Black Men Vote: Trump & Hillary

0:00Hello, and welcome. This is Rashim of the counter narrative. This is a bonus like political episode. And this episode is called conversations with black men on both sides of the coin, black men who vote. So we have one person who is a, say both sides of the coin now. Okay. Okay. Right. We have one person who is a Hillary supporter and one person who is a Trump supporter. And we are going to talk with both of these black men who vote and get their viewpoint. But before they do that, I'm going to give them opportunity to introduce themselves. I'm going to go ahead and start with you. Derek, tell us what is your name, something that you're passionate about, and what are your specific interests in this topic? Derek McGowan, something that I'm passionate, something that I'm passionate about. Right. Well, when it has to deal with this, this election, I suppose. No. So something that you're passionate about in general. And then the next question is specific

1:06to this topic. Okay. What is it that interests you about this topic in general? I guess the topic of politics in general. Well, I'm an artist. So that's the main focus creativity, creative stuff. That's the main thing for me. As far as this selection, I'm becoming more and more of a, it's not that I'm getting to the point where I don't want to vote. I'm nowhere near that stage. What? You know, you start to have your ideals and you realize how, how, you know, the candidates that have placed up aren't the candidates and the system can't create your, can't recreate your ideals. So it's like, okay, so I'm becoming less involved from that standpoint. It's like you just realized that everyone's just like a bridge candidate. But you know, that's, that's as far as I can go with it. Okay. And you, OJ, everyone, you're

2:15named. What is something that you're passionate about? And what is your specific interest in this topic as it relates to politics? Okay. My name is OJ Mallory. This is going to sound a little like, I don't know where, but I actually for philosophical reasons, believe in trying to have as little passions as possible. But I'm interested in being self-sufficient. I grew up in the New York City, but I would like to, you know, have some sort of garden, I have a garden actually, but I only did a couple things out of it. I would like to grow most own food and just be like a self-sufficient person or be a part of a self-sufficient community. And then outside of that, I just want to have a better understanding of the true nature of reality itself, the substance of space and matter and what existence actually

3:16is. Mm-hmm. That could dig it. So this question is going to be for both of you. I'm going to jump back over to Derek and ask you this question first. How do you feel about the climate of this campaign right now? I mean, first glance, it looks like it's, it's, okay. So first, as a, as a disclaimer, I have a, sometimes I have a hard time finding words. So it might be this is where I'm like pause for a little while. Well, I'm trying to think of something. Sorry to the audience and sorry to the panelists, I guess. So I would say that it does seem adversarial, but you know, then my mind automatically says, well, what about elections of the past? I don't know if there's any less, any more or less adversarial than some elections of the past. Of course, there's probably been multiple ones where everything went smoothly or back in the day when

4:18candidates were basically chosen by the mob bosses or by the, you know, smoky, handshake, smoke filled worm deals and stuff. So those might might not have had as much vitrural. But upon, yeah, if the alien came here now, they would probably say that this probably is kind of aggressive. Okay. So, but you're saying this is probably the way that it's been going the whole time. It's just, we're, I think that one of the main issues of course is social media and the new cycle nowadays amplifies things to a higher extent. But I think, I think the, the competency between the candidates or their feelings towards one another or words that they might use or dig in a history on somebody else, I think that's probably been going on, you know,

5:2370% of the elections that you've had. Okay. And for you, OJ, how do you feel about the climate of this current campaign? I feel very similar. I think, you know, it is probably not that far different. I remember things being said that were pretty harsh in the past about folks. But again, with social media, there's, you know, it kind of ups me any. I would add, and also, as far as the candidate being selected in a smoky back room, I agree that also has probably been the case in the past. And one of the reasons why maybe things might be a little bit more accelerated now is because, you know, we have one candidate who probably was not picked in the back of a smoky room. And I think that, you know, that, I think that bothers a lot of people who think that they're entitled to make these decisions for the rest of the people. But I think it might begin ahead of

6:24myself. And the last thing I'll say is, I think that the nature of some of the comments, and this is on both sides, really reflects on either one, the intelligence of the electorate or to the perceived intelligence of the electorate because there has been so much deviation from core issue topics that delve more into personalities in your window and just in a kind of not really relevant as far as policies, laws, and things of that nature. And I think that there's an attempt on the part of some of those involved to really basically try to avoid the issue and try to manipulate people on a more sort of emotional level. It seems kind of deliberate. Okay. And do you feel like both sides are trying to manipulate people on the emotional level or just one side?

7:26I feel like they're both doing it, but I definitely would say that one side is doing it more than the other, but I think they get into the examples of that. I don't know if that's what you want to get into right now, but I definitely think one side is doing it more. But definitely, I think Trump overstates things and he says things in a way to try to give it an alarm or urgency that kind of exaggerates the true nature of what he's talking about. And I definitely think that it's definitely also done on the other side as well. So I think that we're probably more thoughtful than the average voter if I were to be so presumptuous as to say that just to even be willing to have a conversation, a lot of people aren't real thoughtful. For some people, it's as simple as, oh, he's racist. Or, you know, she's a, she, she lied, you know what I mean, or whatever. It's like

8:30one thing and they're not really, you know, and it might even be an emotional thing and they're not really thinking it through. And I think that the candidates are aware of that and they're smart and they're saying, well, wait a minute, we could either try to win over the 15% of people who are thinking or we could try to win over the 85% of people who are not thinking. So we're more, we're more of the votes. And I think that you see this sort of, that message as sort of tailored to a sort of sweet spot with amongst the people as far as mentality goes. And I definitely think that that's done on a part of one candidate more than the other. Okay. All right. We'll get, we'll get into defense of that. So I'm going to, again, I'm going to ask you both these questions, but I'm just kind of flipping back and forth. And I want to take the time to, if you're just tuning in, this is the counter narrative. This topic is about black men who vote and we have one person who's a Hillary supporter, one person, a Hillary

9:34supporter, one person who's a Hillary Clinton supporter and one person who's a Donald Trump supporter and we are just hearing, having a conversation with them to learn more about their views. So the question I'd like to ask both of you and I'm going to start with you again, Derek, is what, with the state, with the state of the state and the national polls being all over the place? How do you feel right now about your candidate's chances? So your candidate being Hillary, Derek, how do you feel about her chances right now? Again, I'm not, I'm not as deeply watching it as some people may be, especially because the information is out there right now. They are trying to get people involved with the election cycle more and more. They're making it more out to be a reality show, which might have some pluses of benefits to it, but they are, they are making the information available. I'm not following it as close. It could be in general. I go through

10:41a cycle of when I'm listening to news and then when I'm not. And so this might just fall into that category, I guess. How do I feel about her chances? That's going to feel good about her chances. I feel like, well, I could start a debate by saying something crazy like, well, Trump can't win because he's, you know, of course, they're not going to let Trump. The people would never stand for such a thing. But no, but seriously, Bill, I believe that as OJ was saying, Trump is reaching out and energizing, reaching out emotionally to energize. I think, unfortunately, he's only energizing a small percentage of the full electorate. Now, of course, the full

