UNBIASED - November 24, 2025: What's Going on With Professional Degrees? Did Trump Suggest the Death Penalty for Lawmakers? PLUS Helping You Navigate Political Tension Ahead of Thanksgiving!

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. PEACE TALKS: Want Jordan's advice on how to navigate relationships amid the polarizing political climate? ⁠SUBMIT YOUR DILEMMA HERE⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Supreme Court Allows Texas to Proceed with New Congressional Map... For Now (0:56) Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Announces Resignation from Congress (6:54) Quick Hitters: Trump to Announce New Healthcare Proposal, Judge Dismisses Indictments Against James Comey and Letitia James, DOGE Disbands Early (13:24) Rumor Has It: Are Some Professional Degrees Really No Longer Considered Professional Degrees? Did Trump Really Call for the Death Penalty for Certain Lawmakers? (15:28) NEW: Peace Talks (27:54) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you're flying Emirates business class, sipping your favorite cocktail at our onboard lounge, you'll see that your vacation isn't really over until your flight is over. Fly Emirates. Fly better. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, November 24th. Let's talk about some news. I'm really excited for today's episode for a couple of reasons. Number one, the highly anticipated peace talks segment starts today, which I will talk more about when we get there. But number two, because of the holiday, there won't be an episode on Thursday. So we're kind of just throwing everything into today's episode. There will be a couple of stories and then we'll do

quick hitters. We'll do the new peace talk segment, of course, and we're going to do rumor has it. So you'll get your rumor has it fixed today, despite they're not being an episode on Thursday. Today's episode is kind of like, it's a mix of everything. It's almost like a Thanksgiving dinner plate. You just kind of throw a bunch of things onto your plate. This is a bunch of things thrown into one episode. So without further ado, let's talk about some news. On Friday, the Supreme Court effectively allowed Texas to continue using its newest congressional map.

And this is a bit of an update to Thursday's episode on Thursday. hitters section, we talked about this lower court ruling that said essentially Texas's congressional map unconstitutionally sorted voters based on race and ordered Texas to use the map that the state legislature had adopted back in 2021. Now, that ruling meant that Texas wouldn't be able to use its newly drawn map for the 26 elections. And remember, the whole point in Texas redrawing its map ahead of the 2030 census when it's typically done was to add up to five Republican seats to Congress in the 2026 midterms. So if Texas can't use this new map that they just drew, then they lose any chance at gaining those five Republican seats. So once the lower court blocked Texas from using

its new map, Texas immediately went to the Supreme Court and said, hey, we need you guys to step in here because in the next two weeks, we have a deadline coming up by which these new district candidates have to file to run for these newly created districts. And if this lower ruling remains in effect and that deadline passes and therefore no new candidates are allowed to file, then our new map is effectively void for the 2026 midterms, even if this lower court ruling eventually gets overturned. Now, one thing that's important to understand in cases like this is the difference between partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering, which is drawing maps that benefit one particular political party, is essentially legal at the federal level. Okay. So the Supreme Court

ruled back in 2019 that federal courts cannot step into those kinds of disputes. So even if a map is drawn to favor Democrats or Republicans, the courts generally won't touch it. But race, gerrymandering is a completely different story. If you, if a legislature or whatever body is drawing the district maps for a state uses race as the predominant factor in drawing districts in a way that weakens a racial group's voting power, that violates the Voting Rights Act as well as the Constitution. That is not allowed. And that's why lawsuits like this one can move forward because the plaintiffs are claiming racial discrimination, not just partisan advantage. And that's what the lower court found here, that Texas had racially gerrymandered its latest

congressional map. So in response to that lower court ruling, Texas went ahead and bypassed the appellate court and went directly to the Supreme Court. And this is allowed under Supreme Court Rule 20, which allows the Supreme Court to fast track cases when election time, lines are tight. So the Texas was allowed just to go straight to the Supreme Court. And in its filing to the Supreme Court, Texas claimed that the lower court failed to assume good faith on behalf of the Texas legislature and properly disentangle race and politics as possible motives in drawing the map. So specifically Texas said that the court disregarded that when partisanship and race correlate, a map that has been gerrymandered to achieve partisan goals can look very similar

