Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.
- [00:05]
B
All immigrants from wherever they come around the world, from first world countries to third world countries are exactly the same, says the libs. But are they correct? We'll also dive into a little bit of the Texas primary. Some interesting fun things happened out of there. Not exactly shocking, but definitely hilarious. And is the real reason we all dislike California because we're just so jealous of all the success? Well, that's the argument that the governor of the state is making. How much does that align with reality? So much to get to here on the episode today. My name is Joe Bob. Thanks so much for tuning in. The show starts right now. Oftentimes when I'm out and about and I see somebody who clearly is not from the United States of America, uh, I look at one and says, well, this person looks well kept and, you know, assimilated to the culture. They are the exact same as the person also from a different country who doesn't have shoes and has a knife. For some reason, everybody is the same according to the lives. Now, is that true? Uh, spoiler alert. No, but we'll get into several of the reasons as to why in just a little bit. Before that, I got to remind you, tptpsa.com is the email. If you'd like to send along your thoughts, comments, concerns, even criticisms, Those are welcome. TPTP USA.com and remember, if your emails or comments on social media, wherever it is that you happen to be watching this, are disgusting, vile and just downright nasty, we actually will probably read them on the show. We have some hilarious joke. You guys are funny, by the way. We have some very funny jokes. We had a funny joke yesterday. Was it the going on in Iran is March Madness. Very funny stuff in the email. If you'd like to participate and, you know, have me judge your humor ability, tptpo say. Com is that email address. So for today, I would like to ask the question, are all immigrants the same from everywhere? Now, what we're not talking about is people in general. Obviously we're all people and therefore we're all made in the image of God. But at the same time, does that mean we all behave exactly the same? Now, rather than look at this, you know, anecdotally, which you could probably draw some various conclusions to say no or not, some people from different countries are very, very different. What happens when we actually look at some of the statistics? Now, just to get this out of the way, at the onset, there is a prominent lefty talking point that we hear very, very Very often that says this, this is cut 15. Although immigrants as a group commit less crime than native born Americans, if you
- [02:50]
A
look at the statistics, the crime rate among immigrants is far lower than the crime rate among native born Americans.
- [02:57]
B
This is something that we hear so often. Well, immigrants commit less crime than people who were born here. Now, there's a number of problems with this and we'll get to that. But the first and biggest one is, well, are you separating the legal immigrants from the illegal immigrants? I mean, this is a conversation we've been having now for years. The libs love to conflate the two terms, but what does the data show if you don't conflate them and actually separate them? How much more crime is illegal immigrants? Are legal immigrants committing versus legal immigrants? Now, just to be clear here, we're just talking about their discussion of it, meaning to say that for the sake of argument, let's take their side and say, okay, well, let's just conflate all of them together. If you conflate illegal and illegal legal immigration, which you shouldn't, there is some data that they love to point to that say, well, yeah, they do commit less violent crime. But is that really the full picture here? Is that really encompassing everything? The actual problem is, in reality, we don't have enough data. The numbers that the libs love to quote from comes out of a Cato Institute study looking at criminal records in Texas from 2013 to 2022. Now. Okay, couple of questions. You may think Texas is Texas the hotbed of illegal immigration. I mean, sure, that's where many people cross the border because it's on the border, but do they actually end up staying there? Considering Texas's policies, generally speaking, no. So why is Texas the base point used here? Obviously the policies of Texas differ a ton from other states, especially those deep blue states and sanctuary areas where illegals love to flood to because nothing's gonna happen to them there. Believe it or not, why Texas is Because Texas is the only state that keeps comprehensive data relating to immigration status at the point of arrest. No other state actually does any of that. So while Texas might not be the best representative of what's going on in the entire country, it's the only one that actually keeps the data. And on top of that, there are a lot of other variables to account for. You may remember Texas Governor Greg Abbott, that shipping people all over the country who are here illegally, which by the way, was the best political stunt I think I've ever seen in my lifetime. And yes, it was a Political stunt, because clearly he's doing it to create optics. But at the same time it's proving a very, very salient point that look, hey, you want to claim be a sanctuary state and welcoming here, go ahead, let's, let's prove that concept. Go ahead and welcome all of these folks. Another variable is that Texas is fully cooperative with the federal government, which begs the question, if the data is based on convictions, what happens if the illegals get deported rather than go to