Steve and I Talk “The Wall”, Statistics, Numbers, Ideas and We Dabble in Climate Change; I Give My Thoughts on Some Newly Female Elected Representatives: TidePodcast Episode 29

Steve and I discuss “The Wall” and our opinions on it. We discuss why I do not ascribe to data, statistics, polls, facts or even research for that matter (I don my tin foil hat)! I give my take on some newly elected female representatives. We finish up taking climate change, another topic for a future episode.

Lastly, don’t forget to tune in to “What’s That in Your Pants” a new show where Steve, Ken Varnsen and I discuss one ultra compact pistol every Sunday, starting Sunday 6 January 2018.


Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


Representative Rashida Talib


Sarah Palin


Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi


Representative Kamilla Harris

I gave a Shout-Out to two incredibly intelligent and articulate Bloggers, these ladies really took me to task on When Sex Crimes are Awarded I Wonder… They had amazing commentary and thoughtful counter arguments.

Hopelessly Heather

Racquel Writes

Don’t forget to check out and buy some BottomlessCoffee007 TidePodcast Merch @ Bottomlesscoffee007 TidePodcast Apparel & Freedom=Freedom BottomlessCoffee007 TidePodcast Merch!!!

Also, please “Like and Follow” the Official BottomlessCoffee007 TidePodcast Art of the Conversation Facebook Page@ BottomlessCoffee007 TidePodcast, The Art of Conversation Official Facebook and Twitter@ BottomlessCoffee007 TidePodcast, The Art of Conversation Twitter



37 thoughts on “Steve and I Talk “The Wall”, Statistics, Numbers, Ideas and We Dabble in Climate Change; I Give My Thoughts on Some Newly Female Elected Representatives: TidePodcast Episode 29

  1. Some good stuff in there. I like how the two of you respectfully disagree with each other – neither of you get wound up or butt hurt over the other’s differing opinion. It was enjoyable to listen to as a debate rather than a war of words.

    Also some eye roll worthy stuff – must men always talk about how women look? It’s annoying that men often seem to boil women down to their base assets rather than discuss them in a purely intellectual form. I’m sure you could have discussed more about each of the female politicians than just how good they looked, so why didn’t you?

    I would be interested to listen to a more thorough discussion on climate change.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Heather, thank you so very much. Yes, Steve and I will be doing a Climate change episode very shortly.

      Let me know when you want to come on

          1. I’ve listened to 2 of your podcasts and in both you discussed how females look. Are there podcast recordings in which you haven’t done so? Perhaps you’re simply playing to the wishes of the majority of your audience?

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              I think I’m just trying to be funny. Did you roll your eyes or did you maybe chuckle a tad when you heard it?

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Ok, good to know. Thanks. I just published an episode for tonight, that will probably make you groan. I’m just trying to be funny, at the same time I’m trying to reach more people.

                  I acknowledge that it may turn some off immediately. I’ll try to cut back a little.

                  What about the Spidderman sponsor?

                    1. I didn’t take it that way – more like poking fun at stereotypes. Yes, that was a racial stereotype, but stereotypes exist because they are based in fact and truth. I thought it was funny, but I’m also not Jewish.

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Judaism isn’t a race.

                      I know that I cannot please everyone and I’d like to think that I am a little funny and charming.

                      I’m not going to drastically change my program, but I think that perhaps a little tailoring might help.

                    3. Right – my bad. That’s what I get when popping off replies on my cell phone while un-Christmas-ing the house.

                      You do you. I’m just letting you know my opinion, which may be many other ladies’ opinion as well. Start appealing more to the ladies and your podcast may very well become more popular all around.

  2. Okay, good episode and interesting topic… I heard my name mentioned (at the beginning) so I’m going to respond with 3 fact checks, to put this “wall” debate in perspective.

    1. Steve first claimed that “Trump lied” by promising that “Mexico will pay for the wall”. Then, self-interpreted that promise as: “Mexico giving Trump a check for the wall” to pay for the entire thing.

    -First of all, even if that happened, it still wouldn’t affect wall funding in the least bit… According to every Civics class I’ve ever had, Congress still controls the purse regardless of how much revenue comes into the treasury… Bottomline, it still takes Congress to appropriate the funds, for any wall to be built.