to a racially gerrymandered map. But that doesn't mean that the map was racially gerrymandered. Texas also argued that the judges should not have even issued their ruling, considering this dispute is too close to the upcoming 2026 election. And just a few weeks before the candidate filing deadline occurs on December 8th. And that's based on what's often called the Purcell principle. The Brousel principle is the idea that courts should avoid making last minute changes to election laws or maps whenever an election is quote unquote imminent because doing so can cause voter confusion or, you know, disrupt election administration. So Texas is basically saying, even if our map had issues, it's too close to 2026 to order any changes now. Consistent with

those arguments, Texas asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower. court's order. And on Friday, Justice Alito granted that request. Remember that each justice is assigned to a specific appellate district. And when an emergency application comes from one of those districts, it's first assigned to the justice that oversees that circuit. And that justice can decide the issue alone or refer it to the full court. So Justice Alito receives the emergency request from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas. And in this case, he was the one who granted the administrative stay. It's important to note that Alito's Friday order is not a ruling on the merits of the case, right? Instead, it just puts that lower court's order on pause to give

the Supreme Court more time to make a decision on the merits of the case. From here, the Supreme Court could decide to fast track the case to a full merits briefing, essentially treating the emergency application as an appeal from the lower court's decision, which is what Texas has asked of the court. The court could also just simply keep the administrative stay in place without rendering a decision on the merits of the case, without hearing arguments in the case. That would allow Texas to use the new map for the upcoming elections and, you know, potentially give Texas those additional red seats. Or the court could decide to lift the stay, which would then put the lower court's order back in place and essentially block Texas from using its new map in 2026. So time will tell us what the

justices decide to do with this one. In other news, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Green announced that she will resign from Congress, effective January 5th. This development, of course, comes after we just spoke about the escalating feud between Green and Trump amid Green's support for the release of the Epstein files. To give you a little more context here, Green was last elected in 2024, which means that her current term runs through January 3rd, 27. That also means that her resignation will be midway through her current term. And that will require a special election in Georgia's 14th district to elect her successor. We did recently discuss Green and Trump's feud over the obscene files, which I just mentioned.

But that's not really the only thing that they've butted heads over recently. So just in the last few months, they've engaged in public disagreements over issues related to the shutdown, HB1 visas, Trump's recent 50-year mortgage proposal. the ACA premium tax credit extension, they've kind of been at odds with one another, but the reason that their feud made news last week is because Trump went ahead and publicly rescinded his endorsement and his support of her. So that's a little bit of background. Green announced her resignation in a video posted on X Friday night, which was also accompanied by a four-page statement. Her statement or resignation letter, mostly took issue with the current state of politics in the United States.

She wrote in part, quote, I've always represented the common American man and woman as a member of the House of Representatives, which is why I've always been despised in Washington, D.C., and never fit in. Americans are used by the political industrial complex of both political parties, election cycle after election cycle, in order to elect whichever side can convince Americans to hate the other side more. And the results are always the same. No matter which way the political pendulum swings, Republican or Democrat, nothing ever gets better for the common American man or woman. And quote, Green then goes on to discuss her time in Congress and highlights her record as as one of the most conservative voting members in Congress. She noted how she has defended the

First Amendment, the Second Amendment, unborn babies, strong, safe borders, as well as fought against what she calls, quote, COVID insanity and mandated mass vaccinations, end quote, as well as funding foreign wars. She also wrote about her frustration with the recent government shutdown, as well as Speaker Johnson's decision to not have the House in session during the shutdown, and her frustration with fellow Republicans for failing to pass any sort of plan that would address the high and unaffordable health insurance policies. Her letter also, referenced the recent tension with the president. She writes in part, quote, I will never forget the day I had to leave my mother's side as my father had brain surgery to remove cancerous tumors in order to fly to Washington, D.C., to defend President Trump and vote no against the Democrats' second impeachment in 2021. My poor father and my poor mother, it was way too much. Loyalty should be a two-way street and we should be able to vote our conscience and represent our district's interests because our job title is literally. representative, end quote. She then concludes her letter with, quote, if I am cast aside by Maga, Inc.