trial? Now obviously you know your big offenses like homicide, they're going to go to trial and Texas is going to seek a conviction. But for minor offenses, which include, you know, simple assault, DUI, theft under $2,500, which I think is a big deal as well, there's actually a decent chance the illegal has been turned over to the feds for deportation before a conviction can be pursued or secured. And all of this assumes that it even matters, which it doesn't. Because any amount of crime committed by illegals who shouldn't be here in the first place is additional crime that wouldn't have happened if they weren't here. If illegals committed 10% of the crime that native born citizens commit, which they don't, that wouldn't be a good argument for ignoring immigration law. Hey, 10 people broke into my car, but only one stole something is not a good argument for not locking your doors. Basing a talking point on data that is highly questionable and doesn't include vast majorities of high crime areas is ridiculous, especially if the argument is only being used to justify breaking another law. Now, all of that being said, the question still remains, even if we're going to follow immigration law and allow legal immigration, does it matter where those people come from? Does it matter the cultural background of those who would legally immigrate to the United States of America? So, or really any first world western country, you know, as long as it legal, does the culture matter of the people coming in? And that's a question worth asking. And it's also one that should be decided by first world Western countries. I mean, it seems obvious that if a country was willing to accept people from different places around the world, it would want to have people from places most like their own country. That is to say that western countries with western values and first world countries with first world values, if they want immigration, they would want people who have similar cultural values and similar cultural backgrounds. Like if my wife and I were wanting to broaden our friend group, which we don't, by the way. This is not an invitation or an application. I'm just saying if we did, we'd obviously would look to find other couples probably that have kids similar to our age and who share our same core values. What we wouldn't do is seek out a 60 year old blue haired atheist Marxist to join our friend group. That's just not what we would do. In the same way, countries should want to attract people who are most likely to assimilate to the culture of that country rather than people who can't, or even worse, won't. This seems should be obvious, but it also seems statistically provable. Unfortunately, Europe, like much of the United States, has been experimenting with importing a bunch of people who don't share the cultural values and come from third world. As President Trump would say, assholes. Now just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with race, right? Everybody loves to make this a racial thing. And it has everything to do with culture. It has everything to do with first world countries versus third world countries and whether or not people from third world countries are better at assimilating than those from first world countries. Let's use Germany as an example and take a look at some of the crime statistics there. In 2023, which is the data that's most recent, there were a couple really interesting points in the arguments of first world countries versus third world countries. In Germany, 25,000 residents were are Algerian nationals. Now according to German police data, of those 25,000 Algerian nationals, 1729 were violent crime suspects. That leaves the Algerians in Germany with a violent crime suspect per capita rate of almost 7,000 per 100,000 or 7% of Algerian nationals are suspected criminals. Now Algeria is a third world country and the idea that they could just assimilate to life in a first world country is incredibly wrong. Even if it's just for this reason alone. Now also for reference here, Germany is also home to between 36,000 and 39,000 Japanese nationals. I just want to point out the fact here that both Japanese and Algerian nationals are different races than Germans. Right? Clearly. But Japan is a first world country and even though Japan would technically be technically be considered an eastern country, its value system is clearly more in line with Germany than Algeria's is. Of the almost 40,000 Japanese nationals in Germany, the suspects of violent crime are two by the way, not 2%, which would still be three times lower the Algerian rate. No, no, no. Two total. Which means in a first world country, the third world Algerians are almost 1400 times more likely to be a suspect of violent crime than the first world Japanese immigrants and Germany is just one example of all across Europe. But let's just focus on Germany for right now. First world immigrants to Germany from countries like the us, the uk, Japan, South Korea, their violent crime suspect rates are about the same as native born Germans. Now third world origin country immigrants from like Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Afghanistan, et cetera, etc have somewhere between 4 and 10 times higher the rates of being suspected violent criminals. And like I said, Germany is just one of many examples in Europe. Sweden, immigrants from western countries like the United States or the EU more broadly have about the same violent crime rates as native born citizens. Now non western countries like people from North Africa, the Middle East, Africa more broadly have a violent crime slash rape rate of two to five times higher than the