SIO168: Tear Gas Was Used Under Obama, and More Rants

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 168, I'm your host, Thomas Smith, and I've got a fun episode for you. This is the last week of the month, so, of course, it should be voicemail, that kind of thing. Little light on the voicemails this month, I suspect, and actually, they kind of cut off around the time people would have been planning for Thanksgiving and all that. I kind of think people had more on their minds, so that's okay. Got a couple to do today, but I also have some emails. Uh, one, I really, Oh, it's going to be hard to not rage at it, but I'm going to do my best to, uh, just calmly talk about it. So got some good emails to discuss. And I also have some rants I want to do anyway. So all told, I'm sure it'll be a, a fun opinionated show.

0:01:16 Thomas: And as a reminder, please call that voicemail. If you ever have some, something you want to share or something you want to get out there, you can be anonymous. Anonymous, you can record as many times as you want on there, and I'll sort it through with editing and everything, so don't be scared. And, of course, that number is 916-750-4746, so feel free to do that.

Wow, let's see what to rant about first, uh, we're all gonna die of climate change, and our idiot president says he knows better, so, by the way, it is morally impaired, it, literally, a matter of life and death to get Republicans out of office. It's literally, I, there, to anyone, to ANYONE you see, and they're still out there, they're very frustrating, who's doing the purity politics, oh, Democrats are just the same as Republicans, uh-ba-dip-a-doo, uh they, I think this is the easiest, now, there are a million ways to dismantle that argument, Of course, once someone has decided something and they don't want to have their mind changed, it's very hard to make them change their mind. But I think one of the best ways would be to point out how dire climate change is. And that's literally, obviously not the same.

You can say Democrats aren't going far enough, maybe, in the two years out of the last 25 that they've had power over all three branches of government. You could argue maybe they prioritized health care and saving the economy, so they didn't do that much on climate. But fine, we can have that discussion on how maybe they won't go far enough. But it's unarguable.

0:02:50 Thomas: It is not possible to argue that they're the same. That you've got the Republicans who actively deny it, pretend it doesn't exist, say that all the science is wrong, all this crap like that. And then Democrats who largely are pretty much all on board that it's real and we need to do something about it. And we can you have to start from there is the point. The place we need To start to get anything done is no Republicans in control.

0:03:22 Thomas: I, Democrat, isn't good on climate. That's fine. Sure. But the baseline is we can't have Republicans in control. They are killing the planet. They're allowing it to get way worse, and they're not doing anything about it. It's just a fact. So I don't want to hear... It is actually enough to just not be a Republican. That is 100% enough in terms of voting, because I think people underrate how, how much it means to be not a Republican in these times. It actually means a lot. It's not nothing. It means you, you know, a little example. I've been reading some history lately, actually quite a bit of history, a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I meant to promote that. I heard her on the Ezra Klein Show, I believe it was.

0:04:09 Thomas: And it was a live podcast and it was an interview with her, Doris Kearns Goodwin. And she, I didn't, I hadn't actually known her before. You know, know, history hasn't ever been my strong suit, but I've been more and more interested in it lately, especially American history. I think because I've Been so engaged in politics, it's been interesting to learn more about the history of American politics and stuff. And what made me think of it first off, I wanted to say separate from all of this, she is incredible. And I was just absolutely in awe of this recording because she's on stage and she just talks straight like There's not even a pause in Doris Kearns Goodwin's talking, just story after story after story of the four presidents that she wrote about in her latest book, which is Lincoln, it's Teddy Roosevelt, it's FDR, and it's Johnson.

0:05:05 Thomas: And she's just got story after story, it's so fascinating, really, there just wasn't even the slightest pause. It's amazing to even consider how someone's brain could work like that, like, I just can't imagine. She's got all these stories in her head, she's got so much knowledge about these people, and she tied it all together so cleanly, spontaneously, you know, yes, she has written a book or two on them, but still, I mean, it was just amazing. So that had me very inspired to go check out her work, and I read that book, Leadership, and then also I just started on Team of Rivals, which is a book. She's written books on, I think, all four of those presidents before that were more basic biographies, and Then Leadership is more with a lens focusing on leadership.

0:05:53 Thomas: Anyway, the point is, what made me think of it is, in reading this book on Abraham Lincoln, he actually – it's funny. It's funny to think about now, but his campaigning process, if you could even really call it that, was to not do anything.

Now, I know it's a different time, but he thought, Abraham Lincoln's thinking, was that if he said virtually anything, then the people on the other side would twist it and smear it and find some way it was inconsistent with something else he said, and then that way they would accuse him of being a liar. So he didn't do any speeches or do anything.

I know that's not really an option now, but still, the point is he just kept pointing to the Republican platform so that was what he did, he said, "I refer you to the Republican platform we decided on at the convention," or whatever, "and it's all written there," and the only reason I thought of it is because, like, yeah, I mean, in a way, nowadays, days, we, I think we put a lot of emphasis on stuff that's not that, like we emphasize, you know, are they inspiring, are they, what you know, do they inspire us, do they motivate us, do that, which, you know, it is what it is, I don't really know that we can change that about ourselves, but it's interesting to think, like, a party platform, and a platform, and your personal platform does mean something like that.

That that means quite a bit. And just not being a Republican, not being a part of the platform of tax cuts for the rich, hating gay people, wanting to control, like, all that is a lot.

0:07:29 Thomas: And it's so funny because people so flippantly say, well, it's not enough to just be anti-Trump or whatever. It's like, well. No, it is. It actually it actually is now. No reason to limit yourself to that. And as I think I said the other day, hey, no, I don't, I haven't seen any candidate do that. Like there's, there isn't actually a Democrat ever that I know of who's ever done that, including Hillary at all.

