← Surrounded
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
I currently live in Kentwood, Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Vicksburg, Michigan. And I'm an undecided voter. I am an undecided voter. I'm an undecided voter. What I want voters like you to hear is anything but. A vote for her works out to being a vote for him right now. Yeah. Because this is a swing state. It could come down to, like, a couple votes per precinct, and one of those might be you. Everyone take a moment. Cast your vote. I wasn't going to vote at all, actually, but after hearing him, I'm pretty confident in my decision. Now, before I was undecided, at the conclusion of this event, I did mark down from Jubilee Media. This is surrounded where one brave soul faces a room full of disagreers. Let's get into it. I'm Pete Buttigieg. I'm a father of two, a veteran of the Afghanistan war. I served as mayor of my hometown in Indiana, and now I live in Michigan. And today I'm surrounded by 25 undecided voters. My first claim is Donald Trump is only running for president for himself. Kamala Harris is running for president to make your life better. Morning. Hello. Good morning. Hi. So I agree with you. I think that Trump is very selfish. I don't think he's doing it for the people. He wants to do it for his own personal needs or not really sure why, but I do agree. Kamela is a prosecutor, so she tries to do it by book. And she wants to bring justice, she wants to bring equality, and she wants to do it for others. It's not really about her. So I think that with Kamala, she's really good, but there's things that have happened in the US that, that it's like bringing really big conversations due to the fact of some people not agreeing with things that she's allowed. I feel like there's a different way on how we can do things just because the US is in debt. 35.7 trillion. I just feel like the way that we make decisions when it comes to money and economy, every American in the US should agree with sometimes decisions are made and money is being spread out in different countries or in different ways. And the people from the US we're still in debt, we're still struggling, we're still paying those taxes. So I just feel like we should meet each other in the middle somewhere, you know, because our opinion really matters. With Trump, though, he never cared, so. So I feel like kind of what I'm hearing you say is you agree that Trump is in it for himself and that she's in it to make things better. But that still might not decide how an election ought to go because of frustration about how things are right now. Is that fair? I think part of what I would say. I don't disagree that we got a lot of problems right now. Right. I think part of what I would say is that every election then is about what happens next. Right. And it's not that anybody's got an easy fix for some of the problems you just named. They're huge problems. That's why they're still there. Otherwise, somebody would have fixed them. But the case I want to make is that she's going to be better able to address them, even if there's no magic wand on some of this stuff, because she cares more and because she has more specific ideas that I think are going to help you take the debt. Let's be honest. The debt has grown under Democratic presidents and under Republican presidents. Right. But I would also say the biggest reason the debt grew under Donald Trump was that he was using the debt to pay for tax cuts for the rich. And that's different from something that's the equivalent of taking out a loan for a business or mortgage, which is what I feel was done on something like infrastructure investment. Right. So I think the most important thing now is okay. Yeah. Nobody's saying everything's perfect. Far from it. But. But then what? Like what happens next. Right. And that's where I feel like the choice is so clear right now. Okay. If that makes sense. Yes, yes, I agree. If someone else wants an opinion. Thank you. I'm Sailor. Nice to meet you. So you said that you're. You said the claim that Kamala's running because she wants to make things better, and Donald Trump says that or that he's just running because he is running for himself. I think anybody that's in politics is doing it for themselves. If we're being honest. Anybody that's in government, anybody who's doing this, they have a background where they're passionate about something. But if we're being real, if you're running for president and you've been in politics this long, it is really, truly about yourself, the issue. Yeah, I mean, I get what you're saying, and I don't think anybody who's running for president is without ambition. Yeah, of course. But I don't think that means that your core motivation is that it's about you. I think that people like you said get into politics or public service out of idealistic reasons. You hope at Least some of the time. But I think there's two very different paths in the two different candidates. Right. So you look at him, this is obviously not somebody who, you know, felt motivated to join the school board in his local community, wound up running for mayor, you know, and then ran for president. This is somebody who ran for president, in my view, basically as a branding exercise, and then won with her. Like, she did come up as a line prosecutor. Right. And served as a prosecutor, served as ag, served as a senator, served as vp. I get what you're saying. Like anybody in politics, there's. There's ego there. Right? Yeah. I'm not denying that. Yeah. What I'm saying is I really feel that the things she's putting forward are more about solving our problems than. Than the things he's putting forward. Yeah. So I will say I'm not someone who would vote for Trump. I'm actually third party. I see. So Jill Stein, for example, I'm a hardcore environmentalist, conservationist. I'm an amateur entomologist, love bugs, but very big into the environment. I was a part of the Climate Corps in Michigan, so I know a lot about the environment. And I understand that Kamala has a lot of initiatives that she's put forth. I mean, during the Biden Harris administration, you had the passing of the American Climate Corps, which is fantastic because I was a part of that. Oh, it's great. However. Yes, I did. Yeah. So, but the problem that I see is I feel like I'm very against the two party system. It's because I used to be a part of it. I was a hardcore Democrat for a very long time. I worked on Alyssa Slotkin's campaign. I did a bunch of work. So I have lost a lot of faith in our two party system. And I want to see something different because when we have something where it's insanity, you have the same thing over and over and over again. But here's what I want to try to convince you of. Right? Yes. Neither party is perfect. You've probably been let down by your party from time to time. All of us have. However, one of two things is about to happen. Right. Jill Stein is not going to become President of the United States. Donald Trump is or Kamala Harris is. Right. And all of the things from an environmental perspective that were just achieved, these are not like little differences between center left and center. Right. Right. You got one set that's saying climate change is a hoax. It's not even a thing. Yeah. I'm not, I'm not in support of Trump at