11:43electorate doesn't come out and vote anyway. I mean, so we don't know how it's going to pay. I'm not going to prophesy. But I believe that the people who are the most going for the small percentage of people who's peeling off and going in his way still represent a very small percentage. So I think just from numbers alone, I don't think he could win. Now, with what the polls are saying, with him being like either two points ahead or two points behind, that would give the impression that is not such a small number. Well, you could easily use that same information you just gave to Lynn support to what I'm saying, in that the vocal minority or the highly energized base are the ones who are going to go out first and vote early voting. And so when the general comes around, if all of that, if that whole section of the base has been exhausted, then there's going to be no one left. You know, saying to continue to

12:47file votes on in his side. Again, I'm not going to prophesy, I'm just going to happen, but I do still feel strongly that she would win. Okay. And to you, OJ, with the polls being all over the place, how do you feel about your candidate Trump chance of winning? Well, before I answer the question, I wanted to say that I think that these types of questions are like the least helpful questions because it turns the election into almost like a sport or a game instead of, and it makes it about a competition between two people as opposed to a competition between ideas and issues. So, but that being said, I'll briefly say that I think that Trump is doing very well. I don't believe the polls. I think it's very clear that the media, the corporate own media is very slanted against Trump. I think that's blatantly obvious and very pro-hillary

13:53Clinton. And I think they're trying, and I also don't fully trust the election process. I hope that is fair and honest, but I don't think it's beyond reason to suspect that it may be twiled with. And I think that if you give the illusion that the race is a lot closer than what it is, then it gives you the opportunity to play some shenanigans after the fact and make it plausible. But if you look at a Trump rally, okay, where you have, you know, 50,000 plus people with another 10, 20,000 outside that couldn't even get in. And this is happening pretty much at every rally. And then you look at a Hillary Clinton rally, if you want to call it that, and it's not even 1,000 people, there's a few hundred people, not even 500 people. It makes it pretty clear, like, on a grassroots level, you know, who the people are more strongly supporting. I think that the media has given the

14:54illusion that Hillary Clinton is even in the race at all. I think it's a pure facade. So that's how I would characterize it. When you say it's a facade that she's even in the race at all, are you saying that she, they're making a facade in terms of like she don't have the numbers that they're saying she has? Correct. I don't think that there are that many people. I don't think it was even close. You know, I'm a people that want Hillary Clinton to be president as compared to the amount of people that want Trump to be president. You know, I mean, I would even venture to say that the people who are probably well over 50% of the people that are voting for Clinton are voting for her merely because they don't want Trump to be president. I don't think that even of her voters, I don't think very many of them actually want her to be president. Do you think that there's people who are possibly voting for Trump just because they don't want Hillary? Yes, and I'm probably leaning more towards that side myself, although I don't think it's merely that it's not Hillary. I think he has a

15:58lot of good components that he brings to the table. It's not merely that, but that's definitely, for me, at least at least 50% of it. But just all you got to do is look at a Trump rally and look at a Hillary rally. I mean, it's literally 10,001. You know, I mean, it's not even close and I, and also you have to look at the voter turnout in the Republican primary and you see these historic numbers of folks that are voting. And I think the prime reason for the increase of participation is because of the enthusiasm that Trump has. I don't think that this people jumping up and running excited to cast the vote for Hillary Clinton, but there are people excited. I think Trump is doing very well. So it sounds like you're saying that you feel like he's doing much, much better. And the reason for that is because when you look at his rallies,

17:01like it's obviously more people there. So it's obviously more people who are interested in voting for him. And the turnout for the primaries as well. And you also mentioned a little bit the voting process. Do you agree with Trump that the voting process is rigged? Again, Trump tends to overstate things. I don't think that we can know for sure that it's rigged, but we definitely have reason to suspect this rig. For one, there's been a big move away from paper ballots into this electronic voting. And actually, we've had electronic voting for a while, but we generally have had at least a paper backup where you can count the paper ballots to make sure that the electronic count is correct. And more and more instances that is being moved away from. You also see areas where people who are newly sworn in as citizens being bust away to cast votes by the Democratic Party, which is a sort of violation, I believe.

18:03Could be wrong about that, but I believe I'm hearing a report that there was some voting violation that was done involving basically using somewhat coercive tactics against newly sworn in citizens. So, you know, between those sort of illegal tactics and the fact of just it's a machine. And, you know, at the end of the day, you're talking about literally a black box. You hit a button and it tells you how many people voted for this person and how many people voted for that person. And unless you understand the inner workings of that box, you have no idea whether or not the count is active. You just have to trust the maker of the box. No. And we have no reason to just basically trust the box. We just hope that the box is counting correctly. Now, if there's a paper ballot and we some at some point after the fact, suspect that the box wasn't right, you can always go ahead and count the paper, which gives more of an incentive to the creator of the box to create it so that it performs as we wanted to perform because they know that at the end of the day, the box can be validated and verified. If they know ahead of time,

19:07they're, hey, there's really no check for this box. Then why not put a bug in the software that makes it, you know. So, I did fill out a paper ballot. You fill out a paper ballot. But they still have a paper ballot backing it up. Yes, each state is different. And it may even be even that the jurisdictions may even be different. But not all the electronic machines have a paper backup. Some do, some don't. I hope that most of them still do, but many don't. Okay. And the switch for everybody is a little different as well. I think with early voting, even in Maryland, it might be electronic. But I do, I do remember hearing something to be effective. Now, you can always Google this on the spot. Now it's a bit of a good list. With early voting is a paper ballot voting on the day. And that's the thing that makes you feel like it's it's untrustworthy because it's on paper.

20:11I'm not going to say that it is wrong or that it is not reflecting the true results. But what I am saying is that we should not blindly just believe that it will do so. And not question. I think that we should look, wait and see how it goes. And if it appears to be good, correct, fine. But be ready for the possibility that it may not be correct. And then be willing to do like what Al Gore did and ask for recounts and things at that age. But I'm certainly basically not putting it past anybody to try to pull some shenanigans. I mean, you're not saying that you've already been pulled. It's certainly within this scope of that. Right. And you know, so, you know, so basically, uh, okay. And you're not saying it's that it's rigged in this election. You're just saying the process of voting itself is rigged. I'm not saying it's rigged. I'm saying that it's vulnerable to being rigged. Okay.