native born or first world immigrants in Sweden. In the UK it's very similar. The Japanese immigrants, Chinese immigrants, first world countries, and whether or not we like China, first world countries, very low arrest rate, very low conviction. Right now the third worlders are still severely over represented in prisons in the uk. In the United States, Asian slash European immigrants like Japanese, Korean or just more broadly European Spain, Portugal have the lowest violent crime rates and lowest incarceration rates. Now those from third world countries, including those in Latin America, have substantially higher rates. Now the point here is one that the idea that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit less crime is fuzzy at best. When you account for the fact that the data is specifically from Texas, has very different policies from several of the sanctuary locations in the United States of America. What actually seems to matter is where those immigrants come from. Immigrants from third world countries who likely are severely overrepresented in the illegal category, often fail to assimilate. They commit crimes at a disproportionate level and likely it's because of the cultural norms from the places they came from. Immigrants from first world countries, regardless of their race, who I can guarantee have much lower likelihood of being illegal, seem to adjust and assimilate fairly easy. So even if you take out the illegal component, which you shouldn't, are all immigrants, no matter where they come from, all the same? No. And therefore as a western first world country, to the extent that we should allow immigrants, which is a big debate in and of itself, should we prioritize immigrants from first world countries? Obviously yes. And like I said, this should be obvious to anyone who does not want to see their first world home denigrated into a third world hellhole. All immigrants from all countries are not the same. It's crazy that we have to say this, but Even statistically speaking, it's just true. If you have any thoughts about this, would love to hear those. TPTPUSA.com is the email address. And remember, if those thoughts are, we'll just let you have those thoughts there. If you agree. If you're shocked by any of these statistics, which I'm hard pressed to find anybody who's watching this show and real America's voice that would be shocked by any of this, would, would love to hear. TPT@tpusa.com Coming up, there's lots of headlines going on around the political and news universe. We will get to several of those. Getting to the point. We'll be right back after the break. Don't go away.
- [15:56]
C
Foreign.
- [16:02]
A
Double standard. 0Americans killed in Puerto Vallarta. 0Americans killed in Cabo. However, last night there was a mass shooting in Austin, Texas. I lived in Austin for 16 years. Three people killed, 14 people injured. But is anybody canceling their flights to Austin or Texas or the United States?
- [16:22]
B
Nope.
- [16:23]
A
But hey, if there's some buses burnt or some cars burnt in one city in Mexico, hey, it's happening all over that massive country. Let's cancel all of our trips to Mexico. It's not safe. It's so ridiculous, man. It's so, it's so stupid, really. I don't know why we have that double standard as Americans, but it needs to stop.
- [16:43]
B
That. That is a, that is a room temperature IQ level test. Take that is a guy with a 75 IQ trying to make something into what he is now. Just for the record, I think I pulled this from a guy who's like a realtor in Cabo. And so, yeah, he's getting pit pretty hard right now because people are canceling their trips to Mexico. But obviously the argument is not to, you know, downplay the horrible shooting that happened in Austin by a what appears to be Islamist extremists, which is unfortunately not super uncommon. To compare that to the overall culture in Mexico where the homicide rate is like 400 times higher than the United States of America. No Americans died in Puerto Vallarta when the cartel, you know, attacked the entire city. So therefore it's the same thing. You know, one isolated incident, albeit very terrible, versus an entire cartel takeover of this one specific region because the police in Mexico had the audacity to try and enforce the law. And I think 20 police officers, law enforcement agents in Mexico died during that, which is mind blowing. You know, those are, those are the same. Not only are they the same, Mexico is actually safer. This, this is the thought process of somebody who's very, very stupid. I just, that's, I don't know how to, I don't know how else to put it nicely. Room temperature IQ take. All right. Well, lots of things happening around the world, interestingly enough, lots of things happening outside of Iran. I know we talked quite a bit about that yesterday. But there's lots of stuff going on. So in order to get to some of those things, it is time to get to the point. Get to the point. Get to the point. As we make our way around the the news headlines of the day, we start first in Texas. Lots of primaries happened in Texas last night. I'm curious. Tptpc.com Fewer surprise by any of the primaries going on here. But this from CNN regarding the contentious race between Congressman Jasmine Crockett, who also has a room temperature iq. Texas Supreme Court stops Dallas county from counting late votes over confusion after confusion over the new rules. Now this is hilarious to me. I know we're kind of doing this a little bit out of order, but one, Jasmine Crockett also made it into official business. But because this relates to this story, I want to play this clip from her right now. This is cut 6.
