Ivy: We have been On the Pulse- thank you all, by the way, if you are still listening blessings to you. You have stuck with me for 3 hours, and God bless you and God bless your family. Dani has, obviously, been out tonight, so the Greenlight got Pulsed. The Pulse got Pulsed. And now we’re Pulsing L.A.N Plan. Let’s go. But the Pulse has been discussing the President, and we have to discuss what it means to condone violence. As a political figure, but more generally as individuals- with one another. We have to ask those questions.
I’ve got an audio clip.
Nathaniel: Oh boy.
Ivy: I know right.
Nathaniel: Audio clips of Donald Trump are great.
Ivy: This audio clip– we have no bias here. This is going to be a reflection on Trump “calling for violence” – I’m putting air quotes, you can’t see the air quotes- but “calling for violence”.
We’re going to assess that – you get to hear us do that, but here you go.
That last bit of the clip threw me.
Nathaniel: That threw me as well. That was something unexpected.
Luke: Okay But honestly can we take the President on his word when he says something like that? Like, he can say it, but does he mean it?
Ivy: –What is more important that meaning be present or that the words be said? Because That’s like a question of impact versus intent.
Ivy: Like, when you’re looking at different legal issues—Like, on our campus, when you’re looking at Title IX- you’re 100% coming up to this problem of people having issues with each other that seem like sexual assault or seem like sexual violence. And that’s not to discredit. Sexual assault/sexual violence happens. But, in some of those situations, what we’re seeing is individuals being like, “well I didn’t mean to do that.” And does it mean that you mean’t to do that if it’s had an impact on an individual?
What do you think?
Nathaniel: You letting me at it?
Nathaniel: First things first you gotta look at
Ivy: First things first I’m the realest. Drop this and let the whole world feel it.
Ivy: This __ empty, yeet!
Nathaniel: Ahh.. But, first off, context on Trump. I mean, he’s very vocal, he’s a very vocal President. He’s not the most vocal President that has ever existed, but very vocal of this time. And he’s in direct contrast to what Obama was. Obama was very careful with his speeches, I give him credit, he was a great speechmaker. You listen to his speeches and-
Ivy: Oh, no, a great orator.
Nathaniel: He was great at orating. That’s one of the- that’s one of the reasons why I think he got the Presidency, just because he was a good speechmaker. Everyone’s got that one thing that stands them out. And, so he was very good at [arranging] his words carefully, so it was hard to catch him contradicting himself. But then we got Trump. Trump is very vocal, he’s very loud, he’s very -he’s very—he goes usually off script. So he’s a lot easier [to catch contradicting himself] because probably those first few times whenever he says, “yes,” he probably believes “oh yeah, violence is not a problem”. So—but whenever he’s at this rally he’s at the midterms. And lots of people have been mad at him about this stuff – about being too pro war—pro violence and everything. So probably he’s listening to his speechmaker saying, “hey, let’s condone the violence and [go against] condone the media like we’ve always been doing”. So I think that’s kind of what’s going on here. He’s just trying to look better for the midterms. So, whenever the election starts happening then no one’s like “Oh he condones violence” so it’s not a problem.
Ivy: I mean, he gets blasted sometimes on some media outlets for doing stuff like that. And, obviously, with everything that happened this week that we’ve been talking about the bombings and CNN- CNN gets a weird—it exists in a weird place for the President where he’s constantly saying “fake news”
I want to ask –is that care that President Obama put behind the way that he spoke and the way that he wrote important to the bulk of public [offices]? Like, when you’re running for public office should that—should you be using that level of care of President Trump where it’s like everything comes out. Its good, to some degree, that he exposes the world to everything at the same time. His Press Secretary Sarah Sanders is always like, “everybody gets to hear from the President first” because he tweets first. You have a direct line to the President of the United States, which has not been common in previous presidencies. And yet, we are looking for this kind of care in the current president that was present in the former—who was a little bit more indirect, who was taking- is more cautious with the way he was forming things; a little bit less directly capable of communication. Is that important?
Luke: Is what being important? Being cautious or just being unhinged?
