April 7, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- The stock market & Elon breaks with Trump on tariffs
- AI stories!
- High end brothel near Harvard & depressed liberals
- Texts from listeners!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty arm Strong
and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yetty. But before that,
(00:24):
we're gonna do Magda Magda make America great depression together.
You know what, It'll be great. It'll be better than great.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
It'll be a fantastic, unbelievable depression like so which.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
I've never seen before. We like to say, what's so
which we've never seen before?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
You know, this depression is gonna be so great.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
We'll be the ones eating the cats and the dogs.
That's gonna be far Low and Srow. You gotta brazen,
you know, Wow, Wow. The liberal Saturday Night Lived whatever
are they?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
I would say, God, what percentage of mainstream news coverage
thinks this is a bad idea. It's somewhere like ninety percent.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
It's heavy, yes.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Including lots and lots and lots of Conservatives and Republicans.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yeah. The hardcore Magacrawt would answer you, well, they're the
people who have been perpetrating the sucking out of the
American manufacturing economy, loss of jobs, exporting, blah blah blah.
That's fine.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I'm not making the argument of whether it's right or not.
I'm just saying it's not only lefty journalism that is
making fun of this. Let's get one more short clip
on that eight there, Michael.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yes, the stock.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Market has crashed temporarily, but that is all part of
the plan.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
It's simple economics. Okay. If the stock market goes down.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
And down and down and down and down, that means
there's nowhere to go but up or perhaps further down.
So yeah, I think that's what we're all looking at today, right,
there's no place to go but up or ups further
down for a while.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And we'll see what happens next hour. And I am
looking forward to this a great deal. Compare and contrast
a couple of terrific historians who most of us know
and love, Neil Ferguson and Victor Davis Hansen, with differing
opinions about the tariff thing. Really interesting. We'll give you
as many facts and as much perspective as we can
(02:23):
and help you decide what you think about it, as
opposed to simply preaching to the choir, which is not
what we do. If you're a new listener, welcome. First
of all, glad you're listening. Give it a little bit.
It's a little different than what you know you generally
encounter on the dial. So well, Joe understaying Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I mean, Joe and I have worked for big companies
that make short term plays because of the stock market that.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Are bad long term.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And every employee knows, everybody like in the office knows
this is a bad idea long term, but it's good
for the stock short term. A lot of the Wall
Street stuff you see and commentators, they are people that
live quarter to quarter and not making a quarter to
quarter move right rightly or wrongly?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Right, So here we go. Yeah, in principle, the idea
of thinking about the long term health of the American
people as opposed to just winning the next election is
incredibly gratifying. Doesn't make everything right? Well, that's the deal. Yes,
I mean, if President AOC were to make a long
(03:28):
term decision to alter the trajectory of the United States,
even if we lose the midterms, that again would be
admirable in a way, but I'm certain I would be horrified.
So here's an interesting question for you. What are the
courts going to say about the tariff thing? And when
might they say it? Probably not too long from now,
(03:49):
is the answer to the second question. There are already
some lawsuits being being filed, although interestingly enough, there are
some big corporations that are extremely comfortable with this. They
are have stripped naked to the waist, have knives in
their teeth, and painted their faces, and are now running
(04:09):
the halls like maniacs in their corporate headquarters. But they
don't want to be the lead name in a lawsuit
against the Trump administration, so they're lying in law, which
is an interesting dynamic. But I'm relying here on a
professor of political science, a reasonable guy, Paul Sratchik, legal analyst.
Trump's tariffs are a major legal question. The Supreme Court
(04:33):
has set clear boundaries on unilateral executive action of this magnitude,
he believes, and he thinks the Court is going to
strike a lot of this down. But here are the questions.
Never mind the conclusion President Trump relied on the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. It's an
expansion of his executive authority. I believe he writes oversteps
(04:55):
the boundaries set by the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine
prominent in recent judicial rulings, the doctrine holds that federal
agencies and the executive branch cannot make decisions of vast
economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Now, the
IEEPA AJEPA was enacted in nineteen seventy seven was intended
(05:18):
to rein in what Congress considered overuse of the Trading
with the Enemies Act, And since twenty twenty two, the
Supreme Court has been clear, the fabulous, wonderful Donald Trump
appointed majority, they've been clear. When an agency or the
executive claims the authority to resolve a major question, that's
en quote quotes a policy issue with quote vast economic
(05:40):
and political significance quote, it must point to clear congressional intent.
