Democracy is Unquestionably the Objective for our Elections

[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption. Now, I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to get into some takeaways from the substantial numbers of people that refuse to believe that Joe Biden won the presidency. And later on, we're also going to take a look at some emerging research on sleep and performance and how they are interrelated and what made us wonder if most of us are out here just walking around like zombies on a regular basis. Joining me today is a man who has no time for psychological romance. Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. You ready to drop a cameo on your own podcast? [00:00:55] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm trying to tie together the zombie and the love thing. So, yes, maybe cameo. Because then they have that auto tune before Auto tune was popular. Oh, yeah, that voice, we could say that was a zombatic type of voice. [00:01:12] Speaker A: Now we're recording this on November 17, 2020. And although all credible news outlets now report that Joe Biden has won the presidency in the 2020 U.S. election and won by a substantial margin in both the Electoral College, which is the one that really matters, but also the popular vote, we've seen that there are still many people that refuse to believe that he won. What's worse, there also seem to be many people who are pushing very serious allegations of voter fraud and election fraud and pushing these allegations without really any supporting evidence and in fact, in direct opposition to the findings of agencies like Department of Homeland Security and officials and offices, Secretary of State, offices of the states that are actually administering the elections. And this is throughout the federal and state governments. So, Tunde, at what point does having unsubstantiated claims of fraud in an election and having large number of people believe these claims put the continued existence of our democratic system in jeopardy? [00:02:13] Speaker B: Well, that's a loaded question. At what point? I don't know. I don't think we're there yet. But I'm sure there is the proverbial tipping point. To have distrust in the outcome of an election in the United States is something that could be seen as dangerous to our democracy. And I think that you and I have talked about this offline, just bantering around some philosophical stuff that democracy and this idea of norms, things that aren't physical science like gravity or chemistry, that kind of thing, where it's going to happen regardless, no matter how we may want it or not to happen. Right. If I throw up, this microphone I'm speaking into in the air is going to fall down Unless we go into space where there's no gravity. So this idea of norms are things that we all agree on collectively and it kind of becomes part of our culture to, to accept or not accept certain things. So one of the areas that I know we've talked about is like, our money. And for those with a more conspiratorial lens as to our system of money and finance, I've heard it said over the years that we have a fiat currency, our dollar is going to crash because it's not pegged to anything like gold like it used to be and all that stuff. And my argument is, well, it's only as valuable as everybody thinks it is. Just like gold. I mean, who says gold is worth anything if you are stuck in, you know, like, what's his name? Tom Hanks in the movie Outkast. Right. If we were stuck in the middle of a deserted island, you know, you give me a bar of gold, that's the last thing I'm gonna need. [00:03:53] Speaker A: Castaway. [00:03:54] Speaker B: Yeah, castaway stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, you know, imagine him with a gold chain in that movie. I mean, he'd have looked good, but, you know, he needed a spear, he needed to make fire. You know, he'd have done a lot better with a lighter and, and a hunting knife than a bar of gold. But we've assigned a certain value to gold. [00:04:13] Speaker A: Well, I think that in the paper money example is even better, I think, because that is only valuable, so to speak, in our culture, in our system. Like that exact piece of paper, so to speak, doesn't have the same value if you're outside of place where people accept that value, so to speak. If somebody came to you with some pesos and you know, they said, hey man, give me a sandwich, you look at them like, hey man, like what pesos for? So that stuff only works as long as a collection of people come together and say, okay, this is. We are going to collectively agree to assign this value. Why does a piece of paper with one printed on it, why is that worth less than a piece of paper with 100 printed on it? They're just pieces of paper. They're using the same amount of ink. And so, yeah, like a lot of those things rely on our buy in. And I think buy in is where that ties in. Is that the concern here is that if people are no longer buying in to election, you get a winner, you get a loser, and then the winner takes office and so forth, then the democracy falls apart very quickly. Because democracy is based on the consent of the Governed, meaning, know, like the cons, the governed have to consent to it. And so at a certain point, if you opt out of that consent, or if large, I should say, if large enough people opt out of that consent, then the system doesn't work anymore. If large enough people, amount of people don't no longer agree that whoever gets the most votes should win, then the system doesn't work anymore. And so, yeah, it's not to be alarmist. It's just because, honestly, if you genuinely believe that the election was stolen or that you have dead people voting or something like that, then you should be in the street. Like, that's a very serious allegation, and that's saying that somebody is subverting your democracy, somebody's subverting your things. The issue, obviously, is that nobody's been able to substantiate any of that. And it looks like sour grapes. But the problem, you know, sour grapes is one thing, but the problem is that when you attack the legitimacy of the election, you attack the legitimacy of the system. You know, and that's the concern I have, is that, okay, so now we're gonna have, you know, the Politico has something out there saying that as a poll that they did, the 70% of Republicans don't believe the election was free and fair. So does that mean that those people won't. Will no longer buy into the idea that Joe Biden is gonna be president and that it will make it their mission to resist everything that he does or to remove him from office because he shouldn't be there in the first place? That type of stuff, the system can't operate if the vast majority of people don't buy in. And so I think it's the large numbers. As you've noted many times, there's always been fringes that believe this or that believe that, but the large numbers of one of the two main parties that are actually buying in to what we'll say is unsubstantiated claims, like, people aren't supporting this stuff with evidence. If there's evidence, I want to see it. But people aren't coming with that. It's just a bunch of allegations. And so with large numbers, it's the risk more so than the belief amongst a few. But the large numbers. [00:07:21] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree. And that's why I think the analogy to the money is so kind of proper or appropriate, I should say, for this example, because you said it perfectly right. If I lay a $1bill or $100bill in front of you, I'm actually putting in front of you the same thing. It's the exact same type of paper, just with different characters printed on it, let's say. And to your point about the peso. So if I go to some other country, I mean, I understand the US dollar is well recognized globally, but just assuming. [00:07:55] Speaker A: Okay, so yeah, let's go to the Amazonian jungle. [00:07:57] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:07:58] Speaker A: Or let's go to. [00:08:00] Speaker B: You're right. What's he going to do in the jungle? He's going to wipe his