#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 2.14 #RMU: Barr blasts Trump's tweets; Nevada Caucus worries; 4M Latino voters opting out in Texas

Episode Date: February 16, 2020

2.14.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: AG Barr blasts Trump's tweets, requests he stop tweeting; BREAKING: Barr hires prosecutor to review Michael Flynn case; Nevada Caucus worries; 4M Latino voters opting out of the political process in Texas; It's Valentines Day, are you happily with your Soulmate this Valentine's day or still looking? #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: Are you looking to enhance your leadership or that of your team in 2020? Join Dr. Jacquie Hood Martin as she engages others to think like a leader. Register and start the online course today! www.live2lead.com/Leesburg #RolandMartinUnfiltered is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up. See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position.

Pre-game to greater them. Let's put ourselves in the right position, pregame to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispreetirement.org, brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. It's Friday, February 14, 2020. Roland Martin is off today. I'm your host, Amisha Cross. Here's what's coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Trump is ignoring Attorney General Barr's request that he stop tweeting.

In breaking news, Barr has hired an outside prosecutor to review the case against ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn. The Nevada caucus is on Saturday, and no one knows if it's gonna work or end up just like Iowa. Nearly four million Latino voters are opting out of the political process in Texas. We'll break it down with a panel.

Plus, are you happily with your soulmate this Valentine's Day? We're still looking. We'll talk about that and how to strengthen the relationship you already have. It's time to bring the funk on Roland and Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. He's got it.

Whatever the miss, he's on it. Whatever it is, he's got the smooth, the fat, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling. Best believe he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks. He's rolling.

It's Uncle Roro, y'all. It's rolling, Martin. Yeah. Rolling with Roland now. Yeah, he's bunk, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's Roland Martin now. Martin! In true Trump fashion, President Donald Trump ignored his attorney general's public request to stop tweeting about the Justice Department, saying he had the legal right to ask the agency to intervene in a criminal case, but so far has chosen not to.

Attorney General William Barr said in an interview with ABC News that Trump's tweets were making it impossible to do his job, especially following the department's handling of the sentencing recommendation for Trump ally and confidant Roger Stone. Joining me to talk about this is today's panel, Howard University Department of Political Sciences Dr. Neon B. Carter, attorney and community activist Christopher Bruce, and communications strategist Kelly Bethia. In breaking news, AG Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to look into the criminal case against Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn. This is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors.

Flynn agreed to a plea deal on a charge of lying to investigators in exchange for his cooperation before the Washington office took over the case when the special counsel shut Flynn agreed to a plea deal on a charge of lying to investigators in exchange for his cooperation before the Washington office took over the case when the special counsel shut down after concluding its investigation into Russia's election interference. Well, panel, there's a lot going on today. Obviously, President Trump seems to be on a vindictive streak against all those who he feels has wronged him, particularly looking back at the Russia investigation and probe all the way to what we now see with his recent with his recent approach to the Supreme Court and there are a few questions that are you

know that are bubbling under the surface first of all we just saw what happened with Roger Flynn and and stone what do you guys think and I'm gonna start with you Kelly is the is the impetus behind all of this. Why can't Trump stop tweeting? There have been arguments that he can't get out of his own way, that a lot of this is literally brought on by the fact that he is using Twitter as his bully pulpit. I mean, we've seen this for the past, what, four years at this point? I'm talking even before his presidency. He is a bully, thoroughly a bully. And not only that, he's a narcissist.

So it doesn't matter what anybody says to him, about him, through him, for him, whatever. If he feels that he's right, there's nothing that's going to prevent him from doing what he feels is right. And for him, he feels like, you know, tweeting is his whole First Amendment right and free speech and all of that. And you have an entire, you know, conglomerate of people out here in America who actually are, you know, behind him. So he really doesn't have a reason to stop.

You know, he has his cult following. He has his yes-men in the White House. He has his yes-men in the White House. He has his yes-men in the executive branch, and we're seeing that this week as well. You know, everything that could possibly, you know, give him the other side of the consciousness, it doesn't exist. And the people who try disappear.

I'm not talking about death or whatever, but, you know, they're no longer in a position to rectify the situation. And that's in large part due to his narcissism, due to cronyism and other nepotism going on in the White House. And I don't... He doesn't see why he should stop.

And based off of the actions of everybody around him, just objectively speaking, I don't see why he should stop either. I mean, there's no incentive for him to do so. And, Dr. Carter, is Trump's executive branch becoming too powerful? We see that he's now getting heavily involved in the judiciary and making decisions there as well

and being able to pull back a lot of the strings like the puppeteer behind what's going on. What does that mean for our country? Well, I mean, I think one of the things we've been talking about after this impeachment process is the way he understands the office. He sees this as the imperial presidency. So he sees himself as sort of a petite king so that anything he wants to do is okay. And he has folks like A.G. Barr and Alan Dershowitz and all these others who will argue that because he has executive privilege that anything goes. And his tweet said as much when he said, I haven't asked him to do anything, but it's not beyond my purview to ask him to do something about these criminal investigations, talking about Attorney General Barr is so bothered about the tweets as he is about the fact that he looks like Donald Trump's lackey, for lack of a better term.

The idea that he is supposed to be working for the justice of the entire nation, not just working for Donald Trump and his friends like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, seems to be the thing that he cares more about than actually doing something different, because he's been in lockstep with Donald Trump this whole time and coming up with legal justifications for all manner of things.