Tariffs which reshade global trade, potentially cost American consumers billions trillions,
and disrupt entire industries certainly qualify as major questions. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
I hate the idea of just if something's major, because man,
that's open to I the boulder. But regardless of that,
this certainly qualifies as major. No, but nobody's wondering if
this is a close.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Call, right, right, And the argument you're going to hear
is that Trump claimed a unilateral power to tax and
regulate commerce powers Constitution vests in Congress, although Congress doesn't
do a damn thing these days, but it is vested
to Congress and Article one, Section eight, and the Supreme
Court of signal skepticism towards such executive improvisation. In West Virginia, VEPA,
(06:31):
the Court struck down the Obama EPA's Claim Power Plan,
ruling that the agency could not overhaul the energy sector
without explicit congressional approval. The court and this precedent has
been used over and over again to rein in out
of control lefty presidents, especially in recent years. And I'll
(06:53):
tell you what one thing about this show that you're
either going to love or hate is we are consistent.
If we call executive overreach executive overreach when there's a
d in the White House, we're gonna call it on
ours too, because by God, somehow or other, there will
be a Democrat in the White House again and we
don't want him over reaching.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
We'll see Elon Broke with the tariff thing over the
weekend saying he's not not into it.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He likes more of a free trade guy.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
And Ted Cruz, as I mentioned a little bit earlier,
who's been pretty solid supporter of Trump, said there's gonna
be a bloodbath for his party in the midterm elections
if Donald Trump's tariff sent the US economy into recession, which.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
It's about a fifty to fifty chance.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
According to most of your geniuses right now, with the
caveat that Trump could back off all of this at
any moment.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah. Yeah, there are a number of forces at work.
There are seven Republican Senators who are signed onto a
law saying this is executive overach and it has to stop.
It won't become law because it won't pass the House,
and even if it did, Trump would veto it with
a hearty laugh. But you have that going on, and
then the court stuff. The court, I promise you hates
(08:16):
the idea of stepping in and squashing this right now,
because part of the Roberts Court's identity is, Look, we're
a court, we're serious, we're sober, we're not politicians, even
though Barack Obama tried to turn us into them and
(08:36):
Biden like berated us from the lectern which was terrible.
We're only going to step in on huge stuff like
this if we have to but they may have to.
We'll see. Dang it.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Oil's way down too, which the Trump people are pointing
to is a good thing that came out of this
somehow or whatever.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I heard one super pro Trump host saying, well, the
rest of the world stock markets are down way more
than ours, so that proves that this is a good idea.
And I'm like, wait, what.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Trump tweeted out today? Oil prices are down, interest rates
or down, food prices are down, there's no inflation.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
This is all good.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
David Boonson, who's one of your think tank conservative economists, said,
I can show you many charts of oil prices and
interest rates from every recession we've ever had that will
show that this.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
They often go hand in hand. So there you go. Yeah,
some of the messaging seems a little suspect to me. Anyway,
more to come after a word from our friends at
simply Save Home Security. I'll tell you what, speaking of policies,
we don't like decriminalizing crime. Scumbags and junkies and burglars
on the streets, and you know, it's a shame you
have to have a security system. But simply safe is
(09:50):
the one to choose.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Yeah, with the active guard outdoor protection can prevent break
ins before they happen. I mean AI powered cameras. Why
monitoring agents all working together to try to catch people
before they get into your house. You'd think that'd be
super expensive because it's so good, But nope, about a
dollar a day. No long term contracts or cancelation fees either.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Why if, like my sweet bride and I, you had
an old timey security system with a subscription and all,
and we're getting paid multiples of this for worse technology.
You're thinking, is this for real?
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
It is, It absolutely is. Visit simply safe dot com
slash armstrong. Claim fifty percent off a new system with
a professional monitoring plan, cats first month free. That's simplysafe
dot com slash armstrong, and again, monitoring plans start affordably
at around a buck a day. Simply safe dot com
slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe. It's interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
So a number of people were predicting a black Monday,
like a historic drop in the stock market today, which
it's down, but it's not like make the history books down.
Charles CW. Cook of the National Review. His take of
that is this suggests to me that the markets think
(11:05):
Trump is going to back off the fact that it's
not the just complete. I hate to use the term bloodbath.
It's amazing that bloodbath became an acceptable term for financial downtterms.
I mean, because a bloodbath is pretty disgusting. It is gruesome, Yes, yes, gruesome,
but you know, a big historic drop so the market.