Ivy: Having that type of communication. No. Well, I… Not to use the word “unhinged”.
Luke: I just meant like…
Ivy: No — yeah. I’m asking is it important—is it more important to public officials to have a sort of care about the way that they speak?
Luke: Depends on the base.
Ivy: Right. So, what’s the base?
Luke: Well, for Obama it was, I want to say people who were not stuck on traditional ways of thinking. They were looking to the future, they wanted change, and Obama-
Nathaniel and Ivy: Progressive.
Luke: Yes progressive was the word I was looking for, thank you. And Obama was the face of that for them. I mean, the biggest reason “First Black President”. That is a big change, especially for our country. So, he got really put up on a pedestal, which is both fortunate and unfortunate for his presidency.
Ivy: Right– I mean in some aspects of African American communities he doesn’t get a gold star because he didn’t spend his entire presidency- or the vast majority of his presidency- kind of following the black handbook. That just an interesting spin that you can see in that Presidency.
Ivy: But Trumps base is obviously different from that.
Luke: Yes, very different. They- typically when I talk to Trump supporters, they are people stuck in traditional ways of thinking. Like, they have, they’ll usually believe in stereotypes—
Ivy: Well yeah, I’d like to spin that narrative that those are people with traditional values, yes.
Luke: Yeah, so, those are also the types of people—Trump is that type of person. Maybe not in the same community as most of those traditional thinkers are, because he was born into a business. So—but he still is stuck in that way of thinking. So when he speaks his mind, when he’s saying all these things, it can –It makes these people who hold traditional values feel like they connect with Trump. And when you feel a connection, you just want to support them, because of that feeling.
Ivy: So I got to pose a question while I have it-
Luke:- Oh Please
Ivy: Traditional Values—Trump leads the Christian vote; the evangelical vote. The evangelical vote is in his court. Is that part of traditional values.
Luke and Nathaniel: Yes
Ivy: So if we’re lumping those together, Trump also has the weirdest background history. And seemingly the least conservative Christian. At one point, Nathaniel and I we’re saying he used to be a democrat—he used to posit—he used to do most of his positioning from the position of a democrat. He used to talk about things as if he was a democrat, and, at one point, I’m going to throw a quote, but—I’m kind of paraphrasing—he says “if I was going to run for President of the US, I’d run republican. And then alluded to them not being capable of making—He has, in effect, done something that he said he was going to do, part of his thing now is to say, “Promises Made, Promises Kept”.
How do you think—do you see an effect on Christian voters. Do you see people reevaluating Trump?,
Nathaniel: I just say—Like—Okay I’ll come out and just say it, but I’m a kind of Trump supporter.
Luke: You’re not going to get blasted on the show because you are.
Nathaniel: I know, but the thing is—If I could’ve voted in 2016 I still would’ve voted for Trump just because I thought Trump would be better for the country than Hillary. And –
Ivy: — You still hold to that
Nathaniel: I still hold to that. I still personally hold to that.
Luke: When you say better do you mean economically or—
Nathaniel: Economically. That’s what I wanted Trump for
Luke: And me and Ivy, whenever I’m here during the Greenlight or during The Pulse will always be talking –Trump is doing great things for the economy.
Ivy: Yeah. I’m never going to downplay the economy under President Trump. It’s really hard to do. He has consistently done exactly what he says he’s going to do. He spurred job growth. You could argue all these other positions, but the reality is the job growth is happening during his presidency, he get’s to claim it. The uptick in the GDP, The uptick in the way that the economy has been working for middle and lower class Americans has a strange pull forward. I cannot disagree with that. Black unemployment is at its lowest. It is true, relative to white unemployment there is still a problem that could be discussed, obviously. But aside from that, the numbers match up. The CBP scores are fine. There is no issue there. But the president, to quote one of my friends who is an intern with me during my summer in DC, the president is not a great global figure. Which is part of the problem. We still have the trade war, we still have tariffs, we still have these things that are affecting middle class America. But. Also, he is doing “good” work. I can’t say that the economy is bad, I can’t say that– the things he ran on he’s doing work on. There are other things – social issues, political issues- that are in a different—they seem to be in a different world. I don’t know, how do you feel about [the President] as a politician.
