fbpx

Ep.293: Political Discourse Part III

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.293: Political Discourse Part III

Ep.293: Political Discourse Part III

Charlie Rutherford joins us for a third installment of Political Discourse. Please go back and listen to the first two which are episodes 232 and 264 as well as Charlie’s personal history in Episode 13 if you’ve not yet had the opportunity. Charlie considers himself conservative if not a libertarian and I like to say I come from the left and try to be in the middle. Through those lenses, we discuss healthcare, immigration, the Paris climate accord, America’s role in global affairs, and tax reform vs. tax cuts, free speech, and of course cannabis. In effect, this is two people simply discussing policy from alternative points of view without yelling at each other.

Transcript:

Speaker 3: political discourse. Part three. Charlie rather for joins us for a third installment of political discourse, please go back and listen to the first two, which represents 2:32 to 64 swells. Charles personal history in episode 13. If you've not yet had the opportunity and you're so inclined, probably considers himself a conservative if not a libertarian than I like second from the left and try to be in the middle. Through those lenses, we discuss healthcare, immigration, the Paris climate accord, America's role in global affairs, tax reform versus tax cuts, free speech, and of course cannabis. In effect, this is two people simply discussing policy from alternative points of view without yelling at each other. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends and the word economy, political discourse part three. So I guess here we go, right? Let's, uh, let's begin again. It's Charlie Rutherford makes me.

Speaker 1: And you, uh, I come from the left. I try to be in the middle. And then what, what, how would you say your thing?

Speaker 4: I would say that I'm, especially as of late, uh, kind of, uh, um, I'm definitely conservative, but some of the thoughts that I might have on certain subjects could be libertarian. Uh, some of them, some of them might even be center, so, uh, but I would say that overall conservative. Got It.

Speaker 1: So you're not using. I'm not using the, like I'm not, I'm an independent and it doesn't sound like you're necessarily tying yourself to a party either.

Speaker 4: Uh, I will try myself. Probably the part of the Republican when it splits here in the next coming months based on everything that's going on.

Speaker 1: Oh, in all we have to remind everybody, these are your personal points of view, right? The seven is, has nothing to do with anything other than your personal point of view, right?

Speaker 4: Absolutely correct.

Speaker 1: All right, so, so let's, uh, let's talk about this. What do you mean the Republican Party is splitting wood? Who Knew?

Speaker 5: Okay.

Speaker 4: Is optimistic disposition rather, but there is a, you know, the fight right now between the establishment and the, uh, in the new and the conservative and the populist. And so, uh, the world might get their wish in a way they didn't want it, uh, granted by getting three parties, but two of them are going to be a, a, a split of the Republican Party. It just looks like that a little bit with stuff that's going on.

Speaker 3: political discourse. Part three. Charlie rather for joins us for a third installment of political discourse, please go back and listen to the first two, which represents 2:32 to 64 swells. Charles personal history in episode 13. If you've not yet had the opportunity and you're so inclined, probably considers himself a conservative if not a libertarian than I like second from the left and try to be in the middle. Through those lenses, we discuss healthcare, immigration, the Paris climate accord, America's role in global affairs, tax reform versus tax cuts, free speech, and of course cannabis. In effect, this is two people simply discussing policy from alternative points of view without yelling at each other. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends and the word economy, political discourse part three. So I guess here we go, right? Let's, uh, let's begin again. It's Charlie Rutherford makes me.

Speaker 1: And you, uh, I come from the left. I try to be in the middle. And then what, what, how would you say your thing?

Speaker 4: I would say that I'm, especially as of late, uh, kind of, uh, um, I'm definitely conservative, but some of the thoughts that I might have on certain subjects could be libertarian. Uh, some of them, some of them might even be center, so, uh, but I would say that overall conservative. Got It.

Speaker 1: So you're not using. I'm not using the, like I'm not, I'm an independent and it doesn't sound like you're necessarily tying yourself to a party either.

Speaker 4: Uh, I will try myself. Probably the part of the Republican when it splits here in the next coming months based on everything that's going on.

Speaker 1: Oh, in all we have to remind everybody, these are your personal points of view, right? The seven is, has nothing to do with anything other than your personal point of view, right?

Speaker 4: Absolutely correct.