(11:28):
So the Wall Street crowd thinks hee, he's not gonna
stick with this like long term.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Okay. Yeah, as I was saying earlier, I wish I
had a little more cash on hand, I'd be investing,
because there's still no better place on earth to have
your money than the United States unless this keeps going,
and then you're gonna have to get hip to investing
in foreign markets again if the trade structure changes.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
You know I'm wearing I didn't notice until I put
it on today. I'm wearing a sock, one sock with
a big hole in the heel, And I thought, you
know what, I'm just gonna go ahead, where as low
rent as it is, prepare myself for the financial downturn
if it sticks around, because this might be my new lifestyle,
wearing socks with holes in them. And my question is,
when you took the sock off the last time and
(12:13):
elected to keep it and launder it.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
We must not have noticed the hole.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Surely I didn't keep around a sock with a hole
in the hill, because I mean, that's just at this
point in my life.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
What have I worked every day for to wear holy socks?
I know? Is it like a Saint Francis of a
CC thing if you put a rock in your shoe
or remind you of the suffering of others. I'd be
horrified if I sent my kids off to school with
holes in their socks. Here I am at work.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, has AI ruined sports betting? Like maybe it's over?
I don't know. Stay tuned for that, among other things.
Stay with it.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
The Men's Final four in San Antonio, after the Houston
Cougars completed a stunning comeback against Dude, they'll be in
a fierce fight with the Florida Gators.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
So there you go. You got that your and versus
Gator caa final. Do it what you gotta like the
Gators in that battle because they've got like scales and
the cougar could jump on him and bite him as
much as he wanted. But unless you flip it and
can get at the soft underbelly. So if they gotta
like a gator, especially drags that cougar in the water,
it's over.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
If the actual animals fought as opposed to the college
basketball team.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
That's how I make sports predictions. Gotcha coming up? If
your favorite brothel asked you to fill out a ten
page application with all of your personal information, would you
do it? That's right, we're talking about a house of hoary.
That very thing happened in Boston. Crazy story, we'll tell
you about it. So a couple of AI stories for you.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
First one that centers around the NCAA Championship game tonight.
March Madness bet AI versus pro gamblers one million dollar
March Madness bet. So a professional gambler took on AI,
and this article was from Saturday. I don't know where
they are after the two games that happened on Saturday,
(14:07):
but the one million dollar March Madness wager between a
pro gambler and an artificial intelligence site came down to
the AI platform four C predictions. The guy had missed
thirteen games out of the first sixty, AI only missed ten.
(14:28):
The point of this article and the discussion was and
that became a thing online over the weekend. Is if
AI is as good as or better than your top
five percent of sports gamblers, which it seems it is, well,
then where where does that leave sports gambling at all?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And will it continue to exist in the form that
it has?
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Wow. One of the big betting houses said that they
have been concerned about this and knew it might be coming,
that didn't would be here yet, and they feel that
perhaps the decision is here earlier than they had expected.
It's gone beyond even what we had expected at the
start of AI.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Well, the house always wins on average, That's why casinos
exist and supports betting sites exist too. Individuals will win
against the house semi regularly. That's why you keep going
back If AI, well, the question is will AI win enough? Well?
(15:33):
Sad profit turns into a loss because if it's a
thinner margin, they'll just restructure what they do a little bit.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Well, I would think that, and I don't know a
lot about this, but I would think that your big
betting houses, they get a lot of people betting that
you know, most of them aren't professionals, and most of
them aren't that good.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
They lose a lot.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
So if AI's better than the top five percent and
every other dufus now can just use AI. Then all
of the betters are like the top five percent. That's
got to be a different profit margin. Oh yeah, for
the bedding houses than what they've had in the past. Yeah,
I know, their profit margins are very, very large. Yeah,
that's that's a great question.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I could easily believe that it would cut the profit
down to this is not worth it. It's going to
be even turned it into a loss.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Yeah, it's going to be a complete restructure of what
they've had in the past because they are counting on
dufuses like me that get all excited for their you know,
their home team when they make a run and that
sort of thing. Not the professional gamblers. They might even
expect to lose on the professional gamblers. But if everybody
is professional gambler level, that's something AnyWho. One of the
(16:38):
many repercussions of AI. Here's a guy who used an
AI avatar in a legal appeal. The judge didn't dig it.
