Left Face
Join Adam Gillard and Dick Wilkinson while they talk politics and community engagement in Pikes Peak region.
Left Face
When Generals Are Summoned: What's Behind Hegseth's Military Shakeup?
The specter of authoritarianism looms large in this riveting discussion between veterans Dick Wilkinson and Adam Gillard as they unpack Secretary Pete Hegseth's unprecedented recall of 800 general officers to the Pentagon. What appears to be a simple administrative meeting reveals itself as potentially something far more sinister—a loyalty purge designed to reshape military leadership in the administration's image.
Drawing on their military backgrounds, the hosts decode the significance behind renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War—a seemingly symbolic change that signals a fundamental ideological shift. They highlight the staggering waste of resources this rebranding represents while examining the troubling pattern of dismissals targeting women generals, painting a picture of an institution being reshaped along Christian nationalist lines.
The conversation shifts to media freedom as they analyze Jimmy Kimmel's brief suspension and return to ABC following his Trump jokes. Despite his comeback, approximately 30 stations across America still refuse to air his show—a telling indicator of political pressure on media outlets. The hosts commend Kimmel for immediately hosting Gavin Newsom, who voiced the alarming concern shared by many: Will America even have elections in 2028?
Most chilling is their theory about Trump's possible strategy for securing an unprecedented third term through manufacturing an international crisis. By encouraging escalation with Russia while undermining democratic institutions at home, the groundwork for emergency powers that could suspend normal constitutional processes appears to be taking shape. As veterans who've sworn to protect the Constitution, their perspective offers a uniquely informed warning about the fragility of democracy when military loyalty is redirected from the nation to an individual.
Ready to join the conversation? Connect with us at the Veterans Lunch, where candidates regularly engage with our community about the issues that matter most. Your voice and perspective are essential in these critical times.
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Left Face. This is the Pikes Peak Region podcast, where we talk about politics with a veteran's point of view. I am your co-host, dick Wilkinson, and I'm joined this morning with Adam Gillard. Good morning, adam. Hey buddy, how you doing? I'm doing well and I'm excited to do the show today. Thursdays are usually my day off as far as work goes, so I've got a pretty chill day and I always enjoy this. I get to like it's a mental exercise of a totally different type of stuff to come do the podcast, so I like that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, these days are the one day where I kind of focus on this type of stuff too, where you just kind of try to knock out as much as you can in this area of your life. Yeah, because after this, go do the Vets lunch and you know we're going to have a candidate for the Secretary of State there. Yeah, you know, this time, and actually next time, their opponent's going to be there.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, we're getting a lot of, you know, good folks coming down to talk to us and, you know, have our folks ask them some, you know, good tough questions to see where they stand.
Speaker 1:You know I'll take that moment to briefly just encourage anybody that's listening um, overcome your hesitation to go to any event where there might be a political candidate, right, I know some people are like, oh, it'll be a big crowd, or there could be, it could be part of a protest, or like there's different reasons why people don't go to political stuff, right, um, but for the most part, candidate engagement type things are very low key, very chill, not super crowded, not overly intense, right. And so, just for somebody like me, there's like man, it sounds like I'm going to be like a bunch of people there and somebody might be outside with signs, yelling and stuff.
Speaker 1:It's like some people avoid that, yeah, but I want to encourage people that this is the phase, like you know, in between election cycles is the chance where you really get to talk to a candidate and get to hear, like, what's their real idea, have more than a one minute long conversation with them, because once it gets in the next year and closer to their race, you know, coming down to the wire, they're doing four or five events a day. They're there for an hour and a half and then they have to leave. Yeah, and they're talking. You know it. It's one way messaging a lot more in that situation. This is your chance to tell somebody what you care about. Right, and you could easily be talking to the next secretary of state or the next governor, right, and, uh, you know they'll remember you, right.
Speaker 1:They'll say oh, I remember last year when I talked to this person, this woman, and she told me what was going on in her life and I'm doing something about it. Yeah, you don't get access to them unless you come to events like this. So I just want to encourage people to come you know, come out whenever there's an opportunity.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and these are, you know t-shirt and hoodie events yes, yes, so it's a lot more relaxed, not.
Speaker 1:Sunday church kind of yeah yeah.