I mean, moving people around in the office. I mean, I think there are all kinds of things that Attorney General Barr is doing that this tweet, this whole nonsense about being bothered that is making his job difficult, when he's proven that he's sort of okay with using his office to help further the president's agenda, which is supposed to be like a firewall between those two things.

No, I think I definitely agree with you there, because to your point, what we've seen thus far is A.G. Barr not necessarily separate himself from this office. He has stepped into a lot of situations that, specifically at the direction of the president. So to see him now come out and try to calm down President Trump on Twitter is very interesting I think that again to your point it points more to him understanding that America is

watching yes and that him taking these directives specifically from the president is something that is under microscope now considering what we've just seen with the with the impeachment process but also we have to remember this is an election year, and everything is being seen from a different lens right now. And I don't think that AG Barr, even though he's probably still taking all of his direction from the president, wants the American public to know just how in lockstep he is, or at least not have those directives being given via the internet on a daily basis. We want to get you in here a little bit, Chris, as well. I know that you're also an attorney. When we're talking about the limits that

should be at the executive branch, particularly as it relates to the judiciary, we just saw several prosecutors actually step down. That's a huge deal. What does that mean, and what can we look for going forward for not only this administration, but just how people look at this branch? Well, you're exactly right there.

The president of the United States is the president of the United States, and the Department of Justice is under the president of the United States in the executive branch. The problem that's happening here, though, however, is that previous presidents have typically respected the Department of Justice to let them do what they do, and that is to make sure that the people of the United States have faith in our judicial system. So with the president interfering

with this, now people are really questioning, is justice really being served? So you have, and I know no one on this panel is surprised about what this president is doing, but the lack of integrity that's happening is actually alerting people like Barr and saying, this has gone too far. And I'm one of the type of people of encouraging President Trump to continue to tweet, because it is another way of telling people, this is what you elected.

So on both sides, make sure he does not get reelected. And on that side, he's just going to get worse. So elections have consequences, and we're seeing them play out now. But I think his followers like this. That's what I was going to ask. That's the scary part about it. I don't think they're bothered. I think they actually do think that he should be doing more of this

and sort of expanding the role. Now, they only like it when it's their guy. Because the truth is, once you set these presidents precedents, it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. So if there's another president that's of a different administration, of a different party, and you don't like it, you've now set the precedent that the president can kind of do whatever he wants.

And what he's done very chiefly, I think, is create enemies of these specific branches. When you're trying to remain this hierarchical power and you're moving towards a dictatorial regime in a lot of ways, what you want to do is eliminate anybody who can put a check on you.

And I think that this president has done a really good job of either, you know, shaming those who are actually doing their jobs, removing them, shifting things around, trying to raise the ire in the public's eye around why you should not have faith in these specific government institutions and leaving it all within himself.

But what's interesting, when you say the different branches of government basically being enemies of Donald Trump, with the DOJ, that is his branch. He's making an enemy out of an agency under his branch, the people who are supposed to be, you know, working with him. So that's what's really interesting about this. But also, frankly, Donald Trump is just doing what he said he was going to do.

Only in his head he's doing what he said he was going to do. And I don't think people forget or forgot about the whole message of draining the swamp. That always stuck out to me in 2016, the whole notion of draining the swamp. But in reality, he created a swamp. But what you said, though, was really key. He views the Department of Justice as not working with him but working for him.

And that's not exactly. They're in the executive branch to help him administer the government. Exactly. They don't work for him. Exactly. They work for the United States. Because, you know, when people take civics and, you know. Well, I know.

It's very cool. That's how it's supposed very poor. That's how it's supposed to be. That's how it's supposed to be. Right. You know, but it's clear that he didn't. But, I mean, he also totally misrepresents the Constitution. Absolutely. Congress comes first. Then it's the president.

Then it's the judiciary. And I think that's on purpose. But he is trying to assume more and more power in his office, not just in the executive branch, because I think he could say to hell with these other administrative agencies. Absolutely. It's all about being in his office, and I think that's really key. So, again, are we surprised, though? We are seeing the tales of a dictator. He said this is what he was going to do.

Right. So it's just going to continue down this way until there gets to a point. And I don't know what that point is because I thought we reached that point several times before. Are we too far to come back? Because as all of you, I think, said earlier, we're only watching this president's approval ratings go up. We're only watching his, you know, his echo chamber of people stand behind him and get louder. After he did not get removed from office during the impeachment process,

we all knew that that wasn't going to happen. We know how the Republican list and it was going to vote. He felt as though he was emboldened to do more. At what point will he stop? Or at what point will the American public push back enough? When he starts hurting white people in the way that he hurts everybody else. But he's done that too.

I mean, he has, but they don't view that as sort of directed at them. It's directed at these other people. We just are collateral damage. But when it starts to be something, I think, that affects them, because that's his voice. That's his voter. He doesn't care about the coasts, right? Like, he doesn't

even need all these places to win. That's how he won the last time. He is talking to the people and signaling to them that, hey, if you are white supremacist, I'm going to give you safe harbor. Look at Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka and all these people he's employed. He gave a presidential medal of freedom. To Rush Limbaugh on Rosa Parks'

birthday. So, this man has showed you who he's going to be. And he's also made lots of other people feel good about hurting others. So So they can get some esteem. So yeah, we'll take your health care, we'll do all these horrible things to you, but at least you're better than those people. So what is that

point? When he leaves office. What is that point that when you actually see that you lose it? I think the authoritarian slide for those people will continue until it's too late. But I'm saying hopefully, right, this is what the hope of elections are, that you can bring more people into the fray and vote them down. No But I'm saying hopefully, right, this is what the hope of elections are, that you can bring more people into the fray and vote them down.