- [19:25]
A
Unfortunately, this is what Republicans like to do.
- [19:32]
B
And so they specifically targeted Dallas county. And I think we all know why. Yeah, we all, we all know why, Congressman Crockett, because the conservatives in the state of Texas really, really wanted to get you out of the race. Another room temperature I.Q. take, sweetheart, look, we all wanted you to win. Every single conservative around the country wanted Congresswoman Crockett to advance to the general election in Texas. Do you know how hilarious that would have been to see Congresswoman Crockett in a general election that has national implications? That would have been so much fun. Now we have to go against a guy who's seems reasonable. He's not, by the way, and I think he appears quite a bit in woke Wednesday instead of Congresswoman Crockett, you know, sitting there asking all of her questions, whatever it is that she's doing to try and campaign. That would have been so much fun for all of us. We all wanted her to win and she's blaming us for her loss. No, unfortunately you're just unpopular. The bottom line here is to get back to this headline, get back to the point there. She blames Dallas County. They were stopped counting. All the rules are different. Therefore what this is is not confusion over the rules. It is a conservative conspiracy to get me out. Even though we really, really wanted her to win. Changes in the election Day voting procedures in Dallas and Williamson counties required votes to cast ballots only at their assigned precincts rather than any countywide voting center. Which makes sense. Well, there's a lot of reasons why that makes sense, but makes sense led to widespread confusion and hundreds of voters being turned away from polling places during the primary elections. Now, the idea of being turned away is very charged language with lips. While they were turning people away from the voting places. No, they shut up to the wrong place. That's, that's not turning somebody away. That's like saying, well, you, you came to get, I don't know, copies of your most recent leaflet and you didn't go to Staples, you went to the lumber yard like they, they were. This customer was turned away. No, they went to the wrong place, you doofus. There's a little bit more in here, but that's basically the, the, the gist of it. That is the argument that one Congressman Crockett was making last night. The, the conservatives changed the rules. Now he just made it so that people should only vote in the place that they live in and be beyond that. She lost substantially more votes than she, that would have been accounted for in this. And even on top of that, like I said, we wanted her to win. Very, very silly. Next point that I'd like to get to, really interesting here. This is from the New York Times, which by the way, the staff on this show, myself included, reads the New York Times mostly to punish ourselves first sins. That's, it's a way, it's a self inflicted punishment for bad things that we've done in life. We have to read the New York Times. But from the New York Times, Iran's secret outreach highlights Trump's challenge. Now this is really interesting and again, because the idea is that the difficulty, not the difficulty, the acceptance or not, of these attacks are still yet to be seen. There's a bunch of polling going around saying, oh, the American people don't like this, but in reality, the American people will either like it because the outcome is beneficial and advantageous for the United States of America and expeditious and efficient and executed well, or none of those things will happen and therefore the American people won't like it. What I'm saying here is the American people's approval of this versus not is entirely contingent on the outcome of it. And like I said yesterday, I have full faith and trust that President Trump, the business guy in the White House, will be able to execute a plan expeditiously and efficiently. And therefore, hopefully I'm Hoping the outcome will be good just like it was in June. Despite this from the New York Times. Despite Iran's surviving leaders publicly refusing to negotiate with President Trump amid ongoing US And Israeli military strikes, operatives from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence have secretly reached out through third party countries, spy agencies, to the CIA one day after the attacks begun, offering to discuss terms for ending the conflict. Now, of course, the question here is then, yeah, okay, sure, you have to publicly say, well, we won't negotiate. If I were President Trump, and I would imagine he's doing this, I would say, yeah, we're gonna go ahead and take your public stance. We're not gonna negotiate behind the scenes. Because if the goal is to promote the people of Iran to take back their country and institute regime change that way, why would we back channel it? Doesn't make any sense. If I were President Trump, and again, I'm hoping he does this, he says, no, no, we're gonna take you guys at face value. If you're gonna tell the people of your country we will not negotiate and use that to try and hold onto the power that the regime has, uh, we don't want that. And so we're just going to take it at face value. Uh, it is going to be fascinating to see what goes on there. Um, obviously we want the best outcome and if the outcome is, is good, the American people will approve, despite whatever the polling numbers say. Here. Uh, this from Breitbart. Next point to get to. Tampons in the company's men's bathroom have helped derail Netflix's bid to buy Warner