UNBIASED - November 7, 2024: Election Q&A Part II, Why Women, Gays, and Trans People Are Worried About Rights, PLUS Advice on How to Repair a Friendship Amidst the Election, and Revealing ONE Personal Bias.

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Revealing ONE Personal Bias (0:51) Giving Advice for Friendships/Relationships in Despair Because of the Election (3:37) Election Q&A (8:27) What About the Missing 15 Million Votes the Democrats Had Last Election? Explaining Trump's Involvement in the Overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Explaining Why Women Are Saying Trump Will Take Away Their Rights. Where Does Trump Stand on LGBT Rights? And More. Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. 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

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features, BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, November 7th, and this is your final episode of the week. As we know, this week's episodes have been all over the map. Monday's episode was your typical news recap. Tuesday's was just a feel-good episode dedicated to good news

that had nothing to do with the election. Wednesday's episode yesterday was purely an election-related episode with an election Q&A. We are going to finish out the week with yet another unpredictable episode. So today, I'll first address some messages that I've received, and then we'll answer some more election-related questions. Next week, hopefully, we'll return to regularly scheduled programming with news recaps quick hitters critical thinking all that good stuff but for today there is still a ton i need to answer first things first i received an interesting email today and here's what it says it says i think it could be an interesting segment if you explored your own biases we all carry some

form of inherent bias not not just in politics, but in how we perceive the world based on our personal experiences. Acknowledging and validating these natural biases could bring an added level of trust and transparency for listeners. It would offer valuable insight as we hear the news from you. And then she goes on to say, you know, I understand the challenging aspect of this, et cetera,., etc. Now, look, I am not going to tell you who I voted for, okay? And I know that's not what she was asking me to do. But this email did get me thinking about the biases that I do have. And I know everyone has them, right? I'm not immune to them. I do have really great techniques for putting my political

biases aside for purposes of the podcast. But I don't know if I can share those techniques yet. That's kind of like sharing the diet coke recipe, you know, you just can't do it. But here's what I will tell you. I am very open about my bias against the media, and I want to reiterate that for a couple of reasons. I strongly dislike the media, and you will hear that coming through my episodes time and time again. The media divides us. It scares us. It deceives us. Why? Because that is how they make their money. Engagement.

That is the key. How do you get engagement? You write clickbaity headlines. You make things sound scarier than they are so that people can't take their eyes off the screen. You twist narratives a little bit to, again, scare people. That is their business. And I hate them for that. So yes, my podcast is called Unbiased, but I am admittedly biased against the media.

And the reason that I think that that's important to share here is this. A good chunk of my podcast is spent providing facts, but also debunking or adding context to stories the media tells us, both on the left and the right. But right now, in this current moment, given the fact that Trump won this election, there is much more fear-mongering coming from the left. If Harris won, there would be much more fear-mongering coming from the right. That's just the reality that we live in. But what that means is that I will be spending more time debunking claims from the left than the right. And that makes me seem biased.

I'm aware of that. But in telling you this, I hope you can understand that right now is a difficult time for me because it's not that my reporting is all of a sudden biased. It's because I have to spend more time pouring water on the flames that are being fanned from the left as a result of the election, just like I would have appeared to be biased towards the other side had Harris won. So that's my note on that. I hope that resonates with you. And as always, I'll continue doing my absolute best to provide the facts, keep it real with you, calm you down when you need to be calmed

down, and tell you the hard truths when they need to be told. I know that didn't exactly speak to the core of that listener's email, but it was a very thought-provoking email and it got me thinking about my bias towards the media and I just felt that that was something important for me to say. Moving on, this next email made me sad and I know this podcast is not an advice podcast, but I do know that this person is not the only person dealing with this. So I wanted to address it. The email says, how do you navigate strains on friendships and the overwhelming hate over election results? I have friends that think I voted against women's rights and need space from me because they're so

upset that I voted for Trump. I feel like I'm losing friendships over who I voted for and it's just so sad. It is so sad. I hate that politics get in the way of relationships and I have tried so hard to remind people that politics should not shape how you feel about someone. However, I do want to give a little bit of advice here because as I said, I think there's a lot of people dealing with this right now and I would like as many people as possible to hear this. So number one, you have to ask for a conversation. I cannot promise you they'll want to have that conversation, but you have to ask. Explain to them that you want to understand one another, that you really care about your friendship, that you understand that they're upset, but that this means a lot to you and you want to hear each other out.