all. This is completely against. If he gets back in, then the Inflation Reduction act will be demolished. That is right. So every piece of progress. And if you're saying it's not enough, there's more to do. I'm not totally disagreeing. Yeah. What I'm saying is we've come this far. Like we have right here in Michigan. Right. We have factories rising out of the ground, making EV batteries that are going to power a different kind of future. But what it's always talking EVs and solar panels. What are we doing to protect our lakes in Michigan, we have 22% of the world's fresh water. We have pipeline five going through the straits of the Mackinac island, under Mackinac Bridge, underneath the. Okay, but on that water. Right. Again, like she's going to enforce the Clean Water Act. He's going to tear it up. Look at what he did to the EPA the first time. And that's when there was still mentioning stuff about Trump. But I'm trying to tell you I'm in between Jill and Kamala. And this is the thing. Jill is fantastic. She's an activist. She has been doing this for years. And I understand Kamala has also gone against BP when it comes to, you know, anything like that. But I just have a feeling that I would rather change up. I want to change up the situation that we have in America. If you look at Norman Rockwell's painting, it's called the Great debate. That was 40 plus years ago. It's the same thing. It's happening now. 40 years ago, same thing. And we're doing the same thing now. Why do we want to continue the system and not try to change it up for third party? But you really feel like nothing's gotten better in 40 years. I get that everything we want to have happen hasn't happened. Yeah. But surely things have gotten better. I don't want history to repeat itself. For sure. Thank you. Sorry. How you doing? Same here. You do? Good. So I want to play devil's advocate a little bit. Just some poker chick. Your brain a little bit. When you are looking at things such as, I believe multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump, looking at things where he's walked into a position where he has experienced really awful media conversation about him putting him in horrible lights, comparing him to Hitler, et cetera, et cetera, you know, justified or not, either way, it's happening. And I would say things more on that line when it's. He's. I would say he's made his life harder by running not only once, but losing and then running again. He's been in politics for multiple years now. How do you look at that and then determine he's in it for himself when I would say he's made his life a lot more difficult? He's a billionaire. He could be sitting up playing. So, yeah, look, I've heard this argument. Here's what I'd say. First of all, he's made a lot of money off of the presidential campaign. He hasn't just made money by being in business. Matter of fact, if you took the money he inherited and just put it in the stock market, it would be about the same. So most of what he's done in his business career has been destroying shareholder value. But leaving that aside, once he became president, there was a ton of self dealing going on, right? Folks staying at his hotels who might have had interests before the government that he was running, members of his family cutting deals, including overseas, that they probably wouldn't have been able to cut if they weren't related to the President of the United States. Now, I get where you're saying that anybody who gets into public service, anybody who puts their name online, anybody who runs for president, takes on a lot of negativity that comes with that. At a different level, I've experienced the negativity of being in public service. My husband and I worry sometimes about our family just because we're out there and nobody should have to experience that. And one thing we should be able unequivocally to agree on is that nobody should ever accept political violence, no matter who it's directed at and no matter why. It is categorically unacceptable, wrong and disgusting for there to have been an attempt on the life of any political candidate, including him. Right. I still think, though, that he didn't do this because he woke up and thought, I want to make some sacrifices to help other people and that's why I'm going to run for President. I just don't believe that. But either way, what I do know. What's that? Can I ask why I don't believe that? Because I've never seen him express much interest or concern for others. Like recently he got a question about childcare. He went on this like two or three minute rant and the one thing he didn't mention was childcare because I don't think he thinks about it that much. It's other people's problems, right? He's interested in his own, mostly his own past. This whole thing about like retribution and revenge. I don't know him. I've never been in a room with him. And I've at least met most prominent Republicans in the Senate because of my job. I will admit that I don't know him personally, but a lot of people I do who do know him say that he's in it for himself, including his own chief of staff. It's not like some intern. Right. His own chief of staff has some of the most blistering and disturbing things to say about him. But also, I don't know him. I do know her, and it says a lot, I think, about somebody, if you, you come to respect and admire somebody while you're competing against each other. Like, I got to know her when, like 20 of us were running for president. We're all campaigning, jostling, trying to, each of us trying to get the edge. And if I have one contends with what you're saying, that sparks a thought in me is, do you think you have a little bit of an innate bias because you know her well or somewhat well? Well, I'm definitely on her side, like, obviously. Right. That's why I'm here. Yeah. But there are people in my party who I don't think of as kind of the ideal public servant. Right. Just because we're in the same. Don't get me in trouble. I'm kidding. But I'll say, just because you're a Democrat, that doesn't mean I'm giving everybody the benefit of the doubt. But she's somebody who, when I see her, when I've been in meetings with her, the questions she's usually asking are, what's this going to mean to people? For example, she's the kind of person who would say, here's what I'm leaning toward doing. Tell me the best argument against doing that. And I just can't picture him ever doing that. And that's what I want, especially with some of these fierce, wicked challenges coming our way as a country. Her mentality is what I would want to see in the Situation Room in the Oval Office in just behind the mic, talking to the American people about what to do next. I think as an average American voter, I like, I personally have a lot of issue seeing those things that you are seeing as someone who maybe knows her better than, of course, the average American, because I see interviews or different questions that she has, and I feel like she, like, I've seen this called word salad a little bit. I don't feel like I can get an impression of what she really is believing. And that makes it really Difficult for me to view her beliefs and what she would enact as her policies and be like, yeah, I back that, because I honest to God, don't know what they are. Well, let me help with that. All right. So