Speaker 1: All right, so, so let's, uh, let's talk about this. What do you mean the Republican Party is splitting wood? Who Knew?

Speaker 5: Okay.

Speaker 4: Is optimistic disposition rather, but there is a, you know, the fight right now between the establishment and the, uh, in the new and the conservative and the populist. And so, uh, the world might get their wish in a way they didn't want it, uh, granted by getting three parties, but two of them are going to be a, a, a split of the Republican Party. It just looks like that a little bit with stuff that's going on.

Speaker 1: Got It. Okay. So you, and then if we're saying one part is kind of populist and one part is kind of establishment, which, which uh, which part would you be in or is it possible, Charlie, that we might have reached a moment in time if I don't consider myself a democrat, you don't necessarily consider yourself a republican. We've got all sorts of stuff all over the place. Maybe the two hole two party system, maybe this isn't used, just said it yourself, the three parties, maybe it's more than three parties. Maybe we can actually just, you know, a higher, uh, elected officials that, uh, you know, do things as opposed to simply work there to get reelected. Again,

Speaker 4: I read something that I thought was compelling recently and it was the left tries to get more government control when they're in power. Republicans don't try to roll it back. They just try to maintain that level of government power because, uh, you know, the, maybe most of your listeners would agree that, uh, there's a lot of money in politics. There's a lot of lobbying and you can be assured that on any type of scenario that would generally be something that a conservative would fight for. They have special money interests that are telling them to vote another way. And so the idea of a principled politician I think is a mild oxymoron because I think people get disabused of that really quickly, uh, once they get into the halls and see how this stuff really works.

Speaker 1: So why not talk about a few things, right? And that's what we do here. So, you know, on these political discourse in this political discourse series, um, so we've talked about healthcare in the past, you know, this, uh, as we're speaking, it's kind of the end of September of 2017, the, this cassidy, the Graham Cassidy situation, uh, where, where do you come down on, on, on that, uh, on that offering.

Speaker 4: But there is a part of me that has realized recently that for my own mental stability and my attitude that I project to the world, it's almost better that I don't follow things moment by moment like I used to. So what I know is this, what I know is that even some of the people that have, uh, are now voting against any, have voted against any type of reform for obamacare to fix the, a lethal problems with it campaigned on repealing obamacare. And so once again, you, it was easy for them to have that position knowing that Obama had a veto pen when he was president. But now all of a sudden when you have to govern the story changes a little bit. So once again, I think that, uh, everything that people believed were principled positions of the subject being revealed as not being so principal.

Speaker 1: So, and you know, it's funny because you say repeal and I remember when it was repealed, then all of a sudden it became repeal and replace, which we've discussed in the past, doesn't make any sense. And you said it earlier in this conversation as well. The point is not to replace it with the point was to reveal it if we're coming from the point of view where we're coming from, which is we don't want all of this government stuff, you know. Thanks. But no thanks. Um, so it did it, it does seem kind of strange. Uh, that number one, they can't repeal it. Number two, they're offering to replace it. All of it seems so weird, right?

Speaker 4: On the whole repeal, replace, have never been moved more on that subject. Even compared to nfl and mlb teams who play football and baseball. It has gone from it. It's the same thing too with the law. Okay. We're gonna build a wall. Mexico's going to pay for it. Oh, okay. Well, you know what, maybe Mexico won't pay for it. Hey, fences are awesome. How about more surveillance? So it's a constant moving of the goal posts, uh, that I think that Americans are getting fed up with.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So that. So you bring up the wall. I mean, how much did that help your vote? So in other words, when we talk about the populists, I think that that was for them, that kind of a red meat over there. Um, if I remember, you know, talking you about. Yeah, let's have some rules as far as immigration is concerned. Um, but were you dead set on building a wall? You know, uh, it, was that an attractive thing for you? I wonder.

Speaker 4: Security is always an attractive thing for me when not long ago we celebrated the 60th anniversary of nine slash 11, which I don't have to tell you as a new yorker, but it hit really close to home to me because I was scheduled to fly that morning and instead I spent the afternoon still wrapped in a towel, having shot out of the shower to watch this whole thing unfold. And so security to me is a, is a really important thing. It's really one of the main functions that I believe that government has keep me safe to get out of my way. So when we're talking about safety, uh, I think it makes sense now. Will it stop everything? No. What won't, why do you lock your car doors? Does that mean that it makes it impenetrable to have Robert? No, it doesn't, but it just gives another level of security. We have the best country on the planet despite people trying to. I'm trying to say that we aren't because we're imperfect and so definitely people want to come here. Definitely people should come here from all races and cultures, but what are we, if we aren't a, if we don't enforce that first basic, um, uh, if forced that first basic, a display of the sovereign entity as we are, as a company, as a country.