Let's listen to this audio and then I'll fill in
any of the blanks.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Twelve.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Michael, the appellant has submitted a video.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
We will hear that video. Now, may it please the court?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
I come here today a humble proceeds were a panel
of five distinguished justices?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Is this hold on? Is that counsel for the case.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I generated that that is not a real person.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
You did not tell me that, sir, And you have
appeared before this court and been able to testify verbally.
You are not going to use this courtroom as a
launch for your business.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So if you are.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Able to shut that off, hold you have five minutes.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Wow, that judge was not happy with that. So the
guy tried to use an AI lawyer. Yeah, she clearly
thinks there. I say, I'm reading this New York Times article,
but I didn't read the whole thing. She clearly thinks
it's some attempt to like advertise his AI lawyer business.
But at least in the first couple of pages of
(17:44):
this article that I read, it is just a guy
who didn't have any representation and felt like he was
in a bad position and so used AI, which you've
heard about, you know, around the country, various people using
AI lawyers.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Huh, where is that going to go?
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
You just got to hire a flesh and blood human
to read what the AI told him to say, right, yes, fine,
that doesn't make any sense obviously. Hmm. We got a
lot on the way.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I hope you can stay here if you missed a second,
and get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
And Getty Pain in the Market.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
At some point, you're unwilling to tolerate this idea of
a Trump put they're a threshold.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I think your question is so stupid.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
I mean, I think it's a I don't want anything
to go down, but sometimes you have to take beticon
to fix something. As questions are stupid. I suppose they
got to ask him. It's just what the what?
Speaker 1 (18:36):
What?
Speaker 3 (18:38):
So the whole point is to scare a bunch of
these country Yeah, these countries into thinking, wow, we better,
we better adjust here because he's serious long term, and
and he's gonna tell a reporter asked not I'm not
serious long term. This is just to scare them, and
so I'm going to back off of them just as
soon as I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, but what conclusion? Is he looking for a rebalancing
of tariffs to a truly reciprocal relationship, or is he
trying to permanently restructure trade around the world by putting
up high tariffs against imports for the US for good
good question. That's why nobody knows quite what to think,
(19:20):
and the explanations out of the White House are a
little difficult to follow at times. More on that next hour,
including two great conservative historians taking different views of the
tariffs and where they might be going. Also, this is
an unnecessarily snarky headline, but it made me giggle. Great
news for humanity. Depressed liberals are increasingly suicidal due to
(19:43):
climate anxiety, according to a new study, and those that
remain to stick around aren't having children. So might progressives
be self depopulating? Be fine with me, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
The suicide part is troubling, but not having children's that's
that's absolutely happening.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Although I've got to admit it, and I believe it
or not a fairly compassionate fellow. But if you're committing
suicide over climate anxiety, you have profound mental problems. Anyway,
More on that to come. Here's a question for you.
We've all, you know, applied for colleges or jobs or
(20:26):
loans or whatever, and you sit down, you fill out
a long detailed application with your financial information, your employment information,
your past addresses that sort of thing. Would you do
that for a horror house? No, not just no, but
(20:46):
hell no. Story out of the Boston area, there's this
high end brothel operating out of a luxury apartment complex,
charged up to six hundred dollars an hour for sexual encounters,
an elite club near Harvard University. And you had biotech execs, doctors, lawyers, politicians,
(21:11):
filled out applications and handed over IDs, work badges, personal references.
This cant what kind of a reference. Joe was a
fine and upstanding young man. He coached my son in baseball.
I know, I don't think that was part of the reference,
(21:33):
although you make an excellent point. So this this Cambridge
brothel they're calling it. The gal who ran it was
a former sex worker in Vietnam, an immigrant to the
country forty two years old. They wanted to attract rich
(21:53):
and powerful men and with very good security, high standards,
no danger to anybody involved in the process, so to
being arrested, I issome well, well, right, yeah, until it happened,
(22:14):
so that there were no you know, junkies or scumbags
or violent people or whatever. And so the young women
involved and it's all women as far as I can tell,
had much less risk on their end, and the guys
had the Johns had much less risk on their end.