But it's just a thing that people like to say, because I don't know why it's kind of, it's a weird thing. All right. Next rant topic, this one's a little tougher. This might be hard for you liberals out there, no, I'm a liberal too, because I think that we kind of got blindsided by something a little bit, and unfortunately, The a-holes over on the right and Fox News and all that, and Breitbart, and the Washington Times, Times is a stupid right wing source that sometimes, if you don't read, if you just see the Washington part, you think you're clicking on the Washington Post, and then you see the article, you're like, whoa, what happened to the Washington Post? Then you realize, oh, no, it's the Washington Times. Anyway, this is a tough one, because you probably saw on the news and the iconic pictures of the border patrol tear gassing people at the border, including, you know, a woman and her daughter, I think it was, kind of fleeing. It was very, very gut-wrenching, heartbreaking picture. And there's outrage, which I think is, well, we'll talk about that.

0:09:02 Thomas: I think it's probably appropriate. It might surprise you to hear me being tentative on that, but I think think it's most likely appropriate in that instance. But the reason that I'm holding back a little bit is because it turns out, and this is not fake news, this is real news. It turns out that Obama, under Obama, this was done about two times a month on average. It was actually done, it was done a lot in the early years of Obama. And I think that has to do with the migration crisis that was actually happening back then. Slowed down quite a bit in the years since and And going into 2016, it had slowed down a lot. And it is true to say that Trump has stepped it back up. But it's actually it's actually real news when.

0:09:49 Thomas: The White House and Sarah Huckabee Sanders say, Where was your outrage when Obama did it?, I, honestly, I, I think they have a point, now, nowhere, nowhere do I mean to say that their immigration policy and, and Obama versus Trump on the border is anywhere near the same, it's not, I mean, if you look at everything, all parts of it, you look asylum, you, look at all, everything like that, and the, the way they, you know, the fearmongering, the, the rhetoric, all that stuff, it's not the same. But on this one particular thing, it turns out, yeah, I mean, under Obama, the Border Patrol did use tear gas and pepper spray. I think pepper spray is a little different from what I'm seeing. Now, this is one of the problems. We don't really have accounts of all these times. Like there's some statistics that were released by whatever federal organization it is.

0:10:39 Thomas: So, like, the data is real, but it's not as though, I don't think we have similar photographs, at least as of yet, unless somebody is going to go back and try to find them. And the reason is it just wasn't really reported on. And so I think, as liberals, we need to stop and say, first off, I think we, we actually do need to check ourselves a little bit when it comes to raging about Trump being Hitler because of this particular thing. Um, now, there's, you know, that, don't get me wrong, there's... there's plenty, plenty to criticize, and I also think what Trump is doing with the border and not allowing people to even seek asylum is downright just off, it's it's totally awful, it's totalmente different, not at all the same, but, you know, I, I do think it's, it is true, actually, that, you know, if, if you saw those pictures and you thought, "Oh my god, this is Trump, he's evil, he's," which, you know, that was my first instinct too.

0:11:32 Thomas: I thought, "Oh, wow, this is evil. I can't believe this is happening." You know, turns out it was happening and we weren't paying attention. And I think there's a lot of Republicans right now and Trump supporters pretending as though they knew all along. You didn't know either, I don't think, because I don't think the media, I think actually where the blame should go here is sort of on us, but also on the media. I think that this just wasn't covered back then. And part of that is understandable. When you have a president who is not fear mongering and race baiting and saying that all immigrants are rapists and doing all that kind of stuff, there's going to be less scrutiny on their immigration policy, because it seems to me that there's just only so much we can pay attention to.

0:12:23 Thomas: Now, there was a lot of focus on certain elements of Obama's policies, and I've seen plenty, plenty of liberals, plenty of Democrats in the past two years talk about the fact that they didn't agree with Obama's immigration policy either. So I don't think it's true that liberals are totally just out to lunch and didn't care about anything that Obama did. That's not true. But I just think it's important to point this out. Like, if somebody says Obama did this, they're right. Uh, and, and you know what, it kind of makes sense because I don't think, you know, I, I, I could be wrong and this is me speculating, but I don't know how much the president is going to change the day-to-day operations of the border patrol, the border police kind of thing.

0:13:10 Thomas: Like, I think, you know, there, there's a million agencies, a million federal employees throughout the country, and while, yes, the president is going to set some policies from the top, of course, when it comes to stuff like this, like, mechanical, everyday dealing with, you know, if you think that there are migrants trying to rush the border, um, would, it would they really have changed, like, my point is, ICE was assholes before Trump, you know what I mean, like, they've been given more power, more leeway. Don't get me wrong. But the people who were ICE and the people who want to go patrol the border are kind of those people, you know, like, before and after Trump.

0:13:56 Thomas: Now, it is unfortunate that we don't really have a full accounting of these times under Obama, we just have the kind of numbers from where I've done, I've Googled it, I looked into it, maybe something will float up eventually, but from what I'm seeing right now, there's not a lot to go on other than those statistics, so we know it did happen, but here's the other part of this, and why I want to emphasize, again, that it is not the same when you take their overall border policy, because there is no migrant crisis right now, there just isn't, there's only, the only one there is, is one that Trump has manufactured, Trump has manufactured a crisis by not allowing people to claim asylum, by making people wait forever, uh, but that, you know, if I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said it pretty well in a tweet, which is that it, had, we rather than sending a bunch of troops to the border for $200 million, by the way, 200 million, to do nothing, to go down there and to do nothing and to be an election stunt and to leave before the caravan even got there, if we instead just hired and sent down more people to process claims, and by the way, even, even if you don't want to grant any of those claims, now, me personally, if I were in charge, I want to, a bajillion claims, I just, I think that I would rather be helping, helping refugees, I would rather be letting more people in, I think immigrants make us great, I think immigrants help society, I do not think they're a drain on the system, I think that what's really going to hurt this country, which, which to me is

0:15:34 Thomas: Is really scary. There's an article I saw recently about the fact that people don't want to come here to go to university anymore, that there are more people going to Canada and other countries. That's scary to me. That really does sound like the start of the end of any true America exceptionalism we ever did have, which is if people, because, you know, Republicans and Trump and the people controlling the country are so awful that people just don't want to come here, people don't wanna bring that, their intellectual resources and their ingenuity and their work ethic, they don't wannna immigrate here, they wanna migrate here, that is, that's awful, I think that's, that truly going to bring down this country over time, I think. Not taking care of a few thousand people who don't have resources.