    -Also, Trump has stated (on multiple occasions) that Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly (never directly), through better trade deals and balancing the trade deficit with Mexico. Those statements aren’t hard to find with about 2 minutes of research. He has never stated that Mexico will directly provide funding for the wall (other than an old 2016 comedy skit on SNL). If I’m wrong, please provide the quote or link of Trump saying that… Let’s instead examine what he actually said, not what we wish he said… Let’s look at the numbers of how Mexico has already been (indirectly) paying for the wall, as Trump has promised… On the surface, before the new trade deal (USMCA),, the trade deficit with Mexico was approximately $63.6 billion (in 2017). If that trade deficit even gets cut in half due to the USMCA, the wall would be paid for 2X over…

    -In just the auto industry alone, a good chunk of the wall has already been (indirectly) paid for by Mexico… Unfortunately, there are no existing projections on future trade deficits, or surplus’s, with Mexico, since the new trade deal hasn’t been enacted yet… Also, it takes a few years to examine it (in action), in order to have an accurate projection, according to every “expert” on the planet. However, here are a few things the USMCA does do, (in contrast with NAFTA), which has already caused auto-makers to invest billions in the U.S, opposed to Mexico… It requires that automobiles must have 75% of their components assembled in the U.S, Mexico or Canada in order to have zero tariffs vs 62% under NAFTA. It also requires that 40-45% of all car parts, must be made by workers who make a minimum of $16 per hour, Mexico currently pays workers between about $3 to $6 an hour. Also, all auto workers (in any of the 3 countries) are now allowed to form unions, which Mexico didn’t allow before… If labor agreements are violated by any country, more tariffs can be added as an enforcement measure. These are all major changes that NAFTA didn’t have, which had previously resulted in billions of $$ in auto manufacturing, going to Mexico in the past…,

    -As a result of the future trade deal and the Trump tax cuts, Ford has already decided to invest in a $1.6 Billion-dollar plant that was previously going to Mexico, to Detroit, creating approximately 700 more jobs. Also, Toyota and Mazda have invested another $1.6 billion in the U.S to create another 4000 jobs, after previously planning to put the plant in Mexico.

    -Also, Fiat-Chrysler announced it will invest another $1 billion in a U.S plant that was previously going to Mexico, due to Trumps tax policy. It’s obvious that Trumps trade policy has already caused billions of dollars that was previously going to Mexico, to be invested here, putting a huge down payment on an estimated cost of $15-20 billion wall, in only 2 years.

    2. Steve then suggested that Trump has never used “facts or data” to make is argument for the wall, and instead demands his supports to “trust him” as his only argument.

    -This is factually incorrect, and I’m surprised that Coffee didn’t challenge him on that… Unless you live under a rock, it’s pretty obvious that every headline on (insert your favorite news source) for the last month or so, showed Trump doing exactly that, in a WH meeting with Chuck & Nancy, seen here: He also brought on the border patrol council (in a press conference) to help factually make his case. Seen here:

    3. Steve then puts on his border-security “expert hat” while demanding that the listeners “believe him” (instead of the border patrol council) … His opinion is that a wall simply won’t work; because it’s not an end all solution, despite nobody else making that claim… Coffee reminded him of this
    throughout the discussion several times. Steve basically made an opinionated argument (with strawman examples), while only offering hypotheticals with no real facts or data to make his case. The same thing he lambasted Trump for doing…

    -Last I checked, everywhere a wall has been put up, it had about a 95% effective rate or better, on illigal immigration, according to the border patrol council, as stated in the above link… If you have better information, please post it…

    -Furthermore, adding a border wall has always been nonpartisan. The only thing stopping it now, is Trump derangement syndrome (TDS)… If I’m wrong, then please explain the non-partisan border wall funding votes, in both 2006 and 2013, prior to Trump ever taking office.