No, I'm not offering you hope as a thing. I'm saying hope with an action, right? If you can bring more people into the fray, because I will say what Jesse Jackson said when he was running in 84. Ronald Reagan won by the margin of despair. Donald Trump won by the margin of despair in 2016. He didn't have a landslide. He doesn't have a mandate. He certainly didn't win the popular vote. And if you look at the

states that he won, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, he didn't win by goo gobs of votes. He won by thousands. That's not a lot when you think about the number of people that sat home, the number of people that weren't registered, the number of people who felt pushed out of the process. I'm saying if elections have consequences, then we can think about re-elections also having consequences. And I think this could be a moment. Do you think that he has reached the point where he can break the incumbency advantage, which is huge?

And we've seen it, you know, over the past 20 years. The incumbent, in very rare cases, does not get re-elected again. And right now, we're still seeing the in-economy that, by all projections, he's claiming a victory in, and he's touted along the campaign trail every day. We're seeing, again,

a lot of his supporters who are going out on all the media circuits, despite all of the different trials and tribulations he's gone through this entire process, and it looks like he's only getting stronger. Well, I mean, maybe, right? We know the economy matters, but there are one-termers.

George Bush was a one-termer. Jimmy Carter was a one-termer. So those cases do happen. He could be a one-termer. I think the thing is you have to be very aggressive. You have to be as aggressive as Republicans were when they were making the long game. They made a bet in 2010 about

how they could flip this country, which is moving away from the Republican Party into a Republican stronghold for at least 10 years. They did that in 2010. So you have to be as mindful about that as Republicans were if you were trying to move this guy out of office. And I think the other thing that happens, too, is you have

a party that is happy to cannibalize itself. You have a party that is happy to capitulate to this. Republicans have said, we are going to cast our lot with this guy who is horrible, and if he leaves office and when he leaves office, he will leave our party in a shambles, right? That this will not be a moment that we can come

back from in any real way. And I think that's something we also have to think about, is what is happening inside that party, because part of Donald Trump's downfall is going to happen, has to happen at that part, too, in that place, too. No, absolutely. And President Trump has never really cared about the Republican Party. This is all about President Trump and his businesses.

They thought that they could manage him. Right. And they can't, but they could do some things to try to put a stop gap or to put a stop or a firewall between him and another term. They won't do it because they care about winning more than they care about, like, you know, principles and ethics and a government

code. I would not be surprised if you looked at people's financials who are super invested in this presidency. I would venture to say maybe five years from now, because that'll be around the time it won't be in the forethought of people's minds. But I would not be surprised that if you saw a Rush Limbaugh financial report where there's an uptick, or Lindsey Graham

where there's an uptick, or where did this bulk of money come from? It may be not necessarily from Trump, but how those things work. And when people talk about your initial questions, like what is the downfall? When he leaves office, that is the downfall. Like, this is not going to be something

that the Republicans will be like, okay, Donald Trump has gone too far, because as Dr. Carter said, the whole notion of the Republican Party is power at this point. They just want to be in power at this point. And they are polarizing themselves to the point where, frankly, the Democrats are so saturated with so many other ideals that it's not even the, quote, unquote, Democratic Party anymore.

It's just not the Republican Party at this point. And great point, Kelly. And we will get back to that. But we do have to take a break. And we'll be right back. our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. If you want to support Roland Martin Unfiltered, be sure to join our Bring the Funk

fan club. Every dollar that you give to us supports our daily digital show. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real as Roland Martin Unfiltered support the Roland Martin Unfiltered daily digital show by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. Our goal is to get 20,000 of our fans

contributing 50 bucks each for the whole year. You can make this possible. RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. You have the ability to apply yourself. Educator Benjamin Mays. Join Dr. Jackie Hood-Martin as she engages others to think like a leader. Are you looking to enhance your leadership or that of your team in 2020? Join our newest online course and mastermind group,

How Successful People Think. She will be your guide as you learn timeless leadership principles to apply to daily living. Offer expires February 28, 2020. Register for or start the online course today at www.livetolead.com. The Nevada caucus is being held on Saturday, and there are concerns that we might see the same kind of problems we saw in Iowa. After the fiasco in Iowa, Nevada got rid of the app designed by Shadow Inc., whose technology failed on election night and left Iowa Democratic officials unable to provide vote and delegate counts for days. That decision solved one problem, but it created a bigger one since Nevada spent the better part of the year planning out an even more complex process in Iowa around the same app.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. Well, panel, we all saw what happened in Iowa. Nevada is next up, going through the same process, which is actually, for them, a little bit more cumbersome than Iowa was. What do you think are some of the tools that they may have at their disposal that Iowa didn't in terms of turning this thing around before it could turn into a disaster? And I'll start with you, Chris. Well, let me start with this.

Iowa was a complete disaster, right? So it's kind of hard to do worse. But it's going to be interesting because, as you're pointing out, Nevada does have a more complicated process than Iowa. And they switched over to a different type of process right before this is about to happen. Much like we saw in Iowa. Right. So we're talking about the perfect storm of actually topping Iowa.

I mean, Nevada is about to do it. So what this makes is, again, Democrats looking like they are unprepared and cannot handle the election. And we're talking about voter suppression. We're talking about incompetence when we're dealing with this. So I'm praying for Nevada right now. They have to pull off a seamless election.