And as an amateur economist, the dismal science, indeed, I'm
(22:36):
interested that though they mentioned the up to six hundred
dollars an hour, it was frequently less expensive than that,
and I think that's because they had figured out a
way to mitigate risk. I mean, you hear about your
your Las Vegas call girls or whatever or whatever. It's
more than three hundred and fifty bucks an hour, way more.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
And all the normal caveats on all different sides in that,
I don't think this is a good lifestyle from the
john standpoint of making yourself happy. I think you're seeking
some happiness that you're not going to find. And I'm
going to make assumptions that none of these women are, like,
(23:23):
you know, drug slave, being trafficked by violent pimps at
this level, although they might be. But if that's but
if you don't have that, I can't imagine why I,
as a taxpayer, care if some attractive twenty five year
old woman is willing to have sex with some rich
(23:43):
businessman for money. I just can't imagine why I care
about of all the things going on in my community
that I'm worried about on a daily basis, Right, how
about you attack those first?
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Yeah? To what extent should the government criminal eye immorality?
Especially if it's I mean, there was no streetwalking hose here.
This is you know, you'd never know it existed, right, can't?
This is an interesting question.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
This is not that it's bringing in a criminal element
and driving down home prices and all that sort of stuff.
With the streetwalking, hourly hotel situation.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Right, and this woman paid the workers far more than
generally is the tradition in this sort of work. And
again I'm not arguing in favor of it. But one interesting,
really interesting aspect to this, and I'm glad I almost forgot,
was that the bust took place in two places, the
(24:42):
Boston area. And also it just says Virginia, Oh, just
out there. It is just outside Washington, d City. I
was just about to say, you're gonna tell me. I know,
I've read enough history to know this sort of thing
has existed near the capital forever and always will probably sure.
But so the Boston authorities have pursued charges against the Johns,
(25:04):
and in a recent court ruling, the names have emerged.
The various attorneys asked to keep them quiet because the
damage that would be done would be disproportionate to the
nature of the crime. Blah blah blah, But the judge said, no,
you can turn them loose. Interestingly, just outside the capital
in Virginia, the local authorities there said no, we're not
(25:25):
going to go after any of the Johns. Well, uh,
we'll just prosecute the madam and the sex workers. Yeah,
so that's a problem. It's either a law or it's not.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
And if you're going to enforce it on you know,
an hourly wage dude who goes to a crappy massage
parlor in a bad street, and you're going to ruin
his life sometime over catching me, you got to treat
the rich dude the same way.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Well, and I will I will never ever know for sure,
but I would bet heavily on the opposition that the
non going after the Johns in Washington, d C. Is
entirely because they're powerful people of the government and or
lobbyists and the authorities, and you know Fairfax and Falls
Church and the various incredibly rich suburbs of DC and
(26:16):
It's funny. How does everybody get so rich in DC
They don't manufacture anything, huh. Anyway, I don't think it's
any accident that the local authorities said, no, let's keep
these names out of the paper. Unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah, again, it seems like such a sad, not going
good place as a lifestyle. But remember what was the
thing with Heidi Flies way back in the day. He
got to be old to remember Heidi flies in Los
Angeles in Hollywood.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
But that that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
It was like a high end hooker thing that eventually
got busted.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Great deal of discretion, and everybody was on the up
and up. She had changing sex for money.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
She had her black book, her list, and then I
was coming out in drips and drabs that include various
movie stars.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Charlie Sheen shot. You know, I everybody has their own
opinion on this based on their own morality and religious beliefs.
If it's an occasional seeking of pleasure as opposed to
a lifestyle, as you put it, you know, teach their own.
And I'm not sure the government needs to be involved
in it. Frankly, new listeners to the show. I've been
(27:20):
faithfully married to my wife forever and don't indulge.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
But well, I'm serial no interest in that. But you know,
like I said, I'm not concerned about somebody else who
is interested in that. With all the caveats I threw
out there of you know, it's not some doesn't speak
English woman from El Salvador who's basically.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Yeah, yeah, that's not. Oh, that's abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent. Yeah,
and a lot of prostitution is that, especially in urban areas,
it's absolutely terrible. A brutal a pimp who who who
well brutalizes the women under his thumb.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yes, I don't know. We did a sex workers panel
many years ago. It was very interesting sex workers of
various levels. What percentage is what I described? You're a
good looking twenty five year old completely doing this of
your own volition, nobody's forcing you to do it whatsoever,
(28:21):
with guys you trust, and it's what percentage is that?