0:16:22 Thomas: You know another thing. On that, while I'm thinking about it, we always talk about, Republicans always talk anyway, how illegal immigrants are such a drain on the system and they're dragging everything down. So many of them are in California, right? Like, a ton of them, like a lot of them. California is thriving. We are doing so well because, frankly, Jerry Brown is just a hell of a governor and, you know, California has a lot of natural resources, obviously has a ton of industry and places people want to be. And so we have a lot money. We have a Lot of revenue. We have a lot of tax revenue.

0:16:59 Thomas: But I don't see any sign of, like, some illegal immigrants, some people who are not here legally, draining our state and ruining it for everybody. I don't really see any signs of that. I see California is one of the strongest states in the union, and then a bunch of states that that don't really have hardly any, you know, it's not the border states that are the most anti-immigrant. It's kind of interesting.

Anyway, back to what I was saying, under Obama, there actually was a migrant crisis, so there were a lot of people trying to rush the border, some of the pepper spray uses were when border agents were physically being attacked, and frankly, that's justified, and I'm glad there, you know, this is scary, because I'm going to start to sound like a Trumper right now, I promise you, I'm not, I don't support that policy, but I'm, I'm glad it's not bullets, you know, like I'm glad that it is pepper spray and potentially tear gas, I guess, rather than people being actually shot. I wish, you know, that was the same for like police shooting people. I was like, I wish police were using more non-lethal methods. But again, more along the lines of why this isn't the same, this is a manufactured crisis.

There wouldn't be any sort of crisis at all if the Trump administration hadn't slowed things down made people wait forever, made it impossible for people to actually come here and claim asylum, which is a legal thing to do. It's absolutely the legal process. You come here first and you claim asylum. You actually can't claim asylum without coming here. So this whole, well, they should enter legally. They should enter illegally. They are.

You can come here, and you can claim asylum and so what I was saying was even if you are a Republican, and you don't want to grant asylum, it's absolutely heartless to do what you're doing now to do what they're doing.

0:18:53 Thomas: Now, you could hire a bunch of more people and not do this metering they're doing. You could actually process claims. And, by the way, you'll probably find ones that even you heartless Republicans want to grant. I would hope, maybe, maybe that's being too optimistic, but I would help you. I would love that when you come across someone who's an actor who's going to be killed because of their politics or whatever it might be, I would hope you would want to grant them asylum. Maybe again, maybe not, but I would. So, overall, the bottom line, you know, we didn't, I think we didn't have our eye on the ball, and the media wasn't covering it. I'd like to think that if there was a similar photograph under Obama, I do think people would have been pissed, and I think it might have been justified.

0:19:38 Thomas: And, by the way, I imagine that something would have done about it. You know, I that there's only so much attention that gets paid, and when something's not in the news, when people aren't paying attention, you, you know, that's just how humans are. We don't, we don't see it. We don't react to it. But the final point on this is, I think it's a lesson for me and for other people who are getting more engaged now, I put myself first and foremost, because I was not politically active and engaged enough prior to, you know, the last three or four years, I think it does mean that we ought to pay attention, even if we take the presidency back in 2020, we ought got to keep a close eye on what's going on and make, make our voices heard when even the Democrats are messing up, as they assuredly will, because nobody is 100% perfect.

0:20:30 Thomas: Oh, good, I just remembered another rant I wanted to do, we'll see if we even get to the voicemails, so, Michael Avenatti is once again back in the news, we talked about this more on Opening Arguments, but, I think I've said it before, but Andrew was very early on not an Avenatti fan, he pointed out that the LA Times had uncovered that he hadn't paid a partner millions of dollars, and had even gotten a court order, you know, a judge ruled that he needed to pay, and all this stuff, weird stuff, at the time it was kind of just like, like, we're not sure what this is, but it, it seems a little fishy.

And since then it's, I think it's gotten worse and worse. And I think that suspicion has been very warranted with, with this Avenatti a-hole because the latest thing I'm seeing is that Stormy Daniels is kind of parting ways with him because he has not given her an accounting of where all the money has gone that has been raised in her name for For legal action against Trump, and she says that she was never even consulted or didn't give permission to file the defamation lawsuit. Not to mention, of course, the arrest for domestic violence wasn't charged, it seems like, but, you know, and it's, that one, again, it's a little iffy, because it seems, like, maybe that one Jacob Wohl a-hole is claiming credit for it, so, but I don't know, I mean, based on what needs to be, what evidence there needs to to be for that. I actually don't think it's likely that Jacob Wohl pulled that off. I think it's more likely that he was doing something which is arguably as bad, which was trying to claim credit in order to undermine our trust in all assault claims, basically.

0:22:14 Thomas: So that guy's the worst either way. Absolutely the worst either way. But anyway, the point is, I realized something. There's always been the, oh yeah, liberals, what if you had the version of Trump? You would just vote for them. And I, I've always had a few answers to this, which is on one hand, if it ever comes to be that our choice is between a Democrat, and we're just, we'll just talk about the presidency to keep things simple, cause I think that is what, when you're talking about Trump type, that's usually what they're talking about. Let's say it's the presidency.