Otherwise, again, people are going to lose their faith in the process altogether. There's that, and I would probably also add to that, we are looking at an entirely different demographic in Nevada than in Iowa. One that is a lot larger than Iowa's, but also one that is a lot more people of color. And I think that the stand of it completely falling apart would be a lot more detrimental,

considering the fact that a lot of voters have been waiting for us to get to a state, an early primary state, that actually resembled the country, more so than a place like Iowa. But in addition to that, when we're talking about the move to a more complex system, I think that it's important that we be reminded that a lot of Democrats actually argued for this post the last election cycle because they wanted to have a process that they thought was a little bit more strenuous than the previous one just because they felt that Bernie Sanders didn't get a fair shake. Now we're seeing what this new strenuous process actually

looks like and the fact that the whole thing could potentially fall apart because of it. Kelly, I want to get you in here on this. Again, I think that no matter what state you're in, you're looking at the results of Iowa for the people who are the top one and top two after days of not knowing who the winners were, by the time it finally came out, no one really cared anymore. It really dropped the momentum and the ball for those candidates who had people on the ground for months at a time and invested loads of cash there. Now we're moving towards Nevada. There's a lot of fear that we may see a repeat, and it could actually potentially be worse than what we saw in Iowa. I don't see how it couldn't be worse than Iowa at this point.

Like you said, you have the demographic issue, you have the size issue, you have the complexity issue. You have the fact that it's another caucus and not just a straight vote like, frankly, I feel like elections should be at this point. I don't understand how, of all the things that happened in 2016 when it came to elections and voter suppression and possible fraud or the alleged fraud that didn't really happen like all of this chaos that happened

that year why you would try and create yet another process that is purposely convoluted you know it it doesn't make any that just doesn't make any sense to me. So it's, in my head, I'm actually just looking forward to Super Tuesday and just hoping that, you know, the caucusing thing just kind of is like, nightmare over, real election

right now. You know, and see what happens from there. Because I just don't see what's, the only thing that I see happening in Nevada that I would be paying more attention to is who's going to drop out. Because with Iowa, New Hampshire, we saw that Yang dropped out. And I just have a feeling like people who are lower on the spectrum of votes are going to be like, you know what, this isn't even worth it at this point. You know, because after Nevada, what is...

It's South Carolina. It's South Carolina, and I'm just like, okay. Yeah. You know. Absolutely. There are about eight months left until Election Day, and voting advocates are racing the register millions of eligible Latinos in Texas.

The goal is to dramatically improve the livelihoods of Latinos in the state and across the country. There are roughly 4 million Latinos sitting out each election. Apathy is the cause, and they're not exactly getting their interests met. For example, the passage in Texas of SB4,

the so-called Show Me Your Papers law, was written by Republican state legislators and signed into law by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in early 2017. It's surprising how many Latinos in Texas didn't know about the law but also have no idea that authorities now have the right to check their immigration status simply for being Mexican-American. I'm gonna start with you doctor. Okay. We're seeing more and more anti-immigrant laws and laws that actually punish legal immigrants

of Latin American and Mexican descent across this country. Why is it in a place like Texas that has one of the largest Latino populations, do you think we aren't necessarily seeing them show up to the polls in the numbers that they actually represent? I mean, I think it's probably complicated. I think apathy is part, but you also are in a place like Texas where you have a lot of native-born Latinos,

so they might not be thinking of themselves as one of those people who might be caught up. And as we all know, the provocation could be just something like being pulled over or something small like, you know, a busted taillight, like nothing criminal, but could lead to all these negative outcomes. And I think for most of us, particularly those who are native-born,

we don't think about the fact that we will move around the world with nothing to prove our citizenship on a day-to-day basis. Your license isn't enough, right? In some cases, your other kinds of IDs you might have are not enough to prove your citizenship. So you could be in this morass as a citizen and not know. And so I think for lots of Latino folks in Texas and in other places, it's just not top of the head. But then you have a place like Texas where people have purposely left Latinos out of the equation because it doesn't serve their political interests. And I think one of the things we saw in Iowa, like the Bernie Sanders campaign,

they ran the table with Latino voters in Iowa. That's how he won. And the same thing in Nevada. You have 200 and some odd thousand Latinos who are not registered to vote, yet you have 400 and I think about 15,000 Latinos who are actually eligible to vote, yet you have 400, I think about 15,000 Latinos who are actually eligible to vote. So chronic non-voting and chronic lack of registration is there. But what Sanders, at least, if Democrats are paying attention or folks care, is what micro-targeting can do. If you reach out to these communities, if you do language ads in multiple newspapers, not just the big daily paper, but what are the local community reading? What are the free papers that people might be reading?

What are the radio stations they're listening to? And get those people out and actually show them how to do it. They will not only register, they will show up, and they've seen it happen in Nevada, they're seeing it happen in Iowa, and there's no reason why it can't happen in Texas. So apathy is there, but now we have to work on that mobilization piece and make people understand what's at stake, And part of their freedom

is just one part of this, right? It's also making them understand what the long-term consequences of this is because this can have effects on whole communities. Turning people into voters changes whole communities. Absolutely. And all really good points. And Chris, I kind of want to get you in here because I know that you've

carried on a lot of this work with the ACLU, particularly fighting on behalf of those communities that have been disenfranchised, but also alerting them to a lot of these bills that are detrimental to their community. How do you feel the mobilization efforts have gone? And I know that you did this work in Georgia, but I think that there are some things that can be extrapolated on the whole. You know, from Georgia to the entire Southeast, Southern Corridor altogether, there's really no difference of a change. You have to have people in that community advocating for that community. When you actually see somebody, you look at somebody, saying, hey, you can be

empowered too, and this is how this needs to happen, that's the way that you get people interested and you bring them into the political process. Some campaigns just don't do that. too, and this is how this needs to happen, that's the way that you get people interested and you bring them into the political process. Some campaigns just don't do that. Some campaigns will send out any and everybody to say you need to vote because your life depends on it. That second part's true, but do you know what really the type of interest that I have? Are you really asking me what I want to see in a candidate?