Speaker 2:So it's a lot more relaxed and it's easy to catch their ear. Catch their ear and once you do catch it, you're in contact with them and they want to reach out and they and they, they want that, you know. So, yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. The more people would get out, the better.
Speaker 1:Well, uh, I'll. I'll even flip it around. Adam and I both ran for office before, and there is when, when you're in the candidate side of it, you are looking for inspiring stories from your constituents. You want to know how your policy ideas or changes might impact somebody and, if you can, you want to. You want to promote and champion the things that are aligned with. You know what you're trying to do, and the only way to me, you know the only way to do constituents have to show up Right, and so there's a desire for, there's an appeal on the other side of that conversation to hear and genuinely, genuinely listen to your story. Right, because it fills in some of the puzzle pieces for the candidate of like, I know why I care about this, but I really need to understand more why my constituents care about this.
Speaker 1:And yeah, you can't serve your community unless you are in talking to your community and know what their know their stories Right, Exactly, and and get past the headline and superficial aspect of some challenge and get to the real personal level of it right, yeah, yeah, it's easy to hit the talking points.
Speaker 1:It's something else. When somebody says my son disappeared in an ice raid, right, yeah, you go oh, oh, yeah, oh, I'm a parent too. Right, I'm not going to disrespect this person and I'm not going to repeat a headline. I'm going to listen to them, right, yeah, because this is a real thing to be upset about, right, even if you think it was totally legal and think it's a good idea. When a parent comes to another parent and makes an appeal and says I'm worried about my kid, you're going to pay attention to that.
Speaker 1:So, it's your chance to do that. So thanks for the side trick there. But the thing that people don't understand is political action happens at the lowest level in the most simple ways, every day. Every day. It's not always a billion-dollar campaign.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, so yeah, and that's what I think, coming out of the military and getting involved in the community, I was so kind of to take for granted what happens on a day-to-day basis in offices. Yeah, the day-to-day basis in offices. You know around the, you know everywhere and you know people's homes as they're planning and organizing, like just making our communities better. But, yeah, it happens every day.
Speaker 1:Every action, yeah, Yep, Well, we're going to jump into a veteran topic today that Adam told me about, and it's Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, which we're going to talk about, of defense slash war. Adam says that he has done a callback for most of the general officers in the military to come and have a summit at the Pentagon or something.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so like 800 general officers site like Washington Post or something says it'd be about 800 GOs got the message, or flag officers got the message and not including staff officers. For some reason, I don't know why, he just wants those operational commands to come in and so folks who are sitting in seats that are making decisions have to drop everything to come. Listen to a Secretary of War that never went to war college, like he was in the military right but like he was a lieutenant colonel.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he doesn't have the same education and experience he never made it to even have go to war college. He's not qualified to give directives to these folks, is what you're saying yes, that is exactly what I'm saying yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:They understand the subject matter and the challenges at hand orders of magnitude better than he does, right, yeah, so what could he be calling them back there for?
Speaker 1:So from when you first told me before the episode to now, I know, I know.
Speaker 2:You got it, you figured it out.
Speaker 1:I'm going to make a bold statement, because I'm just going to repeat what he said Pete Hegseth has a desire to reduce the general officer cadre by about 20, 30%, yep, and so I think what he's doing is chopping heads, yo. Honestly, the 800 are going to show up and 600 are going to leave. Not joking, some people are about to get fired, like 100-plus general officers are about to get retired.
Speaker 2:That was kind of in that article also, where it talks about how many heads have rolled since Trump has taken over, even the latest.
Speaker 1:Well, they've got to come do their loyalty checks right. They've got to step in line and go into the confession box and say are you feels? I swear to.