21:12I'll reserve judgment as to whether this election is rigged until after the election. Like, there's ways of determining that, or he's getting some evidence about that. For example, exit polls. Historically, exit polls have matched the actual numbers to within one percent. Okay. But if you suddenly see exit polls differ from the actual results by 5 percent or 10 percent, that will be an indication that, you know, something happened that was, you know, in propriety, you know, I mean, now it that may not occur. The exit polls may match the results in a way that we expect. But there's no way of knowing that until after the fact. So I'm not going to say that it's rigged. But I'm going to say that there's the potential that it could be rigged and that we'll have to wait and see to have the results to make that determination. Okay. Gotcha. And Trump caught a lot of flak for saying, you know, we'll see if I don't know if I'm going to accept the election. Maybe he didn't say it. And again, that's one of his downfalls. He doesn't say things in the and the clearest, most eloquent way. But I think what he meant to say is,

22:17I will accept the election results and not contest them if they appear to be fair and accurate. Well, what he asked me is not going to be fair and accurate until after it occurs. But what he actually said was he will accept it if he wins. Those were the words and we could argue about what he meant to say. But the words that he said, I think the question during the debate was. Oh, not during the debate. And he said, he said, uh, we'll see. It'll be something he said. I think the word he used was. Yeah, he did say during the debate that he will see at the time. But afterwards, there was a rally where he said, if he wins, he will accept. Well, just begin him saying that if he wins, he will accept it. Does not mean that if he doesn't win, he categorically won't accept it. Of course, why would he challenge the election if he wins, if he expects that he should win anyway? If he feels like it's rigged, then that's a reason not

23:17to accept it. Of course. Okay. But he's not going to know if it's rigged until after the election. Right. Then I would say I would then I think that's a that's a better statement that he said was the one that he said in the debate in terms of I'll see at that time as opposed to if I win because that that does not sound like a fear and balance. That sounds like if I win, I'm not going to push it because I want to win. That sounds like the focus is on winning and not fear and balance. Well, I can understand how it might sound like that, but that's not what he's saying. If I say that if you don't run around the block, I'm not going to pay you five dollars. It doesn't mean that if you do run around the block, that I am going to pay you five dollars. I'm only telling you what I will do if you don't run around the block. So likewise, I'm saying that if he wins, he won't challenge it. Actually says nothing about what he will do if he doesn't win. I feel like he said how he would handle it in both situations.

24:21Oh, okay. Well, I'm not familiar with that. I can't comment on that. I hear you. But I can only comment on what you said that he said and what I heard him say. If it is with regards to the with regards to him saying that if he wins, he won't challenge it. That only says about what he will do if he wins. If you're saying that he said what he will do if he doesn't win categorically without equivocation, then I didn't hear him say that. But if he did, in fact, say that, then I don't agree with that statement. I don't agree with everything he says. But what I gathered from when he his intentions are from the debate, what I did here is that if it appears to be like, there's some funny business going on, then he will challenge it, which he should, which is important, outwardly. Okay. All right. So I want to say again, if you are just joining us, this is the counter narrative. We are talk having conversation with black men who vote when Hillary supporter and one Trump supporter. Question I have for you there. You mentioned about how

25:23you are starting to, you're not at the point where you don't want to vote anymore. But because of the candidate choices, you're kind of getting dissolution, you're kind of getting not as enthusiastic about the voting process. And to me, that kind of hints at something that Trump was saying around it being the possibility of it rigged and something that OJ kind of hit on when he's saying just not as much trusting the process, really. And it sounds like you're having a little bit of I don't have any problem with the process. Okay. I'm saying that I'm saying that the philosophical growth, I guess, that I've had over the over a number of years has pointed me in a certain direction. And the systems that we have in place right now, I don't mean system of voting, I mean systems in general, I mean structure in general, are very likely not going to say, okay, say for example,

26:34anyone who's a Bernie Sanders supporter, right? If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, you might be down with him saying free college for everyone, right? You might be out for a bunch of stuff that he says. That's very much ideal. If he were the guy elected, none of that stuff would actually happen because the system is conducive to the things that he was saying. Not simply because he wouldn't be the leader of the free nation or the strongest country in the world. But he has a whole Congress to deal with. He has a whole, you know, a whole entire population, 300 plus million population, whereas most of the people have an adverse effect to the word socialists. And he wears it probably like a badge on his jacket. I mean, he would, none of those things would get through. You know, universal health care, we already, we tried that. You know, I mean, I'm not, and again, that doesn't mean that it won't

27:37happen in the future. I'm saying that the system that sort of, that we're dealing with right now is not conducive to, saying his ideals is not conducive to many of my ideals. So it's like, okay, so, so in other words, when I'm voting, I'm not voting, and you were right to say that I'm not at the point where I'm going to stop voting. That's not the point. It's just that I'm not enthusiastically voting like, yes, this person is going to bring a sweeping change that we need. My thoughts is this person is going to do a 5% advancement or, you know, a 2% advancement. And I'm just happy with that, you know what I'm saying? That's, so you don't really get enthusiastic about the 2% advancement, but, you know, I'll take it. So for you, it's not really not necessarily whether or not you trust the process, it's just, you're not just as excited about the options that we have. No, you, okay. Did I miss it? Yeah, it's not about the options. It's not about the process.

28:42Okay. I keep using the word system, but it's about the structure that we actually live in now. Okay, so, so, so for example, the Bernie Sanders thing, if 90% of the Congress is against free college, then that's a system that he would be working in if he was the president. In other words, it's not going to work. You know what I'm saying? It's just not going to happen. So I'm saying that ideals that I may have are not going to work in the system that we have right now. And I don't mean the system of voting. I mean, just like people's mindsets, I mean, like the way the hierarchy works. But, you know, just, I'm saying just the, just the structure of the culture, you know, you know, the culture. Let's call it that. I'm not, you know, the, the ideals that I may have, the some people may have, the people in the opposite end they have. Cultures, you know, they move slow. They don't, they don't change overnight.

29:46You know, so you just got to accept that that no president is going to come into making sweeping changes like we expect, like a lot of people expect to have this. It's not going to happen. Okay. So let me see if I'm getting this right. So you're just getting to a point where you're understanding that the power that the president has is extremely limited. It's limited. And so that makes you what? It makes me have a reduced enthusiasm. I'm saying the emotion to me as I'm saying that I'm still going to vote. But it's not like I'm like, yeah, I'm going to get my man in there because my man is going to do such and such. You know, because my opinion they ain't going to do such a such, you know, say it. I'm going to keep going to Bernie because Bernie is someone who had a lot of high ideals and everyone knew it. Okay. So if I was supportive of him,

30:47you know, I'd be, then I'm down with his ideals. He's going, he's going to get in here. He's going to change everything. And I'm saying from my realistic standpoint is he's going to get in there. He's going to do 98% of the stuff he said. So yes, if I was supportive of him, I would still vote him in because I would still look for that 2% change that he can make. But I'm not going to be all, you know, all going nuts, you know, or what they can did. The second comment is about to happen. And everything is going to be different. And and those on the other side, they're going to get their just desserts and, you know, saying the weakening and all that. So it's the best stuff they go at. Yeah. Well, Stephanie agrees with you. She says the hour in the government is very limited. And I want to also say hello to Crystal. For others who are in, I won't be able to see you unless you say hi. Or if you have a question for our guests, please do feel free to drop it below. So you mentioned how you felt there is about the, let me, let me give another example. Okay.