Speaker 1: So I'm happy to hear you say you welcome folks. Uh, you know, uh, the, the right way because I think that there is a point of view which is we don't want anybody else. So I liked the fact that you are open minded now as far as where I come down on this, certainly I think that, uh, building a wall is more chronic. Of course, that's my point of view, right? But if I put myself back in center, which is again, comfortable, uh, try to be in the middle, here's where I come down on it. Well that doesn't make sense because you have to spend money on it. Why would you build a wall? You know, we can use those resources much more effectively than building a stupid wall. Right?

Speaker 4: The counterargument to that would be the cost of, uh, of people coming here illegally. It might be incarceration, it might be social services, it might be, they could be a host of things, so that would be the counter argument to that and if it's looked at completely from a fiscal perspective, maybe there is or maybe there isn't a way to say spending money on the wall will save us longterm by avoiding the incarceration, by avoiding social services, et Cetera. Maybe that is the case, but I think that even if it were a net cost to build a wall, I think it's interesting that people that might lean left or all of a sudden really worried about spending. I think that once again to uh, enforce the idea that the United States is a country of laws and there's a certain right way and wrong way to come in. I think that makes that statement

Speaker 1: to you almost. It's, it is a statement in and of itself. I think what both of us are saying is, Hey, let's actually study this and see what would be the most cost effective way to do it no matter what. Which, which kind of, again, talking about healthcare, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of cognitive thought going on there. Let's study it. Let's see how, how is it that we can save some money here? How can we spend less, not how can we spend the same money, which is why, you know, it's interesting to me that uh, you know, you've got Bernie Sanders on the other side saying Medicare for all now. Does that save us money? I don't know what I, what I've told you in the past is as a fan of capitalism, I'm not sure I understand why insurance companies get a handout, get a government handout. Isn't that. I mean, don't we not like government handouts? Do you know what I mean? Especially for fortune 50 companies.

Speaker 4: And that's exactly it. So once again, as a principled conservative would say you don't want everything on its own merit, why are we subsidizing anything? But the reality is that there are people that call themselves conservatives who are getting money from their districts in order to keep things a certain way. And so the idea that there are great ideas out there, but the reality of the opposition spending money, do those good ideas to maintain the status quo I think is very attractive.

Speaker 1: So let's, let's move on. Let's make sure we hit cannabis here. Um, I've, I've read reports of the fact that, uh, Mr sessions is a, you know, messing with a operations in, in Colorado doing so, you know, working with the irs and making sure to kind of see what he can do in terms of, you know, attacking if you will, the industry. Have you read said reports? Do you have any updated thinking regarding the Attorney General?

Speaker 4: I don't have any updated thinking. My, I think my thinking in the past was that at some point going to have to. He will come around for Rehab. It's taken a lot longer than I expected if it's going to happen at all because once again they're just my mildly informed opinions on the subject. So I find it surprising that he's going down that road. Um, I don't know what it's going to take. I mean, once again, this is a guy who is from a very southern state who's had a entrenched feelings on the subject for awhile, and if your listeners don't already know my feelings on having been a complete cannabis, a opponent to a believer after a pretty serious accident, well, that's what it took to change my mind. And, um, I don't know if he's going to interface with enough stories about the safety, a relative safety of cannabis. Uh, and I hope that somebody is telling them those things, especially in light of some reason things I'm seeing that teen use has gone down in the states that have legalized.

Speaker 1: Sure. OPIOID use goes down in states that are legal, meaning that a cannabis is not a gateway drug. It's an exit drug.

Speaker 4: That's right.

Speaker 1: Uh, which is, uh, which is fantastic. Speaking of exits or entrances, uh, let's go ahead and talk about declaring war over twitter. Uh, what are your thoughts on what's happening with North Korea?