Speaker 2:God, have you seen the Trump pins going around? If any of our military folks.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the little lapel pins with his Trump 2028 on them, caesar-like pins.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if our military folks start having to wear those In uniform, yeah, oh my God, but yeah. So I think the same thing. I think the ax is coming for a lot of folks, yeah, and if there's any disruption, I think they're getting arrested and I think they're getting charged with treason.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, you know what I mean. That's probably why he wants to do it at a specific place, right Like inside the Pentagon or inside the Capitol or something like that Exactly.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's like breaking up with somebody, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's like breaking up with somebody. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're doing it the other way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right, bring them into the danger zone so we can get real hostile? Yeah, exactly, and then they'll leave with their mouth shut. Or, you know, these folks are the general officers that we're talking about have, most of them, around 30 years of experience in the military, sworn to their allegiance and duties, and so I think a lot of them would probably not. You could threaten their benefits, right, their benefits, their status, their rank, their retirement package, their whatever. Even if it's not a like we're going to throw you in jail, but like you need to leave here and keep your mouth shut. Or we're going to threaten your benefits, right.
Speaker 1:And I wonder, would that work with these folks? Right, like, would that matter? Or would they say well, I'm willing to divest of my military benefits to stand up against? You know what I see as illegal? Or tyranny or whatever Right, I think most of them would, is my point I. Or tyranny or whatever right? I think most of them would, is my point. I hope so. If they genuinely believe there's a problem, I think they would stand up against it right.
Speaker 2:And along with this order, it's not just the generals coming into town, it's their top, enlisted with them also. Okay, so they're having their whole little cadre, their leadership team, right there. So, yeah, if they're going to be cutting folks out, they're going to be cutting off both sides and that's going to damage so much of our readiness across the spectrum. Yeah, you know, if you lose leadership like that just gone, I don't know, it's scary times.
Speaker 1:Well, you just brought up an interesting point that you can't have a command sergeant major if there's no commander at that level. Right, and so if he's going to flatten some of the pyramid and get rid of some of these sub commanders and vice commanders and double vice, you know adjuncts and all that shit, you know down to the one star, where they're four layers deep under a four star, and he's like, no, there needs to be one like two star and all the rest of that stuff can go away. Well then, yeah, that means if three generals are going away, three associated command sergeant major or chief master sergeant type people are going with them, right, Right. So that reduction in force does make sense in that there's no need for a senior enlisted advisor to a person that doesn't have a job anymore.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and all those folks are also in retirement. Yeah, they're all well past the 20. Yeah, either swear allegiance or take your paycheck or go home. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And if you leave here and say anything sideways that was my point, If you you might leave here and say I'll shut up, but then as soon as you get home, you decide you got a fire in your pants and you want to tell people about what happened here. Your benefits are going to disappear. Right, we're going to come after you. We're going to strip you down. You're going to get put out as an E1 with a general discharge, right?
Speaker 2:Well, they've already said that only authorized. Their press corps is only authorized to release information. Yeah, it has to be screened through a lot, even unclassified information. Yeah, so they've taken away all journalistic integrity there. There's nobody going and fighting and looking for information and releasing things for us to know about. It's such a gross consolidation and this kind of will lead us into what's going on next here.
Speaker 1:Well, department of War, we can't skip that, let's talk about the name and our personal thoughts about the Department of War. While we're on this topic, you go first, so that's another part of the callback.
Speaker 1:If it're on this topic, you go first. So that's another part of the what, the what the callback. If it's not about chopping heads, maybe it's just about resetting the culture and the tone and saying, hey, like we're going into F, fy 26, that's going to be the year of the department of war, right, and so maybe that's the intention here is, let's reset the culture, right? Um, I've, you know, pete Hegseth, saying I've been in this position for more than six months, which means I'm going to be here for a little while, right, and? And the president has asked me to set policy and to change, just change things, right. And so this department of war thing, like he, may be calling everyone back just so he can beat that drum and say this is the difference between a department of defense and a department of war.
Speaker 2:But how idiotic is that to take commanders off the line.
Speaker 1:If you think that resetting culture is very important, it's not idiotic right, that is their whole thing is culture, yeah.
Speaker 1:And so you know, to them it serves the perfect, it makes the perfect purpose in that if you can reset the foundation of how a commander thinks about their troops and makes decisions by changing the name of the department, and then you know, trickle that down from top level vision down to next level vision, down to how does the troops do the work, right, then that that could be part of it. So my personal take on it, um, I I guess if it was a perfect world we would have it would. We would have never changed the name to the department of Defense, it would have always been the Department of War, because I am a total war advocate. I am a raise the earth in about 10 days and make sure everyone apologizes and surrenders. I don't do humane wars, right. And so I'm down with the Department of War sounding ugly and scary, because war should be the ugliest, scariest thing humans do, and it should be short, brief, fucking terrible, right. And so I like the name for that reason. Um, that if we're gonna let the dog off the chain, it's gonna kill everything it touches, right, and and so let, I'm okay with that.