So you can say it all you want. You can pass out one-pagers or anything else. But if you don't know exactly where, like you're saying, micro-targeting is specifically a great point. I need to feel, this isn't just Latinos, African-Americans, all minority groups. I need to feel that your campaign was really respecting me as a person and not as just another voting number altogether. Mobilization needs to happen in all states, especially in Texas, and then you can actually have a change or a difference because these laws are going to continue.

Until you start voting out people, they're just going to get worse and worse, and you can defeat them down at the legislature or you can defeat them in the voting block on local elections. And Kelly, from my conversations with a lot of different Latino organizations around this and a few other issues, one of the major issues that has risen as a complaint when it comes to mobilization and getting people to the polls is that the things that matter to different types of Latinos vary greatly. So unlike the African-American population, which a large portion can describe their lineage back to slavery in this country, when it comes

to the Latino-American population, you have people from various countries who some escaped some pretty heinous things. Others have been in this country for a very long time who don't necessarily see themselves as supportive of sanctuary cities or anything else because they feel like they don't necessarily have... They didn't walk that same path.

So when a lot of the campaigns are speaking towards that type of messaging, specific towards some of the newer Latino population, those who've been here for a while don't necessarily feel the same, but also there is a huge distance between when it comes to how certain Latino groups view other Latino groups. And we've seen that arise as well in terms of mobilizing, getting them together on any particular

issue. How do you think that factors into making sure that they actually get out to vote? I think that also happens in the black community as well. I mean, you have the older generation of black people who don't understand the newer generation of black people and why we want to mobilize a little bit more and we see each other more so as individuals and want to be respected as such and then black people are like well if they're black we need to vote because they are the black uh candidate i you know i can't speak for the Latino community as a whole, but what I have noticed is that a lot of people of color outside of the black community have siloed themselves away from voting issues, mainly because this issue kind of feeds into each other. So you have people of color who will silo themselves out of the voting process because they feel like

they're ignored. Meanwhile, you have legislature, such as what we just saw in Texas, basically take advantage of the fact that this conglomerate feel like they're ignored. So they take advantage of that by making legislation that they know aren't going to reach this demographic because, again, it's like, I'm being ignored, so I'm going to ignore this. I'm going to take advantage of the fact that you're ignoring this and actually do something about it.

And it just kind of feeds into each other that way. So what I'm seeing here is, like what Dr. Carter said, this micro-targeting really does need to happen. But that comes with research, that comes with the teams who really care, that comes with, you know, real diversity and inclusion strategy to make sure that everybody feels accounted for, everybody feels wanted in this country,

and not just the stereotypical conglomerate that is, again, going to feed into this cycle of being ignored. I was going to say really quickly, but micro-targeting does cost money. And I think this is the thing. There are very few people who are willing to invest the kinds of resources those things take because we know they work. They're also very intense and they take people. They take money. They take lots of effort and you have to to be willing to do it. But it can happen and it does happen. But have we seen that it yield real fruit for this particular population?

Because we've seen campaigns micro target at the state level. We've seen them sort of do it on the federal level with mixed results. Look at Andrew Gillum's campaign for governor in Florida. Um, although Florida has, again, several different types of Latino population, what we saw was a large percentage who weren't voting Democrat at all,

and again, an even larger percentage who did not participate, and then you had some who did come to his side. I think that for political parties specifically, one of the things that we are still grappling with is where majority of Latinos stand on a particular issue or any particular issue. Well, it depends, right?

So as you talked about, there are different groups. There are Mexicans, there are Puerto Ricans, there are Hondurans. I mean, we have to think about religiosity. So evangelicals and Catholics are very conservative about certain kinds of issues. We understand that. But how do you have people have other interests?

Young people, for example, have a very different set of lived concerns. But we also cannot ignore, and I think this was your point about how intimidation also operates. That law is just about as much as harassing people and making their lives inconvenient, but also keeping them away from the levers of government. Because I don't want to give my information or name to a government. I'm going to voluntarily tell the people where I live so they can do something to me. So I think there is sort of these institutional things. And no, nobody has a lock necessarily on this one community.

But I will say we have seen in places like Nevada, the Latino community did make a difference when Harry Reid was running for re-election. He won very narrowly, and he won because Latino people showed up. So they will show up, but you have to give them a reason to. And it's not just gonna be Spanish language ads, and it's not gonna be just trying to eat tamales and show up for Independence Day celebrations.

You actually have to give people a legitimate reason to show out. And everybody is just the same on that score. Whether you're Latino and it doesn't matter what nationality you are, or whether you're black and it doesn't matter what nationality, give people a reason to show up. And it can't just be because you don't like the other guy. It has to be something real. A good example of what you're talking about, Dr. Carter,

even though it's not necessarily election related, this Census 2020 campaign has done, the people who are behind that campaign have done a remarkable job in terms of micro-targeting and making sure that the ads, the language, the communication strategy really thought about the diversity of this country. They are so granular, the most granular that I've seen out of a government campaign strategy for 2020 census. So while it's not 2020 election related, but it's going to have consequences after 2020.