Speaker 4: Uh, it's, it's so strange, so strange. I mean, we really, I think on so many of these things we need to get to a decision point on what a weird 2017 way of getting us there for a unstable, I think that he's been able to lead us around for awhile because we play the diplomatic game. I'm kind of a, I, I kind of, there's something inside of my mildly hawkish heart. Ben Likes that we are moving towards a decision where he can stop oppressing his own people because I mean, that's at the heart of this is the human suffering happening because of the way that they run things. And so if that means that we are moving towards a, a, a very, very laser like strike or something like that and um, uh, and it frees up a peninsula of people to be able to live and a freedom like their neighbors. That's a good thing to me.

Speaker 1: Well, wait a second, because you know, a few find any information you can. A North Korean citizens very much appreciate his leadership. They say that they're all fine and dandy, and if we employ a states rights type of thinking to this, why wouldn't we leave them alone and let them go and do their thing?

Speaker 4: Are you serious?

Speaker 1: Why not?

Speaker 4: To know that everything that comes out of that country is tightly controlled. Come on. So, um,

Speaker 1: what is it our business, I guess in, you know, like why us? Why not, you know, why isn't that what I heard in the election, uh, you know, leading up to the whole thing shouldn't to be taken care of that

Speaker 4: once. And once again,

Speaker 1: yeah, that's kind of a moving of the goal posts or a complete reversal of what he said in the campaign is what he's saying now. That's a tough thing. I liken itself to the idea of being the neighborhood can get anything done. I'm a strong person and they are uh, also a nice person who hears a commotion going on in the Neighbor's house and some guys beating on his wife or wife beating on the husband. Um, I would like to think that my neighbor would break or I would be the person to knock down that door and drag the offender off of whoever's being beaten up. So I think in a very simple sentence that is the crappy reality that America finds itself in and we are, uh, the strongest country on the planet and we are that beacon of hope. And so it sometimes falls on that person to be responsible to help alleviate human suffering.

Speaker 1: And sometimes it doesn't come through a form that we'd prefer it, but that's the world that we live in. Alright. So then if, if the US is in a position of leadership, um, we find ourselves on a very short list now, uh, in regards to the Paris climate accord, right? There's only two countries on earth that are against it. It's a Syria and there was one other. Oh, it's us now in Syria. So, um, but wait a second, there's a, some vacillation here. Maybe. Maybe we're not pulling out of it. Have you heard about that? And do you have thoughts on that?

Speaker 4: I do have thoughts on it. It's useless. It's useless now, so whether we're an elite company, but I being the only two people not on it anymore is fine with me.

Speaker 1: I gotcha. Now, let me, let me, um, let me turn the screws here when he pulled out at least by way of a press conference, uh, not necessarily actually through paperwork as we're reading now. I read the Paris climate accord and I think we've talked about it in the past. There's language in there that, uh, would make a left wing folks really happy and really annoy right wing folks. I understand that. However, as far as what you commit to that's up to you, that's up to your country. You can literally say we're going to do this and it's going to take us this much time and have that really not be much at all. So there's no reason to pull out because you don't have to promise anything. And I think that that. Is it possible that he's finding that out right now.

Speaker 4: It would be the first time that he said something and then changed his mind, fired off a tweet and his advisors told them differently. But your point about it is, is kind of a is exactly right. It doesn't have any teeth. Why bother? And so I think that like most of the things that he does, it was a not very elegant, but the reality is it doesn't matter if we're in it or we're not in it, it doesn't have any teeth. And few people were abiding by it even though they were a second.

Speaker 1: I mean, that gets to the philosophies that, that really puts us where we are. Right? You're saying, hey, that document doesn't have any teeth. Why be a part of it? My point is, hey, that document doesn't have any teeth. Why not be a part of it? You know, any little thing that we can do as a collective, you know, as us, as we, as the community, you know, why not do it? And your point is, well, why would we do it if it doesn't have any teeth? Isn't that the kind of, the basis of the two, kind of a different ways of looking at, at this same thing?

Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, it's, it's kind of the same way that I don't volunteer at church anymore because of my travel schedule. I don't volunteer because I can't be present in the same way that, um, I think that personally I wouldn't want whatever implied responsibility there is for something that no one else is abiding by and we don't suffer any consequences for not abiding by herself.

Speaker 1: So you're saying if I can't be president at Church 100 percent, I'm not going to half ass it. I'm either going to do it or I'm not going to do it.