backside with it. Right. There's no value to, you know, sustaining your life or being a, you know, if you're just out there. That's why I made the joke about Castaway, the movie. Like, what are you gonna do with this stuff? It really is only valuable because we are culturally and part of our, you know, our mindset is we've assigned a value. We exchange that. Our laws say that we can exchange that paper for a good or a service. And it's even, even more abstract, our laws, but also. [00:08:33] Speaker A: But we've bought into that idea. [00:08:35] Speaker B: Correct? That's the norms part. [00:08:36] Speaker A: Well, if. If 50% of the people has just decided they no longer will accept dollars, then you have a problem. And that's happened in areas of the world or parts of even this country. If you go back in past where people were like, no, no, no, we're not taking that even. I know it was a big deal in the revolution during the Revolutionary War that, you know, the different currencies on different states, like merchants were only accepting British currency and which was very devastating. So I mean, it's just, I think the issue of buy in is one that we need to all keep our eye on. Because regardless of whether the claims are unsubstantiated, if people are believing them, then it poses a risk to the ongoing functioning of a system that requires people to buy in, people to agree to certain norms, things that can't really be like you have to voluntarily, you know, it's consent of the government governed again. And so I mean, like that part, I wonder, like when you get to this point, you know, where you have a 70% of a major political party saying they're not. They don't think the election was legitimate. How do you get back? Where do you. What's the road back from that like? Or is that, is there a road back? Like, is that. Is that just. That ship has sailed and now we're going to have, you know, active resistance to the United States government as long as the person who is won with this election is in office or can, can, can this be brought back? Like, what's the, what's the malfunction here? How is this happening? Or how can we undo this, do you think? [00:10:07] Speaker B: I'm not sure how you undo it. I think just to step it back a bit, we know that elections aren't perfect. First of all, we have 330 million people. So if there's irregularity with a couple hundred votes or even a few thousand, I mean, I think that's still as a statistical percentage, most people would say that it's a successful outcome as long as these small irregularities did not lead to an outcome in what the eventual election decision of the voters would have been. [00:10:37] Speaker A: So, for example, as long as the scale isn't of a crazy scale, 1 and 2, as long as it's not organized, meaning a political party getting together and trying to influence it like that. So, yeah, if you have irregularities, excuse me, irregularities here, here and there that aren't organized and that aren't on a large scale, then that, that type of thing is going to happen in any. Anytime you pull a bunch of people together to do something. [00:11:03] Speaker B: Yeah. One of the things that we've all heard and been reminded of this last few weeks is, I don't know if it's so unique, but. But one of the things maybe unique for the last 250 years of our whole history, this uniqueness of our transfer of power. [00:11:18] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:11:18] Speaker B: I mean, even during, I mean, while the American country was a country, you know, post the revolution, I think the French had their revolution when Marie Antoinette said, let's eat, let them eat cake. And then, you know, I guess certain time later that they were all dead and the French population had revolted and, you know, that wasn't a peaceful transition of power. So I think. [00:11:39] Speaker A: And then they ended up back with a monarch. [00:11:41] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's what I'm saying. So that makes me realize, I think, you know, we are actually one of the few countries that through the whole history of our country, we've had nothing but a peaceful transition of power. And that's something that. [00:11:52] Speaker A: Well, hold on. We have the Civil War, man. [00:11:55] Speaker B: That's a good point. But Lincoln was still president. There was never a transfer of power. So I'll get you on that one. [00:12:02] Speaker A: Well, I mean, you tell that to Jefferson Davis in South Carolina, but it [00:12:06] Speaker B: never transferred, though he was still. No one ever got to the White House. [00:12:09] Speaker A: That's because they died. That's because they lost the war. They got to die. [00:12:11] Speaker B: But we never transitioned. So we can agree to Pause on that one. But. So I'll say touche, but they never transfer power. But anyway, we're getting back to the. [00:12:21] Speaker A: It wasn't due to lack of effort is what I'm saying, or lack of bullet points. [00:12:24] Speaker B: There was no transfer of power. [00:12:25] Speaker A: But I wanted to get back to what we can do to kind of change the trajectory. If anything, I think that pointing out McCain and his concession speech and how he was booed when trying to strike a conciliatory tone is revealing. I don't think necessarily that leadership on its own can reverse the trajectory that we're on, where we question the legitimacy, or at least some of us question the legitimacy of our political opponents as a matter of course or with made up things or unsubstantiated things. I think that the. I said it last week and I go back to it this week. I think that there is a concerted and ongoing effort to propagandize many Americans and to tell them information to feed into confirmation bias and to, to, to, to feed them information that they want to hear for emotional reasons oftentimes and to obscure truth and obscure facts from them. And I think that that actually is what's leading this. I don't think that leadership, I think leadership right now is taking advantage of that environment. In some cases or in other cases, we see where leadership feels beholden to that, where leadership once, maybe some of the leadership, not all of the leadership, but some leadership isn't one person. There are several people. If you look at the Republican Party or Democratic Party, there are several people that are in the leadership, so to speak, of that. But we also see, even on the Republican side right now, there are many that are saying that the claims, the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and all that is bad for the party right now and are trying to get people to move past that, but they feel they are unable to because the, the, the, the, the, the bulk of the people are behind the idea. Want to hear about the idea of that? It was, you know, that this is fraudulent and there's no way that Biden could have won and everything like that. You know, Lindsey Graham out there saying that, oh well, when, when Democrats win, it's because they cheat. Like it doesn't get much more harmful to the ongoing functioning of a democracy than an elected leader saying something like that. But there is a case to be made that he is preaching to the choir, so to speak, that he's giving people what they want to hear. And so I think that while there is no Accountability as far as what people can say publicly, what people can publish. And again, without getting into any type of restrictions on speech, on freedom of speech. But, but I think that we're seeing the result of that where if you, okay, if somebody's calling the election and saying Biden won, you don't like that, just go to another channel and they'll tell you that Biden didn't win and you can just lock into that. And we'll actually bring this up a little bit later and actually we can get into it now. What responsibility do you think there is on the behalf of leadership or in the media? And the reason, what I'm asking is this really. There's going to be misinformation always. And so does what responsibility does leadership have in the face of misinformation? Does mainstream