Nathaniel: I didn’t want Trump for a politician. Because Obama was the one for the progressive movement, and like he got the gay rights, he got all – everything going on. And I was like, “okay. That’s good, but our economy is not doing too well.” I kind of wanted a president that focused more on the economy, and I kind of didn’t want Hillary because Hillary – was probably going to focus solely on civil stuff—not going to focus on the economy. Maybe going to focus on
Ivy: That’s an interesting posit too though. Because, Hillary Clinton, whenever she was originally doing the economy – which, we’re currently beginning to feel the Trump economic strategy, the trickle-down strategy. We don’t know if its going to work. We’re currently seeing an uptick, that uptick is kind of where it should be, relative to this time of year; this time in the presidency—
Nathaniel: It’s not going too high Which is a scary thing, when that happens–
Ivy: [Right?] It’s not going too low. Like- I recognize that things seem to be going fine under this (economic strategy). Hillary kind of poked a hole in the economic strategy. But—I mean. Let me phrase it like this- whenever – I’m not saying that [Nathaniel] did this – whenever voters were looking at Hillary Clinton, a lot of their time was actually spent looking at Bill Clinton. But, Bill Clinton was one of the first presidents to have a 0 – a [balanced] budget. Which is an interesting thing, because that’s an accomplishment. That’s definitely an accomplishment for the administration. But Hillary didn’t get to claim that ability. She just was—she had an economic plan. And we didn’t want the- if you were looking at the political—I don’t want to say fissure—but if you were looking at the political tension, at the time, you were looking at Hillary Clinton, and looking back at Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Senator. Like, she has a long political history, and America pulled for not—I don’t want to say that incorrectly—The electoral college did, indeed in fact, make a first time politician the President of the United States, with the expectation that he would do good economic work. So he get’s to say “Promises Made Promises Kept.” He gets to keep that.
Ivy: Does that—so what work can he do as a politician globally? Because we also see these problems where its like we’re looking at Trump, but we’re looking at Trump talking about Kim Jong Un, talking about Vladimir Putin. We—there were a lot of reporters who were really upset about the Helsinki Summit, and there were also a lot of reporters that were really proud of it. And everyone gets to have their own opinion, but the reality is that summit happened. On a global scale, where do you see him?
Nathaniel: Before you say something Luke I’m going to go ahead and say this—
Luke: No, no, no. I was going to let you. I could sense that you were—
Nathaniel: There’s just something I wanted to say, because whenever– Okay. The reason why— another reason why I thought President Trump would be good is because he’s a very tough person. And this was—and before in 2016 there was the threat of North Korea
Nathaniel: That was still a bigger threat at that time. So I wanted a president who would not just give in and would stand up to [Kim Jong Un]. The first—so far the first two years have been pretty good, politically overseas. Like, Vladimir Putin seemed to be fine—Russia & Trump seemed to be fine.
[voice change] because they hacked the election. (I’m just joking). I don’t really believe that. But, it could’ve happened. Who knows? I don’t care.
Luke & Ivy: [laughter]
Nathaniel: Legit that’s my thought, I don’t care-
Ivy: The election has come and gone, whether or not you want to live in that-
Nathaniel: That’s the thing. Once it happens, it happens. And I thought President Trump was doing good overseas. But then the Helsinki summit happened and I’ve been kind of like – Okay. Trump. Are you—what are you doing now? I’m kind of like “you could’ve been doing a little bit better with the overseas stuff.
Ivy: Yeah, no.
Nathaniel: And I’m happy that North Korea and South Korea seem to be making amends. And I’m hoping it’s not a ruse and I hope it’s going to turn out right.
Ivy: I’m going to throw a really big curveball. What about the accusations that the NYT put out about President Trump using his personal cell phone in order to make calls, and that China was actively intercepting calls on that [phone]? It seems like a pretty stupid move, but President Trump put out a tweet—same day—about the NYT post. And he said that it was false and that he’s always used a government phone. And yet, saying “I’ve always used a government phone” is false in and of itself. Like he hasn’t. Not towards the beginning of his presidency and that’s kind of documented by scores of journalists who have better connections than I would have at any given point in time. But, if that’s the way he’s handling major communications with individual, then what—where is he? It seems like globally—politically—he’s in a different space.
