Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Speaker A: Welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys here with Tunde Oganlana and for our call out this week, we wanted to discuss Elon Musk and his talk of creating, or I guess he's in the process of creating a new party, the America Party, to operate as a third party. You know, you got the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and he wants to create the, or do the America, the America Party as a third party to operate. And his plan is not just to use it as a spoiler, but to actually win certain races that can be targeted to be one and a few in the House, maybe one or two in the Senate. And use that because of the way Congress is so polarized right now, use that to be the swing votes on a lot of issues and then wield outsized power. So it's a plan, it's not just something that, oh, we'll get in, we'll take 10% of the votes off of this person or that person and then that'll all be all we do. So what do you make Tunde about Musk's discussions and or actions about starting a new party and also the significant number of people who have publicly expressed interest in going down this path with him.
[00:01:13] Speaker B: What do I think? You don't want to know what I think.
[00:01:17] Speaker A: I think that's kind of what we're.
[00:01:18] Speaker B: Doing here, trying to figure out how to succinctly say all this. You know, as much as I practiced before this, it's difficult now you got me on the spot. But so here's what I think, man.
I think this is just spiraling out of control, this craziness.
So let me go here for 10 seconds.
I realized as I'm preparing for today, less than two months ago is like what we as the public are about to continue to put up with, that this guy's just going to do this.
Less than two months ago, we watched him in the Oval Office getting a key, a nice little gift from the President, United States.
And he's being sent off thanking, and the President's thanking him for his work as leading this government agency to look for fraud, waste and abuse.
While he's getting this gift, he's wearing a baseball cap based on an article from a very famous, well known publication called the New York Times. He's a drug addict. He looked like he was on drugs that night, that he was getting that gift from the President. And he had a black eye because apparently he got in a fist fight with the Treasury Secretary within a few days before that, he then proceeds to attack the President of the United States and say he should be impeached and replaced by the Vice president.
So I say all that to just remind everybody who's listening and watching us that how abnormal this is, this whole thing. And now the richest man in the world, who was a number one donor to the President United States campaign, which happened eight months ago, less than one.
[00:02:50] Speaker A: Year ago, reportedly the number one donor of all donors of the whole elect. Michael.
[00:02:55] Speaker B: Correct. Just. And he's just now decided, I'm picking up my toys and I'm going to go do something else. I'm going to start my own thing. And so many emotions cross my mind, James, this, how weird this is, this moment, how I feel that the country, the founding fathers, you know, the whole thing about getting away from a king and the idea of America and kind of modern democracy, that the world went through this idea of these rich guys with all this power just at their whim, wanting to do things and manipulating entire nations and cultures. So, yeah, that's why I try to do a succinct. So I apologize, I'll hand it back to you.
[00:03:33] Speaker A: So I think your succinct thing is you think it's weird.
[00:03:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I just think he's crazy. I think he's full of crap.
[00:03:42] Speaker A: Weird, crazy.
[00:03:44] Speaker B: No, but on a serious note, James, he's so upset because this is a response to the big, beautiful bill passing. And here's a guy that went in and told all of us Americans that he was going to cut 2 trillion in spending. He knew where all this fraud, waste and abuse was.
And three months into it, he has a press conference that says, I think I can only do $150 billion of cuts.
And so here's a guy, and it's.
[00:04:08] Speaker A: Unlikely that he even did that. I mean, so that.
[00:04:11] Speaker B: But, but my point is, here's a guy that himself told us Americans that what he thought he could cut, he can't. And now he's upset that the government is going to do the same spending that he was about to do.
[00:04:22] Speaker A: They're doubling down on the spending they're doing.
[00:04:24] Speaker B: And so that's what I mean by it's weird. It's just this whole. None of it makes sense when you look at it, except for the fact he's crazy. He's got a lot of money and he gets everyone's attention.
[00:04:32] Speaker A: Okay, well then that makes sense. So it makes perfect sense then, because, yeah, the thing that part of what you just said, I think is the inescapable piece.