or, you know, like I would consider, you know, Fox News to be mainstream media or msnbc, all of those are mainstream. They're center right, center left. They're still in a, they're still, they're not fringe in the sense that there are a lot of people that go there for information. But so I guess I would call it news organizations that try to be news organizations. And so I would distinguish entertainment per se, but information, you know, what responsibility do they have with respect to providing truthful information versus trying to get ratings? Or with leadership giving people what they want to hear or providing truthful information, trying to lead people in a direction that's consistent with the stated values of the country. [00:16:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, look, of course we'd all like to think they have a huge responsibility, let's call it. I don't know, man, this is where, you know, just making me think of a lot of stuff now because, you know, sometimes I've thought, you know, should, should, should not and not to get into freedom of speech and all that. I think that's a very, very important thing that we hold dear in this country. But this idea of like this constant profit at all costs, because that's really what this is about in the end of the day, these, on the media side, the media is, is selling itself to shareholders who buy stock. That's my point. Like, should we allow companies that are in the business of trying to give us important news to be publicly traded and have to do jump and backflips and perform for analysts on Wall street every, every three months on earnings calls? Because that may make profit, short term profit become the narrative in the company. And not like you're saying, there's no may about it. No, I Get it. It's just fascinating that you look at things. Something small like that could have a huge impact. And I'm not saying. Again, let me be very clear. We're not saying that the government needs to take over media and all that. [00:17:24] Speaker A: Well, you could just have a private [00:17:26] Speaker B: company and just say, well, just to [00:17:27] Speaker A: be clear, it's asking the question of what can be done. If the answer of, oh, you need to regulate this or you need to drop the hammer on that, that's an easy solution. And that's not what we're talking about. We're trying to figure out like, o, well, what are the contours of the problem here? Because the idea of anything justifies the objective of getting ratings so that you can sell more advertisements, so that you can make more profit. That appears to be corrosive to our ability to get reliable and truthful news because people have demonstrated that they will seek out news that conforms with information, that conforms with what they want to hear. And if that's the case, that puts pressure on media organization, news media organizations, to either give the people what they want, whether it's true or not, or report things that are true at the risk of losing audience. And that. That is quite a dilemma if your driving principle is to earn profit. If your driving principles aren't profitable, that's hard to navigate. So that, yeah, we're not advocating to restrict speech here. We're trying to ask the question of, okay, well, if this is what's happening, what are the solutions? Are there any solutions? Do we need to rethink the ownership, as you're pointing out, or the structure of these companies? Are there other ways that we can do that that would not set up an incentive structure that makes news media choose between some sustainability or truth? [00:19:00] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's. You bring up some interesting stuff about mainstream media, and I think this is the problem. You know, I got to give props and kudos to Fox News post election, at least the daytime, the people that, you know call themselves journalists and not opinion because they've been doing, I think, a very quality job trying to explain to their viewers what really happened in this election. And at least a lot of the things I've seen, I get the feeling, honestly, and this isn't to be funny about it, but like, that they almost realize that a majority of their viewers have PTSD right now and they're being respectful and trying to thread that needle of, we know you're upset and we know that you didn't want Biden to win, but we're also not going to go there and say that this was stolen here. Let's explain and let's bring people on here who can explain this. And that's why I said I'm talking probably post Fox and Friends in the morning. So let's say 10am to maybe 6pm I think we ended with my boy Brett Baer. And after that, you get that after 8 o', clock, you know, I can't speak for what goes on at that time. But, you know, and, and the problem I have with that, because I think that's why I said I commend them, because I respect and I appreciate that they're doing that because I think they're doing the right thing right now. But the problem I have is that I can recognize too now why a lot of their viewers feel like Fox is selling out and why a lot of their viewers are starting to find other outlets is because, by the way. [00:20:32] Speaker A: Well, just to give some background on what you're saying, there's been reports that I believe it's called Newsmax, a station that has popped up to the right of Fox and has refused to acknowledge Joe Biden as the president elect. Their ratings have increased by like hundreds of percent. You know, like it's gone up a substantial amount. Like just for an example, like a show might go from 30,000 viewers to like 600,000 viewers. And you know, like in the past couple of weeks as people have sought out news that conforms with what they want to say. So, you know, like, that's just kind of some context of what you're saying as far as Fox trying to thread this needle of not giving, at least in the daytime, not giving oxygen to some of the more outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. But there are people feeling betrayed by that. [00:21:25] Speaker B: Yeah, well, and here I actually want to get a little bit deeper in what you just said because, remember, as we prepared for this, I know we shared a few things to read. And one of the things I read was about Newsmax itself. And this is where I think, again, a small change in something like this could cause a big difference. And this is why I don't blame the voters as much. I think we all want to believe something, me included. We all suffer from regular psychological states like confirmation bias, and me included. And so it's understandable that people who didn't like the outcome of the election and may have been told there could have been some shenanigans are going to try and find out and find information that supports their View. And so here's where I'm getting at with a firm like Newsmax. I'm quoting an article I read here over the weekend. Newsmax pointedly said it had not called the race, which was a meaningless claim since the channel doesn't have a decision desk. But the channel's hosts keep repeating this claim anyway, and it's sticking. So what I thought of was when we did that show about propaganda on that Ran corporation article about repetitive things, and if it's repeated a lot, eventually the brain starts believing it. And then I thought about what pieces of shit these guys are. Because they're part of the problem. Cause they're lying, they're being cute right now they're saying that they haven't called it, but yet they're not telling anyone. They don't have a decision desk. [00:22:52] Speaker A: Well, to be more specific, they're being dishonest. [00:22:54] Speaker B: Correct. [00:22:55] Speaker A: That's really what it is. [00:22:57] Speaker B: That's the nice way to say lie. [00:22:59] Speaker A: Well, that's. But that's. Well, it's dishonesty by omission is what. [00:23:06] Speaker B: They're maliciously being dishonest. [00:23:07] Speaker A: You're right. Maliciously being dishonesty. [00:23:09] Speaker B: They're not by accident, accident saying that they're saying something that they don't have the