Can Talarico Turn Texas Blue? | James Talarico vs 20 Undecided Voters Surrounded Follow-Up

Summary

Surrounded Podcast – Episode Summary

Episode: Can Talarico Turn Texas Blue? | James Talarico vs 20 Undecided Voters Surrounded Follow-Up
Podcast: Surrounded (Jubilee Media)
Date: February 22, 2026
Host: Jubilee Media Interviewer
Guests: John (participant), Krista (participant), James Talarico (Texas Senate candidate)

---

Episode Overview

This episode is a reflective follow-up to a "Surrounded" panel where Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico faced 20+ undecided Texas voters. The host invites two particularly thoughtful and critical participants—John and Krista—to dive deeper on the frustrations, cynicism, and urgent questions they voiced during their group encounter with Talarico. The episode unpacks systemic distrust, political identity, disillusionment with voting, the realities of gun violence in Texas, ideology versus economics, and what it would take for genuinely independent-minded citizens to believe in meaningful civic engagement again.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Political Cynicism & Disengagement (John)

• John is a self-described politically disengaged observer, never having voted but deeply interested in ideas and community service.
• He distinguishes between his former conservative identity and the evolution of his views ("I try and take issues one by one rather than as a group." - John, 04:32).
• Expresses skepticism that even well-intentioned politicians can transcend a broken system:
  • "We've heard it before, you know, drain the swamp, eat the rich until they get voted, and then they're just rich people swimming in the swamp. What are you going to actually do that changes that system that you're talking about?" (John, 06:25)

2. Systemic Change vs. Incremental Reform

• John challenges Talarico on the depth and specificity of his reform agenda.
• Talarico responds: "I alone am not going to change this... My goal with this campaign is to be a catalyst for people all over the state to come together and organize so that we can start again, not finish, but start our way toward a more representative form of government." (James Talarico, 06:40)
• Issues like Citizens United, gerrymandering, and campaign finance reform are cited, but John feels these fail to touch the root dynamics: "How do you stop racing to the bottom?... How are you the kind of inspirational leader that's going to fundamentally change the incentive structure?" (John, 08:34)

3. Voter ID, Gerrymandering, & “Race to the Bottom”

• The host, John, and Talarico engage in a nuanced discussion of voting reform.
• Both parties are criticized for pursuing tactics that prioritize victory over improvement. Example: "Democrats don't like [ID requirements] because... it gives them a disadvantage in a corrupt game. ...Instead of fixing the system, they replicate it." (John, 11:30)
• Suggests both voter ID and remote voting as complementary reforms.
• John’s broader frustration: "I'm tired of the excuse that that person's a shithead, so I get to be a shithead. ...I kind of wish there was a group that would... say, you know what, we are not supporting either of you until one of you acts like an adult." (John, 14:13)

4. Disillusionment with Voting vs. Other Civic Engagement

• John articulates why he does not vote: “Voting is one of the least things you can do in community engagement... Oftentimes you can do these things and it's so much more impactful on an individual and a community level than just spending an hour going to vote for somebody who's probably not going to make any difference.” (John, 21:38)
• He feels voting in a system dominated by "sheep zombies" offers little value compared to direct community action.
• However, he welcomes strong arguments against his position and admits some inner conflict: "It's almost like a relationship... do you really believe voting matters?... I'm not nearly as sold on not voting as I argue, because I want to hear a really good argument of why I should vote." (John, 23:40 & 24:02)

5. Longing for Authentic, Independent Leadership

• John’s ideal candidate would shun party orthodoxy—“If anybody agrees wholeheartedly with their party, I disagree with them.” (John, 29:16)
• Praises the independent stances taken at times by Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, expressing a belief in cross-party VP tickets and structural reforms to break the two-party deadlock.

6. Ideology vs. Economics as Drivers of Division (Krista)

• Krista disagrees with Talarico’s notorious claim that the real American divide is “top vs bottom,” not left vs right.
  • “I believe ideology is where the polarization comes in. ...Economics accounts for inequity, but belief, identity, and faith are what split us.” (Krista, 36:30)
• She grants that algorithmic and media interests (controlled by "the 1%") do amplify divides for profit, but ultimately, billionaires are themselves sorted by ideology.

7. Faith, Identity, and Talarico’s Appeal in Texas

• Krista observes Talarico’s “left Christian” identity as a potential gamechanger for Texas politics:
  • "What makes him such a great candidate and is giving him an edge is his Christianity. ...A lot of people on the left... choose to separate church vs. state, whereas he is blurring the line." (Krista, 40:38)
• She thinks this could help him attract voters left out by both parties.

8. Gun Violence, Legislative Barriers, and Frustration

• Krista lays out the persistent gridlock around gun reform in Texas:
  • "No matter how much gun violence happens within the state of Texas, there will never be a gun ban or gun reform." (Krista, 45:00)
• Talarico offers an incrementalist response referencing Uvalde and attempts to raise the firearm purchase age, but Krista notes: "The bill never passed... if kids are dying in classrooms, what else is it going to take?" (Krista, 47:52)

9. Personal Impact of Gun Violence

• Krista shares moving accounts of losing several friends to gun violence, intensifying her commitment to at least basic reforms like background checks and age limits. (Krista, 48:41+)

10. The Stalemate and What Would “Move the Needle”

• Both guests express a wistful hunger for something “radically different” in politics—unified by a search for authenticity and complex public dialogue.
• The incentives and “team sport” nature of the current partisan environment leaves thoughtful outsiders feeling both essential and powerless.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Systemic Disillusionment:
  “How do you stop racing to the bottom... How are you the kind of inspirational leader that's going to fundamentally change the incentive structure?”
  — John (08:34)

• On the Voting Dilemma:
  “If you are not educated on it, if you’re not giving an intelligent vote, don’t give a vote.”
  — John (24:05)

• On Independent Thinking:
  "If anybody agrees wholeheartedly with their party, I disagree with them. Because you can kind of tell they're not living their principles; they're living with their group. And that's not who I want to be."
  — John (29:16)

• On Gun Violence Gridlock:
  "What is it going to take? ...How many people are going to have to die by gun violence for there to be some sort of change?"
  — Krista (49:36, 50:20)