I’m sorry I’m—
Luke: It’s okay. What I think we can attribute this too is asking someone—Nathan, have you ever played basketball before?
Nathaniel: A few times, yeah
Luke: Okay, nevermind. Ivy, have you played basketball before?
Ivy: My dad was a basketball coach, man
Luke: Darn it.
Nathaniel: well everyone’s played basketball before.
Luke & Ivy: Well not everyone.
Ivy: We’re not about universals.
Luke: It’s like asking someone who’s never played basketball before, “Hey, let’s go play basketball.” Now they could be great at football or golf, that does not make them inherently good at basketball. In the same way-
Nathaniel: I can attest to that
Ivy: [Laughter] Immediate Response.
Nathaniel: I’m good at soccer and golf
Luke: Golf is where it’s at. So, in the same way, Trump, economically—he is sound. He has this plan and it is helping our economy even though the economy would grow in itself —
Ivy: But also doesn’t that opinion.. This is, like—depending on how you’re looking at it. Depending, even more, on how you’re looking at the economy. Because, if you are a critical race theorist, and you’re looking at the economy, your concern isn’t just with, like, the whole economy, you start asking that question, “Okay, black unemployment is the same, and is just as bad, compared to white unemployment as it’s always been.” And that question, that problem becomes circled in your mind. At other points, you can say, “okay, well President Trump’s trickle-down economics have directly influenced the problem—where he got rid of the estate tax, the different taxesthat actively [affects] that top percentage of the United States. It’s like, you got rid of it, why did you get rid of it? Different journalists have posited that. But that’s part of that economic strategy.
Ivy: And it seems to be working.
Nathaniel: And, I want to go off on that.
Ivy: Oh, Please.
Nathaniel: The reason I believe in that is, because – whenever you—well, that’s capitalism. The more money the higher people make, the more jobs they can make, the more companies they can make, the more jobs can be made. So, like, say this rich guy, who I’m sure is getting taxed heavily—but then if you take that tax away from him, he’s going to make more money. And, if he’s making more money, he’s going to expand his business. Expand[ing] his business, creates more shops and more factories, more jobs.
Nathaniel: So that where I think Trumps plan is working at.
Ivy: Which is, like, capitalism..
Nathaniel: Which is capitalism, that’s what it is.
Luke: I’d just like to interject here. I have no problem with that whole idea. But my only hesitation is then these business leaders, these top-tier individuals, can start to have influence over the president and he starts to lose himself—
Nathaniel: And that’s where the fine line is drawn.
Nathaniel: You don’t want—you want to make sure you keep in charge of them. You don’t want the business to become like—
Luke: Which is why I’m questioning—Did Trump do this for the economy? Well maybe, but we also know that he is from that top tier-
Luke: So is it also because-
Nathaniel: He was a figurehead for the top tier.
Luke: Yeah. So its also because he has connections with the top tiers and their like “hey Trump, can you do us a solid? Just cut our taxes and, you know, we’ll maybe make some more jobs.”
Ivy: Yeah. There have been different journalist who have actively said that, like, the plan—the economic plan was sold to them—I’m quoting Chris Cuomo I think—the plan was sold to them as benefiting them. That middle-class America definitely was sold this plan as something that was benefiting them. And its been benefiting the top directly. So that—to some degree, individuals who will be, like, looking at things for journalistic efforts are going to say—that’s false. He—It benefits the top percentage, but it’s a trickle-down formula so it eventually benefits the middle and lower class. But, I want to poll while I have the moment. So we, for a brief moment, talked about the problem of corrupt government. For a brief moment, we kind of tipped there. What about Elizabeth Warren?
She’s been doing an anti-corruption act. She’s made it a part of her “Warren for Senate”—for her re-election—she’s already started doing work on that and is asking —I don’t know if I even have the audio for it—but, yeah. She does a whole “I want citizen co-sponsors,” to get this bill because the bill changes the way that lobbying was working. Changes the way that people in government are acting. Changes the way that—she has a plan for that, but it’s also actively geared towards career politicians as well as some of those people who are in the president’s arm. Is there a good to that—to the anti-corruption act? Is there a problem?