authority to say. [00:23:14] Speaker A: And that goes back to the norm, creating a false impression. Yeah, and. Yeah, I mean, and that's. And so, like. [00:23:20] Speaker B: Let me finish. [00:23:22] Speaker A: Okay, yeah. [00:23:22] Speaker B: Just. [00:23:23] Speaker A: Just. [00:23:23] Speaker B: Because my thing would be a company like that should either get reprimanded hard. I'm not talking about a million dollar fine or something, because they're making so much money with all these viewers now going to them and them attracting them with this stuff, they should either get a serious slap on the wrist and not be allowed to broadcast for six months or something like that, or they have to disclose. There has to be a crawl constantly on the bottom of that screen saying, this isn't factual news, this is opinion. Just like the Onion, that newspaper, right? Everybody knows it's crap, but they advertise that they're not real news anyway, that they are fictional. And so because here's the problem, I say I don't blame the voter as much as. Because if you believe that this was rigged and then you're surfing your TV at night, I got DirecTV, it's a legitimate subscription service offered to me by AT&T, a massive American company that I trust, right? And on this thing and the channel, whatever says Newsmax, the word news is right in there. So I'm not gonna blame A voter who sits there and sees this and then sees a guy convincingly in a nice suit with all the graphics and shit on the thing and say, we haven't called a race because we're seeing this and that. Of course the voter is gonna say, man, you know what's going on here? Of course. Then of course they're gonna say, oh, this liberal media is trying to protect and trying to steal the election. These guys aren't even like legitimate media. [00:24:48] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:24:48] Speaker B: They don't have a decision. [00:24:49] Speaker A: Well, no, it's literally that when we did the discussion on modern propaganda, it has all the dressings of that in terms of repetition as far as the presentation, to insinuate, you know, that it's an official source of information and so forth. [00:25:04] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:25:04] Speaker A: And yeah, I mean, like, that's. I agree with you in the sense that I kind of, you know, got into that last week, like the. Right there. The voter or the person who's watching that is actually the victim. They're the mark. [00:25:15] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:25:15] Speaker A: Like they're being targeted by people who want to, for whatever reason, give them information that will keep their eyes distracted on something or to make them easier to manipulate or to mold, like they're being targeted and successfully. So with propaganda techniques, you know, like straight out of Russian tv, Russia today, like straight out of the stuff that has been shown and demonstrated over the past 10 years or so in modern media environment to effectively convince people of anything. [00:25:47] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:25:47] Speaker A: And so, yeah, they are the targets. They're. They're. They're the ones being targeted here. [00:25:51] Speaker B: They're the marks. [00:25:51] Speaker A: And it's unfortunate. And so, yeah, so I think we look at what companies are allowed to do as far as to manipulate people using half truths or whole lies and so forth, or. I think leadership does play a role, though, and here's why I'd say that the leadership plays a role in the sense that. And particularly elected leadership, when our elected officials take office, they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It's not to advance the political party at all costs or to serve their own interests and so forth. So unless we're going to say that these oaths just are meaningless now, which, if that's the case, then the people questioning the legitimacy of our government, you know, have more of a point than ever, you know, but it's the. The people who aren't living up to their oath that they should have a beef with, and we should expect our elected officials to be held to a higher standard. Like, that's the Whole point is that's why they take the oath. You know, that's why we put them in positions and we want them to be held to a higher standard. So elected officials making claims without any substantiation, even if they're just giving their constituents what they want to hear, or even if they're just trying to win the next election, or they're trying to plant seeds of distrust with the other side so it'll be easier to take an obstructionist path. Those things are supposed to be subservient to the oath of office, to the constitution that they take. And if they're not going to take that seriously, if we've reached the point where you're only in office to try to win the next election, then our system has fallen off the rails in more ways than just the voters questioning whether votes actually count. And that's a concern. And the thing is, that's the chicken and the egg thing. Like, if the voters aren't going to hold them accountable and the media environment is not one that at least people that are trusted by, by voters, by citizens, will call them out on it, then you're in this circle, this cycle, where you only devolve further and further and further. In 2008, it was just voters that booed while the candidate that lost said, hey, let's respect the guy. Let's give the next guy, the guy who won the election, a chance. It's just the voters have booed. Now, apparently the candidates have gotten the signal and are saying, hey, we're booing with you. Except we're out here making claims that are unsubstantiated, that attack the legitimacy of the person coming into office. [00:28:21] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think it's very sad, actually, as you're talking, I gotta say that I'm sad. So that's this show's opportunity for me to stick that in there. [00:28:33] Speaker A: There you go. [00:28:34] Speaker B: But it's also, I think, to your point, James. I don't know. I feel like part of this is the entropy of a society, which happens over and over again through human history, no matter what leaders try and do. I almost feel like we got to hit a certain bottom for people to understand, okay, maybe we do need kind of a cohesive unit here and a more of a shared direction. And maybe we're in the part of that process here. I don't know if I would call this a bottoming out, but we could be in the midst of this. [00:29:03] Speaker A: Well, the turnout of this election would suggest that you're right. [00:29:06] Speaker B: Exactly. And in fairness to the Republican Party, because I don't want to feel like we're beating them up here. You know, we're not here to represent, you know, Democrats or anything. It's just in observing the outcome of this election, clearly it's Republican leaders and politicians that don't seem to be accepting the validity of this election. And every day actually looks more and more like their challenges are going nowhere, which makes this appear more valid, actually. [00:29:32] Speaker A: Well, let me jump into what you're saying, though, just real quick, and I'll turn it right back to you. But. And it's not even the Republican Party as a whole. We should be clear on that, because there are many, many, many Republican officials who are pushing back, whether it be the secretary of state of Georgia or there's officials in Pennsylvania, like, who are pushing back and saying, no, no, no, there's no fraud here. People, you know, like, there's US Attorneys of who who knows what political affiliation they are, but they are loyal to the Constitution and they're saying, no, there's nothing here. There are many people, it's not everyone, but there are people who are being very loud, who happen to be, who are Republicans that are pushing these narratives. And so it's not to say the whole party is down this road, but a number of them are, a significant enough number of them are that we all need to call it out. This isn't a problem that they can just solve