If they decline your offer, give them the space that they need and give them time. Some people just need time to cool off and that's okay. But if this person doesn't come back at some point, you have to then decide if this is the kind of person that you want in your life. If this person does not see you for who you are and know that you are a good person and you are a good friend and can respect you regardless of who you vote for, that is on them. You can only try so much. Now, if they are open to a conversation, and I hope that they are, remind them of a couple of things. Number one, politics do not define us as a good or bad person. There are good and bad people on both sides of the aisle. We are not good or bad because of our affiliation. We are good or bad because of the kind of people we are at our core. You know, it's how we treat each other. It's how we show up in this world.

It is not who we vote for. Number two, everyone has their reasons for voting and no one's top priority issues are more important than someone else's. It is completely subjective. As an example, maybe your friend voted for Harris because she really wanted someone in office who was going to fight for women's rights. Maybe she had a complicated pregnancy and never wants to be in a situation where her life is at risk and she knows Harris will fight for those rights more than Trump and that was most important to her. But maybe you voted for Trump because you're falling behind on bills, you trust him more to bring, you know, bring prices down and it's only a matter of time, let's say before you default on your mortgage. That is most important to you. You both have

your own life circumstances that dictated who you voted for, and that's okay. You both having your own reasons and circumstances does not invalidate the others or make the others any less important. In fact, many people, not everyone, but many in this election had to concede other issues that were important to them. That is what having a two-party system is. Just because we vote for one person doesn't mean that we like every policy of that candidate. It also doesn't mean that there aren't things that we like about the other candidate, but we have to choose between, you know, two people. That's just, that's our system. So try to have a conversation, show some compassion. If your friend isn't ready yet,

give them space, hope they come around. Once you do have a conversation, because I hope you do, remind them that you see their points. Their points are valid. Maybe you even agree with some of their points. We have a lot more in common than the media and politicians want us to believe. But at the same time, we all have our own life circumstances that dictate how we vote, how you voted. Again, it doesn't make you a bad

person. And let them know that you would never judge them for voting one way and they should give you the same respect. You should want that same respect. But at the end of the day, we can only try so much. You know, we can only try to convince people so much. If they want to live in their echo chamber, so be it. We can't control that. We can try to send them resources and unbiased sources like this podcast and hope that they listen and then sort of see the other side, but we can't do much more than that. So do with this what you will. Again, I know this isn't an advice podcast, but you know what? I'm going to try to help where I can, and I really hope that this helps some of you

with your friendships and relationships in this current political landscape. So with that said, let's get into some questions. Patrice asked, what about the missing 17 million votes the Democrats had last year? This question is obviously talking first and foremost about last election, not last year, but let's talk about it. So since Trump was declared the winner of the election, these posts have been going up on social media questioning how Harris could have received so many fewer votes this year than Biden did in 2020, implying, you know, some sort of election fraud. As of this afternoon, Harris had won about 67 million votes, but in 2020, Biden got around 81 million. So that's a difference of about 14 million.

Trump so far, he's about 2 million behind in votes compared to 2020. So that's worth noting. A couple of other things to note. Number one, no state has counted 100% of their ballots yet. So there are still ballots rolling in. As of today, Arizona has only counted 61% of its votes. California has only counted 55% of its votes. Also worth noting, this year voter turnout was lower than in 2020. In 2020, 66.4% of the voting population turned out. This year, 64.5% of the voting population turned out. So all this to say, let's see how the numbers shake out once the results are finalized from each state. Once all the votes are in and we can accurately compare numbers from last election to this election, we'll be able to dive into this a bit more. Another user said, any word on how and where RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard will fit into the new Trump administration?