Speaker 4: That would be my philosophy. Got It.

Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So, uh, I got two more things too because, you know, we don't have time to talk about everything, but before I do, are there any other kinds of policy things understanding that this is supposed to be political discourse, you know, things that we want to talk about, try to figure out how we can come together on or at least have a conversation about without raising our voices. Anything else kind of come up over the last few months that, uh, that we should discuss in this forum?

Speaker 4: Well, I think one option might be the direction they go after this latest failure on the healthcare thing, it's going to be taxes and tax reform and that's something that I'm pretty excited about and I think that most Americans could be excited about. Again, we're going to get into a fight over who's getting the tax cuts and who is or isn't paying taxes and whether there's going to be loopholes and all of that. So that's gonna be a fun one.

Speaker 1: Well, so I read an article about what tax rates were when Reagan did a, you know, his tax cut. Of course, he also raised taxes as anyone like me will tell anyone like you. Um, but the tax rates were so much higher and of course we don't want to go back there, but percentage wise, you know, what are you looking for as far as what it should be? You know what I mean? Like would have goal posts. Speaking of goalposts,

Speaker 4: I would just advocate for something that puts us on a level playing field with the rest of the world. I feel like I've read things that states that the United States as some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which is what makes it attractive for people, for companies to take their jobs and their businesses overseas. So I would like something that stop scaring them away and attracts them and their money back to the United States. Yeah,

Speaker 1: it's interesting. I'm just paying attention to what happens with brexit. And uh, it was one of the banks, I believe, uh, that just moved. Just said that they were going to a, I think it was jp Morgan Chase said, uh, they're going to go ahead and bring 3000 jobs to Warsaw, um, you know, because of Brexit, basically, you know, we need to make sure that there is a uniformity and we don't have questions and so we're going to go ahead and add these jobs. So I do think that, you know, um, if there's a way to make things attractive by, you know, by effecting the corporate rate, uh, that might, uh, that might be helpful. I also note that that's not a huge part of the basis of the tax money that the government brings in a that comes from people as far as opposed to corporations, which I was surprised to learn. I would figure that it would be much more of the pie would come from corporate taxes.

Speaker 4: It did because uh, a lot of small businesses are run, although I'm not a tax professional and don't claim to know everything about it. When you are catching somebody that looks like an individual who's super rich, right? Well, they're paying payroll and insurance and expenses and Dan, Dan. And so you're absolutely true on that. That small business employs more people in the United States than these big evil corporations in quotation marks do. Which is why it putting money back into those hands gets the chance to give people raises, give people bonuses, give people more money in their pocket so they can go out and do what Americans have a tendency to do, which is spend it instead of it.

Speaker 1: No, I mean just taking a random number of 100 employees if you have less than 100 employees. I am all for helping you, you know, that type of thing. Uh, the big boys don't need to necessarily need the help, right?

Speaker 4: And you're assured that there's plenty of loopholes that exist in order to let the big players put their fingers on the scales. And that's unfortunate. And so that's where I think that a lot of people have a misconception of, Oh, you're giving these tax breaks to rich people. Well, they look rich because they, that's the way that they run their business taxes, your giving money back to the people that are working hard for them in the form of those tax breaks for small companies. And I hope that they have something specific for that that also like to see my individual taxes lowered as well. And there's going to be people that scream, oh my goodness, deficit spending and okay, well let's spend less money. How's that? So

Speaker 1: I want to make sure to separate those two things. The first thing, uh, you know, as far as I'm cutting taxes as. So the option, the two freezes that I'm hearing are tax cuts and tax reform. And when you say, you know, the loopholes and all of that, I'm very interested in seeing if tax reform can get done, you know, I think that that would be extremely helpful then as opposed to just doing simple and mindless tax cuts

Speaker 4: right term on it. I would say tax improvements because we can tell from obamacare when he reformed the healthcare market, it wasn't an improvement, although it was reformed. So I would say fair enough. So, um, yeah, the question becomes, will what the US government loses in revenue at least made up in the extra growth that the capitalists tend to think will happen once we lower people's tax rates and put more money in their pocket. I would make the case that we've seen evidence of that in the past. The United States is a very successful company in spite of our tax rates, not because of them and even a unweighting. The parasitic nature of the US government in the form of taxes on them further is going to allow them to expand even more.