internally. We all need to point and say, hold on, you guys are. This is too much. You know, you can't. So go ahead. [00:30:31] Speaker B: No, it's, it's, it's, you know, because the reason I went down that road is to be very clear here, that, because I think you and I pointed out, too, and just to give Republicans, you know, credit and props, you know, we need a healthy conservative kind of alternative to the liberal, you know, discussion in this country. I mean, I think, you know, we all want a healthy discourse. And that's the problem. I feel that the current conservative narrative and discourse as channeled through the Republican Party and political party is a bit kind of fractured and atrophied right now. And I think part of that also has to do with if we're talking about leadership, here is the leader in office. Now, there's a joke that was said to me which is hilarious, which is it's impossible to break up with a narcissist. And looking at this election, that's kind of true because even when he loses, he doesn't want to leave. And I think that's Something else that I've realized too, is that anybody who's dealt with a narcissistic personality, someone that's a true deep narcissist and also a position of power, because I think the two is very important when the two go hand in hand. When I'm saying this is that it's. Narcissists have a way of making everybody pay attention to them. So everything about them and everything about them. Yeah. So if, if you like them or you don't like them, they have a way to suck, you know, you into their orbit. So. And then Donald Trump has been very good at that. I mean, that's why people who don't [00:32:04] Speaker A: love him or hate him, which I would consider you and I to be in that group, like, yeah, we're trying to judge him on merit, you know, and, and on what he's saying, what he's doing. Yeah. And we, we get labeled depending on what we say at a given moment, whatever we say at a given moment, love him or hate him. And it's like, well, no, it's funny looking at what he's saying and what he's doing. [00:32:23] Speaker B: It's a great judging, because I was in somewhere having a conversation, and I said something complimentary about him, about the way he dealt with China and about, you know, the embassy in Israel, shit, you know, and all that. I just said, you know, I don't think anyone else could have done that. That's just, he's just a unique guy. And all of a sudden, someone that didn't like him was like, basically, I got the riot act read to me that I'm, I'm a Trumpian and this and that. And then don't. Let me tell, you know, somebody that supports Trump that, you know, the tariffs have caused prices to go up and it's creating inflation, because then all of a sudden, I hate Trump or some, you know, some other observation on my. Me. So you're right. And that's, that's what I'm saying is that it's not a surprise. That's why I also think we all need to chill out a bit, because I feel like once he's out of power, there's, there's something very important to recognize that 70 million people voted for him. Whether that was. And you put this out very discreetly and well in our conversations offline is. Doesn't mean that they all love Trump, but they felt that he was going to be better than a Democrat or that or than Joe Biden. So that's an important Distinction because it still means that there's 70 million people that voted. And right now, like you started with the show, 70% of that 70 million feels that somehow their vote wasn't counted fairly. So I feel like the real heavy lifting is going to be after this is over, how do we bring Americans back into the fold that feel they were cheated? And I do feel that you're right. Unintentionally, I think some of these internal spats in the Republican Party right now, just in the last few days, I mean, this wasn't happening right after the election, even two weeks ago, but like what's happening with the Secretary of State of Georgia, I almost feel like as sad as it is to see actually legitimizes this process because what it's showing is that he's actually standing up for the process to happen in his state and he's a true staunch Republican and he's not out there trying to win a Senate election or something. That's self serving for him. He's trying to do it. [00:34:27] Speaker A: No, actually what I was saying with that actually though was that yeah, he is standing up for the process, but by standing up for the process, by, by following the rules. The two Senate candidates, the Republican Senate candidates called on him to resign. [00:34:42] Speaker B: Lindsey get death threats? [00:34:43] Speaker A: Yeah, he's got death threats. Lindsey Graham is. This came out yesterday. Lindsey Graham is asking to throw away votes, see if he can throw away votes. And so that's what I'm saying, this internal spat with the Republican Party where you have some that are trying to follow process and others that are saying, look, we need to win, it doesn't stop doing, stop trying to follow process. We need to win. Like if, if we didn't get enough votes, get rid of some of their votes. You have those Republicans and the Republicans that aren't doing that. There's this, this internal spat is spilling out in effect in America now. And so we all need to call it out now. Like, look, you know, like, you guys can't handle this internally. We all need to put pressure on the people that are trying to subvert democracy. And I really question those people that are trying to subvert democracy too. Because I look at them and like, do you really love something? Do you really love America or democracy? If you only love it if you win or if you control it, you know, if you lose, then you know the system's going to hell. Does that mean that you don't really love it? You don't really, like, you only love yourself, you know, because you're Saying that your, your love is conditioned on your, your allegiance is conditioned on your. You being in power or your, your party being in power. And that's not what America is about. And that people are trying to make it about that shows how far some of them have gone. And that we need leadership. We need leadership on that side to be able to pull some of this back. Because the. Everyone else is. You have that foxhole mentality. Everyone else saying, hey, guys, come on, I thought we were all Americans is falling on deaf ears. You know, as Rob put, you know, go ahead. [00:36:21] Speaker B: No, I was just going to say I think the rest of us are looking at all these people waiting like, what the hell? Like, come on, let's go get with the program here. Keep moving forward as a nation. And I think you're right specifically about this, this, this story about the Georgia Secretary of State, because I find it fascinating that when the article I was reading is basically, that guy's calling out Lindsey Graham for trying to get him as Secretary of State of Georgia to actually invalidate legal ballots. [00:36:51] Speaker A: Correct. [00:36:51] Speaker B: And legal vote people that voted legally. [00:36:54] Speaker A: Correct. [00:36:55] Speaker B: So, first of all, I'm thinking, here's a United States senator that took an oath to the Constitution, to this country from all threats, foreign and domestic. He's also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So the top law guy in the Senate. And then the guy was a JAG officer, which means he was an attorney in the U.S. air Force. So if there's one guy that knows about the law and the way that the government functions, I would assume it's him. And how disappointing to see somebody that I know that he's a South Carolina senator that was voted by South Carolinians, but we all pay his salary because he's a federal employee and we all trust him as one of 100 senators to do the right thing in this country on our behalf. And that's where it really gets me. Like, at what line? And I know it's probably a murky line in this example, but at what line does this become treasonous? Literally, like these guys are actively acting to try and subvert our democracy as elected officials of our country. And that's what