and replaced by neocons, big pharma, big tech, military industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can't even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well. When the common American people finally realize and understand that the political industrial complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, then I'll be here by their side to rebuild it. Until then, I'm going back to the people I love to live life to the fullest as I always have and look forward to a new path ahead.

End quote. In response to her resignation, President Trump posted on truth social, quote, Marjorie Trader Brown because of plummeting poll numbers and not wanting to face a primary challenger with a strong Trump endorsement where she would have no chance of winning,

has decided to call it quits. Her relationship with the worst Republican congressman in decades, Tom Massey of Kentucky, also known as Rand Paul Jr., because he votes against the Republican Party and really good legislation, did not help her. For some reason, primarily that I refused to return her never-ending barrage of phone calls. Marjorie went bad. Nevertheless, I will always appreciate Marjorie and thank her for her service to our country, end quote. Trump was later asked a reporter whether he was willing to forgive Green. And he responded, quote, forgive for what? No, we just, I just disagreed with her philosophy. She started backing perhaps the worst Republican congressman in our history, just, you know, a stupid person named Massey. And I said,

go your own way. And once I left her, she resigned because she would have never survived a primary. But I think she's a nice person. And quote, similarly, according to NBC News, Trump said in a phone interview that while it wouldn't be easy for Green to revive her career in politics, he would love to see it. From here, Green's last official day as representative for Georgia's 14th district will be January 5th. The House is out of session starting December 18th for their holiday break, so really she won't be working after that date. The exception is, of course, that the House is called back into session for some reason. Now, as far as filling Green's seat, two things can happen. Either Georgia's governor can call a special election and a new representative would be elected to carry out

the rest of her term. Or the governor could instead decide to let green seat remain vacant until the state's primary rolls around in May of this coming year. If a special election is held, it could happen as early as February of this coming year. But if the governor does decide to wait until the state primary, her seat would just remain vacant for a few extra months. Per Georgia law, the governor has to call a special election for a U.S. House vacancy within 10 days of the vacancy. Given that Green's resignation takes effect January 5th, we'll know by January 15th what Georgia's governor decides to do. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters and rumor has it. It's the Nissan Black Friday event where you can, wait, wait, isn't it like a

month long now? Nissan Blackfri month? Does that work? It's the Nissan Black Friday month. It's the Nissan Black Fri-month event. On remaining 2025 Rogan Centra, get zero percent financing. Plus, get $1,000 Nissan bonus on kicks models. This Black Friday, you've got a whole month to catch all the exclusive offers waiting for you. See your local Nissan dealer or nissan.ca for details. Conditions apply. Welcome back. Let's do a few quick hitters. President Trump is expected to reveal a new proposal for addressing health care costs as soon as today. proposal has not yet been released. The framework reportedly includes a two-year extension on ACA subsidies and new limits on eligibility. That's according to three people granted anonymity to

discuss the plans. Notably, though, a White House official declined to confirm the details of the plan, saying, quote, until President Trump makes an announcement himself, any reporting about the administration's health care positions is mere speculation. And quote, a federal judge has dismissed the indictments against both former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the basis that the federal prosecutor who indicted them was unlawfully appointed. The judge said the appointment of the prosecutor was illegal because the attorney general's power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney had already been exhausted under the law. So Attorney General Bondi had lawfully appointed a previous interim U.S.