Elon Musk, the man a lot of people don't take seriously for all the reasons that you just said. He looks like a fool when he jumps from here to there to there to there and then back over here. And it's like, okay, well, hey, man, do you actually think or believe anything, or are you just kind of jumping from place to place? Remember, he was, you know, he was doing. His political Persona was completely different four or five years ago than it is now. He's been all over the place if you've been paying attention to him now, you know, So I think that that part about this is like, okay, well, man, if this guy's, like, all over the place, then, you know, it's kind of surprising that, you know, starting a political party is not something that you kind of jump in and jump out of, you know, in six months or whatever. And so this is something you got to really be there for the long haul, which is something he just hasn't really, in recent years shown a propensity for. But that. So that part. If you're looking at that part, then it's like, okay, yeah, what's happening here? But the part that you said that you can't escape here is that he's the richest man in the world.
So his money, people do take seriously, and that's what you're seeing. The reaction that we're seeing to this, if this was Elon Musk, who just was a millionaire and, you know, he was, you know, rich guy and well known and everything, maybe on Twitter or something like that, people be like, oh, yeah, cool, man. That's great. That's great. You. You do your. You do your thing, buddy. But when it's a guy with hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, then it's like, oh, well, hey, man, if you want.
So I think that's what we're seeing here is that people take. People may have questions about Elon Musk, but nobody's questioning the money that the guy controls. And, you know, probably his control of a platform like Twitter, which, you know, again, all the mocking that happened when he bought that, it seemed to work out pretty well for him in terms of being. If you can control the levers on one of the primary means of communicating communication, then you can exert a lot of control over society in. In not just overt ways, like you can with money, and money also can be subtle, but with control of the platform, you can be. You can exert a lot of control in ways that are unseen to the eye because of the way social media and the algorithms can. Can imperceptibly change people, you know, so, yeah, I think that's what we're seeing here. Like, he understands that he is the richest guy and that anything he says is going to be taken seriously to a certain degree, regardless of what he does, because he has all this money, and then everybody else sees, oh, okay, hey, mister. Mister. Mister. Mr. Money. I mean, Mr. Musk. Yeah, we're. We're happy to work with you on this net because there are people like, Mark Cuban's been a critic of Elon Musk in that frame, and Musk is like, hey, I'm gonna start this party. Cuban's like, hey, man, I work with a group that can help the people on the balance. And I want to get into why this. The idea of a third party resonates with a lot of Americans for some very important reasons, which I'll get into. I'm going to get into, but I just wanted. Like, I did want to start here just kind of talking about. Yeah, the. The. The difference between Elon Musk the man and Elon Musk the money. We got to understand that people see those as separate entities. And it's almost like people are willing to deal with the man in order to get access to the money. And that part you cannot. Like, that's a fundamental piece that's going on here.
[00:07:50] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's. That's.
[00:07:52] Speaker A: That's.
[00:07:52] Speaker B: To me, what makes it all just, you know, it all swims in a sea of BS because you're right about people like Mark Cuban, Anthony Scaramucci, Andrew Yang, a lot of people. That I would say, again, seems like these guys are other elite guys, right? They're either billionaires or 100 millionaires. And so they're the same type of mindset. Maybe not as far wacky as. As. As Musk, but they're successful people. In our world, success is judged by money. Let's be honest, right? Like you said, Elon Musk is crazy, and people would not deal with him if he wasn't the richest man in the world. But because he is, a lot of people give him a long rope. You know, sometimes he hangs himself with it, Sometimes he does ties knots, who knows? But. But I think, you know, it's just a reflection on us. And, you know, I. I'm not religious at all, but I can appreciate the. The allegories and stories that come out of books like the Bible. And this, again, is idolatry. I mean, Elon Musk is the golden.
[00:08:52] Speaker A: Calf and no, I don't know. I think, again, I don't think that they're.
[00:08:55] Speaker B: They.
[00:08:56] Speaker A: People are. There are.