We don't know exactly where they'll be placed. We do know that RFK Jr. will play a role in healthcare all the way from it could be reforming the FDA to agriculture and how crops are grown, what pesticides can be used, etc. And also, by the way, this is a related note. I watched an interview yesterday where Kennedy was stating his position on vaccines. And I know a lot of media outlets have referred to him as anti-vax. But his position was this in the interview. He said he's okay with vaccines as long as they're effective in helping people. At the same time, he believes everyone should have a choice, that no one should be forced to take a vaccine. So I did just want to note that because there was a time when I thought

that he was against all vaccines just because of how the media was portraying him. But then I did a bunch of research. Obviously, you know, that's what I do every single day. And I have actually become a lot more aware of his policies. And after seeing that interview last night and coming across this question from this listener, I just felt it was relevant to bring up now because he's more than likely going to be a part of Trump's administration. As far as Tulsi Gabbard goes, again, not really clear where she'll end up. She did say she wants to work in a position where she can make the greatest impact, which she considers to be areas related to either foreign policy or national security. For the record, if you're not familiar with Tulsi Gabbard, she is an active duty military

veteran. She completed two tours in the Middle East. She currently serves as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. She has made a bigger name for herself more recently because she just recently joined the Republican Party. She served as a Democratic congresswoman from 2013 to 2021. She served as the vice chair of the DNC between 2013 and 2016. She became an independent in 2020, and then most recently her affiliation changed to the Republican Party. But again, to close this out, we don't know exactly where these two will end up. We do have a little bit of an idea though. B. Hanks asked, if Kamala did win, what would have had to happen to get abortion federally legal? So if Harris won,

she would have needed to codify the right to abortion into law, right? And to do that, you need to pass a law which requires a simple majority of both the House and Senate. So you need 51 votes from the Senate and 218 votes in the House. Once the bill passed by simple majority, assuming it did, she would have been able to sign it into law and that would have given federal protections to the right to abortion. So let's take a break here. And when we come back, we'll finish with some more important questions.

All right. Welcome back. Let's get to Elena. Elena asks, could you please explain Trump's involvement in the overturning of Roe versus Wade? Sure. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his last term. Those justices were then confirmed by the Senate.

Justice Gorsuch, who's a conservative justice, he took the place of Justice Scalia, who was also a conservative justice. Justice Kavanaugh, also conservative, but more middle of the road, took the place of Justice Scalia, who was also a conservative justice. Justice Kavanaugh, also conservative but more middle of the road, took the place of Justice Kennedy, who was a more moderate justice. And then Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ginsburg, who was a liberal justice. Ultimately, the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is the case that overturned Roe, was decided 6-3. The six conservative justices voted to overturn Roe. The three liberal justices dissented. So let's talk about how Trump's appointments affected that decision. Had Justice Scalia not been replaced by Justice Gorsuch,

Justice Scalia would have likely also overturned Roe because he was actually a dissenting justice in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe. But because he dissented, that means he was not in favor of reaffirming Roe. And he had actually repeatedly asked his colleagues to overturn Roe v. Wade. So Gorsuch's appointment didn't change much as far as the landscape of the bench and the outcome of Roe. Now, had Justice Kennedy still been on the bench and not been replaced by Kavanaugh, Kennedy probably would have sided with the liberal justices in upholding Roe versus Wade because he reaffirmed Roe in that case, Planned Parenthood versus Casey. But still, his vote would not have been enough to change the outcome of Dobbs, which is, again, what overturned Roe, because the decision still would have been

five to four in favor of overturning Roe. Finally, had Justice Ginsburg not been replaced by Barrett, she would have likely upheld Roe and she would have likely been the swing vote. Now, Ginsburg was a critic of Roe versus Wade in the sense that she didn't like how it was originally decided as a privacy issue. She felt it should have been an equal protection issue and not a privacy issue, and that it was more susceptible to being overturned down the road because it was decided on a privacy basis and not an equal protection basis. So that's why I say she most likely would have upheld Roe despite having her own critiques of the decision, because at the end of the day, she was very much pro-choice.