I'm saying. He asked the Secretary of State to throw away legally cast votes to the point where that Secretary of State had to go to the media because he feels so beat up upon. Then here's the other thing that I felt, and I think I mentioned this on our one we did on the election, the show we did recently with Rick is I felt like Again, what a beautiful system we have that these founders created. Because in the article, the secretary of state is quoting as saying that he told Lindsey Graham, I can't even do what you're asking me to do because we have 200 counties in Georgia that all have their own individual system. [00:38:40] Speaker A: Yep. [00:38:41] Speaker B: And I thought that's why it's so good. It's messy. And I thank you for, and I'll say that on air for putting me onto that, because I remember when I was saying I wish Pennsylvania was fast and easy like Florida, and you're the one that said, you know, Florida was fast and easy, but who's to say it went well, you know, that it was fair and accurate. And in the end, you're right, we don't know. Well, you know what? We're going to know that Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, some of these states probably are going to be more fair and accurate than any of the others because they've been put into the spotlight and it's much harder for anybody to cheat, if there ever was cheating. And so right now, because of all these recounts, and that's another thing I want to say that I've challenged some of my friends who I've talked to that have been unhappy with this election. You know, the media called Alaska for President Trump with only 64% of the votes in, and they were still counting the remaining votes a week later. And then I believe North Carolina was in extremely close, where they called it before all the votes were in. And I think that's where, again, I don't know what goes through each voter's head and people that consume media, but it's a shame, again, when people only focus, like you're saying, on the states where, let's say their opponent won or [00:39:56] Speaker A: even the races within the states. [00:39:58] Speaker B: Yeah. And the one where the person perceived to be their person won. They're not being as fair and being transparent that this same thing happened over here. And that's what I. [00:40:10] Speaker A: Well, let me jump in real quick because I want to point out to you something you said. And I think that this is, it's the media environment and it's the leadership, because there is a grieving process, as you pointed out, that's happening and people are being taken advantage of while they're in that grieving process and basically fed with misinformation to take advantage of their sensitivity to the misinformation because they're grieving. And so instead of having leadership that can tell them it's going to be okay, that, hey, you know, like you can't win them all. You know, let's. It's. It's disappointing. We get it. You know, but we got to move on. You know, we can start organizing and try to move forward, you know, into the future, but we're not going to sit here and try to relitigate all this stuff. Instead of having leadership do that, or a media environment that says, hey, you know, it's. It's. It's understandable that you're upset, you know, like, you've been told this and told that, you know, but sometimes the other side wins, and we have to figure out a way to move on. Instead of getting that, they're given options to just to disbelieve, and. Which is very easy to do when you're grieving, when you're hurt. And so, again, they're being taken advantage of by. And that's where the question comes in, you know, to win elections or to consolidate your power or to grow your ratings, what's the line of what's acceptable and what's not? And that's where you get into your question. What you're asking, like, well, what point are you acting against the United States government, you know, based on you putting information out there? Are you asking elected officials to do certain things to break the law or whatever? At what point are you acting against the government? And so, I mean, I think that it's a very, like, it's a textured discussion, you know, because as Americans, we all are entitled to have thoughts and opinions on this stuff that's going on and to speak what we see. But at the same time, a lot of these issues are like the issue with Lindsey Graham in this. In the Secretary of State in Georgia. Those are two Republicans. [00:42:06] Speaker B: Yeah. It's fascinating because one of the quotes that the guy says, this Secretary of State, I can't pronounce his last name with the R. Starts with an R. But it was kind of cute reading it because it shows you that, you know, we're all human beings in the end, and people, a lot of people default to who they are. The guy in the. In the article, I guess he's telling the reporter, whoever he's talking to, he's like, you know, I'm an engineer. I work off data, and the data doesn't fit here. And that's what I realized. Like, you know, the end. These guys screwed up. They had a guy, Secretary of State, who actually is an artist. Like, he's an engineer. [00:42:42] Speaker A: Political hack. [00:42:43] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:42:43] Speaker A: It's just. [00:42:43] Speaker B: He's just looking at facts and he's like, I'm an engineer. I've been like. I kind of felt like the way he's saying it is like, you know, it's not in my DNA to fudge these facts as an engineer. Like, I can't, like, you know, it's an interesting point. I've been trained too hard to, like, trust data, you know, as an. [00:43:01] Speaker A: That's actually the people who push for term limits and things like that. That's always one of their main points, is that, you know, getting real people, not people who have been, you know, like, spent decades in politics and become basically have happened to them. What happened to Lindsey Graham or whatever, [00:43:17] Speaker B: where you just jaded by the system, [00:43:20] Speaker A: you know, and that's the conversation we need to get into. [00:43:23] Speaker B: That's the old butcher baker and a candlestick maker. But and to go back real quick, because one thing I wanted to say was, you know, you share with me, article from the Justice Department. The guys under William Barr, and the headline just reads, federal Prosecutors assigned to Monitor election malfeasance Tell Barr they see no evidence of Substantial irregularity. So, again, that's kind of what I feel when I read headlines like that. And I feel like, hold on. So you got top attorneys in the Justice Department, you know, permeating, you know, through all. [00:43:53] Speaker A: Best of the best. Those are the best guys that'll find something if there's something. [00:43:56] Speaker B: And permeating through all their offices and all their liaisons and in every state, because, remember, there's Justice Department bureaus and offices in different states. And then they got ties to the Federal election committees and the different state election committees and all that. And they're all uncovering, trying to look under the hoods and under rugs and all this stuff, and they're uncovering nothing. And William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. And that's my point. If Lindsey Graham really had. If he. It wasn't just about him being upset that his side didn't win, but if he really had concerns about voting irregularities and that our system was really that screwed up, I mean, wouldn't he pick up the phone and say, you know, attorney General Barr, I really want to come see you. I really got a new. I'd like to learn about what's going on. And then he could get. And that's what tells me this is all disingenuous. And that's what I mean. I don't blame the people at the ground level, the voters and all that, because of course, they trust a senator. They trust certain People, That's a, that's the role of these people as leaders. And so it's like, where's the responsibility? That's why I started thinking of myself. And I joke with you sometimes, you know, I know the Mueller report and all that stuff was