31:51Okay. Another example would be because as we had mentioned, I am a Hillary supporter. I'm a Clinton supporter. Okay. I do not give credit to Bill Clinton for the economic boom to happen in the 90s. And I also do not give place blame on Bush for the down to, for the recession to happen anytime. In other words, that person as a president does not have that sort of power. That the economy is, is, is controlled by hundreds of millions of transactions, you know, on the worldwide scale. And the president is, he's got, that's like the president, that's like saying the president has something doing the price of gas. When, when we clearly had OK and so on. Now, if we, if we had a 100% ownership of our gas supply, then I would say yes, then that case, the president can have a very real effect on the price of gas. But in the system right now,

32:56where we had people who was prospecting, stock people, commodities people, OPEC, multiple countries with their own agenda. The president has no effect on the price of gas. You know, I mean, last day we're going to go straight, dictate the route and just say I'm fixing prices. But that, you know, again, this is a democracy. That's not the system that we're in right now. The people wouldn't stand for that sort of thing. So I just wanted to follow up with some real world idea, you know, the whole economics thing. I do not blame Bush for the reception and I do not give credit to you, Clayton, for the, for the, you know, the great, the 90 does. You get the same old saying. I kind of agree with that for the most part. But I would just tweak it by saying that the things that the president could do oftentimes, they don't do. Like for example,

33:59with the price of gas, yeah, if you just leave it to the open market fine, but the fact of the matter is the OPEC nations will name these Saudi Arabia, you know, they rely wholly on the US for protection. And there's no, we have 100% leverage to make them, you know, charge, but we want them to charge for the world, but we just, for whatever reason, choose not to exercise that leverage. And also this strategic reserves of gasoline that we could use to sort of buffer whatever price fluctuation. So if the price goes way down, we could just buy up a bunch of gas off the free market. And then if the price goes up, we can just unload some of the strategic reserves and we just choose not to do that. But I agree 90% what you're saying. Generally, there is limited control, but also I would say that there are some controls, but last time is deliberately just not exercise. No, I agree that there are things that could be done. That's why I brought the dictator example.

35:03I'm saying in our system, okay, let me stop using the word system, our culture will not allow certain things. So for example, if the president said, if a president said, I'm going to do X to this country in order to get them to do what we want to do. Okay, there's a certain limit as to how far they can go with that. Even though going, you know, to attend might get exactly what we want. There's going to be members in Congress or there's going to be the voting people who say, we don't want you to go to attend. You're going too far. You know, it's going to be some blockages that happen. Therefore, our culture does not allow for a dictator's sort of, for the dictator's, or monarchy sort of commands that would get certain things done. You know, I mean, yeah, I agree with you for the most part. I'm not going to go to the president's stand on the on the minor, not going to say what we're saying, but I agree 90% of what you're saying.

36:10I want to say that there's some comments in the chat section. Stephanie matches the legislation that actually drove the derivatives market into a tailspin. We into effect when the Clintons were in office anyway. McGow ride says nice, nice conversation going. Another person said, I agree with Derrick for the most part. Another person said, the president is a figurehead period. And another person said, I feel as though Trump would abuse his executive order ability. So here's the question before we get to whether or not Trump would abuse his executive order ability. You both expressed you expressed some just some general feelings about the process. Whether it's about the ballot and the voting process or it's about the level of power that the president has to even make any substantial change or more specifically change that affects your life as an individual or

37:12your greater family extended family community. What do you say to those people then who don't vote? And why do you still feel the drive to vote even with some of the some of the challenges around it that you mentioned? I'll go ahead and start with you, OJ. Honestly, generally speaking, I can understand why you wouldn't want to vote in like national elections. I think that culturally, as black people were conditioned to think that voting is so important because of the sacrifice that was made so that we could have the ability to vote. But I would say this, this might sound a little taboo, but just because people fought and died for something, does it make it valuable? I believe that something's value does not come from this cost, but rather comes from his usefulness.

38:15So voting is actually only as valuable as it is useful. It's not as valuable as with equating to the sacrifice made so that we can vote. And if it so happens that there is not a candidate that you support or feel enthusiastic about, you probably shouldn't vote because at that point, the process is not really legitimate to you and you're just legitimizing something that perhaps doesn't deserve legitimacy. And there were times and places in this country where black people were doing a lot better than they are now prior to having a nationwide protection to vote or having any meaningful nationwide voting power. Now, that's on a national level. On a local level, I think it matters a whole lot. As far as, you know, on a, on a municipal level, a county, county government, city government, I think that's very important. Even on a state level, it's probably important also, but the further you move away from your locality, the less important it

39:18is. And you can just point to examples like Black Wall Street. Not only Black Wall Street, there were other Black towns that were thriving and doing well. And honestly, they were so self-sufficient and produce some of its value for themselves. They were sort of insulated from the more national issues that need to be worried about it. And I think that's where the effort is probably the best place. I think that a lot of the rhetoric around voting and being so important, especially on a national level, is deliberately done to emphasize the importance of politicians, it's sort of like a, it's sort of a way for politicians to self-emphasize and make themselves more important to us, or appear more important to us than they actually are. I really love that quote that you said, OJ, about the cost not making it value, but it's usefulness. I really think that that's a very, I like the statement. I like the statement.

40:24McGowride says, I'm willing to see what is going to happen with whoever wins in office. You never know what is going to happen when the person gets in and stuff responded that he doesn't have a choice but to wait to see. So Derek, back to you, how do you feel about the person who, or how do you feel about the state of people who deciding that they're not going to vote, and with all of the challenges, not the challenges, with all of your concerns that you have, why are you still voting? Well, the people who don't vote are partially the reason why the culture hasn't changed. The system in place as far as the actual congressman or the candidate, so that's all based on what we're voting. And if only a certain selection of people voting is going to keep being the same thing. So that's my number one answer is that you need more people to vote so that

41:26change will come with people voting. The system is not, or the culture is not isolated and impervious to votes. It just, it was just having had enough people to vote. We're always in like a 50% range. It was horrible to find out recently that here in Baltimore, we had a city mayoral election that was outside of the normal schedule. So you weren't voting for your senator, you weren't voting for the president at the same time, we were voting for mayor. And I don't remember the exact numbers, but Baltimore is about 600,000 people, and only like 30,000 people voted. And the numbers were such that only 6,000 men voted in the entire city.