  3. Anonymous

    CN, thanks for calling me on my BS, and wish you were present to do so during he conversation as I think it would have made for a livelier and more interesting conversation. I am going to listen to the podcast objectively now, and come back with where I think you and I have both gotten it wrong, as I disagree with a few things you have above, not the facts, but how you have chosen to employ them. About your third point, I suppose it seems i did make a straw man, and I do regret that a bit. However in terms of being a security expert, without getting in to the weeds on my personal life, I have served as a physical security expert and have been responsible for creating and implementing physical security measures both in hostile and semi permissive territories, and it is within my actual job description and training to perform such duties. But you are correct, I offered opinions and not data, and will do my best to offer data in support of my opinions in the future. -Steve

    1. Conservative Nation

      Hi Steve,

      I’m sure we have both done simular types of security work, while serving in the military, and I definitely respect your opinion regarding this topic. I hope I didn’t come off as confrontational or anything with my response. I just happen to think that the border patrol agents that work in that specific scenario, daily, have a more educated opinion than either of us do. Our military experience mainly comes from combat zones which is completely different than our Southern border I imagine. I did think you made some good points though and am glad to see you have an open mind about the discussion. I’m not completely done doing these podcasts. I’ll still be back every now and then to chat with you guys. Overall I thought this was the best episode for bottomless coffee yet. Best of luck guys!

  4. Anonymous
    Trump saying Mexico will pay for the wall. He never says how, so maybe I misinterpreted him. In my understanding, when someone says someone says that an entity is paying for something I take it at face value. Maybe he had a master plan that his trade deals would generate enough tax revenue to pay for the wall and has been talking about it this whole time and I just missed it. Not to oversimplify the issue, but if I say I am going to buy you lunch and when we get to the restaurant i tell you that the money you earned because of the trade deals i made are me buying you lunch, you might think I’m not living up to my word. -Steve

    1. Conservative Nation

      I can’t speak to how other people interpret Mexico paying for it. However, never once did I (or anyone I know of) think that Mexico was gonna cut a check for it, like at a restaurant. I think most of us assumed it would be through policy since we are talking about an international agreement, not breakfast at Denny’s. That coupled with Mexico saying about the 1000 times over, that they would never pay for the wall. But to each their own.

  5. The audience is of paramount importance when it comes to Bottomlesscoffee007 TidePodcast, The Art of Conversation. Neither myself or my guests are mind readers. This is where the audience comments and calls us out for missing something or getting something wrong.

    I can appreciate the desire to always get everything right. I am not trying to sway an opinion or stance. I am simply attempting to engage in entertaining and thought provoking conversation.

    My aim is to encourage everyone to communicate honesty and openly. It is my belief that the more this happens, the more we can understand the other side and possibly, we could get along that much easier.

    The different views, facts and opinions in the comment section is the bread and butter of the blog and the podcast.

    Whether you have something else to add to the conversation, or you just wanna talk shit and slander me and my guest, is all good. We are here to communicate with one another.

    So please, comment and respond. No matter what you want to say or write, it’s all good.

  6. Anonymous

    CN, I guess I did believe that Trump meant he would get Mexico to cut us a check, because to me the phrase “______ will pay for it” implies just that, and in this case briefs exceptionally well especially to people who don’t really understand trade as much or At all. At this point the debate is a semantic one, and neither side will really win. I honestly do appreciate your feedback and don’t feel that you have been combatative at all. I really enjoy ed speaking with you before and hope to do it again, as I feel you are an intelligent guy and have definitely kept me on my toes.

  7. 1. RE: Steve’s sponsors. Have you ever thought of NOT blaming Trump for anything and everything? Maybe white-middle-aged women have a brain of their own?

    2. So why is it that rich people having walls does not mean that we should have them? Steve agrees that it’s a mean to keep the bad guys out. So? And no, you don;t need to “man” the wall. Not all people with walls have guards. Yes, you can take other measures to make it safer, but not having other things does not forbid you from getting a wall.

    3. If there was a wall, people WOULDN’T travel from so far away, through dangerous terrain. Well, at least not as many as now.

    4. Good job, Coffee, for disputing Steve’s arguments. They seem rather incomplete.

    5. Like Conservative Nation already said – Trump DOES use statistics.

    6. Steve does not believe what the President says without statistics. Don’t you already KNOW the things he says? Do you not have your eyes open? To me, he is not really saying anything new. I didn’t know common sense needs statistics to back it up.