There are people who are the Elon Musk, you know, worshipers, but those aren't the people. I think that it's been surprised. Like, those aren't the Cubans and the Yangs and the Scaramucci, you know, like the scare. Those are the people who I think, that independently have their own thing to stand on.
[00:09:13] Speaker B: Yeah, I think they're opportunistic. I just. Yeah, yeah.
[00:09:15] Speaker A: They independent, have their own stuff that they stand on, but it did not seem to coincide with the stuff that Elon Musk has stood on. So it was just interesting to see them immediately gravitate over there. But I think that's about the money.
[00:09:27] Speaker B: You know, but my point is, is that. Exactly. It's about the money. It says a lot about everybody. And that's. My point is Elon Musk is toxic as a person. It seems like things that he touches don't do well.
And so after a while, I mean, I know he. He's had a very good success in.
[00:09:44] Speaker A: Well, I think he's. He's changed over time, though, is kind of what it is.
[00:09:48] Speaker B: Like, oh, yeah.
[00:09:49] Speaker A: Elon Musk now is the same Elon Musk that was 10, 12 years ago.
[00:09:52] Speaker B: Well, when you're on drugs all day and. And you're radicalized by being online all.
[00:09:56] Speaker A: The time, and I need to say, you got to say allegedly with that. I mean, like, I don't know that you.
[00:10:02] Speaker B: He's admitted it. I've seen interviews where he's acknowledged his ketamine use on a daily basis. So he's admitted this stuff in interviews, and we can pull them up. And so. And so they're all. I mean, Don Lemon show. He said it. I remember. That's one. So I'm just saying that here's someone who's acknowledged his own substance abuse. He smoked a joint on Joe Rogan's podcast Live. You know, so people saw that. So my point is it just. He is erratic, and he is not someone that seems to be all put together right now. Like you said, he has changed a lot. And so my point is these men also now jumping on board in day one when there's not even anything. He hasn't even filed any paperwork to be serious about. This just shows me, again, that a lot of. There's, like, this toxicity in a lot of our kind of cultural people with money right now, that maybe. Maybe this is not right now. Maybe it was all the time.
[00:10:52] Speaker A: I don't know.
[00:10:52] Speaker B: But it's just. It's just that it's like, yeah, this is a. You know, let's just follow this guy because he's saying it. Well, Mark Cuban, if you have all this ability and you're multibillionaire, why aren't you doing this already? Forget, forget, forget Musk. You don't need him. Just, just put together the money and do it and save the country, but free lamas.
[00:11:12] Speaker A: But that's where, like, it's, yes. Coming from our perspective, then it's like, oh, yeah, Mark Cuban, you're rich. You. You're rich. Just like you're rich. Elon Musk is rich. Why do you need Elon Musk? They're not rich in the same way. And so what this evidence is. And we'll keep moving after this, but what this evidence is, is the scale of wealth and how, like we always, yes, there's always been rich people, but we haven't always lived in a time where the richest among us were so much further than everybody else. Like, Elon Musk makes Mark Cuban look kind of poor, you know, because of how much money he's in. The hundreds of billions. Mark Cuban, you know, a few billion dollars, you know, so it's like, hey, anything that Musk can do, anything Mark Cuban could do a few hundred times, you know, and so it's just something we gotta keep in mind there, you know, that all. Just because you gotta be there doesn't necessarily mean that you're the same as another guy with the. Be there. And so there, these huge concentrations of wealth that you see with the Musks or the Bezos and stuff, that's the stuff that's really out of whack. And, and that while it might feel the same for somebody who, you know, is middle class or upper middle class or even, you know, pushing the upper class, that might feel the same, it's not, it's not even the same scale. Like, Elon Musk can drop $300 million in an election and not blink an eye. You know, it does. Like, but if you only have a. If you have $2 billion, you can't just drop $300 million in an election and be cool with it. You know, that's going to really put a dent into you.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: So I'll challenge you. If you have conviction and you believe that the country's in an existential, you know, place, you will do it. No, but you can't do it.