• On the Real American Divide:
  “I believe that ideology is what creates that polarization, whereas economics, that explains poverty or economic inequity. ...You can see that with multimillionaires and billionaires—how there's multi billionaires on the left, there's multi billionaires on the right.”
  — Krista (38:02)

• On Talarico’s Christianity in Texas Politics:
  "What makes him such a great candidate and is giving him an edge is his Christianity. ...He is very much attracting that group. And especially here in Texas, you know, everybody is so conservative."
  — Krista (40:38)

---

Important Timestamps & Segments

• 00:56 – John’s political evolution and non-voting stance
• 06:25 – John’s challenge to Talarico: Specificity amid political clichés
• 06:40 – Talarico’s vision for “catalyst, not savior”-type reform leadership
• 09:11 – John’s “dream candidate” idea: Bipartisan presidential tickets
• 11:30-14:16 – The “race to the bottom,” echo chambers, and the call for adult behavior in politics
• 18:06 – John: “I don’t see that much of a difference ... I’m going to be civically engaged in other ways than voting.”
• 21:38 – John: “Voting is one of the least things you can do in community engagement...”
• 23:40 – John’s doubts about voting and openness to persuasion
• 29:16 – If anyone is 100% with their party, John is against them
• 36:30-39:06 – Krista: Ideological roots of polarization, faith, and political identity
• 40:38 – The “Christian Left” advantage for Talarico in Texas
• 45:59 – Gun reform debate—Krista’s pessimism vs. Talarico’s incremental hope
• 48:41 – Krista’s personal stories about friends lost to gun violence
• 50:20 – Krista: American desensitization to school shootings

---

Overall Tone & Takeaways

This episode embodies a raw, unscripted conversation among deeply engaged, yet systemically skeptical, Americans. The tone is frustrated but searching—not cynical for its own sake, but ravenous for authenticity and nuance. The hosts and guests explore the depths of both personal pain and national dysfunction, pushing past platitudes in search of real, actionable change. Talarico comes off as earnest but limited by the inertia of the institution he seeks to reform; Krista and John represent the questioning, analytically rigorous, but emotionally tired heart of America's “undecided” middle.

---

In Short:
If you’re looking for hope, answers, or a policy “roadmap,” this episode offers something different: a vivid window into the minds of the thoughtful uncommitted, the voters (or ex-voters) whose skepticism may shape Texas’s—and America’s—future. The conversation simmers with urgency for political maturity, new coalitions, and a search for belonging and truth in public life.

Transcript

[John]

I think I'm fed up and disengaged because I'm tired of the excuse that that person's a head. So I get to be a. Yeah. And I kind of wish there was a group that would. We could get behind and say, you know what? We are not supporting either of you until one of you acts like an adult.

[Krista]

What is it going to take? I mean, I own a gun myself. I'm all for gun safety. It's like, how many kids are going to have to die in schools for there to be some kind of change?

[Interviewer]

So how old were you when you

[Krista]

realized you were the son of a president?

[Interviewer]

I don't think anyone's ever asked me that. FX's love story, John F. Kennedy Jr. And Carolyn Bessette.

[John]

I didn't think I could love someone

[Krista]

like this until you.

[John]

From executive producer Ryan Murphy.

[Krista]

It's not a question of if I want to spend the rest of my life with you.

[John]

It's if I'm cut out to be

[Interviewer]

Mrs. JFK Jr. FX's love story, John F. Kennedy Jr. And Carolyn Bassette.

[John]

Watch now on FX, Hulu and Hulu on Disney plus for bundle subscribers.

[Interviewer]

I'm here with Dan from the James Talarico surrounded. Welcome back to the Jubilee universe and thanks for doing this follow up.

[John]

Yeah, thanks for having me.

[Interviewer]

So you were probably maybe one of the more contentious participants in James's episode. You gave him some pushback, but it wasn't coming from a place of, like, political opposition as much as maybe political disillusionment. Does that sound accurate to you?

[John]

I think that's fair. Also a desire to see more engagement, more try and get to the depth of some of the issues. Oftentimes, especially in these kind of platforms, they get cut into little bits and pieces, and sometimes that dictates how people responded. And so definitely not from a place of malicious or even strongly disagreeing with him necessarily. More from a place of let's dive deeper into these issues and see if we can get to some where we actually disagree totally.

[Interviewer]

And you were like, give me specifics. What are you gonna do? I've. I've been hearing the same thing for over and over and over before we kind of dive into those arguments, because I want to play those back and we can jump into those. Could I get a little bit more of a sense of what is your history? What's, what's kind of your past political affiliation or identity or experiences leading up to where you are now?

[John]

I haven't been politically involved, and for me, it's Much more of a intellectual curiosity. So I've never voted, had plenty of arguments with older friends on that. And my involvement in the community has been much more oriented around volunteering in individual relationships. And so, particularly in college, I say conservatively, I was much more conservative leaning in a political aspect, but was very liberal leaning in a lot of my behavior. So I did a lot of volunteering, probably over 3,000 hours of volunteering in college. It was just. It was my. Something I was so passionate about and played around with a lot of ideas that, that I see coming up on the left now. But I've evolved. I've really evolved over time and really tried to challenge myself on issues. So, example is abortion is one where I've evolved a lot. And so if you had asked me when I was young and in college, I would have said, it's absolutely murder. And, and in fact, in leaning into the natural repercussions of that, at one point I was saying I legitimately started asking myself, if I really believe abortion is murder, why would I not go

[James Talarico]

and

[John]

take action against an abortion clinic? And I started to ask myself that and start to lean into that. And what I found is, why do I believe it's murder? With a lot of a Christian background, I know we quote a lot of times, certain Bible verses, such as, I knew you in your womb and informed you, and I just realized I didn't find a compelling argument, and so don't want to dive too deep into that, but there's a lot of issues where I've started out one way, and I've realized whether or not a group I necessarily associate with, agrees with that I've started to move in a different direction. Just try and take issues one by one rather than as a group.

[Interviewer]

Yeah. What led you to wanting to speak to James? You know, obviously, Jubilee might have just reached out to you, but. But were you drawn to this? Was there some kind of larger pull to. To speaking with him face to face?

[John]

You know, Jubilee doesn't tell you who you're going to speak with. So I didn't have a specific desire to speak with James, but I would say the engagement, I got there by watching. So I watch a lot of Jubilee videos, and then I watch a lot of everything from Megyn Kelly to Young Turks and try and really get kind of a.

