going to be like the day after he takes over office?
Speaker 1:We already know.
Speaker 2:So again, there's no mystery for a swing voter to wonder what is this all going to? Be like and if we loop it all the way back around to the first topic, he may think you are an enemy within this country and you won't know that until the lines have been drawn Exactly, yeah, and you won't know that until the lines have been drawn Exactly, yeah.
Speaker 1:And then we're at that place where you know he's you know he's kind of throwing out that hyperbole about this being our last election and things like that.
Speaker 2:Don't worry about it. You won't have to worry about it again. Yeah, yeah, so I'm the father of anything man.
Speaker 1:That's dictator, speak man. That's dictator, speak, right. I mean, it is you're saying I'm gonna be the daddy of america.
Speaker 2:Yeah, right until I die, right? We don't. You don't fire your father. You don't fire your dad, right? He's your dad, until you die. Right, he's starting to use that language and, again, he's never bumbling over himself. This stuff is peppered out there, all towards a means to an end, right, and so using that kind of language isn't an accident. It's him trying to elevate himself and move into a role of dear leader, right, I mean it is conscious or not.
Speaker 2:It's the transformation of him thinking of himself even more in the way of if I did win this thing, we we're going to start the kingdom.
Speaker 1:It's crazy to think that we're in a toss-up election right now, and that's one side of the election is going into that type of style, people that are kind of okay with that happening, right Wow?
Speaker 1:So now we have our ballots, we all have our blue books telling us the information that we need to fill out our ballots. Yes, so my call to action for everybody is just make sure you get that ballot in. Like mail it in, get it counted sooner, but no matter what, get it in by November 5th, get that ballot counted. What are your final thoughts on this? And just kind of wrap us up here, well, my call to action.
Speaker 2:You know I sit in here and talk about how I don't like partisanship and and as we said earlier, I'm not going to bag on on this as a party issue. I'm going to bag on this as an individual person issue, as I'm going to put my veteran hat on and I'm going to put my army hat specifically on, because that's who he would try and use to to roll down the street and arrest his opponents. And I want to tell people in the army that you know what lawful orders and unlawful orders are. You understand what you signed up to do to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and not the president of the United States. That word does not appear in your swearing and I think that that oath we all understand what it's for and then it's in doing so, as we're veterans, I feel like it's an extension of that oath to vote, to carry on your civic duties, to pay attention to these topics, and pay attention when someone says that they would use your brothers and sisters in arms to harm other Americans, because none of us raised our hand with the intention of allowing that to ever, ever happen. Yeah, and so my call to action is put on your veteran hat.
Speaker 2:Vote your heart, but understand that there are somebody on that ballot that doesn't care about you or your family when you go out to serve as a military member, out to serve as a military member he just doesn't care about your, the outcome that you face, and we know that from too many examples of downtrodden comments on, you know, military members, injured military members, pows the list goes on, and you know it disgusts me to see somebody with a truck that says Trump 2024 and a POW sticker right underneath of it, and I, you know, I want to talk to that person specifically and say does Trump really support the values that you have? When you care about the history of POWs and the torture and the impact that it had on them and their families? Does that man care about that, the way that you care about it? And if you can't say yes to that, then that may influence your vote, and so I would hope that everybody takes a good, hard look in the mirror, remembers the values they had the day that they swore their oath and that they vote based on those values. And if, for you, that leads to a vote for Donald Trump, I'm not, I'm not going to be upset with you about that, but for me there's no way in hell that could happen.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well said man. Yeah, this whole situation is something that you know, even 10 years ago could never even fathom what we'd be at this point. You know it's kind of came on really fast in the last you know, eight, 10 years since Trump started running. Yes, but it's a serious threat and I love what you said. You know, like we all know what a lawful order is and you know we can't have another Kent state yeah, florida is, and you know we can't have another kent state. Yeah, you know what I mean. Like that's what he's waiting to authorize right now. Yes, and it's terrifying and everybody needs to wake up to.
Speaker 1:Yeah, for sure so I guess we'll leave it on that I know that's great.
Speaker 2:Hey, you know what? Uh, with all honesty, the next few weeks, um are going to be a little sketchy yeah, right right um the, the polls, the security, the messaging, the rhetoric, the online misinformation, um the saber rattling, even from certain kind of corners of the country. Um it's all gonna ramp up it's coming man and so you know, I think we're gonna probably be on some sour notes for the next few weeks. That's okay, I mean it's. This is the reality of what we're, what we're trying to preserve.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I tell people every day government takes work every day. You got to show up and you got to put in the work every day.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, and democracy takes more work than other forms of government because you have to participate more often.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it's not just one person making the decision. We all are a part of this, so get those ballots in. Thanks for tuning in and listening to Left Face. Again, my name is Adam Gillard. This is Dick Wilkinson with me here. Uh, really appreciate you tuning in. Uh tune in next week. Thanks, as always. Thank you for joining us here on Left Face. We are proudly sponsored by Native Roots Cannabis Company, colorado's leading locally grown and owned dispensary chain. Native Roots is a huge supporter of ours and a huge supporter of our local communities and businesses. They have 20 locations in Colorado and four here in Colorado Springs, and Native Roots is ready to educate and serve medicinal and recreational patients alike. Thank you for listening to the Left Face Podcast. Please check us out on the web at epccpvorg and sign up for our newsletter. Feel free to drop us a line at info at epccpvorg. Thanks for listening everyone. I hope you're having fun out there. Stay safe.