attorney back in January. That individual was later pushed out. The judge said that once that interim attorney was pushed out and once his term ended, the attorney general no longer had authority to name another interim replacement. Only the district court could make a new interim appointment at that point. The DOJ will likely appeal this ruling. And the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as Doge, has been dissolved according to the Office of Personnel. management director. He told Reuters earlier this month that Doge, quote, doesn't exist, end quote, and that it was no longer a centralized entity. Rumors of the entity's disbandment did start back in this summer when it was reported that staffers had packed up their belongings at the department's

headquarters. But according to these documents that were revealed by Reuters, the Office of Personnel Management has taken over many of Doge's former responsibilities. Okay, now it's time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. We usually do this segment on Thursdays, but because of the holiday, we are going to fit it in today. First one, rumor has it that certain professional degrees like nursing are no longer considered professional degrees. We need to add a lot of context to this one, so stick with me. I cannot tell you how many people have messaged me about this in the last few days. This is probably one of the most highly requested stories to date,

at least in the top 20, I would say. So let's get down to the bottom of this. To really understand what is going on here, we have to talk about the big beautiful bill. When the one big beautiful bill act passed in July of this year, it included a section that implemented caps on federal student loans. And those caps are to take effect on July 1st of 2026. Now, those caps apply to both graduate loans and loans for quote unquote professional students. So graduate loans are capped at a certain amount professional degrees or students seeking professional degrees get a higher amount. Now every law defines the terms that it uses, right? So the big beautiful bill defined professional students for purposes of federal student loans as quote, a student enrolled in a program of study that

awards a professional degree as defined under Section 668.2 Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations upon completion of the program. So now we have to look at how Section 668.2 Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a professional degree. And I quote, a degree that signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor's degree. Professional licensure is also generally required. Examples of a professional degree include but are not limited to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, and theology.

So if we really analyze this, the big, beautiful, beautiful, bill used the existing code of federal regulations definition of professional degree, which is pretty broad. And the examples given in the definition are just examples, right? They're not an exhaustive list of what meets that definition. So that's part one of this conversation. As of now, under the big beautiful bill, nurses, physician assistants, or physician associates, physical therapists, et cetera, would still fit the current code of federal regulation's definition of professional degree despite not being part of the limited list of examples. Okay. So that means under the law as it's written today, these fields still qualify

as professional students for federal loan purposes. Now, part two of this conversation is this. Whenever a new law is passed, especially one that changes how an existing system works like, you know, federal student loans, federal agencies go through a rulemaking process where they propose new rules and regulations to carry out the law in the real world. Congress essentially sets the big picture instruction and then agencies write the detailed instruction. So for example, the law might say federal student loans are capped at X amount for certain degrees, but it won't define exactly which degrees count. It won't specify what form schools have to use. It won't specify how the caps are applied, the education department will write the rules that fill in those blanks.

In this case, the education department issued, it went through the rulemaking process, and in doing so, it issued proposed changes to the definition of professional student under the direct loan program, which is the program through which federal student loans are made. As of now, these are just proposed changes. They have not yet been finalized. but under the proposed rule, the definition of professional degree would change to the following. A professional degree is a degree that signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor's degree. Two, is generally at the doctoral level, and that requires at least six academic years of post-secondary education coursework for,

completion, including at least two years of post-batchelette-level coursework. Three, generally requires professional licensure to begin practice, and four, includes a four-digit program CIP code as assigned by the institution or determined by the secretary in the same intermediate group as pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pediatry, theology, and clinical psychology. Now, that last part of this proposed new definition, the CIP code requirement, is where things get tricky. CIP codes, by the way, are federal classification codes that are assigned to academic fields.