a big part of her focus is making sure that life in America is more affordable. It's why she's pushing for a child tax credit. It's why she wants the tax code to be fair versus his tax cuts for the rich plan. He did it before, so pretty confident he's going to do it again. On issues like climate, which we've already talked about a little bit this morning, she's somebody who wants to make sure that we expand the work we've done to deal with carbon pollution, on access to abortion. She wants to make sure that women have that right restored. Right. He took it away. She wants to bring it back through legislation. I. I think. Nice talking. So, as someone who says they know Kamala's character probably more than any of us here, my sort of criticism of the campaign thus far, and it's not. It's kind of due to the circumstance of Biden dropping out so soon next to the race. I don't think I've been convinced enough by the campaign. I don't think I've had, like, they've said word salad stuff like that. In terms of policy, I'm not really too sure. And I can't. I can say this is not just me because the polling numbers didn't really change after the debate. I don't think either candidate did a good job at the debate. I think it was one of the worst debates we've ever watched. Ugly. So just in your eyes. What. So I feel differently. Maybe that's. That's to be expected. I felt like she won the debate for this reason. I felt he was mostly talking about himself or people he wanted to demonize. Right. The whole thing, like they're eating cats or whatever. Right. I mean, that was his, like, his big thing. And she was talking about what she would do to solve problems. Now, look, with all of the glare of a presidential campaign, it is hard for somebody's, like, full character to come through. And it's hard to get that out in some of these formats. But I actually thought the debate, obviously it hit you a little differently. But I thought the debate, you could really tell the difference between what he cares about, mainly him, and what she cares about, which is the stuff she wants to do. Her whole point about how he's going to come in with an enemies list. She's going to come in with a to do list. Right. Is that somewhat convincing to you? Yeah, that's fair. I'm not. I would probably never vote for Trump. It would be more like she said, between Kamala and Please, please. Because a big part of what we're trying to do is reach out to folks who aren't going to vote for him, but they're deciding whether or not to vote. What I want voters like you to hear is anything but a vote for her works out to being a vote for him. Right now because this is a swing state. You live in Michigan, right? Yep. In a few days, either it's going to be him or it's going to be her. And it could come down to like a couple votes for precinct and one of those might be you. It could be. I just, as a principal rule, don't really agree with the two party system and I would do anything to completely demolish it. I think if the founding Fathers saw what we had today, they would riot with their muskets out of the grave. I mean, they didn't want parties. It's true. Right. Like you read a lot of the early statements of the founders, they were like, watch out for this. Of course. And here we are. Thank you so much. Good talking. Jubilee's mission is to be a home for empathy and human connection. As such, we've been in touch with members from both political parties and have standing invitations to Vice President Harris, President Trump and other political representatives. If you're a notable figure and would like to participate in surrounded, please contact us using the form below. My next claim is the economy, especially here in the industrial Midwest, will be better off under Kamala Harris. Thank you, Vice President. We hear a lot about Vice President Harris's plan for her economy and it has to do with, with housing, it has to do with tax credits, but we don't hear about what it has to do with manufacturing. Whereas when we hear President Trump's talk, even though I don't necessarily agree with tariffs and things along those lines, he does talk about manufacturing. And in states such as ours, that relies heavily on that. And as you alluded to earlier, with EV credits and, or EV battery manufacturing, things like that, how do we see an increase in that manufacturing in our state? We haven't heard anything about that. So I'll grant you that he talks a good game about manufacturing. He brings it up everywhere he goes. I'd like for us to do even more of that on our side, but I would start by saying results. Right. So people sometimes are I think are asked to forget about this. But there was a manufacturing recession under Trump even before COVID and obviously we all know what happened with COVID Right now there's more investment in putting up factories in the United States than any time in the last 50 years. There's never been a time. Hopefully you've seen it. Where do you live in the states? Just north of here. Okay. So, you know, definitely in the. In the middle part of the state. Some of it's around EVs, some of it's more traditional manufacturing, some of it's like clean tech, some of it's stuff like data centers. But I've never seen a moment when you had this many, first of all, just people in the building trades building the factories, and then people starting to get jobs in the factories. I grew up in the city that was the hometown for Studebaker, and studebaker died in 1963. And even though that was before I was born, you could feel it the whole time I was growing up. When I became mayor there in 2012, we were still 50 years later, and we were still kind of licking our wounds from that. And now there's investments going on in that county creating manufacturing jobs like we haven't seen again, like, since. Since the Kennedy years. I also think it's really important to look at kind of who's credible on this. Right. So I really trust the United Auto Workers, especially because they did not always give Democrats the easiest time. Remember how, like, they really made first Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris, like, work for that endorsement, and they're saying, yeah, vote for her, not for him. Right. And I get the endorsement. I mean, not to interrupt, I get the endorsement, but where is that manufacturing plan coming from? And we haven't heard anything about, oh, this is, this is what I want to do. You know, I want to invest in X to make the United States be the pillar of, of this, or I want to invest in Michigan so that, you know, they can do. Yeah, we haven't heard any specifics. And granted, she's 100 and some days into a campaign that I feel like she was drafted into versus wanted to be into, but with specifics. And I would argue it's a little harder for some of the. Her manufacturing vision to get across because every day we're arguing about, like, McDonald's or Taylor Swift or like, whatever he's decided to change the subject to. Right. So the phenomenon you're describing is partly not. It's not us not wanting to get a manufacturing message out It's a lot of noise that we're up against. But, you know, part of how it works is a tax structure that encourages investment. It's making sure that we do double down on making, on having stuff like EVs made in places like Michigan, not