[Interviewer]

That's a. That's the chasm, you know.

[John]

Yeah. And I enjoy that. And I find that on both sides, I find an argument that I agree with or disagree with. And as I've leaned into that Engagement more. And as an observer, I've thought, man, that would be fun to actually sit there and. And be a participant. And was watching one of the Jubilee videos at one point and saw that they were looking for participants in my area and thought, man, let's dive in. Let's be a participant. And part of it is, I'm sure a lot of people have experienced this. You watch a video and you think, oh, man, I could have said something better, or I had this thing and I'll even catch myself if I'm driving. I'll pause the video and I'll talk out loud to myself. I'm sure I sound like a crazy person. And so all of that, I thought, why not lean into that and see if I go in and participate? See what it. See what it's like.

[Interviewer]

No, I love that. Okay, so I'm going to play you back a clip because you had, you know, you had some interesting criticisms of just the political system in general that seemed to resonate with viewers. I saw things in the comments, but also with James. And so I'll play you back this clip and then kind of hear your reaction.

[John]

Honestly, James, I don't think you're going to do anything. We've heard it before, you know, drain the swamp, eat the rich until they get voted, and then they're just rich people swimming in the swamp. What are you going to actually do that changes that system that you're talking about?

[James Talarico]

Yeah. Let me be honest with you. I alone am not going to change this. I know there are some politicians who say I alone can fix it. I'm not one of them because I don't want to promise you something I can't deliver. My goal with this campaign is to be a catalyst for people all over the state to come together and organize so that we can start again, not finish, but start our way toward a more representative form of government. Specifically, we talked earlier about comprehensive immigration reform. I think we also need comprehensive political reform. I hope my first vote, if I'm elected as U.S. senator, would be the for the People act, which is something that's already been introduced. I'm sure it'll change the details of it. But a few things that it does is it gets big money out of politics. It ends Citizens United States, which may be the most disastrous policy for our democracy in modern American history. And then it goes further and it bans things like gerrymandering, because gerrymandering is when politicians redraw political lines to benefit themselves. Democrats do it and Republicans do it. Not Always the same amount, but they both do it because it's not an issue of party, it's an issue of power.

[Interviewer]

How did you feel about the response you got?

[John]

You know, I have mixed feelings. We tend to keep doing the same thing and more of those same things. Or rather than finding the right way to fix a system, we just find the next move to get our side to win. In a bad system, you have two sides. And one says, I don't care about educating my voters. I realize that the best way to get votes is like these clips and rage baiting and. And lesser activity, like not good activity. And so the other side, rather than saying, oh my God, how do we change that? How do we change the dynamics and the motivations, instead says, ah, well, you know what? We got to do the same thing, like get out.

[Interviewer]

And it's a race to the bottom.

[John]

Exactly. And so really. And I could have been better at vocalizing this, really what I was looking for from James is more of a vision of how do you stop racing to the bottom. How are you the kind of inspirational leader that's going to change the dynamic and fundamentally change the incentive structure? Which, let me be clear, is so hard. It's something I spend time thinking about. Now, I don't have all the answers, but I think there are little specific things.

[Interviewer]

I'm actually curious. You seem very intelligent, so I'm actually curious what. What you were hoping you might hear from him.

[John]

You know, I was hoping something. I was hoping I would see that he would. He had thought about this and engaged on it and had some kind of plan. And a plan. Such as. Things I've thought about is I would tell you this, and I couldn't do this. If there's ever a Democrat or Republican presidential candidate who has the balls and integrity to make their vice president of the other party, I would vote for them, hands down.

[Interviewer]

Oh, yeah, I've thought about that as well.

[John]

Yeah. Yeah. And the hardest thing would be for that vice president that that would be the point of contention because it would be such a difficult role to maintain that. But it would be so good for the country rather than this nonsense we see when anything happens of ultimate. Ultimate right perspective and ultimate left perspective. And you can't give a little because then that makes you look weak or that makes. It seems like there might be validity on the other side. Well, gu. What? There is validity on the other side. Things like that. Things like. I think they're. I think that there's some thoughtful restrictions we could put on voting that doesn't disenfranchise a group, but. But makes curious what you think about that.

[Interviewer]

What do you think about the SAVE Act? That. That I think it might have just passed the House, but just requiring a form of identification or maybe a government issued id. There's a lot of pushback from Democrats on that. But you know, I think Fetterman supported it. What do you think about something like that?

[John]

So let me clarify. I don't know all of the law. I know I'll say generally right requires voter id and let's just be honest, Democrats don't like that because we know that lower income and minority groups generally lean Democratic and that's likely to be a group affected. I think that voter ID is a good idea. But you should acknowledge the reason why they don't like it because in a, like a corrupt game, it gives them a disadvantage. And it's not what's the right move, it's what gives us an advantage in a corrupt game. I would say Republicans did the same thing years back when they said, no, you got to show up in person because they. Which doesn't make sense. Why would you need to show up in person, let people vote remotely. And I don't know why these two groups haven't come together and said let's give a little, let's acknowledge that both side, they're trying to play on their corrupt game, but let's also move towards a higher purpose and a higher goal, which is okay, voter ID makes sense. Also remote voting makes sense. Let's make it easier for people to vote, but also more secure when they do.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, I think that's very good point and something I've been thinking about a lot. Democrats, you know, they have to kind of, and I get it just it would maybe disenfranchise is not the right word, but it would affect a lot of people of color. They would, it would make it difficult for them to vote if they had to have a form of ID or a specific kind of ID present with them when they showed up to vote. But just because that's true doesn't necessarily make it racist. And things that you've kind of heard, arguments you've heard. I think maybe Chuck Schumer might have said this, something like It's Jim Crow 2.0. You know, they kind of reach for the most inflammatory argument that these are racist ideas. You know, voter idea, voter ID laws are racist. And you kind of see it sort of reinforces what you're saying where it's like, oh man, if we're painting the issue with that color of pen everything, the stakes are raised so much higher and then it kind of prevents Democrats from, I don't know, gaining any favor with the other side. But by being like, yeah, this is true. Let's figure out a way to do this, or let's figure out a way to make IDs more accessible so that just elections can be more secure in general. And so.