    7. Do you have “Pay by plate” on highways? That’s actually a cool idea given by Steve – use drones to scan and track illegals.

    8. Again, the wall will not fix the whole illegal immigrants issue, but it will be the first step. Then, you have to take another one. Just because 1 thing doesn’t solve ALL problems does not mean that it should not be used.

    9. The wall IS a message. Of course. And how is that a bad thing? Because snowflakes will get offended?

    10. Good call, Coffee RE: statistics. We’ve seen how different studies were corrupted.

    11. You make a good point with sponsoring, Coffee. There’s a lot of people who seem to be pro ANY kind of immigration. And why is that? Because they don’t think it will affect them, yet it will help other people. Those who are against illegal immigration are aware that THEY will have to pay for it and suffer, while the illegals will profit.

    12. And kudos to Steve for realizing that someone who is underestimated (Trump) has the upper hand.

    13. Why is being divisive such a vilified thing? It’s just a way to push people off the diving board. Many people would have sat there and done nothing, afraid from doing anything. Instead, they are now realizing they are at the edge and they need to figure out if they know how to swim.

    14. A person’s character can add, or subtract a lot from their looks.

    That was a good one.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Goldie wow, thank you for listening to the entire podcast. I think it was my best one yet.

      Regardless of mine or Steve’s views, opinions or knowledge. I think we did a solid job of laying everything out on the table and being honest about our stances.

  8. Anonymous

    Floating Gold, first off, thank you for listening to our conversation. Your time is valuable and I appreciate you sharing a valuable resource with me. Please allow me to retort to each one of your points in kind.

    1. FACT! Every human being has their own brain. Some are more open to influence then others.

    2. FACT! I did not say we shouldn’t have a wall, however I did say we should man the wall. No wall is impenetrable. There are all kinds of ways to get under/over/through walls. If someone is on top of the wall, we can defend it. If not, it is an indefensible obstacle, meaning: it is fairly worthless. This comes from an in depth study I have conducted over the last sixteen years. Please ask me for more information on this one as I would be glad to share.

    3. Pure supposition. What is this based on other than instinct? Please justify.

    4. Please provide examples. There was no argument here, just a free exchange of ideas. When we didn’t agree, we just left it at that, and rather amicably.

    5. It is my observation that Trump uses hyperbole in place of facts and statistics. Please provide examples.

    6. Common sense is not very common. Please provide examples as to why I should take into good faith what any leader tells me ever, without seeing evidence. (Other than Jesus.)d

    7. Thank You. This is a good idea that I cannot take credit for but from my experience WILL WORK.

    8. Agreed. I believe I made this point clear, but if not, thank you for reiterating it.

    9. Agreed. I don’t think its bad to send a message, but lets all at least acknowledge what we are paying for. As I said during the podcast, the wall (by itself) is merely a political symbol, and not a sole means of border security.

    10. Fact! Studies get corrupted. Please share any studies that you know have been corrupted and provide evidence. I will continue to do the same.

    11. Agreed.

    12. Agreed. Trump (the leader of the free world, self professed billionaire, philanderer of porn stars and playboy models) has the upper hand. If only he had a Republican House and Senate, then he would have fixed everything.

    13. There is a lot to unpack here. Divisiveness is not an effective leadership tool in my opinion. A leader unites those who he represents, and strives to see that they are undivided and singular of purpose. To divide is to conquer, and no matter how you may feel about your fellow Americans, I would maintain that they do not deserve to be conquered, but instead united.

    14. Agreed. See: John Merrick.

    I could be wrong about everything listed above, and that is the nature of these conversations. I appreciate you paying attention and participating. I hope you continue to be part of future conversations. -Steve

  9. Steve’s sponsor – haha. Just a quick note to Steve – you said that you didn’t understand about Trump wanting to build a wall. I remember it was because he wanted to block illegal immigrants from entering the US.

  10. A wall is only good if you have someone there to man it – um, I’m pretty sure that when it’s built Trump will have the border patrol there to man it and make sure no illegal immigrants try to enter the US.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      For sure JM, we all have a perspective. How did you think the discussion went though? Anything you would’ve added or taken away?

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.