It's the the general election, and your choices are a philandering, uh, allegedly multiple serial sexual harasser Democrat who is staunchly in favor, and you can go down the list of all their problems, who is staunchly pro-women's rights, pro-gay rights, uh, gonna get a handle on climate change, uh, going to increase taxes on the wealthy, going to do all those things, if we ever get to that, that point where that person is somehow the main candidate, and it's just a binary choice between that or let's say Mike Pence or just a generic, you know, one of those Handmaid's Tale types, A, I actually do think it's okay to vote for the awful person, like to vote for the left wing version of Trump. That's something on which we might disagree and feel free to write in or call in, but I very much, I think it swings both, both ways.

0:23:50 Thomas: I mean, my arguments I've made about the general being a binary choice and the third option is nothing. It's not an option. It doesn't, it doesn't absolve you because the election still gets decided. It is not as though you don't vote and then there is no election and therefore we don't have the, it is either, it's one of two outcomes. You've got two outcomes, You're either going to lose an arm or you're going to lose a finger. It doesn't help to say, no, I don't like this. Okay, well then someone else is choosing and you might lose an arm. That's just how it is. I mean, in my opinion, that's how I look at it. That's 100% how it is. Now, the other answer to that is, I do not think that person, if it's really a Democrat version of Trump, I do not think they would make it through the primary. I really don't.

0:24:36 Thomas: With all the liberal energy right now, with the youth energy, how many women we put in office, just all the different groups that historically have been marginalized are finally getting more representation. This idea that we would, through the primary system, elect someone, choose someone to be our leader, to be our main candidate who is a Democrat version of Trump, I find that very hard to believe. And I would absolutely be campaigning and fighting against that person in the primary. And you know what? I can put a finer point on it, too. Because if you really want to take the Democrat version of Trump, you'd have to look at the fact that Trump campaigned in the Republican primary and in the presidency on a lot of liberal things.

0:25:26 Thomas: Now, he had the racism, he the anti-immigrant stuff, I'm not denying that. But remember, he campaigned on stuff like, you're going to have healthcare, more healthcare for less, no money, tons of healthcare, infrastructure, oh, beautiful infrastructure, all this stuff. He actually was pretty apolitical in some ways, like a, what's the word I'm looking for? A party, whatever.

I pointed this out in the talk I gave in New Orleans, actually, that patrons will have heard, which is that he ran on a lot of things, and I could pull up the examples, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that a lot what he ran, not all of it by any stretch, but but a lot of what he ran on was actually pretty liberal in some ways.

Now, we knew, you and I knew that he was bullshitting us, like we knew he was just not telling the truth, but I think it's still relevant because, oh, here's another example, he said, oh my buddies, my rich buddies are gonna hate me when I tax the rich more and all that stuff, he's just totally full of shit, of course, of of course he was full of shit. I'm not, I'm not by any stretch saying that he was sincere and, you know, that made him a good candidate or anything.

I am saying he was bullshitting and he ran on, but it's important because if you want to compare apples to apples, that would mean that there would have to be a Democrat version of Trump who ran on some Republican stuff, but we were so in love with how, like, horrible he is and like how much he makes Republicans mad that we were okay. You know what I mean? Like that just wouldn't happen because Democrats just want to give people healthcare.

It's really, we want to get people healthcare, we wanna save the planet and we wanna not have the rich, you know, get richer and not cut taxes on them.

0:27:13 Thomas: Like that's, I really don't think there's going, there could ever be a Trump type that would do that same thing. That would have some right wing policies and we would go with it because he's just, who's just, we just love that he makes Republicans so mad, you know, and of course he's a serial sexual assaulter. I just don't think it would ever happen. Now, what made me think of it is we may get to try this with Avenatti because he's turning out, actually, forgetting the Republicans. So I don't Think he will run on anything Republican because, by the way, the reason for that asymmetry, I think, is because Republican policy is just not popular. It's just not. It's actually if you pull stuff without the party attached to it, people in this country are mostly that they're more liberal.

0:28:00 Thomas: They're not. Obviously, there's plenty of social issues where they're not necessarily. But that's the reason why Obamacare, after the name Obama was kind of disassociated from it, all of a sudden miraculously is popular because actually people are more liberal than we think they are. It's just the party machine, the rage machine, the Fox News rage machine is able to make people hate Democrats so much that that's such a strong motivator that it kind of overrides their what policy preferences they would have in a total vacuum, and we know this because of polling. And so, ultimately, it's funny that we may get to take this test, and I think we will pass it. I think that Avenatti probably will, I mean, unless this news has really, really taken a toll on him, I don't know, I think he's the kind of a-hole, egotistical, egomaniac, that he will still run, despite all this.

0:28:55 Thomas: He's already doing the, oh, this is conspiracy against me, he really kinda is the liberal version of Trump. And as a result, I truly hope he fails. I think he will fail. I really just, I don't see it. I think there will be a segment of the party because, you know, again, this country is made up of millions of people and half of them are Democrats and half of them are Republicans. Well, that's not true. It's actually, there are a little more Democrats than Republicans. Anyway, the point is it's tens, maybe hundreds of millions, of people. There's a lot of people who are just wrong, but are also on my side. And that's just how it goes. There'll be some interest in Avenatti, I'm sure, but I do not think he will win. I just don't. I think it's, I think he Will likely have almost no success in the primary if he tries to run, which I almost hope he does.