about Russians. Who needs the Russians? We got Americans doing this to each other. [00:45:07] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:45:08] Speaker B: You know, I mean, I mean, forget Russian propaganda and all that. I mean, whether it was exist or not doesn't matter anymore. [00:45:14] Speaker A: We have also. And what does it say, actually, that the same thing that the Russians are trying to do to us. We have us elected officials trying to do to us. [00:45:22] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, I'm just saying, like, we got senators and Congress people all, they're just, just out constantly on the TV saying this isn't true. And it's like. But every time I read one of these official things is no one can find it. And we have that guy from the Department of Homeland Security that is, that is saying that this was a, this was the cleanest election ever. And then I got to hear people saying, well, he's part of the deep state. I'm thinking at some point, like, when, when do you own it? You know, Trump's been president four years. If there's still people in a deep state, that's his fault then. I mean, if you believe in that. I thought everybody got fired. So is it like, what's real anymore? This is all like, it's just, it's just a big mess. And it, and it lends to itself that this is disruptive to our democracy. And again, that's why I asked, at what point are they, are they subverting our own country? And at what point are they now a domestic enemy? At what point is this treasonous? When you're, when you're a leader of this country and actively subverting our process? [00:46:20] Speaker A: Well, remember what the Senate, the Republican controlled Senate Intel Committee and the House Intel Committee found that Russia was trying to sow discord and undermine faith in American institutions. And that is exactly what's happening right now. [00:46:33] Speaker B: Looks like all we've done is made Putin a relevant chess player on the world stage. And I don't know, you know, I'm sure that's good for him. [00:46:40] Speaker A: I mean, it just like I said, if you're doing, you're doing to yourself what adversarial nations are trying to do to you, then you're hustling backwards, you're doing something wrong. And, you know, like you mentioned it, so I at least want to say it the. I've said many a time, you know, the deep state that they're talking about, it's really unfortunate, because what that is, is loyalty to the Constitution. Like, the people who they complain are the deep state are the people who don't, when you're in power, give loyalty to you. They stay. They keep being loyal to the Constitution. And so if you try to do something that's antithetical to the Constitution, they call you out on it, and then you call them the deep state. Well, it's like, well, if you have a problem with the deep state, then you have a problem with the Constitution. And again, that's where I get into this whole thing. Like, well, are we looking at people who just aren't here for America anymore? They're not here for American institutions? They're not here for the Constitution? They're not here for democracy? Is that what we're looking at? And I'm really asking that question because I try to figure out. I try to see through what you say and try to understand what you mean when you say things. You know, like when Mike Lee comes out and says that democracy is not the goal, then it's like, well, hold on, man. We have democratic elections. That's how we select the people who represent us. Now, we have a republic because we have representatives, but those representatives are selected democratically. [00:47:59] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's right. It goes back to situational ethics. [00:48:03] Speaker A: So. But I want to get to, you know, we gotta get to something lighter. We don't want to end on, you know, the doom and gloom in the sadness of Tunde you know, because that's. [00:48:15] Speaker B: Take a shot, bro. Take a shot. [00:48:17] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. We got our drinking game satisfied for the day. But on another note, you know, like. And, you know, I mentioned to you, like, this probably has nothing to do with any of this, you know, but it could explain everything, you know, like, is that a recent study, you know, looking at sleep and performance, you know, found that getting only six hours of sleep a night, if done for two or more weeks consecutively, though, every night for two or more weeks leaves you functioning like your brain and all that stuff leaves you functioning as if you had no sleep at all the night before, basically. But the key there is that you subjectively, you don't feel tired. And so this was jarring to me because I always thought six, six, seven hours of sleep was good enough on an indefinite basis. Eight hours was ideal. But, you know, six, six, seven hours, as long as you're not at five, where it's like, okay, that's when you're really. And so the fact that you can feel subjectively like you're okay, but actually be sleep deprived and be functioning as if you had, like, if they test you functioning like you haven't slept at all is jarring to me. And you know, like, of course, when you're not sleeping, your logic isn't as good, your ability to pick out nuance and things like that isn't as good. And it's like, well, man, maybe we're just all sleep deprived and that's why we're so easily influenced. And you know, I don't think it's that simple. [00:49:36] Speaker B: Unfortunately, it'll be part of it. [00:49:39] Speaker A: I mean, so like it. So, yeah, I wanted to ask you to sort of like, are we just all sleep deprived zombies? Like, we did a show, remember, a while back, talking about how little we know about sleep and how even when they study now, they have a hard time identifying all the things that. Or the purpose, the ultimate purpose of sleep. And so, yeah, tune that. What was your reaction to this, man? That six hours of sleep ain't gonna cut it? [00:50:02] Speaker B: That maybe World War Z was actually a prediction of the future, so. Nah. [00:50:07] Speaker A: But the zombies are the sleep deprived ones, I guess. [00:50:09] Speaker B: Exactly. Yeah, that was, you know, that's my point is everyone sleep deprived is gonna be like World War Z just, you know, take over. But now it was just fascinating, like you said, you know, the show we did earlier in the year. I mean, one thing that fascinates me about the whole thing is, you know, sleep is something that every single human being on the planet shares. [00:50:27] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:50:27] Speaker B: You know, so one thing we, you know, not the only thing, but one of the few things I think we all have in common, that we all need sleep, we all need a similar amount of it. Right. There's not like a certain group of people that can live off 30 minutes of sleep a night and they're fine. And it's also something, if you think about it, right? If you take a 24 hour day and technically if we are supposed to sleep eight hours, I mean that's a one third of your day. So you figure if you know, just to make numbers easy, somebody lives till 90, I mean, that, that means 30 years of their life was actually spent sleeping. [00:50:57] Speaker A: Yeah, that's the big part. That's how fast everybody eats. Everybody eats, everybody drinks water, but we don't eat for eight hours. A different third of our life. Or four years ago, even if you're only sleeping six hours, it's a quarter of Your life. I know, like, that's a lot of time you spend, so. [00:51:10] Speaker B: And that's what I'm saying is that it's fascinating that for something that is such a huge part a third of our life, literally, we still know so little. You know, that's what's kind of interesting. And that's why it's amazing, always learning these things. So that's. You're right. This. This new kind of study that came out was very fascinating because what I got out of it was. Was even deeper. Is that the. The headline being that six hours of sleep is as bad as no sleep was? Because. And I'll just go into the study