Speaker 1:I'm also okay with the idea of a warfighter mentality or ethos being the the baseline of what the military is. It's not humanitarian, it's not to go out and be nice to the rest of the world and deliver bags of rice, it's to kill people, right? So let's call it that. And if we need a smaller force to be able to kill all those people, and there's some separation or concentration between one type of mission set and another, which we got rid of, usaid. So you know, all the defense type stuff that was really more humanitarian would have made sense under some other header. So, culturally, I'm okay with it, um, but now we did change the Department of Defense and it's been 60 years plus since we did that, so I don't see the value in changing it now.
Speaker 1:I will say that I don't see the value in changing it now. I don't believe it leads to the cultural shift that is desired. I think any amount of money spent on it is a waste. Amount of money spent on it is a waste, um, and so it's uh at for the. My final statement on it is it is a declaration of conservative thought to say we're going backwards in time, and we're going backwards in time to the last time that this looked, felt and sounded like what president trump wanted it to look, feel and sound like, and so that's what we're going to rename it, because that will turn it back into this thing from history, from this bygone era, and it'll just turn back into that. The clock will roll backwards and it will become that thing again. I think that's what's at play. I think that's foolish and I don't understand the value of it. I don't think it's going to deliver the value they think it's going to deliver. There you go Very long run, like a three, four-minute run, right yeah.
Speaker 2:So another thing that they talked about with Hegseth and the generals is coming out with a new national security thing and really focusing on homeland. Oh yeah, like really turning into a homeland thing into a homeland thing. So now, when we talk about turning into the department of war, which I think is disgusting, but like, honestly, like being the the biggest, strongest, baddest nation in the world, we can't solve things with rice. Sure, we can't, like make people better with giving them humanitarian aid. Yeah, um, the fact that we rely on death and destruction and we sell it and you know we're proud of it um, it just tells us where we are as, like humanity you know what I mean like it, like we're probably never going to get past this. Like we'll blow. We'll blow each other up. The only way we get rid of nuclear weapons is if we find a better way to kill each other. Yeah, yeah, um, yeah so, but like when I joined, I joined straight after September 11th and it was out of defense.
Speaker 2:You know we got hit, it was time to go and a lot of, you know, folks in my generation had the same just patriotic calling where we weren't going to bring death and destruction around the world. We ended up doing that. You know a lot. Yeah, sure, but that wasn't the goal. We were there to serve America and protect you know, ourselves. And now, you know, we look at changing it to the Department of War. And we look at, you know, kicking out folks that have shaving waivers for more than a year, which means kicking out black people. You know, we look at. You know, kicking women out of the force, all the top generals.
Speaker 1:They all have shaving waivers Jokes, uniform jokes for only the deep track veterans will understand.
Speaker 2:Oh, no, you three. But you know it's been a disproportionate number of women generals that have been getting fired lately too. Oh yeah, you know, when 20 percent of your workforce is women but 80 percent of your firings are women. Yeah, you know, they're making it very clear who they want to be in this Department of War.
Speaker 2:Yes, that is true, and it's a disgusting and you know we'll keep coming back to it. It, this Christian nationalism that keeps coming out. It's going to come right into people's faces. Now, there's no hiding it. Now we have a talking head as the Secretary of War, again not qualified to shine these men's boots, men and women's boots that he's calling in, yeah, but here he is saying that you know, we got to do this, we got to kill everything we got to. You know, and they're starting fake wars in Venezuela, blowing up, you know, civilian vessels that we have no idea what's going on.
Speaker 1:Okay, so Pete Hegseth talking head, and yes, he is a white nationalist. So Pete Hegseth talking head, and yes, he is a white nationalist. Yes, he is a member of that church where the dude is gaining all this media attention of having these churches that says women should submit to men and that Pete Hegseth explicitly invites that dude to military ceremonies and things like that because he's his pastor. And so he's like here are my advisor and his advisor follows him around and says get rid of these women, Right? Yeah, Things will work a lot better around here, when you get rid of these women.