[James Talarico]

Yeah.

[Interviewer]

And then at the same time, it's so hard for them to kind of make this argument of why it's racist on, on television. And you see clips go viral where, you know, they can't quite articulate it in the right ways. So I totally hear what you're saying where it's like it's bad faith or it's intellectually dishonest from the get go, but it's a strategy. It's like, we can't let this pass because then we lose a few inches.

[James Talarico]

Yeah.

[John]

And I hate that. But, but I get it at the same time, right. It's like, it's like the gerrymandering nonsense we did. It's like Republicans very clearly and blatantly said, we're going to go gerrymander Texas. And I think that was absolutely wrong and immoral. And I understand their argument, which is, well, Democrats have done it in other places. Okay, sure, that's true. But guess what? Then California goes and gerrymanders. I think I'm fed up and disengaged because I'm tired of the excuse that that person's a shithead. So I get to be a head.

[Interviewer]

Yeah.

[John]

And I kind of wish there was a group that would, we could get behind and say, you know what, we are not supporting either of you until one of you acts like an adult.

[Interviewer]

Right. Well, now something, you know, Talarico brought up was gerrymandering in his response to you. You know, did you take that seriously? Do you think he would really want to? Even if it was to his own side's, you know, disadvantage and gerrymandering? Did that feel sincere?

[John]

I think James is sincere and I think he would. I, you know, I go back and forth between thinking all politicians are evil and all politicians are, are good in a bad system. And I honestly go back and forth between it. I like to think and give him the benefit of the doubt that he's sincere. But I think one of the problems is let's assume that he's sincere and a good person and then he gets into a system that's corrupt and there's incentives that he didn't realize. And there's pressure around the people, with the people that you're around. And I wonder what happens to. Why do we always see someone who is seemingly sincere get into a situation and all of that sincerity comes to nothing? Did they lose sincerity? Did they realize that what they were after can't happen? I don't know. But I know that there's always that disconnect between I'm sincere and I'm going to do good things, and then when I'm in office, none of that comes to fruition.

[Interviewer]

Most Americans, Maybe even like 90% of Americans, would agree with that sentiment of, like, people. People seem like they have the right intentions in mind, and some sort of erosion happens. I'm curious, you know, have you. You clearly spend a lot of time engaging with American politics on, you know, an analytical level through the content that is, you know, everywhere in our culture. Have you ever considered participating in more of kind of like, you know, like, I want to run for office or I want to, you know, work in the system to better understand it? Has that ever been interesting to you?

[John]

I've toyed with the idea, but in from different angles. I've thought about running, though I don't know, the running in some kind of local office or something, though I don't have a strong inclination to do that or even doing as. I've talked to different people about why I don't vote. I realized that I don't have a real good source to go to to see what are the local school, what's the difference between the two candidates on the school board, things like that. And I thought, well, you know, there would be. There's room for someone to get in there, do a podcast where you sit down and explain it. And even better would be not necessarily a hostile way, but local elections. Sit down with the two candidates and say, hey, you tell me what's the difference between you two? And let's let you both represent yourself in the way that's most accurate and let people digest that and then be able to go and vote in local areas, in local elections and local positions like that. I've thought about doing something like that, but you get to my age and it's. It's not a matter of, can I find something worthwhile to do, it's which of the many worthwhile things that I could do am I going to do.

[Interviewer]

Right. Right. Okay, I'm going to pull up this next clip because I'm going to dig into this with you because this is what's most interesting. This is one of the most interesting things you said, and it's at the very end of the episode.

[John]

It's nothing against James, it's really not. It's just two things. One, I don't see a vision that changes the system fundamentally, and two, I don't see that much of a difference. I really don't. I'm more interested in what I do to control my own life than what the government does. And so I think if I'm going to be civilly engaged, I'm going to do it in other ways other than voting. I'm wasting my time. It's one hour to go vote against a bunch of sheep zombies who are controlled by monster energy.

[James Talarico]

Everybody knows White Monster Zero Ultra, that's

[Interviewer]

the og it kicked off this whole

[John]

zero sugar energy drink thing.

[Interviewer]

But Ultra is a whole lineup now.

[John]

You've got Strawberry Dreams, Blue Hawaiian Sunrise, and Vice Guava.

[James Talarico]

And they all bring the Monster Energy punch.

[John]

So if you've been living in the white can, branch out.

[Interviewer]

Ultra's got a flavor for every vibe,

[James Talarico]

and every single one is Zero Sugar.

[Interviewer]

Tap the banner to learn more.

[John]

Close your eyes. Exhale. Feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contact

[James Talarico]

in time for this class.

[John]

I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast.

[Interviewer]

And breathe.

[John]

Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order.

[Krista]

Oh, sorry.

[John]

Namaste. Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order.

[Interviewer]

1-800-contacts. My dad taught me a lot, including how easy it is to forget to cancel things.

[John]

So I downloaded Experian, my bff. Big Financial Friend Experian could help me cancel my unused subscriptions and lower my bills, so saving me hundreds a year. Get started with the Experian app today. Your big financial friends here to help you save smarter. Results will vary. Not all bills are subscriptions eligible. Savings not guaranteed. $631 a year average savings with one plus negotiations and one plus cancellations paid. Membership with connected payment account required. See experian.com for details.

[Interviewer]

Experian Advertisements Pretty strong and convicted argument to not vote. But I hear this intellectual engagement with where we're at and what could be done and what could change. And there's a contradiction there. Is there? Not choosing not to vote, but still kind of being so engaged and so in tune with the trajectory of our political system.

[John]

I have a good friend who points out this and says I'm a massive hypocrite because I engage and talk and love looking into politics and then don't vote. I understand that sentiment. I disagree. And so I'll give two perspectives. One is that a lot of my engagement is for fun. It's a hobby. And so it's both fun a hobby. And I find it to be an intellectual exercise to think on these things and stretch my mind and to maybe try and resonate with a perspective that I have an emotional reaction to and grow a little bit and understand more. So part of it for me is actually a self indulgence intellectual exercise. The other aspect of it is I don't. People generally say it's a common saying. I'm sure you've heard it of, well, if you haven't voted, I don't want to hear your opinion on it.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, yeah, I hear that.