Is that such a minor percentage? I wonder that it's
not even worth having the discussion around that.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
I don't know, that might be true.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Maybe such a tiny percentage of all prostitution is that
To throw that out there is just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, It's like the percentage of golf courses that are
ritzy private clubs. For instance, there are fifty golf courses
that aren't for each one that is, right, So crafting
any laws or having attitudes about the whole prostitution business
with that in mind is really distract might be I
wish I knew that. Yeah, Yeah, And there are some cases,
(29:04):
just again to get back to the philosophy of governance,
where terrain in the truly horrific, sometimes the just mildly
ikey gets caught up in It's it's well, like you know,
these wealthy guys going to these apartments in Cambridge. I mean,
I don't care. Is it mildly icky from a moral
(29:26):
point of view, yes, But that is what has to
exist to prevent sixteen year old girls from l Salvador
being trafficked by the cartels and becoming rape slaves in
the United States under the thumb of some brutal pimp, Right,
And that's the reality. I think it's important to know.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
If that's the case, then I am all for having
a standard and making it clear every now and then
we ain't.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Cool with this. Yeah, I would love to know that.
I know there are folks in law enforcement listening, drop
us a note mail bag at armstrong and Getty dot com.
What have you seen the actual reality? So this is
terrible and I am going to pretend to be troubled
by it. Depressed liberals are increasingly at risk of suicide
due to so called climate change. According to a group
(30:12):
of European and French Canadian scientists. The alleged findings, while morbid,
could signal a bright future for the human race. Rights
Andrew Styles, who apparently is not upset by this. A
world with fewer annoying people would make life more tolerable
for the rest of us, The species would grow more resilient,
and the planet might also somewhat ironically benefit from the
decline in population, assuming it isn't all a hoax.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
That is a cold eyed look that will jump into
the whole terriff discussion. See where we are on that
on a Monday, on day three of Liberation Day, so
stick around for that.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Stay with us.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Mental health experts are saying that adults can help deal
with trauma by sleeping with a stuffed animal, which is
the same thing goofy whispered to your wife. Subway has
partnered with Doritos to offer new foot long nachos. But
I don't love the slogan, eat out of this trough,
you pig.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
I don't like this. It's not a good slogan.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
I watched a musical act a young lesbian and an
older lesbian. The musical act Brandy Carlyle and Elton John.
If you just glanced to the screen, it looked like
a young lesbian and an old lesbian singing the duel,
which was very good.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Musically, it was very good. Sure, not that there's anything
wrong with it. Coming on.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
I want to read some stuff from a Shell Obama
that came out over the weekend. I thought it was
really interesting about it kind of clears up where things
are with the Obama's marriage. You know, there been a
lot of rumors flying around, and it really that sort
of level of partisanship really bothers me. The like, if
you would take joy in the Obama's marriage breaking up,
(32:00):
I think you're deranged in the same way that people
who anybody with the last name Trump has personal problems
that makes you happy.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
I that's just weird. That's weird, man.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Anyway, Michelle Obama said some things about their marriage. I
thought everybody should hear that I thought were really really good.
They did have some really tough spots and anyway, I'll
read them later and we can discuss.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
So you want Michelle Obama to be the next president,
that's a good lord. Some texts on things we talked about.
We got this text.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
I used to frequent prostitutes often after my divorce. Here's
what I learned. You don't have to pay a hooker alimony.
That's not a good text, that's not helpful to the conversation.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Yeah, please, aren't the.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Intelligence agencies from China, Russia in the US. They must
love these madams, these high dollar madams in these hotels,
especially around DC. I guarantee you they have cameras set
up so that every one of these brothels following these girls,
so they.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Know who came and went. I don't know, maybe maybe not,
but you know, if they knew it was happening, But yeah,
that would be an enormous trove of blackmail material for
foreign intelligence agencies. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
On sports gambling and whether AI has ruined it, Gents,
I've been using AI for the past six weeks, probably
with a lot of March Madness stuff. For gambling, and
it's not that great. At best, it's fifty to fifty,
so it's like a coin flip. But I can do
that for you. I would think you would have to be.
I mean, if there's such thing as professional sports gamblers,
(33:33):
because they dedicate so much time to taking in through
so many statistics, that they're better than a coin flip,
AI's got to be able to do that, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Well if yeah, yeah, I don't know. That's an interesting question.
I'd like to see a statistical study of how many
gamblers are better than fifty to fifty and how many worse.
But I think for the average schmo, they're definitely worse
than fifty to fifty. Oh, I know, I would be Yeah,
so use AI.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Somebody said they're just watching Jim Kramer, and he said
Wall Street made twenty percent each of the last two years.