Speaker 2:It can't be more clear.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:The uh, because God said so yeah.
Speaker 2:Another funny data point is like at the uh charlie kirk memorial, how, like all the uh grinder sites and stuff like that like crashed again. Oh, like at any big republican event, like all the all the apps get together. Yeah, all the lgbt apps and stuff like that, yeah, like yeah, they just crashed all the sites, but they want to take away all the rights and hurt people for being themselves. Yeah, in public.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yep well, the department of war is, uh, I I get the feeling, since it's a secondary name, and it requires uh renaming from congress and and what that really comes down to, why you say, why does it require that? And it should? I mean it shouldn't from, uh, just a face value perspective, but funding lines. If we funded things under the department of Defense and then you change the name to Department of War, you can't redirect that money as easily, and so there could be ombudsman and accounting issues, and so that's really what it comes down to. Don't even get me started on the waste of money.
Speaker 2:it is to relabel everything and move signs and there's so much millions and billions of dollars that are going to go into Brass plaques on every building and on every base, just so you can have a new business card.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, uh well, we see the around here in this local community and I I get a good chuckle out of this and I I don't. I just think it's funny peterson air force base with an afb on the green sign on the highway right. The department of colorado department of transportation has signs that say go green sign on the highway right. The department of Colorado department of transportation has signs that say go this way to the military base Right. And so when it became a space force base, they just rolled through and literally put SFB stickers over the AFB stickers and they're like check it out, it's a new place now.
Speaker 2:So they're going to get a bunch of places with a W stickered over the B.
Speaker 1:Uh, that's, you know, because somebody said, well, we got to change it. And then, of course, we all know the way culture works is if once all these general officers go back and they tell everybody, like we're the Department of War now, then every sub commander underneath of them has to perform. They have to show how hard they're part of the movement and that's how they get promoted right. It they're part of the movement and that's how they get promoted right.
Speaker 2:It's like check me out I clapped the loudest. You heard me clapping first and loud right. And so, man, we dow to everything around here. I bought t-shirts for the troops I repainted everything.
Speaker 1:You know what I'm saying. Like everything's dow top to bottom.
Speaker 2:Every day we go out and we run and we sing cadence about department of war.
Speaker 1:We're the most dow war dogs around here. That that's happening. Yeah, like next week you know what I'm saying, there's going to be a 04, 05 out there. That's like, here's my chance.
Speaker 2:I'm going to get some attention. When I was at the Senior NCO Academy, the chief of the Air Force came through and said something about how much he loved PT, and the next day there were so many hoorah folks out there Like oh, how about it? It was many hoorah folks out there like oh yeah, just oh, it was that so much like, yeah, he knew, they knew that he was working out in the in the session with them. Yeah, you know so like.
Speaker 1:So they came out, he knows he's in the air force, right? You know what I'm saying. People join the air force to not do pt. Right, and I'm not bagging on you guys.
Speaker 2:If I had known I would have done that you know, these knees have been bad for a long time.
Speaker 1:The thing that I hated about the military the most was PT. And the Army knows you hate PT and says do more of it, right Like do it more and that's fine.
Speaker 1:That's what the Army's about and I'm not mad about that. But if I could go all the way back in time and tell that young man, you'll run half as many miles in the Air Force than you will in the army, well I would have done that. So, yeah, uh, all right. So that's enough on the department of war. Wow, man, we spent a lot on that. I thought that was just gonna be a little little bump bump intro there and we we spent the last 15 minutes on that. Yeah, it was well. On to the next uh topic is jimmy kimmel and what we talked about last week with, uh, you know, freedom of speech and and what's under threat as far as the press and everything else. So quick turnaround that jimmy got taken off the air and he's back already.
Speaker 2:It was just one week really yeah, yeah, really a extended weekend for him. Yeah, wasn't too bad. Yeah, probably went to cabo and that's what they said when they first took him off. The air was.
Speaker 1:The show's not canceled and he's not fired yeah, they just kind of put him on pause or whatever. But like we joked about, you know, you gotta, we gotta figure out what's on fire and how to put it out, and then we're gonna, you know, repatriate you back to the you know department of war, and then you'll understand you know, but but a few uh nations or stations, uh didn't carry them.