0:29:46 Thomas: Cause it'll be funny to see him absolutely fail because we aren't Republicans. I don't think, you know, like we're just not the same. You know, it's not, oh, Avenatti sure does trigger those Republicans, better elect him president despite not having any experience and possibly being a sexual harasser slash domestic abuser, like, no, I don't have any desire to do that, I would rather have a President Elizabeth Warren or President Kamala Harris or even a Cory Booker, any number of people before, really, it would be just thousands of people I could think of that I would rather be president than Michael Avenatti. It's just not symmetrical.

All right, I think I made that point. I think it's now time to talk about this email that I, oh, my gosh, this really makes me mad, and this is hard because it's someone who says they are a supporter of the show, or at least a listener, and, you know, have reviewed it positively, so, yikes, but I can't help it, this, this email infuriates me, let me read it, I'm gonna keep them anonymous, they asked to be anonymous, I will always honor that, of course, but, I am going to, to read it here. Thomas, you had a laugh in a recent podcast because Mike Pence will have to swear in a couple Muslim people. Although I understand the sentiment, one thing that really bothers me is that I do not wish to celebrate in any way religious people coming to power.

In fact, from my perspective and many other atheists' perspective, Islam, even moderate forms, is more conservative than the current 21st century U.S. hardcore Christians. I don't like either. I don't think more religion in US politics is good for the nuns. I also don't understand and therefore I distrust the Democrat Party for pairing up with Islam.

0:31:34 Thomas: At least the Republican relationship with Christians makes sense, although they are loose with the truth sometimes to progress their agenda. I think there's a typo. I made a promise to my, this is the, uh, the, I almost could have kind of maybe agreed with you or at least seen where you're coming from. And then the emailer says this, I made up a promise. I'm going to make a promise that I will never vote Democrat as long as they have this nonsensical relationship with Islam. Oh boy. All right, here we go. Let me, I'll finish it out here. I actually think this issue is a big reason Dems lost in 2016. It's deceptive. Bill Maher has expressed this sentiment many times that Dems should stop this. Obama and Loretta Lynch propped up Islam's image several times by speaking at mosques, and also she denounced special protection, oh sorry, she announced special protections that she would invoke for people of that religion.

0:32:32 Thomas: I also understand Christianity is a dangerous, is dangerous as well when yielded as a political hammer. There are a few countries that have have terrible effects of that. I'm a religiphobe for good reason. I think you could be labeled as that too. I am not xenophobic. I understand perfectly well what a Muslim majority would bring. That's a little ominous. How about we celebrate when someone takes the oath over Dawkins, Hitch, or even Gillette, or no book at all? This email is absolutely infuriating. I'm sorry if you're listening, apologies, but, I mean, that's just, that is just the truth. I don't know, I want to be respectful, thank you for writing in, thank for listening, but I think this is, this is really, in my opinion, the most harmful thing that the atheist movement ever did.

0:33:20 Thomas: You know, and not to say that, you know, there's a lot of good, I was a part of that movement, I don't know if I technically still am or whatever, a lot a good it did, I think it did. I think there's... there's a lot of good books to come out of it, a lot of good thought. This is the worst thing to come out of it, which is this idea, A, that Democrats are somehow pairing up with Islam in a way that is anything more than just they're all for people of different religions having the freedom to practice their religion and they're also not hating Muslims unjustifiably, and B, that that is so prevalent and is such a major issue and should be disqualifying for voting for Democrat.

That is, that's absurd. You're not going to vote for a Democrat because the only examples you came up with, the only samples, feel free to tell me if you have any more. The only examples are Obama and Loretta Lynch propped up Islam's image by speaking at mosques and she announced special protection she would invoke for people of that that religion. Well, it's not, I, yeah, I don't, I don't know what you're talking about there. I mean, people should be protected from discrimination on the basis of religion. That's just, that's our country. That'S the law. Now we can, we can argue how far that goes. Now the right is making it such that, and is actively doing this.

0:34:45 Thomas: This is actively happening. The right is taking action. The right does it so that there's so much religious protection for only Christians that Christians can refuse to serve gay people. That's what they are doing. And to go back to my last point, my last segment, you get a binary choice, emailer. You get one or the other. You got people who want to be able to discriminate because of Christianity, or you get the left, which is the worst examples you have come up with are they spoke at a mosque, which has nothing. That is fine. I have no no problem with that. People, presidents speak at, you know, political leaders speak with faith groups. They, they speak at different, um, places of worship.

0:35:31 Thomas: I mean, we need to, you and I can agree that we don't, we're not huge fans of religion. I am not a huge fan of religion, but we can also realize that we live in a country that is 90% religious. That's just what it is. Um, I've gone through the numbers. You can try to make it out to be less religious than it is, but the truth is a lot of the people who say they don't go to church or they say they're not really a religion, they, they are still religious. They just aren't identifying with a church specifically anymore. Like they don'T go to churches much. They are still religious though. And they still are part of, would probably consider themselves part of a spiritual group or part or spiritual people. The point is maybe it's 80% at a minimum, uh, maximum somewhere more more like 90 of this country is religious, that's just how it is.

0:36:20 Thomas: I mean, that is the reality we are in. We can try to work on that separately, but to declare that right now, with the fact that it's only maybe 10% of people who aren't religious, and it's way less than that in office right now, we're going to just unilaterally say, I can't support Democrats because they have this relationship with Islam. There's not gonna be an atheist party. There just isn't. Not for a while.

There's not gonna an atheist, a significant power in this country that is all atheists and we agree with on everything. And furthermore, I don't even really need that. If you notice, I'm a little worried about the, yes, there are reasons to dislike Islam, but it borders on, I dunno if I'd call it xenophobia, but it borders on a bit of Islamophobia, which can be a real thing when you start to be afraid that like, there's gonna be a secret takeover or something, and I don't know if that's what you're saying, but when you say that Islam, when you said, "From my perspective and many other atheist perspective, I'm quoting you now, Islam is, even in moderate forms, is more conservative than current 21st century U.S. hardcore Christians," and you're bringing this up in the context of Muslims who have been elected to Congress, who, by the way, ran incredibly progressive platforms, platforms, so yes, I'm going to celebrate when progressive Muslims win office, and especially if they are actual progressive people, which they are, and yes, I think it's, it gives me a chuckle that that Islamophobe Mike Pence will have to swear in some people using a Quran. Bottom line about this email, if you are not voting Democrat, then you are harming the country.