a bit. You know, they had, of course, a test group. They spent two weeks with a group. They split the group up into threes, which one group was allowed to sleep eight hours a night, the next six hours, then the next four hours. But during their waking hours, when they were awake, it was every two hours given cognitive tests and also asked how they felt. Then there was a separate group that was just kept awake. I feel sorry for these guys. They were kept away. I think there was one group kept awake for two days straight, and then another group kept away literally for like, 72 hours, for, like, three days straight. And then they were given a bunch of tests, like, right after or during that time. Every two hours. [00:52:19] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:52:20] Speaker B: So I guess with that group, what they were able to see was just the how. How debilitating. I guess the lack of sleep is just if you're just awake constantly and just constantly asked to do cognitive tests. [00:52:30] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:52:31] Speaker B: And then they could compare that. So what I got out of the study was that the people who slept four hours did poorly cognitive, but they were conscious that they were tired. [00:52:42] Speaker A: Yes. [00:52:43] Speaker B: When they were asked how they felt, they said, yeah, I'm really sleepy. I feel like shit. I'm tired. The group that slept eight hours did great on cognitive, and they felt great. The group who slept six hours, that was the deceptive one. They expressed feelings to the researchers that they felt fine. [00:53:00] Speaker A: Yes. [00:53:01] Speaker B: They didn't feel tired, but their cognitive skills were as diminished as the group that didn't sleep for two days. [00:53:07] Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, that was the thing. [00:53:10] Speaker B: So I think that, to your point, is amazing, that I think that's. When I say, I joke that maybe we'll be World War Z, that there's probably many more of us out there, and potentially me and you included, that fall under that category, that we feel fine, but maybe actually from a cognitive standpoint, we're a little bit deficient. If we're not getting a solid eight hours of sleep a night. And so it's just like other things that I think we've, you know, discovered. Like when we did our show on the fasting and we talked about the microbiome, I mean think about that. That's something that just five years ago we weren't hearing about this idea that the microbes in your gut have such a massive impact on the regulation of everything in your body, like your, your state of happiness, you know, your emotional mental state, all that stuff. And so I think this is just another further look from a scientific way based on, you know, whether it's our technology that allows us to study this better or whatever that number one, I think how intertwined everything is just our bodies, ourselves, our lifestyles, our mental health, our physical health, all that kind of stuff, our emotional health. And then potentially how it's so tied into our environment because I know they gave remedies in the article. The things that I think most of us listening and you and I have heard before, right, don't have your screens on within 30 minutes of going to bed. How many of us are checking our cell phone or iPad or watching TV or watching TV in bed, right? I mean that's me, 100%, my wife, 100%. So I obviously pretty much, that's our culture. [00:54:43] Speaker A: I know the late show, we have some of the shows that we like the most right when we go to bed. [00:54:48] Speaker B: And then the other is like alcohol is not good for sleeping. How many people drink just randomly and all that? Stu. So I'm just saying that like you said, our culture and our lifestyle doesn't lend itself to help us in this area. And so just again I'll tell you [00:55:06] Speaker A: this, the other thing that stood out to me, and this just piggybacks on your point, is that the six hour block where you lose the connectivity between how you feel and how you perform, that's just so different then how we, how we interact with our bodies. A lot of times is paying attention to how you feel. Like if you want to be healthy, for example, you know, like they say, oh, you know, don't overeat, you eat until you're full and then you stop eating, you know, and you have to eat a little slower in order to do that. So this, you know, all that. But either way or if you're hungry, you eat. Like imagine if there's some way to if you're eating and you know, you don't stop, you just keep getting hungry. Like the signaling doesn't work or if you just never feel hungry and you got to. Oh, oh yeah, I forgot to eat this past week. Let me go eat something. Like our body's telling us what's going on is such a part of our experience. And so in this case we'll feel okay and we won't be okay, at least as far as how we function. And so yeah, that, I mean for that reason alone, you know, I wanted to discuss this just to put it out there. Like man, this is, this is good to know. You know, good to know that you know, like we do lose at some point between eight hours and four hours of sleep and you know, around the six hour mark or could be more, could be less where it actually happens, we do lose the connection with how we feel as far as being rested and how we actually perform based on being rested. And I think one of the things that was significant here is that I think they tracked the sleep. Like, like they didn't just. It wasn't subjective when, hey, you tell us when you slept. It was like they actually tracked when the people were sleeping and when they were awake. So it wasn't some, this person said they slept for. For six hours, but they really only slept for five. Like no, no, no. They were actually sleep for six hours for two weeks now. And again it's cumulative. [00:56:48] Speaker B: So that's why I'm laughing because the poor people that were. I mean first of all the people kept awake for a couple of days, but the group of four hours of sleep. Yeah, because you're right. I mean, shoot, after. There's no way I'm waking up after four hours. But let's say after the third day of that. I mean it would have been somebody coming in there with a drum set, you know, ringing the bell, water, like throwing water. They'd have known I only slept four hours. [00:57:09] Speaker A: And that's the thing. [00:57:10] Speaker B: I shoot forget two weeks. After about 10 days I've been cussing somebody out. Yeah, yeah. [00:57:17] Speaker A: That wasn't even been volunteering for. What do you mean? [00:57:20] Speaker B: I gotta wake up and do math. Tired, man. [00:57:25] Speaker A: That's good. Yeah, exactly. Like that's, that's one of those like the people administering the test was probably, you know, swole like big dudes, you know, like because you gotta, you get grumpy as you get tired too. You do that to people for two weeks and then showing up making them take tests. So. But yeah, I mean it's like I said it was worthwhile something to keep an eye on. You know, we learn more about ourselves, you know, it seems like all the time, as you mentioned, you know, like the, when we were growing up, what's. What's known now versus then as far as, like, yeah, your microbiome and all that is completely different, you know, and then you continue to evolve, you continue to learn more if you keep your eyes open, you know, and hopefully you can put that information to use, you know, in your own life. So, you know, so, yeah, we wrap this up with something that's a little lighter and a little, you know, that could. Some information that can make you feel good or teach you how to make yourself feel better, you know, in a way, you know, so. But we appreciate everybody for joining us as we kind of meander through the first topic of trying to figure out, you know, where our democracy's going, and second topic of trying to make us feel better, you know, more rested and perform better, even so, you know. Until next time, I'm James Keys. All right, subscribe Rate Review and we'll talk to you next time.