Speaker 1:Still I can't remember what, what they are, but uh, sinclair broadcasting and like new next star media or something like that. Yeah, yeah in you know local broadcasters carried in red areas. Yeah, you know, but uh, but that's almost 30 of abc, though it was 30 of the stations across the united states. We're not going to carry it. Yeah, it's not. Uh, yeah, it's not insignificant, right you know yeah, you know.
Speaker 2:So there's still some pushback, so it'll be interesting to see how long that goes. And you know, I heard his monologue. What were your thoughts on his monologue?
Speaker 1:Well, his very the first one they did that was supposed to be offensive wasn't offensive, let's just start there. And so his apology was not required, and so his monologue was I mean, they did exactly what they were, what they had to do, right, which was just address the elephant in the room and try to be a little bit lighthearted about it. So I thought he did that just fine. I feel like he has been a little bit of a whipping boy, slash pawn in the bigger argument of everything. You know it's the president versus the owner of ABC and Disney right, you know like Jimmy's, a couple pay grades down from that, you know.
Speaker 1:So I feel like he went out and just tried to make a point.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And I didn't. You're telling me that I didn't realize that he had Gavin Newsom on. Yeah, that is more of a statement to me than the monologue. I'm back and I'm going to talk to people that don't agree with you. Mr President, I'm going to do nothing but air out what's going on, of where the rest of the world not just me thinks that you're full of it, right, yeah?
Speaker 2:So I think he missed an opportunity in his monologue because he said, like you know, he kind of went on a little tired and said you know all because you can't handle the joke, and like I get it Like you know all because you can't handle the joke, and like I get it, like you know, you're using humor to address the situation. But like calling somebody a pedophile and a fascist isn't, you know, a joke when it's real and it's true.
Speaker 1:You know what I mean.
Speaker 2:So, like you know, you sit there and try and hide behind it as it being a joke but, like you know, use humor to call them out, like call for the release of the list, like you did. It's not always a joke, you know what I mean. It's a little different.
Speaker 1:Tongue in cheek, because there's reality behind the message, right yeah?
Speaker 2:Stand up and believe what you say.
Speaker 1:It's not just a ba-doom-boom moment that has been the case with all late night satire and comedy and anybody that has a, an adult audience with a mouthpiece, right, and so that's been the case for a long time now of, oh well, this person shouldn't be taken seriously because they're a comedian, and the comedians, I mean I would fall into this category. I'd like to do, you know, I'd like to be in this position where you do get to tap, dance around on both sides of the line as a comedian. You get to go, oh, I'm just making jokes. And then sometimes you get to be real pejorative and go, oh, I'm just making jokes, right. And so you know they.
Speaker 1:They do get to live in a weird little bubble where sometimes they can be totally serious, sometimes they can make a joke the audience can never tell the difference and so they get to. They get to step back and forth yeah, it's disingenuous, and that's the unfortunate part, and that's kind of what you're getting at is like no, either, own it and say hey, you're, you're gross, you're a pedophile, you're bad for whatever. Right, release the list.
Speaker 2:Go ahead and say it right, yeah.
Speaker 1:If you hide behind a joke with it, then we don't get the same. You know, the truth in the joke is lost in the joke, right, and sometimes the truth just needs to be said. But that's not what they get paid to do.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1:He wanted it back on the air, yeah, and so, yeah, instead of just coming out. But see, and that's the thing that we've been watching, I've been watching. I know both of us have been watching the Daily Show and, man, when Jon Stewart went off at the end of last season about the parent companies just being totally corrupt, then he made the joke. When they came back he was like they let us back in the building. We weren't sure if they FU to his parent company.