Speaker 1: So I just want to make sure that we're on the same page because tax cuts in the past have always added to the deficit. That plainly is what happens. Is that what you're saying you're okay with, or I want to make sure I'm following you.

Speaker 4: I'm not necessarily saying I'm okay with that, but even if I do make the case that lowering the tax rates world will spur business, whether that makes up for the loss in revenue by removing those taxes, I don't know. I tend to think that you lower, you're going to get more performance out of somebody when you stop weighing them down with taxes. But even if it were the case where the economic growth did not make up for what they lost in taxes, I say, spend less, spend less money, spend less of your hard earned money. My hard earned money on things that we are guaranteed we're going to disagree on

Speaker 1: which brings us. And just shortly, uh, or just quickly that brings us back to the wall. If we're saying we're going to add to the deficit with the tax cuts, which hopefully will make back later with growth, you know, it's things like that silly wall that you would imagine we would because you're not going to, you are not going to be a fan of taking anything out of defense spending, which is astronomical and it's, if you want to compare it to other nations is, you know, 10 fold higher than the next person. Excuse me, the next country, and I think you called the US a company by the way. Um, but, uh, but you know, so there's savings there, but I know that you're not going to want to take it there, which is why I bring up something like that. It's like, well, okay, if we're going to be doing this, you know, adding to the deficit, how would we, why would we also spend that silly money is, is you know how I connect the two things,

Speaker 4: right? Like, let's get an accountant in here. It's a question of whether or not we're going to make it back in what we save. Not having the, some of the problems that exist when you have unchecked immigration. Um, and, and there was an idea that was not my own, but I don't know why it hasn't gained more traction that there's so many billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico. Some of them people working here legally and some of them not being sent by a wire transfer back to Mexico. Why not just out increased the wire transfer tax? I mean, when I go to stay in a hotel now in San Francisco, most of the cost are the ridiculous fees of staying in San Francisco, the beautiful city that it is a. and it's gotten ridiculous. And so, um, I don't know why we couldn't ask for maybe a five percent surcharge on Western Union's being sent back to Mexico and that would probably pay for it in a few weeks.

Speaker 1: I don't know if that's going to add up for controversial. Well, I don't know if that's going to get the dollars that you're looking for, but I am all for know. Let's. Did you ever see the movie dave? Uh, which, uh, in which Kevin Kline is a regular person who becomes president because he looks like the actual president and the president has gone into a coma or whatever, and he'd be, he brings in his buddy Charles Grodin, who is simply an accountant like in a regular accountant. So I literally think, you know, if I'm sitting here reading the Paris climate accord, why don't Charlie, seth and an accountant get into a room and we'll just kind of look at the debits and credits and say, well, we don't need this, you know, and here's, we can tax this, right? We're okay with that.

Speaker 4: That's a level of common sense that just doesn't exist in government because I do tend to believe that you put five of your listeners in a room and they could hammer it out in an afternoon looking at, uh, looking at some numbers. But the reality is each one of those numbers has influenced behind the scenes. And so that's where that common sense breaks down unfortunately,

Speaker 1: as far as term limits. Because wouldn't that help? Right? If we, if we know that I don't have to spend any time being reelected a, then I can actually, you know, worry about what is right for the country as opposed to what's right for me to getting reelected.

Speaker 4: You know, I didn't originally loved that idea, but I'm starting to come around to it. The counterargument is that people, that it takes them a year, a few years to really get their feet under them and understand how it works, learn faster because where I'm coming down, right?

Speaker 1: Supposed to be really smart anyway.

Speaker 4: Yeah. To the point is to be a servant not to be served and to create a lifestyle and a career out of politics. Don't know why anyone would want to do that. There's clearly a thankless job. Look at Congress's approval rating right now. I, I tend to start leaning more towards the idea of term limits for that purpose. You can come in here with all of these grand ideas and try to get them done. You're a slave to no one and you can fight for your principals. Um, and the quality of your argument is what determines getting things done, not the quality of your donation.

Speaker 1: There we go. Perfect. All right, so two more things. We got gotta hit because, uh, well, um, you know, the guy in charge is a, is talking about this which makes everybody else talk about this, which makes us not talk about the things that matter. Um, however, you know, this is something that matters. And of course I'm talking about a kneeling for the national anthem, right? So I have certainly a thought on this. I wonder, you know, what you've been seeing over the past couple of days here. Again, we're late September of 2017. What are you thinking? Uh, as far as this whole thing is concerned?