Luke: Do you have a thought on this Nathan?
Nathaniel: No, I’ll let you do this one, Luke.
Luke: So can you repeat the question one more time, Ivy. I had an answer and I just—
Ivy: Well I- Basically, Elizabeth Warren is doing this whole “anti-corruption act”—Kind of process for her re-election campaign. Is that problem, is that quest, being done for [good] if it’s effecting both the President and career politicians, but just as well low-level lobbyists, upper level lobbyists, different people who have benefited from the current system that she’s seeing corruption in and seeking to correct.
Luke: I would say it has the right motives behind it. But, is corruption something we should spend a large chunk of our time trying to get rid of? Because corruption is going to be in this world-
Nathaniel: No, I’m just thinking. I’m just thinking.
Luke: No no I have a reasoning behind this statement-
Ivy: I saw the face and I was l what?
Nathaniel: Luke I agree with you.
Luke: Yeah. Because corruption is—typically has negative effects. I’m not going to say good or bad because that’s a whole other issue that we’re not going to address on this show right now. But, I kind of want to call it a necessary evil, because
Ivy: Corruption a necessary evil?
Luke: Because without corruption, we would not say, “Oh this is the better of the two options because this person is less corrupt.” So corruption is kind of how we base someone’s opinion—like on a value chart. Like, if they are known to be corrupt, if they are known to have all these bad peop- negative people– Just.. is not
Ivy: The corruption as part of a values assessment is the case you’re making?
Luke: Because someone who is less corrupt—ok so let me backtrack-
Luke: Two people. One person is less than the other. They both tell you the exact same opinion, delivered the exact same way, but you know that one person is more corrupt than the other. Which would you choose and why?
Ivy: I- neither. Why choose two corrupt entities?
Luke: No, but the other one is not corrupt.
Ivy: Oh, not corrupt—not less corrupt.
Ivy: You normally go for the person who isn’t corrupt. When you’re looking at public office.
Luke: Yeah. Because we base their value off of knowing that they are not corrupt. So if we just had two people—
Ivy: What of the individuals who aren’t looking for a values assessment? What of people who are just—you can have the cog in the political machine.
Ivy: They’re going to keep everything moving in the- we could attribute this to the president of the United States. He just needs republicans in office that way he can continue to get policy moving. Like, McConnell benefits. Everyone benefits on the republican ticket if the republicans keep the—
Nathaniel: The House and Senate, yes.
Ivy: –as long as they keep the House and the Senate, and the presidency, and they have a majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the reality is they move forward. They don’t- I don’t know if corruption matters in that situation.
Ivy: Like, couldn’t, in effect, 90% of republican’s be corrupt at that point and also just be doing their job?
Luke: For sure
Ivy: Then why does corruption matter?
Nathaniel: And, I want to go off of this.
Nathaniel: Corruption is in every government. It’s always existed in pretty much every government. And if—and its always just kind of been a part of it. Basically, the fact is—say we had everyone in the Senate, everyone in the House, everyone-the president- Were the pure hearted; goody two-shoes. They were—
Luke: I wouldn’t want to say “goody two-shoes”
Nathaniel: I know, I was just saying a word, but-
Luke: Like “pure-hearted” I like that.
Nathaniel: They were pure-hearted. They would not be corrupted.
Nathaniel: They’re not going to take bribes or anything.
Nathaniel: This country wouldn’t last too long. Because of the fact that we rely on alliances and we rely on—basically—Many governments work on basically “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”. That’s a normal thing in the government system. “You scratch my back, I scratch your’s”
Nathaniel: But if you don’t do that, then there’s going to be a lot more—disruption in the government. People would be like, “okay, if you’re not going to help me out here, then I’m not going to help you-
Luke: Okay so it would start to collapse.
Nathaniel: It was start to collapse on each other because no one is going to help [another] because they’re going to stay true to their own beliefs.