It is. But the redistricting process. It really, really is. So it matters a lot. And when you talked about money, they spent a pretty penny. So I definitely empathize with the concern of cost, but that's not to say that it's not worth it. Absolutely it's worth it.

It's a higher cost when it comes to, if we leave these people out of the process, resources for communities, education systems, transportation, infrastructure, if we don't have these people registered, not only just for the census, but to vote. If their voices are not being heard, then that, the community can only be apathetic for so long until they start revolutionizing, of saying, we're tired of this, of being oppressed in a certain form or fashion.

And then you have other things of us versus the other. So are we welcoming them into this American system altogether? So it's going to be interesting to see how one thing the census turns out, but other elections turn out as well. Do you think Trump's rhetoric is going to push people to the polls? And I say that with a little bit of caution because in 2016 he ran on the exact same things. Do you think that now, since he's codified a lot of this in law, and since he has worked to dismantle, um, dismantle and make the country look... Make America Great Again has been a mantra

that has in many ways, uh, served to disadvantage and disenfranchise black and brown people. Do you think that that is going to give a focus point for Latinos to come to the poll in 2020 versus their numbers in 2016? See, that's the real question. So, you said originally, is this Latinos to come to the poll in 2020 versus their numbers in 2016? See, that's the real question. So you said originally, is this going to push people to the polls?

Yes, his supporters to the polls. Now, are Latinos going to come out to the polls? I'm not Latino, so I'm not going to speak on their community. But I know I'm going to the poll because I can't take another four years of Donald Trump. Now, who else believes in that? I don't know, because in 2016, everyone was saying, there is no way this guy is going to get elected.

And that's exactly what happened. They underestimated him. Right. And so we need to figure out, are people still believing that this guy is not going to get re-elected, and the type of damage that he's done to our country. But I think also people underestimated white supremacy and people's sort of racist

appeals. Like, those sort of racist appeals work, and they've worked to great effect for decades. But I think we forgot about it in those sort of, you know, the afterglow of the Obama years and all of those things. But I think it's, exactly. But then you also have people saying irresponsible things like, we can afford to lose an election.

It's not a big deal. This is going to usher in a partisan revolution. This is what we need to shake up the system and wake people up. Give Jill Stein money. Now we have three years, and I don't know where that money or Jill Stein is today. But now, in hindsight, people understand what the stakes are. And one of the things we do know is that anger can be a very powerful motivator. It certainly works for white voters, and I have no doubt that for some segments of our communities, not just black communities, Latino communities, Asian communities, others, marginalized people,

that anger can do some of that work as well for those communities, because we see what has happened in three years. Everything that he campaigned on, he has done or is trying to do. So we know the threat is real. We know this is not just some kind of carnival barker, right, trying to hustle us and make us feel a certain way so we can, we can, just for his own vanity.

He means what he says. And he is doing and staffing himself with people who are going to see to it that the things that he says he's going to do, he's going to do. Whether it's that wall, whether it's these Muslim bands and these other now bands that are extended to continental African countries and other places, he's doing all of that

because he wants to remake America in a particular kind of way. And so I'm hoping that people realize another four years of this is only going to embolden him because he has nothing to lose. Translation from the good doctor, make America great again means make America white again. And we're going to take a break. When we come back, tips on finding your soulmate and strengthening your relationship. I'm here in Milwaukee on my way to meet Angela Lang from Black Leaders Organizing for Communities.

BLOC is a dynamic grassroots organization that is all about building long-term political power with a new vision for civic engagement. Let's see how they do it. BLOC launched in November of 2017 with the idea that we were going to not wait for a candidate. We're not going to wait for a party. We're going to educate our folks ourselves. We're going to empower people. We're going to do year-round civic engagement. We're going to make sure people understand the power that they have within themselves

to make a difference in this political system that often excludes us. And you're actually using, and I think you call them ambassadors. Yes. Who go around and knock on doors and I think you call them ambassadors. Yes. Who go around and knock on doors and listen, not only talk, but listen to the folks that open up that door and want to talk about the issues that confront them. We knew that we wanted to do things differently. So ambassador, it's kind of just a canvasser with a twist. People see our really aggressive ground game. They see that our ambassadors are deeply trained. They're not just, you know, being transactional. Can you vote for this candidate? Yes or no. It's deeper conversations. It's more meaningful conversations. We were able to do over 227,000 door attempts

just in 2018 alone. That's the importance of having number one, a year round program where you don't leave, where you don't pack up and leave and then wait until the next election, where you have a presence in the community at all times. So right now we're in the 53206 zip code. A lot of our ambassadors live in the zip code and live actually in the surrounding areas. And this zip code is home to the most incarcerated zip code in the country. And so that's why it was important for us to make sure that we had an office space that was here.

Even though we do our work all across the North side, we wanted to show a little extra love to 53206, just given its challenges. And since you're in Milwaukee, you have some ambassadors I'd like you to meet. That's great, let's do it. Well, I did a lot for them. Me coming from the streets, selling drugs,

going in and out the penitentiary. It really opened my eyes back up, like, damn, you know, I'm really hurting my community when I can be helping my community. Let's not cry here. Block is the change. I have a term that I use, and it's this is what the change look like.

And the change is me. I've been was fighting, but it was the wrong fight. Now I'm in the right fight. Black changed me because I was never into politics, and now I'm more down than ever. Well, we won in 2018, right? Scott Walker is no longer around. I mean, that's a good thing.

But we also know that that fight and that struggle never ends. We have a proud and rich history with the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King was closely involved with our union, and some of you know this. In 1968, when he went to Memphis, Tennessee, those sanitation workers were represented by AFSCME, Local 1733.