Brothers. This is fascinating to me because of all of the hills to die on this, this is, this is it. Breitbart says Netflix attempted to acquire Warner Brothers Discovery and invited conservative congressmen to their headquarters to convince them the company was not overly left wing or woke in in order to gain political support for the deal. Now, obviously, massive deal, you've got all of the monopoly rules going on here. Whether or not this makes, you know, Netflix too big of a company or whoever it is that is, ends up buying Warner Brothers, whether it's Paramount or Netflix, does that, do antitrust rules apply here? So they invited some conservative congressmen to say, hey, look at, we're, we're not, you know, we're not woke. We, we should be have approved this deal. It won't make us a monopoly, all of these things. Uh, during the visit, though, makers discovered that there were tampons in the men's bathroom. Went, yeah, not, not doing a great job at convincing us that you're not absurdly woke. Now, obviously there are other factors involved here, antitrust being one of them, being a monopoly, huge, huge problem. But at the very least, wouldn't this be a very, very easy and simple problem to solve? Now, just, just for the record, the update on this story is that Netflix effectively has pulled out, which means that Paramount, Paramount plus who is headed up by the Edison Ellison family, who I don't know if they're out the Oracle, I don't know if they're outspoken Trump people, but Larry Ellison has allowed Trump to have fundraisers at his properties and bottom line looks to be a more company more in line with the correct way of thinking, if you want to look at it that way. So ultimately Netflix has effectively pulled out of this deal and it looks like Warner Brothers Discovery is going to go to Paramount, which I don't know, maybe minimal incremental win for conservatives more broadly overall. So that I think is fantastic. We have time for a couple more. Yeah. All right, getting to the point here. Source Newsmax the US government shove three shut shed take to the US government shed 386,826 workers in Trump's first year back. Now it is fascinating to me the US federal government reduce its workforce by 386,000 employees during President Trump's first year. The substantial job cut came a lot in the public sector. What is fascinating to me is the different perspectives that people have on this. Obviously conservatives. I look at this and go sweet, fantastic. We are already spending an exorbitant amount of money on people who don't do anything. And therefore the business guy coming in to make all of this more efficient is fantastic. Now on the other side, libs go, they'll take one instance and go this mother of nine who I don't know, some sob story and not to say that it's not sad but was fired from her job that she didn't do because of evil, evil conservatives who want to make sure their tax dollars are put to good use. And that's the different perspectives that people have. I look at it and go awesome. Let let's you could probably cut 50% of the federal government and nobody would notice. Just it wouldn't have a tangible effect on anybody's life. But then, you know, people like the New York Times will pick this out and go can you imagine being jobless? Now of course they could go find other jobs and in the private sector and make money that way. But I can you imagine how evil and cruel so there's that the last point to get to and I don't even entirely know why this was even on the table. But this from the California Post. Texas DA says that no charges for the hero cop who stopped the deadly bar shooting amid criticisms of mandatory no charges will be filed for the cop who stopped a bar shooting in the midst of criticisms from the mandatory grand jury review. This is Travis County DA has said Jose Garza, by the way, not a not a good dude. I like. I've known a little bit. We did a full documentary with the Daily Caller a couple years ago about the deep blue das. And Jose Garza was one of those we highlighted in Austin, Texas. Actually went to Austin. But he even as a progressive announced that his office will not seek any charges against the Austin police officer who fatally shot the gunman who killed three people. Injured 13 on I think is that number. Oh no. It's for including him injured 13 in the mass shooting in Austin early Sunday morning. Despite the progressiveness of that guy. I think this is good. I am for progressives who know their outspoken progressives like DA Jose Garza tacking back to sanity now. I do. I think we should get rid of them out of office. Yes. But also I don't mind if they they occasionally come to sanity. Right. Broken clocks. Right. Twice a day is not necessarily a bad thing. So ultimately good. Glad that that hero who probably saved a bunch of lives is not going to have the burden of having to deal with this. That is the get to the point. We got to a lot of points there. Fun, good times, a lot of context, nuance, things that are going on in the world today outside of even around even though we talked about Iran just a little bit coming up next, we're talking about official business because remember official when people at official capacities are saying things that makes it our business and therefore official business. That coming up next. Tptpsa.com if you have any thoughts about what's going on on any of the points, what do you think about the United States getting rid of almost 4,400,000 federal employees? Let us know your thoughts. TPTP USA.com we will be right back after the break. Don't go away.