Speaker 4: Well, I'm thinking about shutting down my personal twitter account because when I try to catch the things that really mattered to me, it still gets invaded by talk of kneeling or not kneeling and what it all means. The two sides are perfect for one another. Let's be honest. They each want publicity. If I watched five minutes of football tomorrow, that would triple the amount of football I've watched in the last decade, so I couldn't really care less about it. But in terms of the sides being drawn, I don't love the idea of disrespect to this country for all of its imperfections. There is something that, that, that flag means something. That song means something. I think that the way that the cowboys and the cardinals treated it last night was probably perfect. We're gonna kneel in solidarity with it, certain perspective before the anthem, but we're all gonna stand for it. I don't know why that hadn't, you know, hadn't occurred before yesterday, but we had to kind of get to that point after, after Sunday.

Speaker 1: I also really liked that I'm, I'm, uh, I'm okay. So I'd be the guy, you know, with a standing with my hand on my heart, with my hand, with my other hand on my teammate's shoulder, who is kneeling that, that would be me in that equation. You know, I am all for free speech and we've spoken before about, hey, if, if, if the, the, uh, certain folks want to go and talk in Berkeley, um, let them talk, you know, and then have a better argument or at least have a, you know, a come at them with thought and come at them with a intellect as opposed to shutting the whole thing down. So as far as expression of free speech, I'm for it in every single way possible.

Speaker 4: Totally agree. Because the awesome thing about free speech is it makes it easier to spot the idiots and who you think is the idiot depends on your perspective. And so why wouldn't we want to go? Oh yeah, that guy, I don't listen to him so much or I'll listen to it because it's an opposing view, uh, to help burnish my own. Um, so I absolutely support free speech. I absolutely support freedom of choice. So if people are getting turned off by politics, I mean, why do People Watch football? Well, at least in part to escape, do we want politics infused into absolutely everything? I don't. That's why I, that's, that's part of why I watched the sports that I do because there's none of that in it. So give someone. So I think that Americans are kind of responding a little bit with their clickers, um, by some of the stands for them seeing in a decreasing viewership.

Speaker 1: I'm of two minds there in that. Yes. Okay. Let's actually just have a safe space. And I say it that way on purpose. Uh, um, because I, again, I'm not for the whole safe space kind of philosophy. I don't like that idea. And so, you know, I see what you're saying in terms of I don't want to see politics here and there, but it's also like I think we're where we are because we, the people have dropped the ball in holding our elected officials accountable. And so if we have to think about it in overtime now of which means during my football time, I think maybe that's okay. You know, we should be participating in our civic duty. You know, we, the people are supposed to be in charge and I don't think we are. So, you know, that's, that's where I come down there. You know what I mean?

Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, and it's frustrating because the, I'll say this, I'll do something else when an office exists in the short memories that Americans have, we don't hold them accountable because we're getting these grand promises that touch on the emotional parts of us that we find important assignment election rolls around. And uh, I was really, really struck the other day on a video that I saw that was supposed to be a pro trump pro free speech rally somewhere and black lives matter showed up to counter protests. And the original pro, the, the original people invited black lives matter up to say what they wanted to say. And it was shocking how many things are parallel. They're not enemies. They walk away and getting, taking pictures together, handshakes into hugs,

Speaker 1: in pictures. It's a remarkable thing if you look it up and make sure you watch it, you know, if you haven't. But that was so enlightening and that was so kind of heartwarming to see. Right?

Speaker 4: And that shows where we have so many similarities and it's the difference in parts of the opinion or the way that we express it, but I mean those people left any feel like they might be inviting you over for dinner tomorrow. And that's the reality of most of the, um, the challenges that we faced that there's probably more in common than not. So I do depart from you in the way that it's good that overtime is infused with politics. But what that has a tendency to do, at least for me is make me even more calloused to the good arguments that somebody on the other side has when they're shoving it in my face. If I were to watch that or even just passing by and I'm accidentally seeing it, I'm like, oh, okay. Is that the place to be doing it? So is that advancing the conversation or is that pushing people further out to their extremes?