Ivy: That is an interesting point to posit. To say that corruption exists in everyone government. Like, I—No Like-
Luke: Not Canada.
Ivy: It’s the use of a universal, so in my head, I’m like, “Okay, safely”. Like, I don’t know if I could say that.
Nathaniel: I would still use the universal.
Ivy: Okay as long as you’re sticking behind it.
Nathaniel: I would still stick with the universal because parliament, the Russian government-
Luke: I see what he’s saying-
Ivy: I know. And I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, I’m just keeping the wall up that says I don’t know that to be true or false. That it is the use of a universal.
Nathaniel: Like, an example that I like to use is—You know cop shows, whenever it’s a corrupt system, and this good cop-
Luke: There is always this one guy-
Nathaniel: rookie. He’s a rookie from the academy and he’s looking to change things. Whenever we’re in those shows, what always happens is that he gets in there, and he starts trying to change things, and he may start doing stuff, and he may start getting his way, but it leads to bad things. Like, bad things start to happen with the police force and everything. And sure, in the end result, it may turn out to be okay. It may turn out to be good, but it will lead—is it worth disrupting things, lives being lost, economies being ruined just to –
Ivy: To not have that corruption
Nathaniel: Is it worth it?
Ivy: The act of combatting corruption –that isn’t to say that all of it will be gone, in fact, I look at my germ-x 99.99% and I’m like “there’s something left”
Luke & Nathaniel: Yes
Ivy: But, different people are tackling corruption differently, obviously. And, I was just using Elizabeth Warren’s thing, but—How far back can I track?- So, let’s, like, not even worry about corruption.
Luke: It was a tangent.
Ivy: Tangental. Let’s not worry about corruption.
Ivy: The condoning of violence is where we started.
Ivy: When we have the president getting the evangelical vote, when the president—
Luke: Yeah, that was the question I was actually trying to get us back on there, because [Nathaniel] just started with, “I’m just kind of a Trump supporter and we just [poof].
Ivy: We needed- we needed to investigate. I’m all about investigating-
Nathaniel: Yes. That was a good discussion. I think it was
Ivy: So, my question of condoning violence. Why is it okay in one base, but not the other? It seems like we had the problem of Obama getting racial slurs, and at one point there was the picture that was around—that someone made an inflatable Obama and hung it and was walking around with it—and at other intervals we have—
Luke: You can’t do that!
Ivy: At other moments, when we look at the Trump base, we see there was, like, some aggression that we don’t have the means to compare to any other present-day president. He is, as we were talking about-
Nathaniel: Present day, yes.
Ivy: Yeah, I’m not
Nathaniel: In the past.
Ivy: The past is an entirely different story, people walked out and had gun fights.
Nathaniel: I mean, LBJ, and –
Ivy: Yes—I—History is history, and history doth repeat itself, so I’m not going to say that it isn’t or say that it is. What I am going to say is Trump’s base seems to be okay with that. We—Like, he condoned violence, said—and that’s part of the gaslighting right?—He—Which, to what degree is each president gaslighting the public. I don’t know who lies, I don’t know who tells the truth—people have to—this White House has a lot of leaks, and in having a lot of leaks we find out a lot of what the truth is before we “should” know it. Or we find out a lot of what the truth is and then the president says something directly contradictory.
Ivy: So we see this truth lie balance, and Trump’s base kind of doesn’t need anything. Like, we had that first clip. Whenever we played it, where Trump was saying, “I’ve never condoned violence.” “I do not condone violence,” and then we have the end of that clip. Remember when he said, “If you get in trouble, I will pay the legal fees.” And he says, “I am going to- Yes I’m looking into it.
Luke: “Yes, I have my people looking into it.”
Ivy: That is a grandiose step away from “I don’t condone violence.” To actively defending violence.
Luke: And, even recently, a clip that wasn’t on—
Ivy: It didn’t make it to the yeah.
Luke: Was- I forget which politician- but a republican body slams a reporter-
Ivy: The reporter, yeah.
Luke: For asking a question. And Trump went to-
Ivy: Yep, that’s my guy.