- [31:56]
A
The message to Iran.
- [31:57]
B
Don't Mr. President, to Iran in this moment.
- [32:02]
A
Don't.
- [32:04]
B
I'm gonna bomb the out of them. It's true. I don't care. I don't care. Okay, look, we have differing opinions across you know, the conservative spectrum on whether or not helping out with the strikes in Iran was a good thing or Bad thing? Is it in America's best interest? Do we want boots? A lot of different opinions, but I think the one thing that all conservatives can be together on is the last thing you want is the feeble, limp wristed, no backbone, Don't, Don't. Or what? I have this problem with my toddler. I love her, but if she's doing something that I don't want her to do, you know what? I can't say, hey, don't do that. Because what if she doesn't listen? It has to be, don't do that. Well, or else this will happen. This sort of punishment will happen. You, you can't just sit there and go, don't. Which I think is a pretty good Biden impersonation, by the way. At the very least, we can all agree that you need to have a strong presence to be the head, the commander in chief of the world's greatest military. Uh, and whether or not you like Iran, the, the, the, the strikes on Iran, whether or not you like any of that is, is not irrelevant. But the, the broader, bigger point is that I'm so glad that we have just somebody that isn't a putz, for lack of a better term. All right, uh, it's time for my favorite part of the day. It is anytime anybody in an official capacity says anything, whether they are elected or they're a government bureaucrat appointed by those elected, anytime they say anything, it is official business. Now, official businesses is, yes, this is official business. And also some of the things that we highlight here are objectively funny. They just are. One of which is anytime the governor of Minnesota talks, I think we can all just giggle with glee. Now, yes, he's a bad person and he should be removed from office by way of election, but also possibly even charged from, you know, fraud. But at the very least, we can, we can still continue to laugh at him. And that laughter that we should give to him is provided specifically by one Nancy Mace here in this clip. Cut 7. What is a woman?
- [34:41]
A
Have you learned that lesson?
- [34:42]
B
Do you know what a woman is?
- [34:44]
A
I'm the governor of Minnesota Congress. Do you know what a woman is?
- [34:47]
B
Here to be your prop for your obsession. So if you taught middle school, if
- [34:49]
A
you can't define what a woman is,
- [34:51]
B
you certainly can't define what fraud is. If you can't even define what a woman is, you can't define fraud. I think I have some disagreements with Nancy Mason on a bunch of different things, but I think this is a very point, poignant and salient question. That needs to be asked of libs continually. You nothing really matters if you can't identify objective reality right like that. That, that is the fact that libs are continuing to die on this hill blows my freaking mind. And be honest with you, politically speaking, I'm here for it. I would love to nothing more than every single top lib to continue to say yes men can play in women's sports. Now obviously I don't think that should happen and we should institute rules against that. But if they keep saying it, that means they will lose more because the average American does not believe that. And if they keep saying it, they will lose and therefore we will win. Right on tampon Tim, thank you, thank you so much. Continuing on with official business. And I think this guy will make some, some other news here later on in the show as it is woke Wednesday. Here is now the Democrat lib Texas senate nominee for the senate in Texas. He's a state representative though, so that's why it makes it official business. Here's him. Just, just, just, just watch and we will discuss.
- [36:26]
C
But I say all this in terms of, in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable. I mean go back and read this in, in, in Luke, I mean the, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do. And she says if it is God's will, let it be done. Let it be, let it happen. So to me that is a, an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that, that, that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And, and to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that's why I, that's how I come down on that side of the issue.