in places like China. Right. So whether you choose to buy one or not, and that's your choice, I hope you buy one that's, that's made by, you know, American auto workers and not one made overseas. And that could totally depend on whether the policies that were in the, the inflation Reduction act get destroyed or not. Right. There's a lot of things in there, like the tax credits that bring the manufacturing back onto American soil. That's part of why the manufacturing is happening right now. Thank you very much. I think we're looking at the economy kind of on a surface level of a lot of things like, you know, all these jobs and stuff like that. Right. But where are they going? Why are we having problems? It's because, I think it's because people can't afford anything. You know, we're suffering. A lot of people are suffering. You can't have a strong economy if everybody can't afford things. You know, people spend when they have the ability to. Right. So instead of like tax breaks are great and all, but they don't solve the problem. The problem is soft monopolies everywhere. You know, they have the ability to like stranglehold people. They don't want to pay people, they're never going to pay people if they can get away with it. We don't have certain things in place that allow people to get enough money to actually survive. And then final kind of point is, you know, we can talk about military spending and all that, but it's not so much about the actual equipment. Obviously we need defense. But what about, like, I think somebody said, like, we're spending $90,000 on a bag of washers, you know, or like the high cost of the equipment to make these things is excessive. Who's paying for that? It's us. Yeah. You know, why is that happening? Why is nobody talking about this? Why aren't we going after these soft monopolies? Yeah. So I think part of what's really important that you're talking about is that there's more to the economy than like the stock market. Right. I would point out the stock market's at an all time high because Trump said that if we won, it would crash. But regardless, that's not what decides whether you're living well or not. Right. And Even if I'm pointing to statistics around the number of jobs or growth, like that doesn't mean much if you don't feel like things are affordable. The case I want to make is that there's a choice in front of us about what's going to make things more affordable. So in his case, it's tariffs. And tariffs will add to the price of things that we buy. Tariffs have a place up to a point, but the level he's talking about, they estimate it'll be about 4,000 bucks more per family to buy the things that we all buy per year if those plans go through. What she's talking about is trying to make things more affordable with, for example, a child tax credit or measures to get more housing built. Because part of why housing is. Is unaffordable is there's not enough supply. Right. There's just not enough houses and housing units that have been built. Right. So let's do something about it. Let's get more of them built. Right. I think that's the focus. And then, you know, what's happening with the tax code. I totally agree. I don't know the specific example you're describing, but totally agree. We've got to get good taxpayer value, like bang for our buck. Right. And that doesn't always happen in contracting. It's something that I care about a lot, but I'd also say, like, you know, prices going up. Okay. All right. Thanks. Nice. Same here. Hi. So you said that the economy will be better under Harris and that Trump is basically working for people like him. And I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I'm curious to know exactly what a president can do with their powers to affect the economy. Because, I mean, we saw under President Obama, he tried to do a lot of stuff and Congress said no. Yes. And I don't see the general makeup of Congress changing that much in this election. So what's the plan to actually affect change if 50 people who have a lot of power are standing against her? Yeah, for very good reasons. The President doesn't get to just go and do everything they want, although I think he wants to if he gets the chance. It's a whole. This whole dictator on day one thing. I do believe it's possible to get things done on a bipartisan basis in Congress, even this Congress. I know that sounds naive, but think about it. That's how the infrastructure bill got done, Right. The Biden Harris administration got a bunch of Republican, not most of them, but a few Republicans to work with Democrats to make it Happen, not so much on the Inflation Reduction Act. Right. That got. Actually she had to cast the tiebreaker in a split Senate, still had to do her own job, even though she has the new one. Right. There's the president of the Senate job. But I guess a few things I would point to. For one thing, the powers of the presidency go a lot to whether unions get support because you get to appoint people to the National Labor Relations Board, people in the different agencies. And we've really seen a difference between whether union's concerns and therefore workers concerns are heard or not. Yeah. Partly based on the laws that get passed, but partly, you know, the saying personnel is policy. So the kinds of people he's going to appoint are not going to be the most worker friendly people. And the kinds of people she's going to appoint will. That's part of the case that I would make. So I'd say to a point you made a minute ago, the difference between career civil servants and political appointees. The idea is they're supposed to be comparatively fewer political appointees. Yes, for sure. And given that, how, how much weight does that carry? So I think it's super important. You definitely want career civil servants, no matter who's in charge, Republican, Democrat, to be able to do their job. But a lot of the decisions that are made, what goes, how a law is interpreted, what kind of regulations go into effect, things like health and safety regulations, is a big one. It really matters whether you have more of a pro corporate tilt or whether you have more of a pro worker tilt. And I think she's, you know, she's participated in administration, is very proud of being very, very pro worker, pro union. I also really think with the right kind of presidential leadership, there could be a bipartisan majority for things like the child tax credit, which, that's family policy. But to me, that's also economic policy in a big way, like putting more money in people's pockets, making it more affordable to be able to raise kids. Right. Things like paid family leave. Most Americans think we ought to do it, right? Sure. Republican, Democrat, you name it. That doesn't always mean most members of Congress will do it, but I think with, with a leader in the White House who puts that really high on the list, that could be achieved. Now, I wouldn't give up on Congress, even though I understand. Are you sure? Because it seems, believe me, I get it. But you never give up. And there's a lot that a president can do with her legal powers. What about for people who don't have or don't want to have kids. Child tax credit paid family. These. These are things that should be. I agree entirely. But, like, that doesn't speak to. Sure. And yeah, we're not like