A correction needed to happen. It should be resetting around
thirty five thousand. Anyway, that's an interesting take.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, it was crazy overheated the price to earnings ratios.
I won't get technical on you, but they were like
twice as high as the historic highs in a lot
of sectors.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
I mean, just insane and everybody knew that, So I
guess the question would be, is did this tariff thing
just kick in the correction that was bound to happen.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
At some point anyway, I don't know that either. That's possible.
It couldn't continue the way it had been. That's true
where the tariff thing comes to rest. That's not an
argument in favor of what Trump's doing, but it's a
point worth observing.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
I'm somewhat amused by the stories Fox is doing so
that they have something to.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Talk about other than the stock market and the tariff thing.
Looking up there. This is a big story this morning.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Disc golfer refuses to play against trans athlete out into
the worlds disc golfing.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
You know something.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Viewers can get around well, but they head over in
the corner. Dow down seven hundred points. It was down
as many as almost two thousand earlier in the day
and is now back to being down between low hundreds,
two hundred.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
To five hundred.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
So it's possible that we reached some sort of correction bottom.
It's possible, like I mentioned earlier from one pundit, that
Wall Street believes Trump's not gonna stick with this and
have some reason to think that I have some inside
knowledge on that.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I don't know. Yeah, he's made a couple of noises
that hinted at that, but it's you cannot possibly overestimate
the importance of speculation in the US stock market at
this point. Speculation being i'll bet it's gonna go up
sw I'm going to buy regardless of I would like
a share of this company for I believe it will
be profitable in future days. That's what investing is supposed
(36:01):
to be. And so people sell when they think it's
gonna go down, by when they think it's gonna go up,
and the the you know, the underlying principles of what's
a good investment what's not tend to get lost. So
we're dealing with a lot of speculation change right now.
More of that coming up.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Biggest movie debut of the year happened over the weekend too,
and a bunch of other stuff. I hope you can
stay with us, Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty arm Strong
and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yetty. But before that,
(00:24):
we're gonna do Magda Magda make America great depression together.
You know what, It'll be great. It'll be better than great.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
It'll be a fantastic, unbelievable depression like so which.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
I've never seen before. We like to say, what's so
which we've never seen before?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
You know, this depression is gonna be so great.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
We'll be the ones eating the cats and the dogs.
That's gonna be far Low and Srow. You gotta brazen,
you know, Wow, Wow. The liberal Saturday Night Lived whatever
are they?
Speaker 3 (01:00):
I would say, God, what percentage of mainstream news coverage
thinks this is a bad idea. It's somewhere like ninety percent.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
It's heavy, yes.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Including lots and lots and lots of Conservatives and Republicans.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yeah. The hardcore Magacrawt would answer you, well, they're the
people who have been perpetrating the sucking out of the
American manufacturing economy, loss of jobs, exporting, blah blah blah.
That's fine.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I'm not making the argument of whether it's right or not.
I'm just saying it's not only lefty journalism that is
making fun of this. Let's get one more short clip
on that eight there, Michael.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yes, the stock.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Market has crashed temporarily, but that is all part of
the plan.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
It's simple economics. Okay. If the stock market goes down.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
And down and down and down and down, that means
there's nowhere to go but up or perhaps further down.
So yeah, I think that's what we're all looking at today, right,
there's no place to go but up or ups further
down for a while.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And we'll see what happens next hour. And I am
looking forward to this a great deal. Compare and contrast
a couple of terrific historians who most of us know
and love, Neil Ferguson and Victor Davis Hansen, with differing
opinions about the tariff thing. Really interesting. We'll give you
as many facts and as much perspective as we can
(02:23):
and help you decide what you think about it, as
opposed to simply preaching to the choir, which is not
what we do. If you're a new listener, welcome. First
of all, glad you're listening. Give it a little bit.
It's a little different than what you know you generally
encounter on the dial. So well, Joe understaying Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I mean, Joe and I have worked for big companies
that make short term plays because of the stock market that.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Are bad long term.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And every employee knows, everybody like in the office knows
this is a bad idea long term, but it's good
for the stock short term. A lot of the Wall
Street stuff you see and commentators, they are people that
live quarter to quarter and not making a quarter to
quarter move right rightly or wrongly?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Right, So here we go. Yeah, in principle, the idea
of thinking about the long term health of the American
people as opposed to just winning the next election is
incredibly gratifying. Doesn't make everything right? Well, that's the deal. Yes,
I mean, if President AOC were to make a long
(03:28):
term decision to alter the trajectory of the United States,
even if we lose the midterms, that again would be
admirable in a way, but I'm certain I would be horrified.