42:27Out of 600,000, it was like 6,000 people voted. And it's like, of course that's an extreme example, but it's a real example. And when you have things like that, you know, yeah, I agree that's terrible. Like I said, I think voting on a local side, definitely on a city level is definitely a big, big deal. And that's, that's so unfortunate. Right. And even the presidential elections, you know, we're not talking, we're not getting, actually, I should look at that right now, but I doubt we're at this 60% rate. Yeah, we see. I want to say that still, I say that voting is important if there's a candidate up there that you support and that you want to see an office. But if there is such a candidate for you, then you should 1,000% vote is extremely important to do so. But if, none of the candidates are anybody that you're enthusiastic about and you don't really see the

43:28difference between them, then I think a non-vote also sends a message. It sends a message that, you know, you don't, you don't agree with the process. Okay, so I just looked it up and that in the past 20 years, the highest voting percentage was 2008, which was 57%. You, if you go back 30 years, the highest is, actually, it's more than 30. You go back to 1960. The highest is 62.8. You've got to go all the way back to 1900 to have a 70 plus percent vote. And that's clearly going to have an effect. It's been times where I've gone to a local neighborhood association meeting and you get the feeling that those people who are there are the people who always show up, time and time out, you know. It's an open form,

44:32but the same 10 people keep showing them. And in reality, and I'm of course, extrapolating that out to the larger scene. But in reality, that has a big effect because now it's like, in reality, those 10 people have had all the power, you know. Whereas if you had the whole neighborhood show up, who knows what would happen? So I'm, I'm four pushing people to vote because the possibilities are endless. I don't know if it will go in my direction, but at least it'll be something different. You know, you take a survey, you take a quick scan of the, of the, of the Floyd Congress and you see everyone that has white hair and, you know, they've been in there for 40 years and stuff like that. You know, it's time for something different. However it goes, it's just time for something different. So we have two comments in the chat. One, a person is saying, but it's very weird that there's only one person on the ballot. So seeing you should invoke if there isn't a candidate for you is saying there are no candidates at every level of government that

45:36represent your ideals. Or I should say one office on the ballot. So it's not like she's saying, there's multiple offices on the ballot. So if you do not devote, you're not just not voting for the president. You're not voting for, that's a good question that I wanted to actually ask OJ2. And I'm sure you'll, you, you will ask him his response to her comment. But I also would like to ask you, OJ, you're voting for Trump Republican. Are you voting Republican now to take it as well, or is it going to be something different? No, I don't consider myself a Republican. I actually think that the establishment politicians on both sides of the ticket are probably, you know, in most cases corrupt or inept or both. I'm somewhat cynical toward most of your run-in-mill politicians.

46:36I'm going to vote for the people that I have some pain about. If it's, if there's not a person that I know or have any pain about is a good chance, I won't make a selection for that, for that particular office that I'm voting for. And again, I definitely make a distinction between voting at a local level and then voting at the more and more general, generalized elections. And of course, the most general is probably for the president and for the senators and so forth. But yeah, you know, so that's pretty much the answer to that question. Definitely not going to vote Republican down the line. Definitely don't consider myself to be Republican. Okay. There's a question, and I believe this is for you, Derek. Person wrote, I don't see how a low voter turnout changes if you don't have enough

47:38of a variety to help change the culture. Well, let's say, for example, I'll say right now, I did early voting and I voted Hillary Democrat at the top. But everywhere where there was a chance, I voted Green Party. Now, if there were more people who did that, let's just increase, let's just increase me by, you know, by a million voters. You know, then the Green Party or the, or, you know, Socialistic Party of the Bernie Sanders, they would become viable. They would become actual force to deal with. You know, you just have to have more people come up and say, I'm talking about just increasing, I'm not even saying increasing, changing people to my mindset. I'm not saying take the voters mentality and shift it. I'm saying simply increase the number of people who actually had my mentality.

48:40If you simply increase them, if the Green Party, for example, if they were to get, or the Libertarian Party, if they were to get sure, they might not still win the election. But if they actually received 50 million votes, you know, 20 million votes, then it would be like, oh, we really have something going on here. They would actually have a, a, a, a leverage to make it a three-party system, or, or at least, at least bring out donors who will provide funding for them, you know, and then it could, in the future, it could be, it could be different. You know, in the future, we have to have another discussion, which might be more interesting this one, and that would be socialism versus capitalism. Oh, he would, Derek would love that topic. He wrote a book on capitalism. Well, I shouldn't say it's the going capitalism. I think it's on the death of capitalism.

49:43Is that an accurate description? I was thinking I should write a book myself, not to not to be overly, whatever, overly. Oh, absolutely. We got to emphasize it myself, but I actually have a lot of ideas about that, and that's one good thing about the Facebook backing forces that a lot of, I got to put a lot of that stuff down and writing that I've kind of been thinking about. Yeah, you got to inbox me about that. We got to set that up. Yeah, yeah. So we talked about, so I'll say one other thing that someone in the chat room said, and I want to say if you are just joining us, this is the counter narrative. We are talking about Black men voting. Trump, we have a Trump supporter, as well as a Hillary supporter, and they're sharing their viewpoints on voting and all things related, really. Steph says, hire voter turnout from an empirical perspective helps to legitimize the results. Have the people spoken if only 57% show up. I guess you say, how can you say the

50:51people who are spoken if only 57% show up? And I think she's actually making that comment in reference to something that someone else said in the chat. The question that I have for both of you right now, and I could start with you, OJ, is you mentioned some people are voting, not really for a person, but they're voting again. Some people don't trust the process. Some people are, you know, just weary about, I mean, this is just in the general conversation. We're worried about the level of power and engagement that an actual president has for you as a Trump supporter. Are you enthusiastic about him? I am. Okay. Only be wrong. I think he's flawed in a lot of ways. But in the most important ways, I think he's on the money about a lot of things. And so to answer your question, surely, yes, I am. And I guess the reasons why I will come out once we get into the, I guess the other phase of the conversation. So I guess, I mean, we could get into it now. I guess it sounds

51:56like a little bit of what you're saying are the trade-offs. So tell me the aspects of him that you feel like he's flawed, but also the parts where you feel like you're really enthusiastic and because of these other things, you're okay with whatever way you see him to be flawed. Well, firstly, I think that the biggest problem facing people in this country is either they don't have a job or they have a job, but they're not making enough money at their job or they're making enough money at their job, but they're paying too much taxes on that money. I think those are the three main problems, right? If the person has a job and they're making enough money and they left with enough money after they pay taxes, then I believe all their other problems are essentially that, you know, theirs is theirs to solve. I think they can pretty much solve it on their own. And I'm not really looking for the government to really do anything, but stay out the way.

