Jaye is joined by her husband Chuckles as they discuss free speech versus calls to violence and terrorism, as well as if Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions in support of gun control will upset his supporters enough to turn against him in 2020. Chuckles stans Candace Owens and sees her temporary ban on Twitter as an example of a conspiracy by the social media giant against conservative voices. Jaye points out that white supremacists run rampant on Twitter despite the ability to filter them out just like they filter out Islamic terror groups – because Twitter doesn’t want to ban Republican politicians.
In our multi-parter second installment of Riverside Chats, Jaye is joined by her husband Chuckles as they share just a little bit of their lively political conversations – as a couple with divergent political views. In Part 2, Jaye and Chuckles discuss poverty, police brutality, and the landscape for 2018 and 2020. Should the Republican Party, who is in control of all branches of federal government, consider courting voters outside of their core base?
PLUS – Potstirrer Podcast has now joined Flying Machine Network! Check out all the awesome podcasts on Flying Machine Network – and so much more – at FlyingMachine.Network!
The Riverside Chats special format is brought to Potstirrer Podcast on occasion to include some diversity of thought to the show and to encourage learning and discussion outside of the “echo chambers” of the right and the left.
*Note: For Riverside Chats, we experimented with a different sound setup. My apologies in advance for the sound issues. – Jaye
Today’s episode explores the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in light of the recent mass shootings and rhetoric from American politicians surrounding crime, terrorism, gun control and mental illness. Jaye presents what some listeners may consider a surprising take on the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment. Also, Jaye makes the argument that how politicians, interest groups and the media discuss these issues does the American people a disservice. Does the way we understand and respond to crime and terrorism truly make us safe?