[00:12:44] Speaker A: And it not really affect your finances is what I'm saying, yeah, I mean.
[00:12:47] Speaker B: Yeah, it would affect your finances, but you still.
[00:12:49] Speaker A: And so, but if you, but if.
[00:12:51] Speaker B: You care that much, yeah, but if.
[00:12:53] Speaker A: You do it and you had $300 billion, then, yeah, somebody dropping a thousand bucks who makes good money, it's like, oh, yeah, yeah, here's a thousand bucks if it wins or loses. It doesn't really affect me like that. So I just think the scale of Elon Musk wealth is just. We have to understand that that's different even from the other rich people in many of us, most of the other rich people. The other thing though, I think that there is something there has been. And you can, you can say that this is because of the partisanship. You can say this is because, like, there's people who claim, you know, like, at least from the establishment wings of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, there's just a uni party. And we've seen the Republican Party kind of go a different direction from that, from the establishment people. The Democratic Party still seems to be controlled primarily by the establishment wing, although you have like a primary in New York City where we talked about last week that suggests that the establishment wing is maybe starting to lose its grip in the Democratic Party as well, like they did 10, 15 years ago in the Republican Party. But there has been an appetite or at least a dissatisfaction with the establishment wings of the political parties that exist right now, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, for a long time. So the idea of the third party, and we've seen various third parties in presidential elections and they tend to just show up, you know, Jill Stein and the Green Party or got a Libertarian Party and stuff, they seem to show up, you know, around presidential election time, but we don't seem to hear too much from them. So, you know, like with other third parties that have existed and I mean, if they're all there, they're not necessarily third is fourth, fifth, or whatever, but just non. Not the major two. But with them seeming mainly focused on playing spoiler roles and not actually building some type of coalition that, again, even if small, can exert great influence. And a part is a very highly polarized landscape.
You know, like seeing that and then seeing the approach that Musk has thrown out, you know, which is very much different than that, than trying to, like, carve out a space.
What do you think about this kind of approach where. Because I think that's part of why there's people that are really intrigued by this as well, is because I think that a lot of people see the need to, when we have this highly polarized environment, you may be able to exert control if you own, if you have 10, 10 seats in the House, you may be able to decide if you're going to have a bunch, you know, 215 on one side, 215 on the other side. That 10 could, and those two fifteens aren't changing that 10 could, could, could control everything, basically. So what do you think about this idea as, as Musk is throwing it out and how if you try to do something more than just play the spoiler, you actually, the polarized nature could actually give a third party a lot of power?
[00:15:30] Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's, well, it's real what you're saying, that a third party if, if properly kind of seated where they have seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate maybe and, and just have enough power that, that they can get on ballots like that. Yes, they can make a difference and sway because as we know, a lot of things are on the margin and especially how tight things are in our country. We know that the Congress is, you know, changes hands now and it's, and it's just a few representatives of one party over another.
So yeah, if you had 10% of the elected officials at the national level from a third party, they could really make a difference.
[00:16:07] Speaker A: And not Even, not even 10%, though, because if you 10% is in the four whatever.
If you had 2 or 3%, conceivably, you could make a big difference if the assumption is that the Democrats are all going to vote on one side and the Republicans are all going to vote on the other side and they're relatively equal, basically, they almost cancel each other out. So there is a strategic play there that as long as they stay partisan and very polarized, as long as the two, the Democrats and Republicans stay very partisan and polarized, there may be an opportunity for someone with a small amount of influence, relative number of seats, to exert a lot of power because the other two parties will cancel each other out.
[00:16:47] Speaker B: Well, here's the problem I think that I kind of discovered in preparing for today because I started looking this up about third parties and stuff and so got onto Ross Perot from when we were kids in the 90s.