0:38:10 Thomas: I mean, that's just what I believe. You are actively harming the country. Get back to point A, climate change, number one. And the best you can do is that Obama and Loretta Lynch, you know, like, feel free to send more examples or something of where you think the secret jihad that Democrats are doing, but like, and you bring up Bill Maher, I think that's funny that you bring that up, when you say this is a big reason and Dems lost in 2016. No, it's not. That's a load of horse crap. What that was, was a bunch of atheists and also Dave Rubin types wanting to blame the thing they don't like as the reason Dems Lost. And I'll tell you why. Here's the strong evidence of that.

0:38:57 Thomas: Democrats just want, this hasn't changed according to you. This hasn't change right now. This is still, and in fact, it's even worse because, the you know, the Muslims are taking Congress, um, but Democrats just won the midterms in the largest vote majority ever, ever, so that argument totally fails, this is not a reason the Democrats lost in 2016, it's just not, that we just won, we just took the House and the, and the popular midterm vote there by the largest margin ever, so by that logic, I guess people are more in love with Islam than ever, and it's not a reason why Dems lost. And you bring up Bill Maher, which is funny, because Bill Maher donated a million dollars to help Democrats win, and as much as I have problems with Bill Maher, and he frustrates me sometimes, he still votes Democrat, and so he's voting Democrat and you're not, is the point I'm making.

0:39:56 Thomas: This is outrageous. The reason Democrats had been kind of, I don't know what the right word is even, but associated in some way with Islam is because the right went insane on Islam, like there was a terrorist attack, which, you know, people were scared about and people were We're scared of Muslims, you know, and it's, and it's a little hard to blame people of being scared back then after the largest terror attack in our history happened. I get it. People were a little spooked. But over time, the right showed its true colors when it comes to Islam and how racist and xenophobic it has been, and the left, I think oftentimes, sometimes joined in, honestly, like some Democrats in the 2000s, a little bit, but also lately, more lately, and during Obama and stuff, wanted to be the side, and certainly this is where I would consider myself, I want to be on the side of people have religious liberty.

0:40:55 Thomas: I don't want religion in government, but deciding that a Muslim swearing in on the Quran is the same as religion in government is unfair. And honestly, I think it's a bit kind of biased because the percentage of people who are going to be be swearing in on not any religious text is like nil. So it's unfair to say, well, okay, the right, yeah, they do that, but we can't, the whole left is disqualified because a couple of Muslims. That's absurd. And look, let me say this, I'm against anyone and everybody who is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti trans, anti all that stuff. And it is true that when you look at the poll numbers, as Sam Harris always loves to do, yeah, in a lot of these more Muslim countries, they are socially very conservative, and I disagree with that, and, I, I would love to be able to do something about it. I don't know that I can.

0:41:58 Thomas: I, by the way, talk about a relationship with, with Islam. The Republicans under Trump are the ones who are excusing the murder of a journalist by Saudi Arabia. Like, what are you talking about? You're not going to vote Democrat because of this nonsensical relationship with Islam? What, what are you talking about, this is the reason Dems lot? No, this, that's, this is a joke. This is not serious. I'm sorry. Email her. I just, this really drove me nuts.

This email it's, it's wrong on so many levels. Are so many issues at once that we are always fighting and yes, in general, I would love people to be less religious.

I think people are becoming less religious in certain ways, I think bottom line is they still believe in something and then they'll get more wooey over time and they'll, you know, and that's, that's good because it, they become more liberal and more progressive with the less they're listening to these actual terrible books, but like, honestly, I don't care that much that people are religious all that much. I care about what's in government. And even Hitchens would agree with me. I mean, Hitchens Would say, I don't care about your religion as long as it's not affecting me or my family kind of thing. He has said that. I remember explicitly him saying that. And so the whole point of our government, and he would bring, I'll use Hitch's words because maybe it'll apply to you, it'll appeal to you.

He would point out that the, you know, the founders were, the whole reason they came up with this religious freedom thing is because they were worried about being persecuted by other Christians, like, that's the whole, that is the whole thing, like the best system is one in which religion isn't a part of the government, and the threat, the biggest threat to that is on the right. The right are the ones making religion a part of government.

0:43:44 Thomas: And I know you're saying like somehow that doesn't count or that's factored in, that's costed in or something, but you can't deny the Democrats are less harmful. Even if you just looked at this issue, Democrat power will lead to less religion in government. It's just a fact. It is just a fact. Every Supreme Court case we've covered on Opening Arguments, every single one dating back two, three years now that has been decided wrongly, that's been decided toward giving Christians more power in the government, has been decide along basically party lines. We can, there's some specific details to work out, but the liberal justices are the ones who are not in favor of that.

0:44:30 Thomas: That's just how it is. Oh, all right, sorry, I mean, believe me, I could have raged harder against that, it drove me nuts. The idea that you're not voting Democrat because of this one loosely nonsensical perceived relationship with, with his, I, mean, that, that's, that is insulting. I mean look at what's happening to our country. Oh, then that's your, that's your issue. All right, you know, it's funny, A, my throat is really killing me because I'm sick and recording has been kind of hard and starting to cough more and more, so I'm going to try not to go too much longer, and B, I think I might just save the couple voicemails I had, I might save them for next time. I think one of them I think will keep really well, I'll definitely save that one, and I have another email, so this is a, I guess this is an email episode, but definitely please leave those voicemail for next month, really appreciate it.