- [37:25]
B
Now several things here and we won't, we won't spend too much time on this and obviously we've got other stuff to get to and this could end up being a three hour podcast on this. First things first. That's not true. Just. Okay, just bottom line, that's not true. Right? You might as well have said and Jesus proclaimed among the mount that all trans people are better than all normal people, that he might as well have just said that because that's about as true as the thing he's saying. Now even if that were the case. Right. Even if there was like a, you know, discussion back and forth. Yeah, I'm not really sure about this. Even if that was the case. Okay, so. So then you get to kill babies. How does that rationale work out? Oh, because there is a, like. Because there is a back and forth which didn't happen. Therefore this, therefore abortion is fine. I go back and forth on how we should treat this as a, as a, A thing, because obviously he's a serious candidate. He's the Democrat nominee for Senate in the state of Texas. He could be a US Senator if several things go terribly wrong, but that actually could be a reality. And if that's the case, you know, do you treat this seriously as a theological argument or do you laugh at the guy? Personally, I choose the latter. I think that's the best approach to stuff like this. You just, just laugh, make fun of him. It's just like, dude, you're an idiot. Like, there's really no response necessary for something that stupid. The problem though is then you also have the people, unfortunately, that will buy this sort of stuff. My guess is probably not, because if he's going after like the Christian vote, generally speaking, Christians will know how ridiculous that is. And the only people that this would appeal to are the people who aren't Christians, who he probably already has their votes. So I don't necessarily think it's going to be a great political point here, but very, very silly, very stupid. I am curious to see if he might be more fun to make fun of than Jasmine Crockett. I just have to ask myself that is, are we getting better or worse with him instead of Jasmine Crockett going forward? It's a question I ask myself that's about all the time we have for right now. We got to get to Woke Wednesday. I want to make sure we leave time for that and as well as your emails, which can be sent to tptbusa. The email address in case you would like to send any thoughts, comments, concerns, criticisms. How should we treat. I actually genuinely curious. Do we. Do we like, combat this as if it were a serious argument, or do we just laugh at him and make fun of him until he goes away? Because hopefully that's what will happen if and when he loses in the general election. TBTVSA.com we'll be right back after break away. Foreign.
- [40:38]
A
Speaking Chinese When I'm hitting it like
- [40:40]
B
too hard, it feels a little racially insensitive.
- [40:43]
A
Am I the only one?
- [40:44]
B
No. When I'm like really cooking the tonal stuff, I Get. I get worried that I'm hitting it too much, you know, I mean, like, get used to it. It's kind of like when you go to Japan, I want to be like, how House. Like, I want to, you know, but if you listen to a Chinese person say, they'll be.
- [40:59]
C
I know.
- [41:00]
A
And I'm.
- [41:00]
B
I'm easing into it. Yeah, you're gonna get used. You know, I mean, I'm hitting that.
- [41:05]
C
Yeah, you're.
- [41:08]
B
I have been asking this question about myself for a very long time. When I go to a Mexican restaurant, even, like, look, pick the most whitewashed Mexican American restaurant, Chipotle. Like, how do people who speak Spanish say taco? Like, if I want tacos from Chipotle or, you know, any other fine Mexican establishment like Taco Bell, Del Taco, any of these other companies. What are you supposed to say? Am I supposed to say the traditional pronunciation in Spanish? Am I supposed to order? I. I'd like to get one carne asada taco, or am I supposed to. Do I whitewash it? I don't know. I. This is a very. I know this sounds silly. This is a very interesting point that this guy is bringing up. Is it. Is it more appropriate to use the whole accent or is it appropriate to go, this is not my language. This is just what we call it here and say the. Let me get a carne asada taco. Or do you say carne asada taco, taco burrito. Which. Burritos aren't Mexican, by the way. That's actually an American invention that we made of Mexican ingredients. So there is no, I guess, traditional Hispanic Spanish pronunciation of burrito, because that's our thing. Yeah, very good point. Very good question. One that we will have to decide at some point. Other things to decide is get whether or not to get to. It is Woke Wednesday, As we've mentioned before, One James Talarico. How do you pronounce that? Is it. Is. Is. Is it Talarico or is it Talarico? I don't know. I have no. I have no idea. But coming in for another kicking, is James Talarico giving another talk at what is allegedly a church? Although not necessarily sure of that. I have not seen this clip. This is a cold watch for both of us, but we will. We will view it and discuss on Today it is Woke Wednesday. Here's Jaime, the progressive from Texas.
- [43:22]
C
Before we go further, I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care too. Defending trans Texans is something we have to do every day at the state capitol and you better believe I'll be giving sermons on that too. So when I use the word woman, it should not be understood as an exhaustive term, but rather as a, as a lens through which to understand, examine and interrogate patriarchy, similar to how we specify anti black racism when.