And I can see a trajectory just like we've seen in other areas where we kind of lull ourselves to sleep sometimes talking about our country as a democracy. And it is in a sense, but it's a representative government, but it is a constitutional republic. So there are very undemocratic parts of our system, like the Electoral College, like the ability for, you know, jurisdictions to gerrymander and things like that. So one thing I realized, James, I knew this because I was alive as a kid, but it's been a long time since trying to look at the elections from 30 years ago. So in 92, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote as a third party candidate. That was the best ever showing by a third party presidential candidate.
Bill Clinton got 43% and George H.W. bush got 36.5%. And what I realized is there's a high probability that H.W. could have won if Perot never showed up, just like people felt that way about Al Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000.
But then fast forward to 96. Ross Perot gets 8.4% of the vote. And had he not showed up, maybe Bob Dole squeaks out a win against Clinton.
And I thought about it. And in 2000, the Supreme Court, who a lot of those people were seated by Vice President and President George H.W. bush, stopped the counting of votes to ensure that his son, George W. Bush, wins. And then we get Citizens United coming soon after, you know, in the decade after. And my thought, James, was I think that Ross Perot spooked a lot of the kind of elites at the top of our society. And that's why we have, like you said, the kind of unit party now, they made it very difficult for a third party candidate to really repeat what Ross Perot did with a lot of rules. Like, I think in California now, you have to have 70,000 people already signed into your party before you can get on a ballot.
So there's a lot of undemocratic part. That's what I've learned. And just getting ready for today, there's a lot of undemocratic parts of our system that don't allow for someone outside of the Democratic or Republican machine to really rise up. And I do. So here's where I'll give Mr. Musk some credit.
I would like to see him be successful in this as much as I don't like him as a person, because I do.
[00:19:22] Speaker A: You sound a lot like Mark Cuban or Scaramucci now.
[00:19:25] Speaker B: So you're right. And so. So, so maybe I've evolved in this.
No, because I say this right. Those who start the revolution may not be the ones that finish.
[00:19:36] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:19:36] Speaker B: So he may start this. He might not be around a year from now to be dealing with it. But if he sees it with enough, and like you say, if it gets enough where he gets a couple of people on some ballots and stuff.
[00:19:46] Speaker A: Well, let me react to what you had said before, though, before we get too far away from it, because I think. Okay. Specifically what the case you just laid out, I think is exactly why the third party thing has never in our, in our lifetime has not worked. And that is because it's the focus on the biggest offices. And I think the biggest issue that you have, like, you don't have to control.
You don't have to have somebody running for president necessarily. Like, if your goal is we're going to take control of the House, and the way we're going to take control of the House is we're going to have 50, we're going to take 15 seats, take a couple from each party, maybe a few more from, and then they're going to be stuck. Each of those parties might have. Each party might have 210, and we're going to have, you know, 20 seats or, you know, 15 seats or whatever, and we're going to break all the ties.
If that is your objective, that's a much lower bar to clear than saying we're going to try to win the presidency. I think the focus when, when the third parties are trying to win the presidencies, they're only spoilers. And frankly, they're not serious. I don't look at what Jill Stein does as being serious. She's not serious.
You know, the Libertarian Parties, they're not RFK is out there running. He did that just as an opportunity to get into a cabinet. You know, he's not being serious. They're not trying to actually change the system. They are distracting us from what's going on. Because if you're, if you're going to say, I'm gonna start a third party, we're gonna run for president, you're not looking at it from a serious standpoint. Because, yes, as you point out, there's all these hurdles that you have to overcome to get there, and it's not gonna be easy. I think the bigger issue and why it hasn't been successful and why Musk actually is better situated to make it successful. And one of the estimates I saw, and we'll have these, you know, some articles in the show, notes about this, but was that it would take about 10 years and a billion dollars to, to, to really establish a broad third party. Because again, you're not just trying to say, hey, we're going to pull our resources and win the presidency.