Speaker 4: And so if people could do more things like that event where it was a pro trump and the black lives matter, people that are supposed to be a. and candidly, each political party might have its own bit of motivation to keep those problems really acute, to appeal to the emotions of each side and say, screw them, hey, let's all be frickin friends. Why are we fighting over this Mr human being just because you have a different set of priorities than I do or think differently. And so I would say it would be the biggest middle finger to the political parties if we figured out a way to come together without them.

Speaker 1: There you go. That's what you and I have been doing on our tiny little forum here. And yeah, that's them doing it on video there and you know, let's keep going. So this would be a wonderful place to, uh, to end. And so I've got Charlie three final questions for returning guests. So this is a new feature here, you know, because you've been on before. So now we've got three final questions for returning guests. Are you ready?

Speaker 4: I'm ready.

Speaker 1: Alright. The first final question for returning guests is what would you change about yourself? If anything? The second final question is what would you change about anything else? And we might've already discussed that by the way. And then the third final question is always the same, which is on the soundtrack of your life. One track, one song that's got to be on there, but first things first. As far as the three final questions for returning guests, if you could change anything about yourself, what might it be? And this might be also something that you're already working on by the way.

Speaker 5: Sure.

Speaker 4: Well your listeners may or may not know that one of my feet is carbon fiber from a motorcycle accident and it may or may not surprise you that that's not what I would change because I've grown accustomed to front row parking.

Speaker 1: Exactly. And it's just a foot as I've been told.

Speaker 4: What would I change? I think I would make myself recognize the needs of others more easily before my own.

Speaker 1: That's good. That's also, it feels like it might be from the book.

Speaker 4: If I weren't married for the last few years, I probably wouldn't think that way, but I can tell you being married to a woman that literally wakes up everyday trying to figure out how to make my life better. I do. I could, I do a much better job.

Speaker 1: Fair enough. So that's a good answer. And we'll tell her about it so she'll appreciate it. What could you change if you could change anything? Uh, you know, what might you change about anything else? Just pick anything.

Speaker 4: Well, I think that there is two that are really close together and it would be able to get a mic, rib and the shamrock. Shake your way up there.

Speaker 1: Those are important things.

Speaker 4: Um, I think that a big problem that I have right now happens to deal with the cannabis world or should have more. And that is the, uh, uh, the level of hopelessness that returning vets feel and the unfortunate and a unfortunate number who are taking their own lives. It's not acceptable. And it's something that I think that we all are working towards fixing.

Speaker 1: I'm with you there. I mean, what more, we've already asked them to do plenty. Now let's kind of show up for them. I, I, I'm with you. I'm with you there. Alright, so soundtrack on the soundtrack of your life. One track one song that's got to be on there.

Speaker 4: Oh, it would have to be been Howard. Small things.

Speaker 1: And is that A. I don't know. I feel like someone else has mentioned this song. Is that essentially celebrating the little things in life? Is that what we're.

Speaker 4: Take it that way. It's funny how I have a soundtrack to flying and when I'm just, when we're taxing and about to take off. It's been Howard when I'm in the air, it's Lana del Rey.

Speaker 1: Oh Wow. Well that's actually, you know, she's not necessarily a beat.

Speaker 4: There's something just a little Sassy and a Sassy about it. I just enjoy it and it kind of takes me to a place. A good example too that she's very, very much from the left, but I still listen to our music because they separate your politics from what you're exceptionally good at it

Speaker 1: your humanness even like we actually are friends is the point, right?

Speaker 4: Yeah. And it's been far too long since I've seen you, man. We got to.

Speaker 1: The whole reason that this is by phone is because we thought we were going to be together and now we're not going to be together. So I feel like it's going to be. Vegas is what it is. Right? Well, Charlie Rutherford, this is always a, uh, a Dang pleasure. I appreciate your time. Thank you for having the conversation. And, uh, let's hope others do a follow the, you know, the suggestion here and uh, and just keep talking to each other, right?

Speaker 4: That's absolutely right. I love you. Thanks very much for having me on.

Speaker 3: And there you have political discourse, part three, trolley and I agreeing on conversation working. Hopefully you will join us as far as my mind. I read everything from the left, from the right, that I can everything from the nation to Breitbart simply to understand how I'm being poked and how others are being poked and how they might be thinking based on how they've been informed.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.