J.D. vance, who says that if you don't have kids, you're like a childless cat lady. I have like four cats and two kids. All right. Got 10 kids. You got it all. But, yeah, I mean, that's where things like, I think addressing student loan debt, things like making sure we have strong support for public service, people who want to go into public service so that you can afford to go into public service. And again, just a tax code that isn't cutting taxes for billionaires that cuts service for the rest of us. I think that's a huge deal whether you're raising family or not. Fair enough. My next claim is Americans will have more rights and freedoms under a Harris Walls administration. Same here. My name is Grace. Grace, Good night. Frankly, I'm shocked that you would make that claim. I think there's. I would love to know what the basis of that is. Some specific examples starting with freedom of speech. Sure. Okay. Yeah, let's start with freedom of speech. So Donald Trump has said that he wants to revoke the licenses of television networks that have broadcast coverage that he disagrees with. I can't think of a more direct attack on the freedom of speech than a government official or a wannabe government official saying, I want to punish a television network because of their journalism. Right. So that's how I feel about free speech. There's also more personal rights. A woman's right to choose, my right to have this ring on my finger that I feel are much more secure if she's in charge than if he's in charge. And the evidence you have of Donald Trump being against gay marriage or wanting to roll back protections for gay folks to be married, is he. The evidence is that he ran for president with a platform that specifically said in black and white that they were against marriage equality and like this is today. So they've kind of rubbed that out of the platform since the last time he ran for president. But the people he put on the court. Court are contributing to a majority that already took away a woman's right to choose and doesn't seem very interested in protecting my right to marry. Nor did he do anything to help get that legislation passed. When the Biden was bader. Ginsburg didn't think that Roe v. Wade was the appropriate statute on which to be hanging reproductive freedom. And Obama campaigned in 2007. There was a bill introduced to the 110th Congress, H.R. 1964, the Freedom of Choice Act. He campaigned. The first thing I'm going to do as president is sign that bill once he was elected. I quote, not my highest legislative priority. I don't know why I should actually trust Democrats to enshrine reproductive rights as national law. Because they had the opportunity so many times over the past decades, Most recently in 2009, 2010, they didn't do it. Kamala's coming here and campaigning in Michigan on reproductive freedom. Guess what? It's part of our state constitution. Like, that's manipulation of voters. I don't think that's manipulation. Look, the whole point of a national right. I live in Michigan, right? But if I take my kids with my husband to their first ever Notre Dame game and I cross the state line, obviously I'm talking about marriage equality, not reproductive freedom here. But just as an illustration of why a national right is important, I don't want my marriage to evaporate the moment I cross the Michigan, Indiana state line. What she's talking about is that a national right should be national. It's true. You have great leaders here in Michigan who have taken action at the state level to protect reproductive rights. But since when does civil rights disappear at state lines? And how is it pro freedom to take away a national protection and say, well, if some state wants to take away this freedom, have at it. We went through this as a country with the civil rights era. We're definitely going through this right now on something like choice, where your rights in Alabama are different than they are in Michigan. Right. Do you want to circle back to something you said about the number one thing you have as evidence for Donald Trump being against free speech is that he wants to revoke these licenses for coverage he doesn't agree with? To what extent is it untrue? Coverage? I think the whole idea of free speech is that people can go on a network and air opinions that you disagree with. What about social media? Because the Harris Waltz campaign wants to make it illegal to put misinformation or malinformation on social media. Well, that's not true. Well, that's what he said, and that's what she said. At best, that's an extreme simplification, and it's not really true. I mean, look, nobody has made more statements about being willing to use the powers of government to shut down people who disagree with them than Donald Trump. And you think it's okay to shut down the license of a TV station? I didn't say that. Okay. I thought that was implied in your question when you said, what if it's untrue information that they're broadcasting? Well, I'm just asking, like, like he says a lot of off the wall things that. Right. Certainly, like, I'm not and I don't, like, stand behind a lot of what he says, but just like, if he's angry about coverage that is manipulative towards people, like, that happens a lot. I'd like to. The whole idea of free speech is that the government doesn't get to decide. Certainly. But then you have. And Donald Trump doesn't get to decide, certainly. But I don't want Kamala Harris also to decide, and neither does she. Right. That's the point. She's not going to threaten the licenses of stations that cover her unfavorably, but they threaten section three or whatever it is for social media not based on unfavorable political coverage. Now, there is an idea that social media companies need to be more accountable for their choices, especially when you look at how they're harming women and girls, for example, by what goes out on Instagram. Right. But that's not the same as a free speech debate. All right, So I definitely do agree about Kamala giving more freedoms. Basically. I don't have anything to pose, but more so a question trying to, you know, I'm here to get educated when it comes to dei. That's something I just learned about, like, a couple days ago. Pretty uneducated when it comes to that. That does, to me, from the little I do know about it, sounds like something that can only be good. I guess my question will be like, what exactly is it? Because I still don't know exactly what it is. And how could it be perceived as like a bad thing? Yes. From the little bit I do know, it doesn't sound like it could be. Be a bad thing at all. Yeah. So it's become kind of a buzzword. And like most buzzwords like socialism or a lot of other things get thrown around in the debate. The more it gets thrown around, the less meaning it feels like it has sometimes. Right. So I think it means different things for different people. Actually, if you want to see kind of one of the clearest expressions of the case against dei, which I strongly disagree with. Jubilee did. Did something with Ben Shapiro, who's a conservative thinker. That's the first time I. Okay, so he was attacking it in a way that I think was mistaken. And I'll tell you a little bit of why. First of all, I mean, DEI Stands for diversity, equity, inclusion. Right. So to me, we start by