And everyone in this room knows the story. He ultimately gave his life supporting those sanitation workers. Dr. King understood the connection between economic rights, labor rights, civil rights, human rights. You're doing the work that Dr. King believed in every single day that he gave his life for. You're reconnecting with your communities.

You're knocking on doors. You're not only talking with folks and sharing information with them, but you are listening to what they have to say. Nobody can do that better than you. Because you're from here. We're building a movement, block by block, in Milwaukee and across the country.

People understand and know what you are doing. How many politicians have come in wanting to talk to you? A lot. Okay, a lot. If they're talking to you and they're making those promises and commitments, then you've got to hold them accountable. And if not, then you kick their ass. I mean, simple as that.

Excuse my friend. Excuse my friend. Excuse my friend. I mean, you've got to hold them accountable. With that, I don't want to keep you any longer. You're supposed to be knocking on doors this afternoon, right? But I just want to say thank you on behalf of the 1.4 million members of AFSCME, and let's get the job done, okay?

Let's get the job done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Happy Valentine's Day. Many of you are celebrating with your loved one, and others are feeling pressured because you haven't found the one. Whether you're in a relationship or looking, it's important to understand the purpose and define how you look at it because how you see it determines how you behave in it. That is according to my next guest, Reverend Darius Daniels, senior pastor and founder of

Kingdom Church and author of Relational Intelligence. Welcome to Roland Martin Unfiltered. Thank you so much for having me. Happy Valentine's Day to everybody. Absolutely. So we got to see some clips of your work and have a few questions related to some of the content therein. There was one point where you started describing people's needs versus wants when it came to choosing their partner. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that? I think that a lot of people, both men and women, have these checklists, if you will, about the things that they would like to find in their partner. And you had some interesting comments about that. Yeah. So one, I think both of them

are important, but I think it's important to draw a line of distinction between what is actually a preference for you in a relationship and what is negotiable. Because oftentimes when a person doesn't know the difference between those two, they will compromise in an area they probably shouldn't, or they won't compromise in an area where if they reconsider, looking back in retrospect, they probably would. So I think the heart of what I'm trying to get at is we should all know in a relationship what are our needs versus what are our preferences. Then that way, if we have to do some negotiation, and I'm not saying you always have to.

Sometimes people get blessed or lucky or fortunate, and they get absolutely everything they want and need. But if there are times when some negotiation has to take place, you want to make sure you're not compromising the wrong thing at the wrong time and in the wrong area. Absolutely. One of the things that also I think that we'd be remiss if we didn't discuss it here, there are a lot of relationship do's and don'ts and Q&As that go around the black church all the time. However, we notice that there are a lot of single women in the black church. Do you think that a lot of the conversation around relationships particularly is helping black women who are often the largest

group in the church who are also extra single? No. No. So I think in religious circles, we need to do a better job of that. I think sometimes we are speaking, meaning when I say we, I mean religious leaders. We are speaking to a social reality that no longer exists. And we are not taking into consideration, not just, I know it's a different kind of conversation, and I don't necessarily use this word a lot, but the issue isn't just always the shortage of African-American men, but when you look at the trajectory of African-American women in almost every category,

they're outpacing almost every demographic period when it comes to starting small businesses, when it comes to education, businesses, when it comes to education and things of that particular nature. So the challenge is sometimes not just always finding somebody, it's also finding someone suitable for who they are and for where they're going. And I think we need to do a better job of that because it is a reality that so many people are facing sitting in our pews or chairs every weekend. And I have one more question before I toss this to the panel here. As it related to a lot of the videos and a lot of the outreach you've done related to your book

and your series, the conversation has been largely from you. And I ask this because while watching it, I saw that your wife was there, and the first lady. However, she didn't have very much to offer within that conversation. So we're seeing a man, yourself, tell us about what it is to be single or what people should look like or look for in their mates, but how much of that is actually informed by women? Because to be quite frank, black men tell us all the time, or men in general, what we should do when it comes to relationships. However, we're not necessarily hearing that same vantage point from females. And the people who are taking the lead on this are often men.

Yeah, well, a few things. One, I feel like the content specifically for the book, I wouldn't say it's content that comes exclusively from my perspective. It's content that's gathered from my experience in my role and my interaction with all kinds of people in all different types of seasons of life. And so, obviously, I think anyone would... It would be disingenuous to say that their perspective is not influencing their work. No one's that purely objective. But I will say, in terms of the content of the book and in terms of my approach to my teaching,

it flows from not just my study of resources, not just always my personal perspective and opinion. A lot of that I wouldn't even share on a platform. But it comes from my interaction with people who are a part of my orbit of relationships or a part of our congregation. And it is my attempt to speak to what I'm hearing and also to give voice to some perspectives from men and women to men and women to hopefully help them in this area. And my wife is doing doing a lot more. She's adding a lot more value. I'm not quite sure what is, what's seen or what's out there. But as a matter of fact, we just did, I think, a live, we just did an event a couple of weeks ago and we did a live a couple of days ago. So she does speak into, in a large way, this conversation, at least

for our church. Well, Dr. Daniels, I want to make sure that we are also getting the questions answered that are burning from our panel right here in studio. I think we're going to start with the ladies first. So Kelly Bethia is over here and she has a burning question for you. I was just curious. Well, two things. One, are there levels of single because you categorized extra single or was that just like a turn of phrase right there and then secondly regarding the the issue of possible the the discrepancy in success between men and women how do you feel we should rectify that? Because just as an anecdote, I consider myself to be pretty accomplished, and I don't necessarily

see myself, for lack of a better phrase, dumbing myself down in order to find a mate. Nor am I in the business of waiting for a mate in order to possibly fulfill some contrived notion of what God may or may not want for me. So could you please explain that notion? Yeah, I think that's a great question. So one, one of the first things that I would say to the second question, well, as well as the first question, I'm not quite sure if I said extra single, that was probably me misspeaking. That's not a, I don't even know if I've used that word before.