[John]

I flip it the other way. If all you've done is voted, I don't want to hear your opinion on it. Voting is one of the least things you can do in community engagement. I mean, pick any topic you care about. If you care about supporting the poor, you can go vote for somebody that you think is going to support the poor. Your time would be much better spent joining an organization or volunteering to help the poor. Go out and go to those. If you care about immigration, go to the immigrant communities and spend time making sure they get connected with your community. Offer what you can, spend time talking to them. Oftentimes you can do these things and it's so much more impactful on an individual and a community level than just spending an hour going to go vote for somebody who's probably not going to make any difference even if your vote made a difference in the election. Yes, that's generally how I feel about it.

[Interviewer]

Why not? Yes. And though I mean everything you said about people being more involved in their communities is so valid and people are way too under engaged with their communities not volunteering enough. People should go to church, not even if they necessarily believe in God, but just to be across from their neighbors and to like, you know, have an awareness of what's happening in their community and who they live with. I'm all for that, but there's got to be a deeper injury. Maybe not injury, but dissatisfaction with what it means to vote in our current system. For you, because your argument would, would support voting as well as volunteering, would it not like go the extra mile in, in all cases to be a participant in Your community. But to. To me, what I'm hearing is like, voting in this current system is almost like a. Do you think it's degrading or, Or. Or something like that? Because I'm trying to kind of understand. Because I. I still don't quite understand why it's a barrier for you.

[John]

Yeah, you know, I think. Let me say this too. I speak strongly on this and passionately partly because I want to hear a strong and impassioned argument against it between you and me. I'm not as sold. Yeah, I want to see, like, it's almost like a relationship of, like, do you really love me in a sense? Right. In the sense of, like, do you really believe voting matters? So that's part of it, is I'm not nearly as sold on not voting as I argue, because I want to hear a really good argument of why I should vote. And I've had some. But the other side of it too, John, is I've said repeatedly, if you are not educated on it, if you're not giving an intelligent vote, don't give a vote. And so on a lot of these issues, I have not educated myself on all the candidates. And so I want rather to avoid. I want to avoid the hypocrisy of you're telling people not to go vote and you go vote. I really. It's A lot of it is a pushback against the system as a whole as well, in the sense of. I think one of the problems is people are voting without any thoughtfulness, without any intellectual engagement in the ideas or the candidates. And I'm so strongly against that that I'm just not even voting as my little protest, so to speak, against it. And, and then more so speaking out of, hey, this is why other people shouldn't vote. Like, protest the system that way. And, and to be. To be fair, I. I do. I've always said that if the right person came along and took the high road, instead of, like you said, racing to the bottom, I would get out and I would vote for that person and I would encourage other people to vote for that person.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I mean, a lot of what you say I think is super interesting and valid and something I would support, you know, like removing D and R from the names and being like, you gotta know who the person is you are voting for. You can't just go in and be like, okay, where are the Ds? Show me the Ds. Because that in and of itself turns politics into this literal cliff where it's like we just, we slide one way or the other and everybody's playing kind of the red, blue color coding game and, and, and then message, the most extreme belligerent messaging you could possibly think of to push people one way or the other. And that's why kind of our culture is, you know, it's like we've got, it's not like Christian values, it's like Christian nationalism. It's not just social progressive ideas. It's woke, you know, it's like these caricatures of kind of the former, the seeds of what existed on both sides. So I think that's a good idea. I think what we saw in California. Elon Musk, I kind of once heard comment on like the lack of just intellectual diversity or political diversity in California was its own. You know, it harmed the system because it was like people are just going to vote blue no matter what. And what kind of immune system do you have in a state or in a government that doesn't tolerate any political diversity and where the political opponent doesn't have any chance of gaining power and sort of course correcting. So, like, if there's not tension, you know, you really can fall into these, into these traps. And so I hear you on, on all of that and I think I agree with you. I'm like, star, I feel starved. And I think a lot of Americans feel starved. Like, what is something different? Where's somebody who's just radically different, who's the closest that has been in the political sphere in your lifetime that's got almost gotten you there, almost crossed that threshold of like, this feels real, this feels like coming from a good place.

[John]

You know, there's two people who come to mind who I've gotten the biggest sense of that, which are very different ends of the spectrum. Originally, Bernie Sanders, when running against Trump, I think 2016, as a person, I agreed with a lot of his sentiment and, and a lot of the bucking of establishment. More and more I've shone away from that. I just feel like going back to it. He didn't actually seem that different from a lot of politicians I was disenfranchised a bit on. I think there's nothing more evil and obnoxious than this idea of I'm going to go preach what I want and not live it. And it, it felt very much like that. That's the sense more and more I've gotten from Bernie Sanders. So I've been less, less attracted to that person because of it. And then there's the other one. Is, man, I'm gonna forget his name.

[Interviewer]

He is.

[John]

I think he's libertarian out of Tennessee. Ron Paul.

[Interviewer]

Oh, yeah. He's very independent thinker.

[John]

He is. And I really, you know, I'll tell you one of my red flags. If anybody agrees wholeheartedly with their party, I disagree with them. Because what you can kind of tell is that they're not living their principles, they're living with their group. And that's not who I want to be. I don't consider myself a Republican. I don't consider myself a Democrat. I actually consider myself now a recovering libertarian because I don't agree with everything libertarians agree with at this point. But I love seeing Ron Paul engage. And very quickly, I mean, he did a Joe Rogan interview and he talked about it. He was like, why are you blowing up these people? It's a war crime. I don't care if Donald Trump does it or Joe Biden did it, it's wrong. And everyone else was just like, no, Donald Trump said it's good, so it's gotta be good. Like, come on, guys. And the other part is, if you truly care about your team and you truly care about your people, you criticize them, you call them out and you encourage them to be better. But instead of doing that, we seem to have this idea of whatever's red is correct or whatever is blue is correct, and you can't give a little. These shootings in Minnesota, right? Both sides came out with. With the most extreme stories of totally in his bystander that just got shot out of nowhere and a terrorist. It's like, guys, is there any nuance? Do we have any room for nuance? And I see someone like Ron Paul and sometimes Bernie Sanders who can acknowledge that, who can acknowledge like, ah, shit, this shouldn't have happened. Both sides were a little in the wrong, and sometimes shit happens.