thinking, okay, what's the opposite of those things? The opposite of diversity is uniformity. Right. The opposite of equity is inequity, and the opposite of inclusion is exclusion. And I don't know a lot of people who think we'd be better off if our lives had more uniformity, inequity, and exclusion. Right. But I think that the. The part of why people have questions about it that I respect is they're not sure if this is. They're worried about fairness. Right. So to me, when you talk about some of these policies, the idea is to make sure everybody gets a seat at the table. Especially if, you know, there have been systematic ways of keeping people from getting a seat at the table over the years, sometimes based on their race, on their religion, on their income, on their background, any number of reasons, sexuality. Right. Like, a lot of different reasons. And it's about making sure that what we do going forward is fair. And this can be an economic issue, too. You look at something like. Something like redlining. A lot of homeowners. Families would be homeowners, especially black families couldn't get homes in certain neighborhoods where the property value started to go up. So even if that happened to a family, I don't know, 50 years ago, their kids are living with the consequences of that now because their family has less wealth, because they were kept out of a neighborhood where property values were growing. Right. And so part of it's the idea that some of these things may have started a long time ago. Maybe nobody alive today is responsible for some of the injustice that has shaped what it's like to live in this country right now. But all of us now are responsible for doing something about it. It's not about tearing anybody down. It's not about preventing anybody from thriving. But I think it gets twisted to make it look like. Does some of the pushback come from people seeing. Let's see, say, one marginalized community sees one group getting a lot of emphasis, and they kind of feel they're not getting enough maybe. Yeah. As far as. Yeah. I mean, if this. If it gets distorted, if somebody describes it in a way that makes it seem like somebody's getting an unfair advantage and you're not, you're gonna be pissed off about that. Right, Right. Right. Somebody is. And I think, by the way, I think that's part of the story he's trying to tell. He's trying to say you're better off because somebody else or you're worse off. Because somebody else is better off. Right. To me, the whole point of government is to find ways to make more people better off without making people worse off. Right. I think good policy does that. Right. But he wants it zero sum. Right. Thank you. Thanks. Hi, it's a pleasure. I'm Tim. It's really a pleasure to be up here. I would have voted for you in 2020. I would vote for you right now. I think you're fantastic. I agree with a lot of views. I disagree with also a lot. Very middle of the road person. Why can't Kamala answer some of these questions that you're able to answer? Why? Sorry. And this is. It's an oversimplification of a concept, but I feel like when I listen to her, I don't get. It's almost jumping back to the character. When you talk back when you were running, I hear genuine interest, feelings in your. In your voice. I know what you want, and I know that when you say something, you really mean what you're saying. I don't ever get that sense. There were some times in the first in the debate with Kamala that I. That I got a sense of that. But since then, especially with some of the not as great, you know, the town hall and some of the CNN stuff that I don't know. So one thing I point to is, like, she faces some constraints that I don't. Right. First of all, she's a sitting vice president. Right. So that creates a certain set of constraints. Also, I think just the advice that I know you get of things to be careful about when you're actually a nominee for president and definitely when you consider the historic nature of her nomination, can also make it more challenging. She's good at things that I'm not. Every one of us is good at different things. Right. What I know is she's going to be really good at being president. And I know that because in the last few years, I've learned more and more about her, and I've learned more and more about the presidency. And the more I learn about both of those things, the more she's somebody I want there. Look, she and I competed five years ago, right, for the nomination. And thanks for, for, for. And by the way, Joe Biden was obviously the competitor who won, and There were like 20 others. Right. Each of us brought something different to the table. But one of the things I really respect about her right now in this moment is that she has brought our party together. And our party is not famous for coming together around anything like the achievement of doing that in a matter of hours is no small thing for our very fractious Democratic Party. Right. And then she didn't stop there. I have never seen a Democratic nominee bring more Republicans into the fold. The folks she's campaigning with, Right. Without pretending to be something she's not. She's not saying, I'm a conservative now. So, you know, now that I've got the Democrats, okay, all the, all the Republicans come over. It's the broadening of a coalition in a way that I think, is this exactly the mindset we need in an incredibly divided country? So there's some of the reasons why I'm not just campaigning for the Democratic nominee like her specifically. I think she'll be a great president. I mean, you just talked about bringing the Democratic Democratic Party together. And I. And I'm curious, genuinely, because I do think you're a genuine person. How much of that do you think is because of her and how much do you think that is? Just because Biden was not polling well, did poorly in the debate, and it was a scramble to, I think, for a lot of people, feign support for a person that still just represents their party. I hear you, but to me, it says a lot about the party in the moment. But I do think it says a lot about her, too. I mean, it's difficult to describe how challenging that moment would be for anybody who is considering stepping into the space that he opened up by saying, I'm going to step aside and it's time for a new generation. And I think that there's a particular quality that she's brought to this, that anybody who's good at what they do makes it look easy. Right. And again, everybody in politics has certain things. There are certain pieces of being in politics that they're stronger at than others. But I think it's more than just the state the party was in, because I've watched us blow it in really important moments where we couldn't get it together. Right. That it actually took a leader who was capable of doing that. And I see her as that leader. I also felt, and I didn't think I would because I've sat through so many speeches, because I've given so many speeches, I didn't think I would feel moved the way I was at the convention. Chasten and I, most of the time we were just running around, but we stayed stood and saw her give that speech. And I was really moved by it. And I hope folks take a minute to watch it, the debate, too. Now, again, you're Never going to find the candidate this 100% unless you run for president. Sure. You