- [43:53]
B
Okay, so. Loving someone in the way that Christ would encourage you to is not the same as affirming their delusions, right? Like we have to agree on this. Like, just because somebody says there's something my. My toddler really likes parrots. Big fan of parrots. Parrots fly. If my toddler says I'm a parrot, I'm not going to strap wings to her and push her off the second story of our house. That's ridiculous. Affirming her delusion and. Delusion, yeah, two and a half year old, she's, you know, it's not a delusion necessarily. It's just that's how two and a half year olds think. But affirming that thought and saying, yes, we have to defend my toddler's ability to be a parrot does not help her in any way. It actually hinders her greatly. And then to say it under the guise of, well, this is what Christians should do. This is Christianity. Peak Christianity is defending delusions. No, it is, you know, being kind and loving people, even those who are in much greater need. Yes, but loving somebody does not mean affirming a delusion that they have in. You know, if you really want to get down to it, that's actually probably hurting them substantially more than it is helping them affirming a delusion. I don't know. We. Yeah, it's woke Wednesday. Let's get to that. Email will be a little bit short today. TPT tbc.com if you want to be included. But let's get to this next one. Also from
- [45:38]
C
Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages. So you and I could sit here and debate what to call this cup, and you could call it a cup in English, you'd call it something else in Spanish and French. But we are all talking about the same reality. I believe Jesus Christ reveals that reality to us. But I also think that other traditions reveal that reality in their own ways with their own symbol structures. And I've learned more about my tradition by learning more about Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. And so I see these beautiful faith traditions as circling the same truth about the universe, about the cosmos. And that truth is inherently a mystery.
- [46:20]
B
Okay, at the risk of going on way too long, and I do want to leave some time for our mailbag. And although at this point it might not get too much, this is my first time watching this clip as well. But one. This actually makes it. Maybe we should take this guy a little bit more seriously because about half of that makes sense. C.S. lewis talked about the Dow, which is everybody, a lot of the cultures, the thinkers in that culture have recognized what reality is. There's an objective truth throughout that reality. But what Jaime, Tara Lyclo is saying here is that, okay, well, so we can recognize this reality. Unfortunately, libs don't. But that's beside the point right now. We can all recognize this reality, but certain other religions also have the same way of interacting with that reality. See, that's the point. That's not true. Yes, other cultures, other civilizations, other religions can recognize what's in front of your face, but it's how you interact with what's in front of your face is the massive difference. So to say Christianity basically the same as Islam, you know, it's the same, same sort of thing is incredibly not true. Now that's actually, this is actually a very interesting clip because that's, this is what makes a guy like him dangerous. Is this like half truth of like, wow, other, other civilizations cultures can recognize what reality is. Okay, that's true. But how we interact with that reality is fundamentally different. And that is why some cultures and religions are, are better than others. This has been Woke Wednesday a little bit deeper of a woke Wednesday. I think we would have wanted to get to necessarily, but Mailbag is up next in the very, very short minutes. Don't go away. We'll be right back after this. All right, usually, here's where we have a comeback clip that is usually kind of funny, but is of Gavin Newsom and maybe we will talk about it a little bit later. I did want to get to some mailbag because we only have like two minutes here. First, a joke from Phil. Phil, I'm just going to go and say this. I do not condone this type of humor. This is not something that I would find funny. But you know, because it was sent and because the standard here is gross, disgusting and vile, I figured I might as well bring it to the audience. Phil says this. Did you know there are not any Walmarts in Iran, only targets? That's not funny, Phil. It's, it's, it's kind of funny. Just kidding, Robert. Just kidding in the fact that it's not funny. That's a very funny joke Robert wrote in about Jimmy Carter's role in Iran back in 1979, especially the failure to resolve the hostage situation. I think basically the point he's making, very good point, Robert, is that, yeah, you want somebody with some backbone. When the Ayatollah took over in the 70s, it was kind of like it should be fine now. Okay, fair point. And Charlie would make this point, too. While the US Was kind of the one that took out the or put place, it put the Shah back in place. I think it was the Mosaic death that they had. And then the United States and CIA kind of maneuvered that out of the question. So maybe there was some apprehension because of the. The things we already initiated, that that's why there was a little backbone and pushback. But bottom line here, I think it reverts back to the clip that we played earlier. President Trump. At least we have some freaking backbone nowadays that we didn't have before. Um, that is all the time we have for TPT. TPC.com we do read the majority of those emails, whether or not we get to them in the show. Uh, we'll see you tomorrow. Same time, same place. God bless America.
- [50:04]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.