In that case, if she and Kennedy were still on the bench and, you know, let's just say Trump only appointed Gorsuch, she would have been the swing vote in upholding Roe in the case of Dobbs. Because if Kennedy weren't on the bench, the vote to overturn Roe still would have been five to four with Ginsburg's vote. So there's two ways to think about this. Had Trump not appointed Barrett and Kavanaugh and Ginsburg and Kennedy were still on the bench, Roe probably would not have been overturned. The other way to think about

this is that had Trump not appointed three justices that were all on board with overturning Roe and instead maybe appointed justices that couldn't justify overturning Roe, then Roe would have never been overturned. So that was the extent of Trump's involvement in overturning Roe, then Roe would have never been overturned. So that was the extent of Trump's involvement in overturning Roe versus Wade. It all comes down to those appointments. Emmy asked, a lot of women saying Trump will take my rights away. Can you address this? Okay, so there's two things happening here, and I've actually received so many requests to talk about this. First, you have people saying Trump will take away women's rights. Then you have these people saying that to vote for Trump is to vote against women.

So I'll explain both. They're slightly different. The first one, Trump taking away rights. This is about reproductive rights specifically. We are not talking about the right to vote, the right to free speech, none of that. Those rights are not going anywhere. When we talk about reproductive rights, as we just discussed in the previous question, it was Trump's appointments that got the right to abortion overturned. That is a right women previously had that they do not

have today. And I know people will argue it was never a right because it was never in the Constitution. It was a right in the same way that the right to marriage is a right. Okay, both decided by the Supreme Court, neither in the Constitution. But aside from abortion, there are other fears of limiting women's access, namely to birth control and IVF. However, these issues aren't necessarily in Trump's hands. These are issues that rest with lawmakers. And if you listened to yesterday's episode, you know that IVF specifically is not an issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have made moves to federally protect IVF. Trump himself has also stated, we talked about this yesterday, that he is completely on board with protecting IVF.

Birth control is a little more of an issue just because there are some far-right Republican lawmakers that have proposed doing away with it. Again, and we saw that case in front of the Supreme Court that's trying to get rid of Mipha Pristone. Again, something like this would need support from a majority of lawmakers and that just doesn't exist. Not to mention it would have to have the approval of a majority of the Supreme Court justices. Because one, if it was a case, the justices would have to vote to overturn it. If it was a law and it was challenged a case, the justices would have to vote to overturn it. If it was a law and it was challenged, again, the justices would have to vote to overturn it. Now, I'll never say never. It's not likely to happen. But let's talk about the hypothetical

scenario. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett, and Justice Kavanaugh are all more middle-of-the-road justices. Yes, they lean conservative, but if you look at their track record, they are more middle of the road. And this is in addition to the three liberal justices on the bench. I just don't see a world in which the Supreme Court lets a ban on birth control, a general umbrella ban on birth control fly given its current composition. But that is the women's rights argument. Just to be clear, Trump is not taking away a woman's right to vote, a woman's right to life, liberty, property, free speech, none of that. Don't fall into these fear-mongering traps. This concern has to do with reproductive rights specifically. Next, let's talk about the vote against women. That's part two. Many women are upset because they consider a vote for Trump to be a vote against women,

and here's what plays into that perspective. So for one, as we know, Trump was found liable of sexual assault on E. Jean Carroll. Aside from Carroll, multiple women have come forward over the years accusing him of some form of sexual assault. Another issue they have is the way he speaks about women, commenting on their bodies, their beauty, talking about them in a derogatory manner. One now famous example of this is the Access Hollywood tape. If you haven't heard the Access Hollywood tape, I will play it now just so you have the full context. So here it is. You know, she was down in Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I'll admit it.

I did try and fuck her. She was married. No, no, Nancy. No, this was, and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, I'll show you where they have some nice furniture i took out furniture i moved on her like a i couldn't get there and she was married and all of a sudden i see her she's now got the big phony tits and everything she's totally changed her looks she's your girl's hottest in the purple whoa yes whoa yes the donald has scored! Oh my man! Wait, wait, you gotta look at me when you got it. That is very funny.