53:01And help to create an environment which is conducive to economic opportunity, like not to quote a famous Republican, because again, I'm not a Republican, but the best social program is a job, a good job. And I think the main reason why the main problem is like if economic opportunity, the main reason for that is that so many companies have outsourced or their work overseas or have straight just moved their manufacturing facilities or call centers or whatever have you overseas. So the jobs literally are not here to be had. And then the money that is made from these products is shipped out of the country and it's not available for Americans to earn. And I think that Trump is the main, is he's the only politician that's really addressing

54:02that. He's the one that even brought it to the forefront because remember, prior to Trump's candidacy, globalism was the hot term. If you were smart, you were in and you knew what was going on, you knew globalism was the way to go and it's good and all that stuff. Once Trump started breaking it down and making it plain, all of a sudden it's like, wait a minute, yeah, NAFTA actually didn't help us. The jobs are overseas. So he's addressing basically the main issue. Which is jobs. And he will create jobs. It's not so much that he will create jobs. Okay. So much as it, he will want not endorse any legislation or treaty that will make it easier for jobs to go away. And he will incentivize companies to come back and disincentivize them to remain abroad. And so the jobs already exist. Okay. Let's be clear. The jobs didn't really disappear.

55:06They just went someplace else. So it's a matter of bringing the jobs back more so than creating the jobs. Okay. So that sounds a little bit like, and you correct me if I'm wrong, a little bit like government getting involved in businesses in a really big way. I agree. I think that the government should be 1,000 percent involved in business and in commerce as it pertains to business and commerce that crosses over the border within the boundaries of the United States. Now, once things are in the United States, they should be as hands off as possible and not participate, touch or affect at all if possible or if necessary, at least possible. But certainly as far as things coming into the country, it should definitely be controlled and regulated. And this has been the history of this country from the very beginning.

56:09In fact, they used to not even be an income tax. Imagine, think about, think about everybody who has a job. Okay. And think about every issue they have that they want the government to address. And ask them, would they trade not having to pay any taxes at all, or would they rather continue paying taxes to get the things that they want to see the government do? And I will guarantee you 90 percent of people, you know what? I'd rather just not have any taxes taken on my check. And that way I can get more of the things I need for myself. Well, I think that kind of shows that the issues that people face are only economic and none of them are social. Like, very good. Well, like, let's say, um, are policing in this country. I don't know how that would be fixed by people. I think it's economic in affluent neighborhoods. They don't have this policing issue because it's not a high crime area because people aren't desperate to commit crimes to earn money. And so when you have a very low occurrence of crime, the police, one,

57:13is not as many police because they're not as needed. Two, the police that are there aren't as hyped up, jacked up ready to go because they don't feel like they are as much at risk. And they don't feel like is that as likely that they're going to have to take action. So I think even that is an economic issue. Okay. All right. That's the point. Um, so let me, let me interject real quick. Go ahead. Um, because it's, I don't know what I will be able to advertise this any other time. And that is I XC wrote a paper, um, I probably about a year ago now where the central theory is whether or not, and I'm on the, on the positive side, the taxes are actually good in a mathematical sense. And I guess that's something that if we do schedule the, um, uh, capitalism debate

58:17for a talk, then I guess I can go on to that a little bit further. But it is, it didn't come to me one day like one day of taxes aren't like mathematically good. And uh, that's, that's where I, I would make the argument that even if taxes are mathematically good, they're morally wrong because, yeah, it's basically theft. Whenever you take somebody at the point of a gun, when I wrote a story from them, so it doesn't matter if you take those resources to go feed children, you stole them. And the paradigm you've created a bad situation, going, going to feed children is a moral argument. And that's, yeah, that's not why I was saying it. I was saying mathematically. But oh, yeah, right. Okay. That's interesting. I did start the paper off by saying that yes, the involuntary nature of taxes is immoral though. Okay. I 100 percent agree that involuntary nature is, uh, is immoral. But the body of it was about the mathematical side of it.

59:19Right. I get you. I get you. Yeah. Yeah. I get you. I get you. It might make sense mathematically in the proper proportions. Um, but I would, I would, I would suspect that that proportion is about the same proportion you would get if you had voluntary contributions anyway. Um, but the reason why I brought up, uh, taxes is, is, uh, because, like I said, they, they used to be not, not being income tax in the federal government used to fund itself entirely through things like tariffs and things of that nature that, of course, are voluntary payments because you don't have to import things if you don't want to. Uh, but that's the way it used to fund itself through these tariffs. And so I mentioned the tradeoff between the taxes to say, okay, wouldn't it better to be have higher tariffs and less income taxes, which would actually lead to more jobs as well, you know, so that, that's the reason why I brought that up as far as the tradeoff between getting money through taxes, but rather as opposed to tariffs from

1:00:20imports. Okay. Which is what Trump is, uh, is, is pushing for. So one of the, um, so I'm going to read some things from the chat section. Uh, let's see, see, see, see, see, one person said, I like having 9-1-1 in paved roads. Another person said, I like, I like being that my tax dollars make it possible for poor children. I like knowing, oh, sorry, I like knowing that my tax dollars make it possible for poor children to have health care. Um, and another person mentioned that making a living wage does not equal at affluence. Now, we are, as we're talking about taxes and each, each one of your parties has specific tax plans. Um, when I looked over, Donald Trump's tax plan, and I'll, I'll try to pull it back up and see if I can share it as well. It doesn't look like he's talking about, um, um, creating any type, but when you say, like, is this economic, is that it, his plan looks like it's

1:01:24going to cost more money. And it also, let me pull it up. And it also looks like, um, the wealthier people get tax less and poor people get tax more. But I mean, that may be a, when you say less and more, do you mean a higher percentage of their money or a low percentage of money? Or do you mean more money? Because I think, well, I don't mean more money. Nope, that's not what I mean. I don't mean more money. I mean, higher percentage. Okay. Um, so I'll just read this, and I'll share this link so everybody could know what I'm talking about or what I'm looking at. Um, so let me put it first here with the panelists in this chat section so you guys could definitely be able to have a look at it. And then I will share it in the chat room. Yeah, I'm on the Trump site now. Um, uh, where is it? But I think that we're not really in disagreements in the forest,

1:02:26the, uh, the tax issue me and Derek, maybe, maybe us and some of your, uh, people chatting in might disagree with us, but I think we both agree that, you know, the payment should be voluntary. Well, yeah, I think that, again, if we're talking about the moral side, okay, if we're talking about the moral side, I feel like everyone who would want to pay into a pool to have, you know, um, a military or to have, uh, paid roads without like that should voluntarily do that. You know, if you want to pay into that, you should. So if we're talking on the, the, the moral side, but I don't know, you know, as far as a platform, as far as a political platform, I still think that I can be, um, I can still come down on a democratic version of the Republican side. And the reason being is it kind of, yeah, I don't want to mix two, two different

1:03:30thoughts. Um, one of the thoughts I was having was the comments I made earlier about how, uh, presidents aren't don't affect the economy in such a high level because the market works with whatever environment it's in, you know, the market will figure it out and people, people will make it happen. And one of my examples for that, this, this is resolved by the state connect to different thoughts is because it has to be with taxes. Is that during the six, during the 50s and during the 50s, when a lot of the middle wage growth and a lot of the good things will come out the economy after the World War II, uh, there was actually a 90% tax on the highest income on the highest income bracket. And people worked it out, you know, I mean, it's just like we'll, we'll, we'll, um, this is the system that we're in and people are creative. People will figure out whether it's, whether it's they hide money, whether it's they find out how to make more money, whether it's, you know, that people just figure stuff out. So, um, that's one thought.