I don't know that you even should be running the, you know, for the presidency. It should be take looking at specific housing. The House has all types of quirky people in it because these districts all around the country you can be, are made up of all different types of people. And so you can find districts around the country where you may be able to get, turn a House seat into you. And so you focus on resources there and say, okay, we're going to put our resources here where we feel like there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the couple in both of the parties and we might be able to get, get, get somebody in there. Get somebody in there. You might find one of the smaller states where there's some dissatisfaction, a lot of dissatisfaction with the current, you know, two main parties and say, hey, we're going to go for Rhode island and we're going to try to flip a senator there or you know, plays again. You can fight these controlled battles. One of the things about like, and this is, this is kind of like, you know, like that the Sun Tzu type of strategies and stuff is that you turn people's advantages into disadvantages. The large, broad based parties are big, so they, if you try to fight them on their terms, you'll lose. But they're also lumbering and they're also spread very thin. If you are small, then you also can be nimble and you can focus your resources in ways that they wouldn't be able to. So I think it's possible, but it can't be about we're going to get somebody elected president. It has to be about again, taking control of Congress through some seats in the House and maybe a seat or two in the Senate and being able to exert influence. This only works though, again, what I'm saying only works in a situation where it's very polarized. Like if Democrats and Republicans start working together, then what I'm talking about and what Musk has raised, and this isn't, he's not the first person to raise this. We were kicking an article back and forth about a free soiler party that was talking about doing this in like the 1840s, the 1830s, 1840s. So this, this idea of picking off a number of House seats and Senate seats and then using that to exert outsized influence because of polarization. But if the Democrats and Republicans start working together, then this could get mitigated completely. But if the Democrats, Republicans start working together, our country would work better. So it kind of, that necessarily wouldn't be the worst outcome either. If you did this and then forced the parties to actually work together again. But if not, then you could exert influence because they, they will all. They are all so predictable. And whereas you can not be. You can fit in and do what you think is best in ways and work with both sides as you see fit.
[00:23:53] Speaker B: Yeah, it's interesting because I'm reading about the Free Soilers here and this is why to me American history is just so amazing and what we don't learn. So the Free Soil Party was a merger of the barn burner Democrats, the conscious Whigs and the Liberty Party.
And then they ended up morphing into the new Republican Party in 1854. So it's just amazing how. And that's what I mean by. Our country is rich with all these stories and the history of people fighting for, and I'll say rhetorically fighting, sometimes physically fighting, but fighting for what they felt is the best direction of this country and all the different culture wars we've had over time. And so I think this represents another time like that. It feels a little bit.
I was going to say it. It feels in a way existential because it feels like both parties have been corroded that whole term of the unit party that, you know, something has happened and I know you and I have identified this well, that it's the money in politics that's, you know, in the chipping way of campaign campaign finance laws that were instituted after the last time this stuff happened under the first Gilded Age.
And you know, here we are, it's the same thing where I think we're at an inflection point like we were in the 1920s into the 30s where, you know, if things went a little bit different and Charles Lindbergh became president and not Franklin Roosevelt, maybe we would have side with Germany. And so. And so, you know, these things aren't.
Put it this way, James, that doesn't always work out in a way that the people that enjoy democracy and pluralism are always going to win. And I think that things like this, like a disruptive nature of a third party that's seeded by a crazy billionaire, maybe that is something that could disrupt the apple cart. Like you said, the parties are big and behemoth and you know, and who knows where it goes. I don't like Elon Musk, but I celebrate his ability as an immigrant to come to our country. But you like money.
Yeah, no, I was gonna say he's an immigrant that came to our country, made a lot of money and now wants to tell us all what to do.
Interesting. He seems to not like people that do that. But, you know, I guess that's a different show, so.
[00:26:12] Speaker A: Well, I mean, no, I think that in any event, it's good that he raises the issue, in my opinion, because anytime we start talking about how the setup is not working right now and then the setup is not working intentionally because you, you, you jam up the government like it's been jammed up and then other influences can control money influence and so forth can control it much easier if the people that are in place are only beholden the money. Not. They don't have, you know, principles that, you know, like, hey, you know, I campaign and we're going to get spending under control and then I get into power and then we're going to do all these tax, you know, we cut all these taxes. We're going to spend all this money because, because they don't have principles, you know, like they're there because the people who put money in their coffers, you know, they, they follow orders, so to speak. You know, so that is something that anybody.