It's definitely not a category that I would put anybody in. But as far as to your to your second question, I think it's a profound one. I think it's a very important one. And so one one of the things that that I would say is I think it's important for, in this season, men. I'll put it this way. Peter Drucker said people in the past, people who were successful in the past knew what to say. People who will be successful in the future know what to ask.

And so I think it's important for men in this season to do a lot more listening to hear what suitable is like for a woman in this season. One of the things I recognized really quickly when I married my wife, I did not marry my mother. It's two different generations, two different perspectives. And so if I am attempting to relate to and be my best self for the woman I'm with now, based on a perspective and a paradigm I had with the woman that I grew up in in my house,

being my mother, then I'm not gonna be a suitable mate for her. So I think, as the moderator mentioned earlier, I think there's been way too much telling in the black community, way too much talking to black women as opposed to listening to and learning from them so that brothers can, quite frankly, step their game up and add the kind of value that needs to be added to our community and be the kind of men that our community and our women so desperately need. That's not man bashing on my part. I'm not one of those. But I do think that we're going to be objective in this conversation that has to take place. I don't think any woman or any man, for that matter, should dumb themselves down. I don't think that's a divine, that's not an

expectation of God for anyone to do that. And relationships, based on the person, it's their preference. It's not a need. A relationship should not complete a person. They should simply complement a person. A person should be whole before they even enter into a relationship in the first place so they don't need one to make them whole. All right. We're going to move on to Dr. Carter.

I think that she has some questions for you as well. I just had one question in particular, which is how do you speak to the non-religious? So I am not a person that would be in someone's pulpit or someone's pew on a Sunday. I don't move in those circles. That's not my social network. So how do you talk to folks who may not be coming from a religious perspective about some of these things?

Sure. So one, in terms of the language we use and the approach that we take, the perspective is whether a person shares the faith or not. That there are principles, hopefully, that we're communicating that apply to relationships in general. So the goal is, I think sometimes when a person sees someone who sits in a seat like mine, who is a religious leader, the expectation is or the assumption is, this person is trying

to proselytize me. When my perspective in life is simply this, that even if people don't become people who share my faith, I want their relationships to get better. And if there's some way I can add value to that, I want that to happen because that makes our world better. It makes it a better world for me. It makes it a better world for my children. It makes it a better world for everyone. So I think a better world for my children. It makes it a better world for everyone. So I think some of the principles we try to communicate, such as what are needs for you,

what are preferences, drawing a line of distinction between areas you feel like you will compromise and won't compromise is not necessarily an exclusively religious concept. And I think it's a concept that can apply to anyone, no matter what their faith is or is not, or no matter what season of life they may be in. So that's our attempt.

I'm sure we could probably do a better job at that. I want to be as helpful as I can to everyone. But we are intentional about the language that we use and the approach that we take, take it into consideration. There are people who don't share our faith. There are people who are actually listening to me every week through technology who don't,

and those who actually attend our church from time to time who share a different faith. So trying to be intentional about that and could probably do a better job at it, but we're all taking a swing at it. Thank you. We actually do have one male on our panel today, so I want to make sure that we get his question in before we wrap up. Hey, brother. Well, I am a male, but I'm just a local black man. So I don't know anything about these subject matters. It's more of a comment of, like you were saying before,

doctor, is the philosophy that people have to describe to you. There's so many things out there, like think like a man, act like a lady. Men, oh, there we go. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, the five love languages. What makes yours unique?

And has there been any critical feedback that people should be aware of? Well, so one, I feel like the plethora of information out there on relationships I think is helpful because I think couples of different people are different. And it's OK for people to explore what stream of information best serves them. I am going to argue that, from my perspective,

the uniqueness of my approach is it's a mindset, not necessarily a method. In the sense of, if you get into something like love languages, it's reducing expressions of love to five different languages. When some people have more than five, they've got ten. And it's instructing people, do this, do that. If they want this, do this, do that. Whereas mine isn't more so, isn't an issue of method. It's an issue of mindset.

Simply encouraging people to say, hey, when it comes to your relational life, it is very consequential. There's no aspect of your life that isn't affected by your relationships directly or indirectly. There is a tendency in culture to tell us to manage those relationships emotionally. And I'm just arguing that it's okay to have the emotions in the car when it comes to relationship choices and management. You just don't always have to let them drive. Because at some point, if you manage relationships emotionally and never intelligently, you might end up in unnecessary crashes. So for me, that's why I say our book may be a little unique. And critical feedback, brother, I'm a pastor,

so there's not a day I don't get some of that, unfortunately. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Daniels, and thanks to our panel. This has been a very great show, and that concludes today's Roland Martin Unfiltered. I want to thank my panel for hanging with me today and invite you to tune in again next week when Roland Martin returns.

Also, if you like what you see here, please support us by going to RolandMartinUnfiltered.com and joining the fan club. Until next time, I'm Amisha Cross. Thanks for watching. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun?

Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English.

I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at

their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast Season 2 on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up.

See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pre-game to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispreetirement.org. Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council.

This is an iHeart Podcast.