Luke: And then he reenacted the body slamming so how exactly-
Nathaniel: Back in his Wrestlemania days
Ivy: But a reminder that Trump wrestled is an entirely-
Nathaniel: This is—remember this people—
Luke: Yeah. Oh my God.
Ivy: So he… I have this problem. This is a problem that I’m running into—a problem that [prompted] this question at 7 o’clock. The first time On the Pulse came on, and continued to run through the show since. What is making that okay? It seems like, if I- I don’t know. We’re at a Christian school so IDK if we’re, like, really good voices when it comes to Christianity. I don’t know if we have any- I’m speaking sarcastically. Any sort of inkling as to how the church is operating or how people are feeling. But I would say, in my limited knowledge of what the Church has been like, it seems like the church would actively be against condoning violence. And yet, he receives the evangelical vote. He received the evangelical vote, and he’s still receiving the evangelical vote. And also actively condoning violence. Like, from 2016 to 2018- as recent as this week.
Nathaniel: Yeah. And I – just because—I’m from the south, and I—
Ivy: My brother.
Nathaniel: I know Alabama, I’m from Alabama. I’m familiar with these people.
Ivy: I’m not from that far south, but, touching the tip of Kentucky.
Nathaniel: Just because when I visit Alabama sometimes I talk to people. It’s just the fact that Trump is—you know what he’s thinking. You know what he’s thinking. And there’s no having to discern what he’s saying to anyone. You know whenever he hates someone he hates someone. You know whenever he likes someone he likes someone. So there very—I like that he’s honest with us. We know what he’s thinking. Now, that could be a double-edged sword. It could help you at times, but it can also be pretty bad. But, like, we talked about this a while back—
Ivy: Yes we did.
Nathaniel: When we talked about “should the president be careful with his words.” But I know just—people they’re getting a little bit fed up with just the fact of government corruption, government problems, and things like that. And sometimes you just want to body slam a reporter. Just because you see the things they say—
Luke: That’s fair
Nathaniel: You see the things they say about him all the time and—
Ivy: The part of me that tries to be a journalist is just like—I don’t know if I like this, sorry.
Luke: Ivy is like [concerned sound]
Nathaniel: We here about Trump all the time. I mean, turn on CNN, the first word you’re going to see is Trump. Have a drinking game. Everytime you see the word Trump chug one. You’re going to die in the next minute on CNN.
Ivy: On CNN- You really think that on CNN—That CNN gives that much negative coverage?
Nathaniel: The only reason that I say CNN is because it’s the main one, but I don’t think CNN is the worst. It’s still pretty bad—
Ivy: I think that there was one [situation in which]
Nathaniel: I don’t like the Washington post
Ivy: I quote who I need to quote. At one point, Kellyanne Conway came onto CNN, talking to Chris Cuomo, and quoted the statistic that MSNBC and CNN had collectively said 222 times “impeachment” over the course of one day. Once every 3.5—relative to the situation—one every 3.5 minutes when you take out commercials. And I was like that’s surprising.
Ivy: Because sometimes when you see CNN and Trump they’re reporting good economic news. That’s the other thing to
Nathaniel: But then you go to—But then there’s those times where they talk about something bad. They always relate it back to Trump. And I never understand—
Ivy: That’s the beauty of being the President of the United States. When there is a problem, it is your problem.
Nathaniel: You’re the scapegoat.
Luke: Not the scapegoat.
Ivy: Oh well like, Obama was the scapegoat in that analogy. And Clinton was the scapegoat.
Luke: The president is the scapegoat because we view him as the leader. Everyone thinks he runs everything.
Ivy: But what about whenever we were talking about the—Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi scandal. Obama wasn’t the scapegoat for that. And, in fact, Benghazi was pushed against—she wasn’t even a part of anything that was happening in the past year, and yet we had this same feeling that we had in the Benghazi [hearings] whenever we were coming up to the question of Russian interference—whenever we are coming—specifically with Peter Strzok’s testimony. Like, we had that actual aggression, the same kind of volatile energy that is pervading the United States.
That does bring us back to the question—Who’s condoning this, and is it good? Is it right?