1:04:33But the other thing, the other thing is far as the political platform, as far as taxes goes. On one hand, I do not, okay, I'm going to defend, uh, defend OJ, um, for defend, let's say his position in saying that, um, there are a lot of programs that we probably don't necessarily need or at least need to pay for. And the reason why I say we don't need them, because that could just sound like me in my, in my world, and I'm not, and I don't need with these other people to get me. I'm, I'm saying that because I've seen many times where a budget will have a surplus. And when the surplus happens, new programs get implemented to take it, to take up that surplus, instead of a surplus paying back debt, it'll just, you know, just open up a new program. And it's like, well, we didn't need the program in the first place, you know, clearly we didn't, we were getting a long final about the program. So that's where I agree with that. But I would go further and say that

1:05:39also we should not assume that coercive payments as the taxes are the only way to fund things. We have an excellent government service called the post office, which is not funded by tax dollars at all. They charge a fee for a service. Okay. You can do the same things with the roads. You can charge a registered, like right now to register your car costs $200. Maybe it should be $2,000 now. You know what I mean? Right now, uh, and, and, and, and, you know, so you got to this toll world, you know, this, you pay a total go across a bridge, you go to a tunnel. So a lot of the government services that we have, uh, could be funded, um, violent, voluntary payments. So that's a perfect, and I'll just be real quick. My, uh, my, my uncle, actually, I'm a mom, retire from New York City School Department, uh, Department of Education. And the, they pay $30,000 per

1:06:41kid for awful schools. And if you do the math, like my mom, she shed the average classroom was over 30 children, like 36 kids. So that means that a million dollars per year per classroom. So let's just say you pay the teacher a million dollars a year, and then they spend, uh, 5,000 a month to run a space, which you could probably run a space for much less than that for 30 kids. But that would be like, uh, uh, $160,000 a year for just to run a space. And that's teacher would still walk away with $900,000. Okay. Now, now on the other hand, you look at some private schools where the tuition is $7,000, and the students do excellent and have a higher percentage of the going to college of being successful. The problem is that when you don't have to turn a profit, or you don't have performance tied with your, uh, infusion of cash. Okay. There's, there's not a strong incentive to operate well and operate efficiently. And in fact, the way

1:07:46it currently works now, there's actually an incentive, as Derek mentioned, to operate inefficiently because the more efficiently you operate, the more money you have left over, the more he's taken from your budget. And, and that's another strong argument against, uh, taxation as opposed to fee for service. Oh, the thing that I'm curious about. Oh, Jay, how do you foresee a situation wherein if we are paying for, um, and totally voluntarily, uh, police or the mailman or roads, and this is all total voluntarily, if a person does not have the money to pay for it, do they not deserve to get mail, police or roads? Well, that's where they're going to have to get help. They're going to have to ask for help. But if you look at institutions like the Catholic Church and other churches, you know, where you got people buying jet planes and everything like that, Americans are very generous. So, and, you know, I have no doubt. I mean, a person could stay on

1:08:52a street corner with a cup and make $40,000 a year and change. You know, Americans are very generous and if they had more money left over or even keep more their money, I think that they would be that much more generous. And at the end of the day, you know, you know, that's just, that's just, that's just the way it goes. Um, I, I am more trusting of the people on a whole, that on a few key politicians, uh, to, to, as far as taking care of, uh, the need. Okay. Well, we're actually, I haven't even gone through all of my questions and we probably should have did this either earlier ahead, apart one, apart two. Because we are well over an hour. Um, I wanted to, I guess the, the best way to wrap this up is, um, I'll start with you, Derek. I guess it, do you have any final thoughts that you'd like to say on voting on your candidate or on anything

1:09:57that we talked about tonight? Yeah. Um, actually, I do. Uh, and I think this is a good, uh, closing remarks from, from, from myself, even though like you just said, we've probably extended this out much longer. Um, I had a conversation with a, with a coworker, uh, three, four months ago. And she, uh, stated that she was voting for Trump. And that started a argument in amongst the, the workers. And I personally, I took her aside a little bit later on and I wanted to have a conversation with her in order to show her that just because people differ on their political views, they could still be friends. And so I just wanted to let her know why I was against Trump. And so that's what I'm going to do now. I'm going to give you those reasons. Okay. Um, early on, I was a, and when I say early one, I mean years ago, I mean, seven, eight, ten years ago,

1:11:01I was a big Trump fan. I read the article, the deal, you know, I remember going on, on the honeymoon and driving down the, down the, uh, down floor of the coast and seeing so many Trump's, uh, hotels. I, I used to watch this, uh, print this when it first, you know, before we were celebrity friends, I used to watch the apprentice. I was, I was a big, big Trump fan. What changed it for me? And I, I used to defend them. They were individuals who would say, you know, this guy is evil, you know, because he came with the whole, your fire thing, he looked like he was having fun firing people. And I would defend that action. You know, I would defend his, whatever he was doing. What changed it for me was the birth of thing. When the birth of thing happened and he didn't let it go, it didn't cause me to start to look deeper into his personality. And it was because of that research that Ben found out about the, um, that he didn't write the art of the deal. You know, I didn't found out that most of the,

1:12:06most of the, um, uh, hotels that he, that had his name on, name on, he didn't know on, he doesn't own. And in other words, that hit his, his facade started to collapse. Whereas like it's all just like, uh, he's just a showman. He's just, you know, he's just a showman. And I started to see that, that certain things that he would say, like when Forbes, you know, he, he would complain before because they had him only take that two billion hours when he was saying he was eight billion hours. This is about 10 years ago. And, you know, Forbes does a better research and they say, you're only two billion. Will you, I mean, could he, what else to do? And so, because of that show boating nature, that I'm against him now as a candidate, because he's liable to say anything, you know, he's liable to say anything to, to make himself, to make himself look bigger than what he really is.