[00:26:59] Speaker B: I wonder if the New Party is going to have to follow orders like, do we have to do the Z, Kyle if we are members? Maybe that's what I want to know.
[00:27:07] Speaker A: You know, I mean, the New Party.
[00:27:09] Speaker B: Could be part of it, but me and you can't. That's the problem.
[00:27:12] Speaker A: The New Party, I mean, Elon Musk, I mean, who knows? Maybe he's crazy like a fox in the sense that if he didn't talk about this, we'd be talking about, hey, you know, maybe it was people are dying in floods because you cut all these emergency services from the government, you know, like, so maybe he's getting people talking about something else so they're not talking about that. I don't know. But the idea, I don't think just because when somebody talks about something shouldn't necessarily, if that person is not somebody you agree with, doesn't mean that you can't seriously look at the idea and consider whether, like you said, the person who raises the idea or who starts the revolution doesn't necessarily need to be the one that finishes it. But it may, we may be ripe again as long as the parties remain as partisan as they are and aren't serving the interests of their constituents, in large part, at least the making your life better part. Like, I think the Republican Party right now is doing a lot to make its voters feel good about stuff, you know, and then, hey, we're going to be mean to people for you and, you know, we'll we'll tell you things that you like to hear and all this kind of stuff, but they're not really making the voters, they're like their voters lives better.
And so at a certain point you would think that there would be an opening for a group of people who are selling that necessarily as opposed to, and I mean, again, we'll see in New York City, we'll follow that because that's, there's a guy out there who we talked about last week uses, has labels and identities that would tend to make him a target, but has a lot of momentum electorally because all he talks about is trying to make people's lives better. That's it. That's his whole thing. So you would think there's going to be an opening for that at some point and it's probably not. It's probably have a very difficult time coming out of the establishment of either political party right now because just that they're, they're both of them to some degree are compromised, at least at the leadership level. Like not at the.
[00:28:57] Speaker B: If we take what I said about the Ross Perot kind of angle and maybe the fear that it created amongst the elites of both Democratic and Republican parties, then you're absolutely correct that the gentleman in New York or others that might be able try and rise up through the ranks of the existing Democratic and Republican Party parties will fail because.
[00:29:16] Speaker A: They'Re going to be stifled at every step. There's enough roadblocks that have been from within. They're going to be stifled.
[00:29:22] Speaker B: So, and I think go back and look at our show last week, audience. We did a great job. Actually.
I was about to start talking about it.
[00:29:29] Speaker A: I was like, we did a show on that.
[00:29:30] Speaker B: I don't need to talk about it.
[00:29:31] Speaker A: I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm glad you enjoy. That's what we do for, so we can enjoy it. But, but no, I think, yeah, but.
[00:29:37] Speaker B: I think this is going to be, if we look back that this was effective and I'll just say it just to finish off the point about the free Soilers, all those different parties that formed into the Republican Party, this might be one of those moments where in a hundred years people could look back and say, okay, you know, in the 90s this happened. But yeah, you know, 30 years later to 25 years later, they started figuring out, you know, there's some disruption in politics. And so this is, this is living through the sausage.
[00:30:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:01] Speaker B: Doesn't feel good. But it's part of the, part of the thinking of it.
[00:30:04] Speaker A: Yeah.
So it looks kind of crazy when you're making it sound very, very, very insightful.
[00:30:11] Speaker B: So you don't, you don't, you don't realize you're eating hooves and horns and gallbladders and all that stuff?
[00:30:18] Speaker A: No. But I think we can wrap this topic from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this Call out, subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:30:28] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Iguana.
[00:30:30] Speaker A: All right. And check out our earlier show this week as well. And we'll talk soon.