Look at you. You gotta put the thumbs up. You gotta get the thumbs up. Can't be too happy. You gotta give me the thumbs up. You and I will love that. Oh my god. Try to have a close-up. Maybe it's a different one.

Better not be the publicist. No, it's her. Yeah, that's her with the gold. I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I don't even wait.

And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy it you can do anything whatever you want grab them by the pussy I can do anything those legs all I can see is the legs no it looks good come on shorty oh nice legs huh get out of the way huh that's good legs go ahead it's always good if you don't fall out of the buzzer like Ford Gerald Ford So that's the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote against women. And it's really based on how he treats and talks about women. So that's that.

Nicole asked, where does Trump stand on LGBT rights? I feel like I see so much misinformation on this. Okay, so this is another one where there's just a lot of fear mongering happening. I think for this one, we need to separate it into gays and trans. Trump is not taking away any gay rights. In fact, the right to same-sex marriage was codified into law in 2022 with the Respect for Marriage Act, but we'll touch on that more in a second. The concern from the gay community is that if the Supreme Court were to become more conservative by way of more Trump appointments and Senate confirmations, then there is a chance that the right to gay marriage could

be overturned just like the right to abortion was overturned. And here's why. When Roe was overturned, Justice Thomas, who was not appointed by Trump, but is the most conservative justice on the bench, he wrote a concurring opinion in that case. And he said that based on the rationale that they used to overturn Roe v. Wade, they should also consider overturning other similarly decided cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Now, Obergefell established the right to gay marriage. Obergefell and Roe were both decided based on our right to privacy. And as we know, Justice Ginsburg felt very passionately about the fact that the right to privacy argument was not strong, and it left these

cases susceptible to being overturned in the future. But here's the difference. Obergefell was also decided on an equal protection basis, which is what Ginsburg wanted Roe to be decided upon because she felt that if it was, it wouldn't be overturned in the future. The equal protection ground is a much more solid ground to rest on. So what I'm trying to say is that even if a future Supreme Court bench were to say that the right to privacy does not offer a right to same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage would still likely be upheld on equal protection grounds. But also keep in mind, and this is the part I said we would come back to, the legislature has already codified the right to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, by the way.

The Right to Marriage Act of 2022 did both, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, all types of marriage. So nothing is happening to the right to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage unless that law is repealed. But regardless, that is the concern from some of the gay community. And I'm not going to say all because I do have gay friends that love Trump and aren't concerned whatsoever. And I have other gay friends that absolutely hate Trump and hate everything he stands for.

So that is that. Now on to trans, because I said we're going to divide the two. Republicans have definitely been harder on the trans community than the gay community. As an example, Biden recently implemented Title IX, which extended the definition of discrimination in schools to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Before that, sexual orientation and gender identity did not fall under the Title IX discrimination umbrella. Title IX simply just prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. So with Biden's addition, schools had to make bathroom and locker room accessibility easier. And it also raised questions of whether the extended definition

now allowed trans girls to play girls sports in school. So Republicans do not like this. So it's possible and maybe even probable that once Trump takes office, he rolls back that Title IX definition, so it goes back to just prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, rather than sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Also, as we know, Republicans do not like the idea of gender transition treatments for minors, so I'm sure they are going to fight to make sure that that doesn't happen. And another thing Republican lawmakers have wanted to do is ban trans people from the military. So those things make up the concern on the on the trans front. I do just want to remind you that a lot of this stuff requires Congress and a majority of the Supreme Court, majority of Congress, majority of the Supreme Court. And I don't say that to say

it'll be hard for Republicans to do these things. It's just to remind you that this stuff is not solely in Trump's hands, but rather the other branches of government as well. People tend to forget about checks and balances. That is what I have for you today. I am in desperate need of a break. So that's what I'm going to do this weekend. I hope you also have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.