Under the Education Department's current proposed definition, programs like nursing, physician assistant, physician associate, physical therapy, engineering, and architecture would not be considered professional degrees because they do not share a four-digit CIP code with any of the 11 listed fields. if this proposal is finalized as written, these degrees would be classified as graduate degrees and not professional degrees for student loan purposes. That means lower borrowing caps for students in these programs, specifically $20,500 per year instead of $50,000 per year. And again, this proposal is not final. The Department of Education is expected to finalize the rule by late spring 2026. So if you're in one of these programs, if you are enrolled in one of these programs before June 30th, 2026, you are protected under the what are called legacy rules, meaning this change will not affect you. But if you enroll in one of these programs starting July 1st,

2026, you would fall under the new caps, $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate instead of $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate. Anything above that would need to be financed through private loans. You would not be able to go through the federal government. The last thing I want to address is this claim that these degrees, nursing, physician assistant, physical therapy, etc., will no longer be treated as professional degrees at all. That claim is false. This reclassification would apply only within the federal student loan system. It would not change how these professions are regarded in the real world by licensing boards, employers, or anyone else. This is just when we're talking about federal student loans. I really hope I've made that as clear as possible.

You may need to go back and listen to it a second time because it was a pretty dense explanation. But my hope is that I've at least answered most of your questions about this because I know a lot of you were and are pretty worried. Okay, second and final. Rumor has that the President Trump said lawmakers should be sentenced to death over a recent video. Let's add some context here. Last week, six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are either military or intelligence veterans, posted a joint video calling on active duty military and intelligence officers to keep America safe. In the video, they say, quote, we know you are under enormous stress and pressure right. now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is putting our

uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate. the law or our constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back because now more than ever the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans.

Don't give up the ship. End quote. Shortly after that, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller reposted the video on X and he wrote along with it quote Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for an insurrection end quote two days later president Trump posted several true social posts in reference to the video one of these posts reads quote it's called seditious behavior at the highest level each one of these traders to our country should be arrested and put on trial their words cannot be allowed to stand we won't have a country anymore in example must be set, end quote. Trump then wrote a second post immediately after that, which

reads, quote, seditious behavior, punishable by death, end quote. Since then, President Trump said in an interview that he was not calling for their death. Speaking on a conservative radio show, he told the host, quote, I think they're in serious trouble. I would say they're in serious trouble. I'm not threatening death, but I think they're in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death. That was seditious behavior, end quote. Now, sedition. as it's defined in the U.S. Code is defined as seditious conspiracy, and it's behavior or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the government. Generally, seditious conspiracy is punishable by fines as well as prison time of up to 20 years. For active duty military members,

though, seditious conspiracy is treated with a heightened degree of seriousness. And it is punishable by the death penalty or other punishment that, you know, the court decides. Now, the video in question likely does not rise to the level of seditious conspiracy, considering the lawmakers are simply reminding military members and intelligence community members that the law allows them to refuse illegal orders. However, some conservatives are arguing that the video could be interpreted as encouraging military personnel to defy the commander-in-chief, the president. if a court were to rule that this video was a seditious conspiracy, and by the way, no charges have been brought at this point. This is purely a hypothetical. None of these six Democratic politicians featured in the video are active duty military members, and therefore they would not be subject to the death penalty. As an update to this story, the Pentagon did say today that

it is investigating Senator Mark Kelly, one of the Democrats in the video, for what the Pentagon calls quote serious allegations of misconduct and secretary of defense hegeseth did did write his own post on X that those allegations of misconduct misconduct stem from that video so that's the latest on that it's unclear what's going to come of that but that's what you need to know all right let's take our final break here and when we come back we will dive into the highly anticipated peace talks segment at Desjardin we speak business We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans. We've mastered made-to-measure growth and expansion advice,

and we can talk your ear-off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us, and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk. Business. Snap-up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever,

in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before, with even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply. Welcome back. It is time for Peace Talks. if you're tuning in for the first time or you missed the last few episodes, this is a new segment where I give advice to anyone struggling to navigate relationships in today's polarizing political climate. I introduced this intentionally ahead of the holidays because I know