will never find. So, like you mentioned, like, you know, you were supportive of me, but that didn't mean we agreed on everything either. Right. But the choice to me couldn't be clear this time around. And I'm not just against him. I'm for her. My fourth claim is crime will continue to go down in America if we elect a career prosecutor over a convicted criminal. On crime, I see a lot of Republican advertising statements, et cetera, that crime is out of control, that we've got immigrants that are causing all these things. And the statistics are clearly showing that this is not the trend, that they're trending downward. Yet I see very little pushback from the Harris side about putting those claims aside. I just don't see any really strong challenge to those claims. And that's a big issue for a lot of Americans. What is Kamala going to do? Challenging those claims is part of what I'm trying to do right now, because I think we now live in an environment where people don't just have their own opinions, they kind of get their own facts. And that's especially true if you get information from a different TV network and different Twitter feeds or whatever than someone else. One of the reasons, even though I'm obviously left of center, I go on a conservative network like Fox a lot, is that I know their viewers might literally have no idea that crime is down. Now, let me also say something that's really important, which is if it's happened to you, if you've just been victimized by a crime, you don't care what the statistics are. Right. Like, for you, it's a crime wave, and we got to respect that and recognize that. And at the same time, it's clearly true that if you look at something like the homicide rate, it went up when he was in power, it went down after Donald Trump got beat. And just as importantly, it's way lower than it was when I was growing up in the 90s. In just about every major city, we've seen violent crime go down. And that appears to be continuing, Continuing. And I think it's really important to talk about not just is that true or is it isn't it's true. What would it take to keep it going that way? Because what if it goes the other way? Then what happens? Right. I also think, though, sometimes good news is no news. In other words, the better something is going, the harder it is to break through the noise with it, especially with the incredibly sophisticated noise machine that we're dealing with out of the Trump campaign. But, but part of what I'm trying to do out there and what the campaign is trying to do, and I think she is too, I think it's hard to break through the noise is to say, wait a minute, crime went down after he got beat. Let's talk about why that's the case and let's talk about how to keep it going. Thanks. Thank you. Good to meet. Hi, good to meet you. So there are a couple of ways I understand that you can allow the crime rate to go down. One of the. Which is deincentivizing any motive one might have to commit a crime or incentivizing them to act. Well, the second thing in the case of something like violent crime would be to make weapons less accessible. You know, things like semi automatic weapons. The third would be to change the letter of the law. Right. So right now we have people crossing the border illegally. Maybe ICE captures them and that gets documented as a crime that has been committed and they get deported. Well, it's not so obvious to me that things that we call illegal ought to be illegal. My point that I'm trying to make is that as far as the scope of these three things is concerned, what. To what degree can you tell us specificity and that she can act, that Kamala Harris can act? Yeah. Let's start with the firearms because I think that's really important. Yeah. This has been an issue that's been used to divide a lot of Americans, but I actually think that there's a lot of overlap in how most Americans view it. Definitely most people think we ought to at least have background checks on whether you can get a gun. That's like 80, 90% of report Republicans think you ought to do that. And yet it still hasn't happened because we have these blockages in the political system. And Trump definitely doesn't want to let that happen. She's somebody who I think will work toward that. And because she has the credibility of somebody who served as a prosecutor, I think she brings a unique voice to that. I'm also really concerned about how assault weapons are used in mass shootings in this country. I think most of us are and I think most of us understand in the context of the Second Amendment that you can have a second Amendment, you've got to have some line somewhere. Right. Like everybody can have a slingshot. Nobody can have a nuclear weapon. Right. Somewhere in between. Not nobody. Right. Well, yeah, well, you and I can't go get a Nuclear weapon. Right. We don't have a second amendment right to a nuclear weapon. And that we've got to have that line drawn in a smarter way. I think those are the kinds of things she's focused on now. I think part of what I think I hear in your question is how much can she just do versus how much would she need an act of Congress? Definitely a challenge always is, especially in our Congress. But, you know, there was some meaningful gun violence legislation in this administration. Not everything that we would have hoped, but it shows that something can be done, and I think she will be able to carry that further. I think he would take us backward on that. Okay. I think. Sorry, remind me that the elements you laid out, I thought it was really interesting Talk about the firearms piece you talked about. So we talked about taking away extent accessibility, accessibility for certain things which enable people to commit crimes. And then there was changing the letter of the law for what we consider to be illegal and letting the crime rate go down. And that's where I think the. The best example of that that I think is meaningful is something like rescheduling marijuana. Right. Where there are certain things that are considered a crime and shouldn't be or shouldn't be that same level of crime. And that's the reform. And then the other piece you're talking about maybe the most impactful, decentralizing incentive. Now, obviously part of the incentive is deterrence. Right. Part of the incentive not to kill somebody is in addition to it being the wrong thing to do is if you do it and you get caught, there's a penalty. Sure. But part of it also is setting people up so that their lives keep them out of the scenarios where many crimes, including violent crimes. So now we're talking about social reform, economic empowerment. Social. Yeah, I mean, social reforms. Another one's buzzwords, I think could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But basically I would agree that if we can create circumstances where people find belonging and their basic needs are met and they're safe and they're healthy, regardless of whether they're born rich or poor, regardless of their racial background or anything else, then we will be safer. Not only will individuals be safer, but it'll be a safer community. And I think even though I'm going to admit it's far from perfect what's gone on in our country over the last 30, 40 years, I think the fact that we've gotten somewhat better at that is part of why violent crime