[Interviewer]

And what I'm kind of hearing is like, you know, the Abe Lincoln band of rivals kind of idea, like. Or a team of rivals. Sorry. You know, you want tension, you want contrast. It's even kind of, if you think about it in sports, if you have a team of all Michael Jordans probably wouldn't be as good as a team with, you know, Rodman and Pippen and I.

[John]

That's the.

[Interviewer]

The limit of my memory of that team. But, you know, these diverse players with diverse skills that are complementary, but they're fundamentally very different kinds of players. And. But this is where I, you know, I'm sorry to put so much pressure on you. You are like a Purple minded voter. You're exactly the kind of person that we want to be voting because you're not going to, you know, vote party line. So I appreciate everything you said here because I think these are all great ideas. My only thing is you got to be, we need you and obviously we would need millions of you to, to guarantee a certain kind of shift in our political climate. But this is exactly the kind of thinking I have an appetite for. So it's great to hear these things from you. But I, I would beg you to vote and find a way to, to convince everyone else like you to also vote without this party deferential allegiance.

[John]

This is not something I'm resolved on so I'll seriously think about it. And I have been thinking about it and every time I hear these arguments I chew over the idea more in my head. My current stance is if we're on a spectrum and here's the turning point, my current stance is right here on not voting. Because the more and more I'm like there's enough intelligent people who disagree with me and I have to ask myself at some point am I just being stubborn? And I try and see, it's easy. I think the biggest thing for me is I could get out and vote. But what's the end goal? What's the end objective? What's that thing, that tipping point that's going to change us from everybody votes. And thoughtful people don't really have a chance against zombie sheep, right? Because they're just a bigger group. And until that dynamic can change, I don't know that I want to waste my time voting. That's still, look, I'm on the edge there and I wonder how many people are like me who are on the edge who are just like, like I could go be effective in so many other areas of my life, not even politics and community, but I could spend that time exercising or something else. And I wonder if I asked myself what would it take to get me because there's other people, what would it take to get me and others over that ledge and would that be enough to change the dynamic?

[Interviewer]

It's really refreshing to engage with people who are so independent minded. I really hope where that'll become in vogue and hopefully we'll see that person, we're both, we have that itch for or that longing for to come in and change the tone of politics. Maybe, maybe they're around the corner.

[John]

Your little one grew three inches overnight. Adorable. Also expensive. Sell their pint sized pieces on Depop and list them in minutes. With no selling fees because somewhere a dad refuses to pay full price for the clothes his kids will outgrow tomorrow and he's ready to buy your son's entire wardrobe right now. Consider your future growth Bird budget secured. Start selling on Depop, where taste recognizes taste. Payment processing fees and boosting fees still apply. See website for details. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home with agents who close twice as many deals. When you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get [e-mail] own the Dream Quick choose a meal deal with McValue, the $5

[James Talarico]

Mexican meal deal, the $6 McDouble meal

[John]

deal, or the new $7 Daily Double meal deal, each with its own small fries, drink and Four Piece McNuggets. There's actually no. I'm just excited for McDonald's for a limited time only.

[Interviewer]

Prices of participation may vary. Not the Alderman McDelivery, I am here with Krista. Krista, welcome to the Surrounded follow up.

[Krista]

Thank you.

[Interviewer]

So first things first. What was it like, you know, sitting face to face with James Talarico for Surrounded?

[Krista]

Yeah, of course. Overall, I felt like it was a good conversation. We didn't really interrupt each other and we were able to communicate our thoughts as well as get our point across.

[Interviewer]

I'm gonna play you the first clip, which was from your initial interaction with him. And his claim was America's divided, but it's divided by top and bottom, not left and right. And you kind of pushed back on that. And so I'll play this clip and then we'll react to it. So here's that interaction.

[Krista]

I believe that economics, like the top versus the bottom, accounts for economic inequity. But I believe ideology is where the polarization comes in. So you're a man of faith, correct?

[James Talarico]

Yeah, try to be.

[Krista]

You are. Definitely. So wouldn't you say that your faith drives who you are as a person, in your beliefs?

[James Talarico]

Absolutely. And I agree that political polarization is a problem. What I'm trying to get us to realize is how these systems that we're in, a broken political system, a broken media system, a broken social media system, how that exacerbates ideological differences. Of course, we're all very different people. We're going to have different opinions. But these algorithms, these cable news networks, they fan the flames of those disagreements. And that's why we have such polarized politics, in my opinion.

[Krista]

So you think it's like an echo chamber? Like, is that what you're stating?

[James Talarico]

I think that these billionaires let's, you know, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, the people who increasingly own traditional media and new social media, they have a vested interest in all of us being divided. Because if we recognize that we are far more alike than we are different, if we realize that we have far more in common, we're going to take power back from them and we're going to bring it back into our communities.

[Interviewer]

What comes to mind when you hear you just kind of relive that exchange?

[Krista]

I think we had a really productive conversation in that. I think when you have this idea that, oh, it's this group of people's fault, in this case, he was saying the top 1%. I think you have to be open to seeing other people's perspectives. And I do stand by my opinion. I do believe that ideology is what creates that polarization, whereas economics, that explains poverty or economic inequity. But I think if Talarico, like, keeps this ideology of, oh, it's only the 1%'s fault, I think, yes, I agree with him to a certain extent, but I feel like he needs to see the whole picture on that. Ideology does play a big role, and you could see that with his faith, like, his faith drives who he is as a person and a lot of his belief systems. And I believe, you know, that's. That's definitely a positive thing for him. That's why he's running for US Senate, and that's why he's getting these big audiences. But I believe that the 1% does influence us today. But again, I would have to disagree. I think it all ties back to ideology. And we see that with multimillionaires and billionaires. How there's multi billionaires on the left, there's multi billionaires on the right, and you can see them donate their funds to causes that are, you know, that they support.

[Interviewer]

Oh, I see. Okay. So you're saying even at the top, when you've got all the money in the world, you're still divided by your ideology. You're still putting your money where your belief system is the root. It's a deeper root. I see. No, I think you make a good point there. Something interesting, though, about Talarico is he is a Christian, you know, and the Right. Is typically associated with Christianity, and he's kind of carving out this new niche. We'll see if it works or not, but that's kind of what I'm doing.