how stressful family gatherings can be. And I think there's just a heightened level of stress in everyone these next couple of months. However, based on the number of submissions I have already received. I can definitely see this becoming a year-round segment and possibly, honestly, even its own show. We will see. On one hand, you know, as I was reading through these submissions, it does make me sad that so many people are experiencing relationship issues because of politics. But on the other hand, I genuinely hope that this segment can bring a little more understanding patience and peace back into our lives. I guess that's to say that I hope that this segment really makes a difference. So what I've done is I've organized all submissions into four buckets, family,

relationships, social, and work. Family is exactly what it sounds like. Relationships covers romantic relationships. Social includes friendships or any sort of community or social situation. And then work includes anything involving colleagues or workplace dynamics. Now, today we're just going to stick to three family submissions simply because of the holiday this week. we got a lot of family gatherings happening this week and I think that that's the most important topic to cover right now. But each week I will be rotating among the four categories. As always, the submissions are anonymous, so I'll never use your name. And if you do give me names, I will always change them. Before we dive in, I do want to be transparent about my own guiding

principles because this is the lens that I'll be using as I give advice. So number one, I believe most relationships are worth trying to preserve when they can be preserved. Communication comes first, separation comes last, especially with family. I myself, am a big family person. I come from a politically mixed family and I love them all. I want that same sense of peace and connection for you. Number two, I do not tolerate disrespect. You can absolutely try to correct negative behavior. But if someone repeatedly disrespects you, that's a boundary issue, that is not a political issue. And in those cases, removing yourself is oftentimes the healthiest option because life is just too short for toxic energy. And number three, I do not believe political views

inherently make someone a good or bad person. I have Republicans, Democrats, and centrists all along the political spectrum in my life whom I value and love equally and I welcome a range of beliefs as long as they're not egregious or dehumanizing. So with those things in mind, let's get into today's submissions. First one. My dilemma centers around political tension in my family. During the 2024 election, one of my siblings became very vocal in our family group chat, posting strong support for Trump during the RNC with messages like, I hope everyone is, watching tonight, and I've never been so proud to be an American. I knew this would hit a nerve for my youngest sibling who is passionately liberal. I lean liberal too, but usually stay quiet,

and my older sibling is the same. My parents stay mostly in the middle. When the messages kept coming, I asked if we could keep politics out of the chat. I felt I said it politely, but the response was, no, this is America, followed by more commentary. Within minutes, my brother-in-law left the chat, then my youngest sibling, then my spouse. Only my older sibling, my parents, and I remained. Since then, things have felt awkward and more together. With Thanksgiving coming up, I am anxious about navigating conversations without everyone tiptoeing around politics. My question is, how do I show up to Thanksgiving in a way that keeps the peace without feeling like I am suppressing myself? And how do I rebuild comfort with my sibling?

First of all, just know that what you are experiencing is extremely common. And you are not alone. Okay. It is not a your family issue. This is something that is plaguing, I would say most families in the United States. Now, because you are asking about how to approach Thanksgiving specifically, I do want to tailor my advice to that rather than advising you on how to handle the family group chat. So here's my advice. I would go into Thanksgiving with an energy shift or a mindset shift. Okay. So instead of thinking, ugh, I don't want this to be awkward or I'm feeling really anxious about this. I don't know how this is going to go. I would shift to something like, I am going to show up to Thanksgiving, warm and open and with the intention of bringing the family together.

I think this mindset shift could help for a couple of reasons. So first of all, when you decide ahead of time what energy you want to bring, you are much less likely to get caught up in someone else's energy. And that doesn't mean you're suppressing yourself, by the way. I know you mentioned that you don't want to feel like you are suppressing yourself. You are just choosing a version of yourself that is right for this moment. Now, if politics do get brought up, I would just know ahead of time what you are going to say to kind of try to take the conversation somewhere else, right?