Speaker 1:And so still, though they're like hey, the big dogs and the broadcast people and the multibillion-dollar brands have to be afraid of Disney, but we, whatever they have to go out of their way to burn us down right, like we don't make enough money and have enough. We can't be a national headline like the way these other things are, yeah, and so we get to operate with some impunity. But that's been, um, the the issue with. You know he's, he's a good john stewart's a good example of that comedian who people say, well, don't take him seriously because he's a comedian, but then sometimes he picks up serious issues and gets it's hard.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the work he did for the 9-11 first responders and stuff like that. It was heart-wrenching listening to him talk to Congress. He was so good at taking those stories from the community and putting it out there. Yeah, it's just at a time when we need voices to stand up and say the truth. I'm glad that he had Gavin Newsom on there, Because Gavin Newsom came out and said Get to transfer the mouthpiece from me to a real political opponent.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because he came out and said I worry about the 2028 elections. And this is at a time where we see generals getting called back, military getting fired, Congress getting weakened. Loyalty checks yeah, all these loyalty checks.
Speaker 1:The circuit or the judges are getting thrown under the bus for everything Reliefs, lawyers, prosecutors that work for the administration. If they won't go after somebody because it's just unjust, they'll find somebody who will Exactly.
Speaker 2:We see all of these authoritarian grabs for power, all while trump hawks merchandise for 2028 from the yes, yeah, like, and gavin newsom came out and said I'm worried that we're not going to have elections in 2028. Yeah and like. I think that's the highest level person I've heard say that say the the quiet part out loud.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so I'll. I'm gonna share a little uh in between donald trump's terms. In office, I would have conversations with people who, um, were january 6 deniers, who believed that it was a peaceful walk through the park.
Speaker 1:That included, you know, shitting on people's desks and beating cops and stuff like that's what I do when I go to the park everybody does what I do and so I would have conversations with these people and I would say listen, if we want to throw out every single thing, because their argument would be well, you don't like Donald Trump because he's a dirty person, not because he has bad politics Right, his policies are good for America. Him as a person is bad for everything. But I, as a voter, that person could tell me I can separate the two and I can see Donald Trump as a good politician and a bad person, and I want America to succeed.
Speaker 1:So I'm going to vote for a good politician and I just I heard him and I heard the logic they were trying to apply and I said everybody could see my head shaking right now had not happened, which is the closest example of a straight up coup that America has ever experienced, outside of civil war and actual attempts to overthrow the government Like that. You know how can you not believe that? And they say, well, what's good? You know, I can, I can separate this good thing from this bad thing. And I said, but doesn't that make you concerned that if he ever gets back in office he won't leave? Yeah, from this bad thing.
Speaker 1:And I said, but doesn't that make you concerned that if he ever gets back in office he won't leave? That's what he already tried to do. It's not a guess, it's not a hyperbolic fantasy. It happened. And they say, no, it didn't, that didn't happen. And he loves the Constitution, he is a die-hard federalist and he would never try to run for another office. He would never try to do. You know, he knows the rules and he's going to play by the rules no, no they say that you know, and I'm like he doesn't know what the word federalist is.
Speaker 2:We have no any of the rules.
Speaker 1:We have departed reality when they're like no, he's the most constitutional, loving president that we've ever had and I I'm like he can't pronounce the word. That's what you want. That's the type of cipher that he fills in for you.
Speaker 1:You want, you know you want the most constitution loving person ever, so that's what he is for you. You want the most, uh, white nationalist president that there ever was. Maybe that's what he is for you, right? You want the person who says immigrants are terrible, even if it's not about racism. That's what he is for you, right? And so it depends on who you're talking to. He's the champion superman is everything to everybody, right? And in their mind, if he's superman, he's everything to everybody.
Speaker 2:So, um, here's my yeah, go ahead so, even with the policy stuff, though, that the farmers now are are saying you know, oh, you know, we saw the same thing back in 2017 that we're seeing now. Yeah, the last time you voted for this guy, and there's just a cognitive dissonance there where they're just not putting the real consequences of their vote.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like the bad things that happen to our economy and to our daily lives Somehow exist in a vacuum outside of their vote for this person, like their life only sucks when there's a Democrat in and, and yeah, you're right, that same person that would tell me he, he is, uh, you know, he's the best president on policy would also say would be they're. They're the same people that are the whatabouters, right, well, what about what about biden? What about this? What about that? What about obama? What about obamacare? And I was like whoa, we're not even having a conversation about that.
Speaker 2:You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:I'm talking about whether Donald Trump would willingly leave office, and he already did not willingly leave, he had to unwillingly leave office.
Speaker 2:And now Lindsey Graham's come out and said that he would support a third term and like just disgusting.