Luke: I’m going to slide right in here. Into the DMs
Ivy: Slide into the DMs
Luke: Okay, so. I think that we can’t put this all on Trump. All the violence happening typically because of his base, we can’t put that all on Trump, because he doesn’t make the decisions for these people. Yes, he says—He does say a lot of things like, yeah go out and fight, I’ll pay for your legal fees. But people don’t have to do that.
Ivy: People don’t have to listen to the President of the United States?
Ivy: And another thing, some people would say it would behoove them to listen to the President of the United States. That he’s the President of the United States, and what he says matters, and should be heeded.
Luke: Those are also the people who are going to fight for what they believe in physically. They’re going to physically fight for what they believe in. They are convinced they are right.
Luke: This is almost like going back to the Crusades.
Ivy: That’s a jump.
Nathaniel: Oh yep.
Luke: That’s the first thing that came from my mind but just—going through Europe right?
Nathaniel: They were going– They were basically started from the Europe, Spain, somewhere around there. And there –
Ivy: I’m not going to fact check what you say.
Luke: Yeah, and they were fighting for what they believed was right.
Nathaniel: Mhmm. And both sides were– terrible. The Christians were terrible and the Muslims were terrible. They were both savages—
Luke: But they both believed they were right.
Ivy: Well—The belief of something being right isn’t what I’m asking about.
Ivy: It’s an interesting point; it’s a tangent. I like it, don’t get me wrong—
Luke: Thank you for catching
Ivy: I don’t care—I don’t care for the belief. My question is—the president is condoning some sort of violence. We see that, and he has actively said I have not condoned this violence. But [he] has also been disproven. And that’s a routine gaslight that we’re seeing– the president saying things that are very much central to an issue or a topic, and then kind of refuting. We had the whole thing that happened a couple of—maybe it’s been a couple months now, I wanted to say a couple weeks but—months ago. Where the president said, “don’t believe what you’re seeing or hearing from the fake news in the back.” And gestured at the entirety of the media. And its like— Okay The freedom of the press
Luke: They’re reporting, yess—
Ivy: The press. The press is a check on that power. They are a first amendment necessity.
Ivy: Without that freedom of the press—if the press is constantly being told information and saying, “this is what we know to be true. Is it true?” and the president is saying, “No,” that’s one thing. When it’s like, “we know this to be true and we see you doing it,” and the president says, “that’s not happening,” even though we’ve seen it, even though we have proof of it—The question of him condoning violence is like “we asked ‘do you condone violence’.” He said no. He then condoned violence. He said no. That’s the pullback, that people can say, “press secretary Sanders, while we were dealing with all these problems -of the bombing that have happened, including the one sent to CNN, Tom Steyer, the ones that made it back to wassleman-shaltz—
Nathaniel: I don’t know who all got [a bomb].
Ivy: I mean, the closest number that I’ve seen MSNBC, NBC, CNN—they reported 13 bombs. And the reality is they seemed political. And whenever—at the very very top of the show, Cesar Sayoc (I always feel like I’m going to say that name wrong) 56, registered republican. Whenever he was found – due to a ping from a cell phone tower—he was arrested, and the vehicle that was attributed to him was covered in Trump paraphernalia. And [Trump] was saying, “I don’t condone violence.” And press secretary Sanders is going behind that and saying, “he’s not condoned this.” And yet, his first swing—Like his first kind of swing out of the batter’s box was “we all need to come together” we all need to unify, and the media is creating a negative space by telling lies. And it’s like, the first lie that comes up whenever we say that—well you’re gaslighting, you can’t say you didn’t condone violence, because you have been recorded condoning violence
Ivy: Is the recording not enough? Especially when we’re looking at—which is why I brought in the fact that he gets the evangelical vote. Are evangelicals suddenly not really focused on this? Or-
Luke: It could be their forgiving nature.
Ivy: Which is—it could be their forgiving nature. Okay. Um. Which, I mean, the president, whenever he first got elected in 2016, I understand forgiving nature, I don’t want—no I don’t understand it. But, I—this. This conversation will continue. If you’re listening, if you’re still listening, thanks so much for listening. The Pulse continues on.