[Krista]

It's going to work in his favor, definitely. 100%. There's no doubt in my mind. It's definitely, I think, him.

[Interviewer]

Even though he's kind of steering towards the left. You think so?

[Krista]

100. Yeah, 1,000%, I think. I think that's what's making him so successful. The reason I heard about Talarico is, one, because of the Joe Rogan podcast, and two, because I saw that clip of him on social media where he was explaining why he's against the Ten Commandments. Being in the classroom, I think him explaining that it's not friendly to my neighbor in a biblical sense, like quoting the Bible, definitely works in his favor. I think that a lot of people who are on the left and are Christian are going to sway their votes towards him. The same thing for on the right and Christian. You know, there's never a perfect candidate, but few people who are hesitant about Ken Paxton, because, again, it's going to probably come down to Ken Paxton, Talarico, or I think it's Jasmine Crockett.

[James Talarico]

Correct.

[Krista]

I believe.

[Interviewer]

Although a lot of people are saying, you know, she's not tracking terribly well.

[Krista]

Yeah, I think Talarico is going to get the Democratic vote, and I think it's going to be down to him and Ken Paxton. But I think what makes him such a great candidate and is giving him an edge is his Christianity. And a lot of people on the left, they, of course, they can identify as Christian, but they choose to separate church versus state, whereas he is, like, kind of blurring the line. And he's very much attracting that group. And especially here in Texas, you know, everybody is so conservative both.

[Interviewer]

Are you conservative?

[Krista]

I would say I'm in the middle. I mean, certain things I agree with the left with, certain things I agree with the right with. But based off your rare bird, I guess. Yeah, I think this is definitely gonna work for him. And I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he's resonating with a lot of people.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, he's running a really interesting campaign, and he's kind of a unique figure to surface in Texas. And, you know, something I think about a lot is a lot of people from California have been moving to Texas. So, you know, Texas is kind of more uniquely purple, perhaps, than it's been in the past. And so there could be a flux of Ideology and sort of voting patterns in the state, but at the same time, Texas has been very reliably read and it's been very reliably conservative Christian in a flavor that is not James Talarico. So it's kind of TBD in my mind, if he's getting as much traction as we think. Something I'm curious, though, hearing more from you. He's kind of pointing out, and we're on social media. Jubilee is social media. Jubilee certainly plays in the arena of politics and political conflict. But Tel Rico is making this argument that looks these billionaires who run these algorithms run these platforms. Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Ellison. I don't know how much influence they truly have on these algorithms, but he's saying they want us to be divided so that they can keep holding power. Do you buy that argument? Do you share kind of that criticism towards the rich that James is trying to kind of frame?

[Krista]

See, I. I can't. I agree with him in a certain sense, but I can't fully agree. I agree that the algorithms do play a role. So I work in tech. So basically, whatever you, like, interact with in your algorithm, it comes. You know, it keeps showing you it because that's what you're engaging with, that's what you like. They want to keep you on the app as long as you can. I don't think necessarily that, you know, the Zuck or Elon are necessarily pushing a certain narrative like, oh, we want X, Y and Z out there. You need to put this on the algorithm. Or you want ABC out there. When you put this on the algorithm, I think. I mean, excuse me, not algorithm on your timeline. I think the algorithm is all based off of what you interact with. What I do agree with is if you have a. I think it thinks

[Interviewer]

for itself to a certain degree.

[Krista]

Yes, exactly. So if I'm far right or far left and I'm interacting with posts that agree with my ideology, like I said in the interview or debate, Excuse me. It definitely does become an echo chamber.

[Interviewer]

Right. And I guess the only thing I would say, though, that really supports his argument is there might be economic incentives. So, for example, Mark Zuckerberg famously kind of dictated that he sort of aligned Facebook's goals to optimize user sessions as long as possible. We want people to be on Facebook as long as possible. And this was kind of back in 2016. And so just that economic incentive of, like, we want to capture as much attention as we can. And that's the algorithm's job. The algorithm then discovered on its own in a certain way that harnessing outrage or feeding people more content that kind of aggravated their political sensibilities was the best way to achieve that. So it was sort of an unintended consequence. Something I'm curious about from you, you know, after sitting across from Talarico, did he win you over? Do you consider yourself a vote for him after this experience or were you already, you know, decided going into this? I'm curious.

[Krista]

No, I was undecided. I think for me it's between Ken Paxton, Talarico and a lot of Talarico's ideology. While I don't agree with everything, it's pretty similar to mine in a way. But again, I'll have to do more research, see the debates, and if, yeah, we'll go from there.

[Interviewer]

You know, he called you back to the center. What was it like to be the one chosen?

[Krista]

I think the reason he called me back is because we just had a good conversation. I really wanted to talk about gun control and I'm happy that I got the platform to speak with him one on one on that. I've been following his campaign, but I haven't really been seeing him speak much about gun control. But of course, his voting patterns have been in favor of gun control. So

[Interviewer]

I'm going to play you back a clip where you kind of lay out your claim and his initial response to it.

[Krista]

My claim is no matter how many, how much gun violence happens within the state of Texas, there will never be a gun ban or gun reform.

[James Talarico]

Well, that claim is pretty gut wrenching given that we've had five of the deadliest mass shootings in American history right here in Texas. One still haunts me to this day as a former public school teacher, and that's the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, in Robb elementary when we lost 19 babies and two teachers. Here's where I'll disagree with you on this claim, though. I saw those parents from Uvalde. I saw them make the 160 mile drive from Uvalde to the state capitol multiple times during that legislative session demanding begging for basic common sense gun safety, that they, they believed in the second Amendment just like I do. But they knew that there needed to be some kind of regulation to keep everyone safe and protect everybody's freedoms, including the freedom of those 19 babies to live and fulfill their potential. What I saw them do just over the course of one legislative session is move the needle on a common sense bill to raise the age to buy those kind of weapons from 18 to 21. The murderer in Uvalde turned 18 the day before he committed that horrific massacre.

[Interviewer]

Did you feel like James, you know, changed your mind a little bit on your claim? He kind of, he makes the case there that incremental progress, you know, had actually occurred and, you know, is possible on this issue?

[Krista]

No, he didn't change my mind on that. The bill never passed. I think it was bill House Bill 2744, it never passed. I think if it would have passed or it would have gotten. I think if it would have passed, that would have been.