Speaker 1:So a couple of weeks ago I said I have a conspiracy about and I had this conspiracy before this second term. I said if Donald Trump ever gets back into office, he won't leave. And you got to figure out what grand scheme could he hatch or execute to make that a reality. Right, and most um governments, when they have fallen to someone who becomes a multi-term president or dictator or autocrat, the playbook is clear and it always involves a national crisis, some kind of war, some kind of um. It's can be fabricated by them, right, but it's. I have to do this drastic measure, yeah, to save the country, to save the culture, to save the economy, to save your kids. Yeah, and if you don't allow me to overstep this boundary, we're all going to die.
Speaker 2:Yeah, man, trump will absolutely pick that fiddle you know, like he plays that note right yeah, and what's funny is folks know about that because they use that same argument against Zelensky. You know what?
Speaker 1:I mean.
Speaker 2:So they recognize all these things and like the steps towards authoritarianism, but they don't ever reflect it back towards themselves.
Speaker 1:Yeah, very true, which is kind of crazy. And so my conspiracy that I didn't divulge last time was I have always thought that the Russia situation has been Donald Trump's ace in the hole. Even in his first term there wasn't a war going on, direct fights with Ukraine, but there was that always bubbling, simmering problem with Russia and the Eastern Front of Europe and NATO and who can and can't join NATO. And Trump's always been a big you know NATO, you suck right, russia, you're cool. But he knows that America and the American people are really on the side of NATO, and so I feel like he has played the Ukraine conflict exactly the way he wanted to throughout this term, this second term, so that there can be this stagnating war, that he can pull the pin out of the grenade when he thinks it's politically expedient.
Speaker 2:It's interesting.
Speaker 1:I mean and so I feel like the Russia thing has always been a part of his plan that if World War III, or if the US versus Russia and without other countries involved, if we're really executing the end of the Cold War now, I can't leave office. While we do that Right, I have to take up the mantle of Reagan, which you all, I can't leave office while we do that right, I have to take up the mantle of Reagan, which you all hired me to be as Reagan 2.0, and I have to seal the deal. It's coming. It's coming right Shooting war with Russia to save his third term or create an emergency where he stays in office. It's coming.
Speaker 2:So I think it was just yesterday. I heard him talking about telling Ukraine that they need to go in and take they can take their country, take all their country back a little bit more.
Speaker 1:go further if you want to, yeah, and he also told NATO country start attacking the Russian air aggression. Yeah, If they come close to your border, don't let them cross it. Shoot at them. Yeah. And we got your back yeah, estonia, shoot at him right. Uh, what are all those northern baltic states? Take shots, go for it. We got your back, it's. He's got a dragon in the can and he's waiting. He can pop that can open at any time and distract the everybody exactly, and stay in office.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's always been part of the plan right, always well, and so I was always thinking he was just kind of. That's why he was poking at venezuela down down there. But Venezuela probably wouldn't be a big enough war to.
Speaker 1:No it's gotta be big world powers, to make it seem like literally everything is at cost Right.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, that's a terrifying thought. And that's another great way to wrap up this episode. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And for our, you know. Hey, this gives you some reason too, if you're a listener, to stay tuned, because you never know, right, when you get to come back and hear, like the rest of the story, right. So if you listened a couple weeks ago, you go, man, I really want to hear what that conspiracy theory is.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we're appealing this onion. Thanks for tuning back in.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're appealing this onion together. Well, I want to hear it me, because Adam told me that he's more thinks in the conspiracy circles and reads about it more than I do, oh geez. So I want to hear from you next time on if you ever had any ideas around what would be the way to pull off the coup or to shift the balance and change.
Speaker 2:Oh God, no, there's no way I'm recording that. No, all right.
Speaker 1:Well, again, the SEC can't come for us, right.
Speaker 2:We'll have that conversation. The SEC can't come for us right. We'll have the conversation like in the mountains, somewhere where nobody can listen.
Speaker 1:Our parent corporation is going to take us off the air.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1:Fair Well I'll air out my dirty laundry. So, yeah, thanks everybody for listening this week and we hope you enjoyed the episode and we'll catch you all again next week on Left Face All right Take care.