Something like, hey, look, I really want today to feel good for everyone. can we can we please talk about this another time we know not all of us are going to agree on everything so let's just please not do this today and the tone here is really really important because the warmer you are the more likely the person hearing that will receive it if tension does arise after that i just want you to know that it is it is not your fault some people can't control themselves and it's not your job to be the mediator for the family you try to de-escalate, you showed your good intentions and your emotional maturity, that's all you can do. As far as you asked about rebuilding comfort with your sibling, as far as rebuilding comfort,

I think you could try to talk about things that you both have lovely memories of. So memories from when you were kids, something you saw recently that made you think of them, a holiday memory from years past, an inside joke, literally anything humanizing, I think that would help build comfort naturally because this is someone, this is a sibling. This is someone that you have a lot of history with. And reminding yourselves of that history can be, can be comforting in and of itself. So again, just to kind of recap here, go into Thanksgiving with a bit of a mindset shift. I know it's easier said than done. But try not to go into it with a sense of dread. Go into it with a specific positive energy that you want to bring to the table. Next one. Most or all of my

family is on the political left. While I am an independent and voted for Trump, I haven't shared with them that I voted for Trump. I don't agree with everything that Trump does, though I do stand by my vote for various reasons I won't go into here. I find myself feeling very unseen and struggling to find a way to share my political views with my family, mostly because I see them speaking as if they assume all good and caring people hate Trump like they do. So it feels scary to contradict them and risk becoming the target of their hatred. I might be quote unquote canceled by my own family or at least looked down upon and labeled a bad or uncaring person. While I can understand some of where they are coming from, it feels like they go way too far, and I haven't yet found a way to bridge the gap between us. I end up feeling

like I don't belong. I feel determined to find a way to let myself be seen, though I worry that I'll either come off to guarded or angry myself, as I've experienced some painful things in the realm of politics in recent years, or they will react very harshly toward me. Either way, it sounds like I might just be ruining the whole celebration for everyone. I believe that there's a way to find peace without hiding who I really am from, hiding who I really am with my family. I imagine many other people are in this kind of dilemma. Do you have any advice for us? Okay, so first of all, as you indicated, this is unfortunately a really common situation, right? There are a ton of people on both sides who feel exactly the way that you do. And everything that you described, fear, confusion,

wanting to be seen, but not necessarily wanting to trigger conflict. That's all completely valid. And the fact that you're trying to, you know, find a way to maintain connection tells me that your heart is in the right place. So that's great. This is where I would start. What is it that you actually want? So you mentioned that you're afraid of being quote unquote canceled by your own family. that you want to find a way to bridge the gap. But before you worry about how you're going to approach them, I think you need to figure out what would personally bring you peace. Because it's very possible that you don't even want to share your views necessarily. You may just crave that feeling of belonging. And maybe the discomfort that you're feeling isn't about

hiding your views. Maybe it's actually about being the only one at the table who thinks differently. And that's a hard feeling, of course. But that doesn't automatically mean you want or need to explain your views or your vote. Now, on the other hand, maybe you do want to share your views. And that's, that's totally fine. But if that's the case, I want you to ask yourself, why? Is it because you want them to understand you better? Is it because you want to debate? Or conversely, is it because you want to find common ground? Is it something else? I think that getting honest with yourself about why you want to share your views will help you decide what to do here. And one important thing I want to emphasize is if you decide that you don't want to share

your views, that does not mean that you're hiding or that you're being inauthentic, right? It means that you made a conscious choice that protects your own peace. That's what we call empowerment. That is not hiding. So please don't look at it as hiding. If you do want to open the door a little bit and share about your views, I think there's a way to do that without explicitly saying who you voted for. And there's a reason I say it's not necessary to share who you vote for. I'll get to that in a second.