0:45:21 Thomas: I appreciate those who do. I really do. So keep up the good work there and we'll come back with those next month. But I have an interesting email that I think Will be a good change of pace here, and something to go out on, okay, I won't, I'm not sure if this person wants to be anonymous, I just won't read their name, just in case. Hi, Thomas, I would consider myself a male feminist, and there are controversies if men should even be able to be called feminists in the first place, but let that aside, and I tried to explain to an anti-feminist woman, or, sorry, to anti- feminist women that sexual harassment against women is a problem, and they should never, ever feel like they should just take it and and accept misogyny. And the problem I have is that I am literally mansplaining to women of this ideological persuasion.

0:46:10 Thomas: Why, for instance, mansplaining is bad. Mansplaining, why mansplaining is bad? I would also like to, I would like to know what you think about this. And if feminist women are okay, if men mansplain to anti-feminist women, because I feel like I have no choice other than that, at least in online environments, love your show and hope you keep fighting the good fight. Yeah, this is a tough one. And of course, putting me in a similar bind where now I have to mansplain, mansplaining, mansplaining, That's what men have to do sometimes. No, I think I have a lot of thoughts about this. I think it's a very interesting thing. There are several approaches to this. First thing I'll say is there are a lot of people. And I, you know, I, I find this pretty attractive as well.

0:46:57 Thomas: And I do somewhat stick to this, not always been. And, you know, having a show is a little different because it's kind of hard to just not talk about stuff. But, but I somewhat stick with it. There are some people who think that if you come across, like if I, for example, consider, I try to be a feminist. I hope that I am. I do my best. I'm trying to be anyway. And if I come, you Know, if this happened to me, if I was in some sort of debate and there was a woman and God knows there are plenty of anti-feminist women, unfortunately. And that happens actually, because they're probably in my family. But anyway, let's say I come across an anti- feminist woman who is saying that, you know, maybe Me Too has gone too far and it shouldn't do blah, blah, that kind of thing.

0:47:45 Thomas: There are people like I've heard a lot of takes on this and, I, and please, please, please, uh, women, feminists, anybody, call in, let me know your opinion on this, because I, I would love to have more input on this, uh, and get more input rather. And I've heard people say that that's not really your responsibility, like if you're just a white dude, you know, if you tick all the mansplain boxes, cis het white dude, and you come across a woman who has those points of view, it just might not be your, that might not be your battle. And I, and I think there's a lot of wisdom in this, you know, like if I come across, it's hard, it gets even harder to a lot of times with, um, with people of color, because they're, you know, if there's black person who is anti-black essentially, who's like kind of anti all the typical things that you would associate with, with, uh, like black causes, you You know, they're anti-Democrat.

0:48:42 Thomas: They're anti. Affirmative Action, that kind of thing, conservatives love that, and they prop those people up because of this very thing, because of the bind it puts us in, like, then we have to be a white guy being like, hey, but what, like you, you know, we're going to be arguing for all these things, and then they're like, oh, how are you explaining to me, I'm a, I am a, you into the stratosphere, you know, they'll be on Fox News in a heartbeat, even though statistically, you know there are very few black Republicans. There are some, you know, and and you know that's that's their choice. But statistically there's very few but coincidentally or not so coincidentally like all of them are on Fox.

0:49:32 Thomas: Like a strong proportion of them end up on Fox News for this reason. I think. And so, I think there are some people who just say like, well, that's not really your battle, you know? And if you're just, if there's no reason you have to be having that argument, then I don't think you have too, necessarily. Yeah, it's more, I, I I think a lot of people consider the white male lane, and I actually consider this to be my job, because even though I, you, know, I do my best to be a progressive show, to be kind of a social justice, progressive politics show, still the majority of my listeners are white men. I mean, that's just how it works, actually. I mean hopefully not like 80%, but I think it's a majority. Last I was able to check, been a few years.

0:50:18 Thomas: Maybe I should do a survey again. And so a lot of times when I'm on here mansplaining, what I'm trying to do is communicate with other white men to kind of police our own a little bit. It reminds me of back when the Sargon thing happened, and I was telling Alex Jules, I was like, man, I'm glad you weren't up there because it just sucked, and it was so hostile, and it was awful. And I'm, at least I have some amount of privilege so that I'm not going to be getting a bunch of racists tweeting at me too, that kind of thing. I think it was something like that in a conversation. And Alex, I remember he told me, I think I brought it up before, he said, no man, that's your job.

0:51:03 Thomas: Like you're us white dudes need to police our own basically, you know, and and I think that is one way to look at it, which is it might just not be your battle, it might be, you know, it might be my job to do my best to white mansplain to other white men because we're on the same footing there, and I can say, hey, here's from what I've learned of listening to people and philosophically thinking about these things, here's what I think, and we don't have to have that like battle of, oh yeah, well you're relying on identity and that about about it's like, no, it's just that that's that's where we can have the most impact, I guess, is what I'm saying. But, like, sometimes you get put in a position where you can't, you know, that's not a choice you can make. Like, if I'm, if I'm put on a, if I'm on a show somewhere, I'm doing a debate, or I get roped into something, like it might be that I might want to make these arguments.

0:51:52 Thomas: And this is where I think I can clarify the mansplaining thing a little bit. Bit. A, mansplaining doesn't, contrary to what Sargon people throw at me all the time, mansplaining doesn't just mean a man talking, that, and, and if there are people who think that's what it means, I disagree with them, and I can mansplain you why, right now.