[Interviewer]

Almost passed.

[Krista]

It almost passed.

[James Talarico]

Right.

[Krista]

Which. That's not enough. I mean, me personally, what is it gonna take? I mean, I, I own a gun myself. I'm all for gun safety. I'm all for just gun safety, background checks. And it's like, how many kids are going to have to die in schools for there to be some kind of change? And it happened. It happened in Texas, it happened in ual, and nothing's changed. You saw how hard those parents went, going back and forth. And Bill 2744 never passed. What is it going to take?

[Interviewer]

Why is this issue so close to your heart? Is it just because you've witnessed so many mass shootings occur in the news? I think, I don't mean to downplay. I mean, they are terrified. Terrible things to, to hear about. I share that with you, but I'm just curious why it's close to you.

[Krista]

It's just close to me on a deeper level. I've had multiple friends pass from gun violence. And seeing these kids, you know, trying to follow their dreams and go to school and just have their lives taken is so incredibly insane to me. And I see no change. One of my friends who passed away, Marco Ramirez, somebody was stealing his father's truck and he went after them to try to get the truck back and he was shot and killed. Another one of my friends, I think this case is a little bit more well known. Juvenile Ontario, he passed away within the same year. I think they passed away within two months of each other during a home invasion. And it was him, his wife and his son. And they shot and killed him in front of his family. And the three people who shot him are still wanted. And that one's a little bit more well known. I mean, how many.

[Interviewer]

I'm sorry.

[Krista]

Thank you. I appreciate that. But how many people are going to have to die by gun violence for there to be some sort of change? If kids are dying in classrooms, what else is going to take. And particularly, like I think of this documentary, I Think it's called all the empty rooms. Have you heard of it?

[Interviewer]

I have, yeah. The empty bedrooms of kids who have been killed.

[Krista]

And one of the kids covered in there is Jackie. And it shows, like, the impact. Like, I think we've become so desensitized to gun violence and kids dying all the time in classrooms based off people who are mentally ill or are just sick. I mean.

[Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Krista]

What is it going to take?

[Interviewer]

I mean, I share that sense of exasperation. This is an issue that has been in the news since, I mean, I lived in Colorado. So, like, Columbine happened when I was in, like, second grade. And then from then on, it's kind of dominated the American consciousness as a problem. But. And we actually see this kind of violence now spreading to other countries. I think there was recently just a. A school shooting or a mass shooting in Canada, and those are uncharacteristic events in other countries. And so I think part of the problem is it's really perplexing. Nobody knows exactly how to pinpoint what this formula is for a mass shooting. Obviously, access to guns is part of it. But my impression, as somebody who doesn't own a gun and doesn't know a lot of people who own guns, is that people who, like the gun community in the United States is so protective of the Second Amendment that they reject gun control measures and their elected representatives echo that. And so it's just been kind of an impossible barrier to overcome to get legislation passed. I mean, as somebody who owns a gun but then still wants to see gun control, what do you think when you hear that? Does that sound untrue? Does that sound valid?

[Krista]

I can kind of see it. I think a lot of gun owners see it as a slippery slope. If you're banning certain rifles, like semi automatics or things like that, they're gonna be like, well, what's the next step? Are you gonna start banning handguns? Are you just start banning, you know, any type of guns? And we've seen, like, small incremental changes. Like they banned the switch on the Glock. Now, that's a. I believe it's a federal offense now, but it's just so hard to balance. I think one thing that I agree a lot of gun owners want to do is have heavy background checks for those who are mentally ill. Again, the murderer at uvalde, he bought two ars the day after his 18th birthday. You know, like, there are so many things that we can do to prevent this. And another bill that didn't pass is, like, the Red flag laws. That never passed in Texas bill targeting local gun and gun free zones. I live right by the State Fair of Texas. There was a shooting there a couple years ago and people attempted to implement like local gun free zones and that didn't pass as well. So, I mean, I think the only thing I can see passing, hopefully is maybe raising the legal age. But we saw that in pass with the Uvalde shooting and heavy background checks for those who are mentally ill trying to purchase guns. But again, I live in Texas. A lot of people I know own guns. It's super common to own a gun here and I think a lot of us can agree on those background checks.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, no, it's, it's a, it's a terrible, it's a terrible reality and it's probably one of the worst features of American identity that we're known for, in my opinion. Charlie Kirk kind of infamously said, this is the price we pay for the second Amendment. We have to accept a certain amount of gun deaths as the price that we pay for the second Amendment. And obviously people have kind of revisited this quote from him in light of his death. And you know, it's terrible what happened to him. In no way should he be punished for having this opinion and then have to face gun violence. But I'm curious what, you know, you think of the argument that he made when he said that.

[Krista]

I think Charlie Kirk's argument of, you know, having gun deaths being the cost of the second Amendment. I can see where he was coming from on that. But I also believe that there are a ton of measures we can put in place to try to minimize those deaths. It could be, again, raising the age, heavy background checks, I don't know. I mean, that, that's such a heavy topic to cover and I feel like I can't fully cover that topic.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, but what I hear coming from you is you're saying, you know, we should have the freedom to bear arms. We don't need to infringe on the second Amendment, the core idea there. But if we have to put up a lot more measures to make it harder to access a gun, especially right when you turn 18, and maybe the amount of guns you can have, what kind of gun you can have, what requirements you need to demonstrate, or what kind of credentials you need to acquire to own those, those are all things we could tinker with just so that we know that people who use the second amendment properly are people who have been vetted to some degree and people who are risky with mental health disorders or things like that. There's some measure in place to flag that to identify that so that those people don't have access. That's kind of what I hear from you.

[Krista]

Yeah, 100%. There's a ton of preventative measures without impeding on the second Amendment. Right.

[Interviewer]

Well I appreciate you sharing your perspective and Krista, thanks for coming back on to revisit Surrounded. And thank you for just jumping into the arena in the first place. I thought it was very brave and awesome to see you go face to face with potentially a future lawmaker. So good work. For more follow up episodes of Surrounded be sure to like subscribe. Leave us a positive review. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. If you're watching the video version, subscribe to Tubely. If you want to see video episodes of Surrounded, subscribe to Jubilee's YouTube channel. Thanks for supporting us. Thanks for listening. Remember you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.