But I think you could frame it around the fact that you're an independent and you can see both sides of certain issues. That way you're not invalidating their position, but you're also. sharing that, you know, you think deeply and critically about these things and it's not so black and white for you. And that's completely reasonable. Now, you also mentioned that you don't agree with everything Trump does. And this is why I said it's not necessary for you to share who you voted for because in saying that you don't agree with everything Trump does and that you're an independent, that means that you're not loyal to Trump himself. So I don't think you need to tie yourself to Trump when the goal is just to simply express your perspective on policy or issues. Sometimes simply by

leaving the candidate out of the conversation can lead to a much healthier and more productive conversation. The key here is figuring out what kind of piece you are actually seeking because once you know that, you can then decide whether to keep your views to yourself or share them in a way that feels right and whichever way you go, I think you'll be more at peace with whichever decision you ultimately make. Last one. My husband and I are both Democrats. His sister and brother-in-law, we will call them Laura and Stephen,

are very far-right Republicans. We avoid discussing politics, but lately Stephen constantly brings it up at family get-togethers, complaining about democratic politicians or praising controversial GOP policies. He mostly brings it up at the table. dinner table where we can't exactly walk away. So my husband and I just sit there in silence while he goes on and on. I'm afraid to push back or give my opinion because Laura is combative. And I know she'd immediately snap back at me.

I don't want to damage or sever the relationship, but I dread being around them just because of the political talk. And I think they take advantage of our silence. How do we set boundaries without hurting our relationship? First of all, I would love to take a second to commend you for, not wanting to sever the relationship, despite your political differences. I think that says a lot about you, and I'm really proud of you for having that mentality. I also firmly believe in mutual respect, and I think this is a really good opportunity to see if Laura and Stephen share the same level

of respect for you guys that you've shown them, although they may look at respect differently, right? like you guys not sharing your political views isn't necessarily a respect thing in their eyes. But I think regardless, this is a good way to see the level of respect that they have for you and your husband. With that said, I think this is something your husband needs to take on, not you. Because at the end of the day, this is his immediate family. And it usually comes off better when the boundaries are being set by the person who's closest to the issue. now I'm assuming Laura and Stephen know where you guys stand politically so this is what I would suggest before the next family gathering your husband gives his sister a quick call okay it's

nothing dramatic it's just a calm loving quick conversation where he tells her that you know while he he loves and respects her deeply he would really appreciate if the family could just keep politics off the dinner table and he can explain that you know you two feel just as passionately about certain issues as they do, just on the opposite side of things, and that you guys make an effort to not speak about those things at the dinner table, simply to keep the energy uplifting and, you know, focused on family. And that all he's asking for in return is, is that same respect. I think emphasizing the love and respect part of this is really, really important. He has to make it clear that he values his relationship with her and that political differences

don't change that and that he wants to you know he wants to keep getting together but he also wants to keep the vibe of those gatherings fun and lighthearted and not so serious and the way to do that for you guys is to respect each other enough to just not talk politics at family get together's and another thing that's really important here is he shouldn't create the boundary around the content itself it should be about the setting right You're not asking Laura and Steve to stop talking about Republicans or Democrats in their own home or in general. You're simply just asking that political conversations don't happen at family dinners or family get-togethers. You don't want to make them feel like you're silencing their views, silencing their opinions.

You just want to make it know that you're trying to protect the peace of these get-togethers. That would be my best advice for you. That's what I have for you today. If I did not get to your submission today, don't worry. I will try to get to it in another episode. There are a ton of submissions. And if you do still want to submit, you can go to unbiasednetwork.com slash peace talks. I also have the link in the episode show notes.

That's a really easy way to get there. Like I said, I don't need your name. It's completely anonymous. If you do give me names, I will change them. But that's how you go about submitting. Before I sign off, I do just want to take a second as Thanksgiving approaches to let you know how much I appreciate every single one of you for many reasons. It's not just because you tune into this show and allow me to do this as my full-time job, which I'm so, so grateful for.

But it's also because I know all of you who listen are the calm in the storm that is today's political landscape. And I'm so grateful for that. You guys want to be educated. You want to be informed. You want peace. You want nonpartisan news. And, you know, As we just saw in that advice, like so many of you want to mend relationships and you still love other people, even though they have political differences. And I just really appreciate you for that. So thank you. Thank you for being you. Thank you for being here. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving. And I will talk to you on Monday. Thank you.