1:13:12Can I respond to that? Oh, yeah, after he let him finish. I thought he was done. No, he just said, hold on his phone, um, themes or something. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear the whole thing. Can you hear me right now? Yeah. I might have took my phone out of the anyways. I'm gonna finish speaking to him, I fixed my phone. So, yeah, the showboat nature of bringing it to the side while I eat, so you don't have to wash me, too. Yeah, because you make it me hungry, OJ. And I'm feeling some type of hungry. So, so the showboat nature, for the all, is what has, has, um, taken me a lot of me, but you know, the, if you say you're successful, and then you find out that, you know, the casinos, collapsing, and so on, or the, um, uh, the deals this fallen through because of, or the lack of payments to, to people who've worked on the buildings, or the Polish immigrants that he got in trouble for. And this isn't about, I'm not saying it's enough to dig up his past because everyone has a past. It's not about that at all. It's about the,

1:14:17the extravagance of the showmanship of it all. It's like, if he, if he says one thing, and history shows another, then why would it be different if he was an officer? So, I don't want to go off of anything that he says on the trail because all it could just be lies. So, that's, that's how I feel about it. Okay, OJ, you wanted to respond? Yes, um, when I share a lot of those same concerns, and like I said before, Trump is flawed, that's one of his flaws. Um, firstly, I'll say any, any flaw of that nature that you mentioned about Trump probably applies to Hillary Clinton times five. Um, you can just pull up YouTube video after YouTube video of her, of being a proponent of one thing and claiming one thing, and then her saying the exact opposite thing. And even most recently, with the WikiLeaks thing, she said, well, I have a public and a

1:15:19private policy or stance, and warning, you know, letting her supporters know, hey, don't, don't pay attention to stuff I say on the campaign trail, that's just to get votes. So, you don't really gain any ground in that category by going for Clinton. Um, she's probably one of the most corrupt people ever to be in public life. Um, and if you do some research on her, you'll be shocked and amazed at the level of criminality. I mean, what's even on the news is like literally the tip of the iceberg. I mean, it really runs the full game and the harsh criminality goes. Um, I don't even want to, I don't even want to discuss some of the things now just because it's, it's really horrifying. But if you just do a little research, I just would ask everybody looking research, uh, look at the, uh, uh, search into the Clinton's past, back in the meaner Arkansas, the Tyson foods and everything, and they're connecting with a lot of stuff that's really um, horrifying. But and yes, Trump is a showman, but he's also speaking true facts. Um, and that's what, like even if you

1:16:32just take Trump out of the equation, even if he doesn't accomplish or do anything that he says, even if he doesn't even get elected, he's, he's left the cat out of the bag. He's made people aware. Um, he's brought up, I don't know if you're familiar with uh, George sorrows, but he's mentioned the, the, the international efforts to, uh, reduce U.S. sovereignty. All right. Um, he's, and this guy is a, is a Clinton, one of the Clinton's biggest donors. And um, and unlike the KKK who supports, uh, Trump, uh, Clinton, this, this person now when supports Clinton, Clinton accepts money from him and Clinton supports him. Clinton mentions him by name. And this guy is expressed goal is to pretty much eliminate U.S. sovereignty, and he considers U.S. sovereignty to be one of the biggest threats to one world government, which is his goal. And he wants open borders and he wants to pretty much, uh, mix everything

1:17:34together. Right now, I don't think this country is perfect, but I do think that this country is probably the, the biggest, uh, safeguard for, uh, freedom in, in the world. And I think the constitution, although it's not perfect, is, is, is, is strong sentiment for doing that. And, uh, Hillary Clinton, I don't think has the intention of, of, of, of upholding that. And that's the reason why, um, I'm, I'm for Trump. He's standing up to this. He mentions George sorrows. He mentions the outsourcing. Uh, he mentions the issues with our open borders. Okay. And these things, whether he disappears today or tomorrow, he has made the public aware of these things. And he has done everybody a grid service by doing so. And if he continues to even just do as he's doing now and speak out about some of these issues, and if he gets at the office, he's going to

1:18:39become more aware about even more issues. And if he just continues to be vocal about it, I think he, he's really helping a lot to bring a lot of awareness to this stuff. And, uh, it's, it's important. It's a big deal thing. Um, you know, uh, and he's, he's the only one doing it. He's not the perfect person doing it by far, but he's really the only one doing it on a stage and on the level that he's doing it. So he's, he's not a good option, but he's our best option. And he, he, he brings a lot of truth to like. Okay. Um, Derek, did you want to follow up on that or at all? No, that was my closing argument. All right. Um, so anyone from the chat, let's see. Crystal says, God help us over the next four years. Those are my final words. Um, so thank you both for coming on the counter narrative and sharing your, um, your thoughts on this whole process. And thank you for also engaging with each other.

1:19:45Thank you for how you guys have engaged with each other and just answering some of these questions. Uh, it's, it's at the countdown now for this election. What do we have four days? Yeah, four days. And, um, we will see what happens. Um, again, thank you. This has been the counter narrative. This has been Black men vote, Trump and Hillary. Um, oh, and I need to give you both, I'm going to give you both the opportunity to let people know how to reach out to you if you are into that sort of thing. Um, so if you are watching this right now, please do take the time to subscribe, like and share. You can also find, uh, more information on, uh, it's watching at home. We can also find me with the news. Thank you for putting that on you. Um, I am S. Roshim on every, on everything. So you can find me on Twitter and on Snapchat. If you're

1:20:47nosy like me and like to look at people's business, um, on Snapchat at start Roshim Instagram S Roshim on Facebook. I'm Roshim Roshim. Um, and again, you can see more content like this. Please do like, share and subscribe. Yep, and subscribe. Um, OJ, how can people, uh, getting contact with you? Are you open to getting social with people? Yeah, sure. Um, probably the best thing is probably Facebook. Um, I'm at, uh, OJ Mallory. Well, my Facebook name is just my name, OJ Mallory. It's, uh, OJ AI, like, oh, I like the place in California. It's how you spell it. Mallory. And I don't think there's too many OJ Mallory's on Facebook. So, uh, my pictures up there. So you'll know the fake picture from 20 years ago. Nah, that's a picture. That picture's actually the reason I'm, I, I actually had, didn't have any

1:21:49picture at all for the longest time because, uh, I was paranoid about being on social media and being. Hey, transmission software. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was all paranoid, but then I was tagged. I became tagged in so many pictures. I was like, well, didn't even tag. Anyways, but there was a minute. Right. All right. Derek, can you tell people how to connect with you socially? What are you up to? You are muted right now, sir. Sorry. Can you give me that? Yeah, I can. Okay. I'm not up to anything socially. I started off saying that I was an artist. So if you want to see some artwork, you can go to Derek and Baltimore.com, which is D-E-R-E-K of Baltimore. All one word.com. It's the same thing on Facebook as well.

1:22:49All right. Thank you guys again. Is that it? Okay. You didn't want to tell them about your book? I guess not. Um, thank you guys again. I so appreciate you. Have a good night. Everybody watching. Have a good night. And thank you for joining us. Bye. Thanks for the invite. That was fun and interesting. Yay. I want to do the capitalism versus socialism. Give up me. Let me go with your schedule situation. It's time. Okay. All right now.