is way lower now than it was like 30 years ago. Nobody really reports on this. It doesn't get talked about much. Can you, like, within the timeframe of the Biden Harris administration, give specific examples of how our quality of life has improved and has led to the deincentivization of crime? Yeah. And look, a lot of what I'm talking about is playing out over a longer period of time. Time. But I do think steps like trying to make it more affordable. Now, obviously, like every developed country in the world, we face this post Covid inflation spike. Right. But that's been fought back, back down to about 2%, 2 to 3%. In the meantime, there's been work to do. Things like the child tax credit that cut child poverty almost in half. And they wouldn't let us extend it. The Republicans blocked it, but we could get that extended another one. This might sound a little weird, but the water infrastructure. So there's actually very direct research that shows that if you have more kids exposed to lead, you run the clock out 15 years, you'll see higher crime rates because the development, the developmental issues that they experience through lead poisoning lead them to be more likely to be justice involved. There's like a hugely strong correlation. So replacing all the lead pipes is not sexy, I think is actually one of the best things we can do that will lead to a safer society and less crime. Granted, that's not something you're seeing in the data, like, you know, from one year to the next year, but I do think, you know, by the time my kids are entering the workforce, like that will have had a big impact. So these are things piece by piece that you think about when you come into office and get up every day trying to make other people better off. And that's what I think she does. That's what I know she does because I know her. And that's not what I believe he does. And that's why I think it's really important not just to not vote for him, but to vote for her. Okay, that's the end of this claim. Please return to your seat. Sure. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah. Well, hopefully I've had a chance to make the case for Kamala Harris to you. I know that I'm simultaneously speaking to some people who come at this from a more conservative perspective and are deciding whether to go for Trump even though they're not sure. Others who are coming from a more left of center perspective and deciding either whether to vote third party or whether to vote at all. What I'm urging you to consider is that one of two things will happen and that in a state where it's this close and you all are kind of in the center of the political universe as Michigan voters, if you want to prevent the bad outcomes and deliver the good ones, I hope you've heard from what I've presented that I'm not just here talking about what I believe in blocking, but what I believe in building, that we will have a better country. I'm not saying it's perfect, none of us is perfect, but that we will have cleaner water and safer communities. And one more thing we didn't get to talk about as much, but I think might matter to a lot of folks, definitely a lot of undecided folks actually get politics out of our face just a little bit so we can have like, maybe a normal Republican Party to debate issues on a normal basis with the Democratic Party and maybe more parties emerge, but just to not have politics punching us in the face all the time, every time you look at Instagram or the news, I think that also is something we could achieve. But if you feel that way and if you're skeptical of him and if you're willing to give her a chance, I'm urging you not just to withhold your vote from him, but to use your power to make sure that she becomes the next President of the United States. Before hearing Pete speak today, I was going to abstain from voting. He did give me some clarity and answered some questions that I had. I am leaning more towards voting now, but it's more because of the keeping the other guy out. I can't write down my grievances on the ballot anymore and submit that, because that doesn't. It's not going to work this time. That's unfortunately how it is. My plan moving forward just this next week is to just try to educate myself as much as I can on the particular issues that both parties are raising. And hopefully by next Tuesday, I feel sound in my judgment. I still want to vote. I still want to contribute. I just don't know if I want to contribute to the Democrats or the Republicans that this point. After hearing Pete Buttigieg speak to us this morning, he convinced me slightly that a vote being abstained is a vote for Trump. I think I'm voting for Kamala Harris. My original vote was for Trump, but now I'm leaning towards third party. I had a really productive conversation with the older gentleman next to me. He was a lifelong Republican, and he's not even going to vote for him. Before speaking to Pete or being here, I was definitely undecided through Other conversations here. I feel not voting is definitely wasting a vote. And too many people before me, you know, made it, you know, sacrifice so I could vote. It is important to me to vote. However, I don't think I can in good conscience cast a vote without feeling very confident in the one for whom I'm voting. At the conclusion of this event, I did mark down Trump as a selection. It's not a vote necessarily for Trump. It is, I think, a commitment to vote. I decided to vote for Harris because of personal rights. As a woman, I need rights to protect me and also my children, my grandchildren. Major change doesn't come about when you do the same thing over and over and over again. So I want to see a drastic change, especially when it comes to, like I said, to the environment. Jill Stein is going to do that. Before hearing Pete speak today, I was pretty undecided. I wasn't gonna vote at all, actually. But after hearing him, I feel like I'm gonna vote for Harris. Crime is going down. I expect it to continue to go down with her and not go up. It was a really engaging conversation. Heard so many different perspectives, and had a chance to make my case directly to people who are still making up their minds about how to vote or about whether to vote at all. I told Pete I would vote for Pete. I wish I could vote for Pete. Nothing stifled. He had an answer for everything that came at him. You know, Pete did a really great job kind of making me not want to vote for Trump, but he didn't do a great job making me want to vote for his candidate. Well, one thing that I found encouraging is that these were all undecided voters who are also very well informed. They're not undecided because they haven't been paying attention. They're undecided because there are a lot of things that they care about, and they're working out how that is going to inform their decision to vote. I certainly hope that I helped some people make a decision, that I helped move some people off the fence or clear up some questions or doubts that they had. Most of all, I hope it was informative. It was certainly informative for me to hear from people and hear where they were coming from. Don't forget to subscribe to Surrounded wherever you get your podcasts so that you don't miss an episode. And if you want to watch the video version of Surrounded, subscribe to Jubilee on YouTube.