Mansplaining to me, I, my understanding of it, is it incorporates a number of things, you know, it's, it an overall, um, kind of quality of speaking over women when it's something that they would know better about Not allowing them the chance to talk, that kind of, assuming they don't know something is another, another one I've come across in, in feminist writing, you know, like, mansplaining how to do something when really the, You know, the woman taught the man that the other month, and now he just assumes she doesn't know because of the bias that sometimes we have that women are less competent at certain things, like there's a lot to it, it's, in my understanding, it is not just men talking.

And I think also part of is just that in wider popular culture throughout the last infinity years, however long it's been, men have had way, way more seats at the table and have already gotten the chance to have their point of view be explained. You know, it's not as though, like, oh, no, we need to hear the male point of of view here because otherwise we just wouldn't know. And it's like, no, that's pretty much been what our culture has been centered around since back when men controlled literally every single position in government.

0:53:32 Thomas: And now it's getting slightly better kind of thing. Like we're on a spectrum somewhere from women literally can't vote to where we are now, which I would argue is, you know, way better, but still not fully incorporating women's perspective and women's power. And by the way, multiply that times all the different axes of privilege and stuff like that. So, same applies to, to white men having power, same implies to heterosexual men having, you know, it's better now, certainly, but it's, but that's part of it too, which is this feeling and this assumption that, like, men always need to be the, like white men need to the default voice and stuff, that sort of thing.

0:54:17 Thomas: So, all that is to say, I think this is a challenge, and sometimes what I do is I don't frame it in terms of, you you know, here, here's why I, Thomas, am right about this thing. When I'm listening to a woman, for example, who's kind of anti-feminist and I can't really do the thing of arguing with her experience, you know? I'm not going to say, oh no, no, you're wrong. I know about your experience. Look, there are women who haven't experienced sexual harassment and, and, you Know, I feel like I've had this conversation with, with someone before where it's like, oh, I just don't think it's a problem, blah, blah. And I can't really tell them, no, no. You don't understand. You have been, you know, even when honestly that might be true. Like oftentimes a lot of women just don't like, they don't care.

0:55:03 Thomas: They don't think about it or whatever. Like I've heard that before too, but I don't Think that's my place. I think my place would be if anything, maybe not even bother, but if anything it would be to say, okay, well I've read a lot. I've listened a lot to a lot of women about this. And from most women that I know and that I've listened to, it's a problem for them. So it's not so much pitting my word and my views and my arguments against them. It's turning into a listener and saying, you know, I've listening to women over here and women over here. And I feel like there's a more compelling case being made by feminists over here and, and maybe refer them. Like if you're having this conversation, maybe try to refer them to, you know, women, feminist authors like, uh, Rebecca Traister is, oh, that's a, that's great one.

0:55:56 Thomas: I'm a huge fan of Rebecca Traister. Maybe, maybe do that. Then you aren't mansplaining and it's, it's more a question of I'm, I'm man listening. I've been, I've, I'm listening to women and I'm more compelled by this side of the argument kind of thing. That's, that's how I would approach it. I don't know. That's how, that'S how I talk about these things.

And I try to reference when I can, you know, I try to throw out the names of the women I'm, I'm reading and the feminists I'm reading, Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Rebecca Traister, you know, just off the top of my head. And that's a way of having it be, I hope I'm trying to have it be less about me and more about the people who are living that experience. And by the way, this is a perfect illustration here, the person, the woman responsible, kind of, for mansplaining, for the term mansplaning, is Rebecca Solnit, I have her, it's an essay, but I have a book that's a collection of them, and the original essay is called Men Explain Things to Me, and what happened was, she wrote that, and a bunch of women found it really compelling, and were like, yeah, yeah yeah, that happens to me, that happens to me kind of thing.

And, uh, the term mansplaining was, I don't think she, I'm pretty sure she didn't coin it, but it was kind of from that essay and she actually doesn't like the term. So maybe mansplained, you know, like there, there are certainly women and feminists on both sides of that issue, whether or not mansplaning is even a good term to use. You know, I've, I have certainly used it and, and maybe, maybe I'm wrong in using it.

0:57:32 Thomas: I don't know. I think, I think it describes a very real phenomenon, and what you want to call it, I think it's sometimes funny that people are so sensitive. The people who think that words are nothing and that they aren't harmful, or are so incensed by certain words like mansplaining that they can't form a coherent argument anymore and they get all emotional, even though they think that's what the other side does. I find that ironic. I found that a little contradictory, but maybe it's true that tactically the word mansplaining isn't isn't the best thing, you know, and and apparently Rebecca Solnit, who is sort of responsible for it, would agree with that, so that's interesting. Uh, good chance to reference the original work and the original coiner, driver of that term, at least from my research, from my knowledge.

0:58:17 Thomas: All right, well, hopefully plenty there to inspire plenty of comments either way. That's, that's, uh, kind of how I think about it. It's a, you know, it's a tough thing, especially for me, like my job is to do the show and stuff. And so sometimes it can be hard, uh you know to not fall into a trap of, of maybe explaining something that I shouldn't or be having a conversation that shouldn't be, you, know, my part. But I, you now, that, this is how I, think of it and this is, how I do my best to try to, to counteract it. So, um, so there you go. So, hey, really fun episode. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. And thank you for the emails and the calls. And like I said, I'm going to save one or two of those for next month. But please, fresh voicemails would be great in order to do the next month's episode because this really is like my favorite one to do.

0:59:05 Thomas: I love hearing from you folks. And that being said, consider supporting the show, on patreon.com/seriouspod, join the ranks of those that make this show happen, or by the way, seriouspod.com/support, either one, same thing, find the links in the show notes right now, click on that thing, make a pledge, be part of why this show happens, I, I really appreciate it, it will It really is the only way this happens is because of really kind, amazing supporters, so thank you all, and have a great week, see you next time!