So here's an interesting question for you. What are the
courts going to say about the tariff thing? And when
might they say it? Probably not too long from now,
(03:49):
is the answer to the second question. There are already
some lawsuits being being filed, although interestingly enough, there are
some big corporations that are extremely comfortable with this. They
are have stripped naked to the waist, have knives in
their teeth, and painted their faces, and are now running
(04:09):
the halls like maniacs in their corporate headquarters. But they
don't want to be the lead name in a lawsuit
against the Trump administration, so they're lying in law, which
is an interesting dynamic. But I'm relying here on a
professor of political science, a reasonable guy, Paul Sratchik, legal analyst.
Trump's tariffs are a major legal question. The Supreme Court
(04:33):
has set clear boundaries on unilateral executive action of this magnitude,
he believes, and he thinks the Court is going to
strike a lot of this down. But here are the questions.
Never mind the conclusion President Trump relied on the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. It's an
expansion of his executive authority. I believe he writes oversteps
(04:55):
the boundaries set by the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine
prominent in recent judicial rulings, the doctrine holds that federal
agencies and the executive branch cannot make decisions of vast
economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Now, the
IEEPA AJEPA was enacted in nineteen seventy seven was intended
(05:18):
to rein in what Congress considered overuse of the Trading
with the Enemies Act, And since twenty twenty two, the
Supreme Court has been clear, the fabulous, wonderful Donald Trump
appointed majority, they've been clear. When an agency or the
executive claims the authority to resolve a major question, that's
en quote quotes a policy issue with quote vast economic
(05:40):
and political significance quote, it must point to clear congressional intent.
Tariffs which reshade global trade, potentially cost American consumers billions trillions,
and disrupt entire industries certainly qualify as major questions. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
I hate the idea of just if something's major, because man,
that's open to I the boulder. But regardless of that,
this certainly qualifies as major. No, but nobody's wondering if
this is a close.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Call, right, right, And the argument you're going to hear
is that Trump claimed a unilateral power to tax and
regulate commerce powers Constitution vests in Congress, although Congress doesn't
do a damn thing these days, but it is vested
to Congress and Article one, Section eight, and the Supreme
Court of signal skepticism towards such executive improvisation. In West Virginia, VEPA,
(06:31):
the Court struck down the Obama EPA's Claim Power Plan,
ruling that the agency could not overhaul the energy sector
without explicit congressional approval. The court and this precedent has
been used over and over again to rein in out
of control lefty presidents, especially in recent years. And I'll
(06:53):
tell you what one thing about this show that you're
either going to love or hate is we are consistent.
If we call executive overreach executive overreach when there's a
d in the White House, we're gonna call it on
ours too, because by God, somehow or other, there will
be a Democrat in the White House again and we
don't want him over reaching.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
We'll see Elon Broke with the tariff thing over the
weekend saying he's not not into it.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He likes more of a free trade guy.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
And Ted Cruz, as I mentioned a little bit earlier,
who's been pretty solid supporter of Trump, said there's gonna
be a bloodbath for his party in the midterm elections
if Donald Trump's tariff sent the US economy into recession, which.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
It's about a fifty to fifty chance.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
According to most of your geniuses right now, with the
caveat that Trump could back off all of this at
any moment.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah. Yeah, there are a number of forces at work.
There are seven Republican Senators who are signed onto a
law saying this is executive overach and it has to stop.
It won't become law because it won't pass the House,
and even if it did, Trump would veto it with
a hearty laugh. But you have that going on, and
then the court stuff. The court, I promise you hates
(08:16):
the idea of stepping in and squashing this right now,
because part of the Roberts Court's identity is, Look, we're
a court, we're serious, we're sober, we're not politicians, even
though Barack Obama tried to turn us into them and
(08:36):
Biden like berated us from the lectern which was terrible.
We're only going to step in on huge stuff like
this if we have to but they may have to.
We'll see. Dang it.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Oil's way down too, which the Trump people are pointing
to is a good thing that came out of this
somehow or whatever.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I heard one super pro Trump host saying, well, the
rest of the world stock markets are down way more
than ours, so that proves that this is a good idea.
And I'm like, wait, what.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Trump tweeted out today? Oil prices are down, interest rates
or down, food prices are down, there's no inflation.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
This is all good.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
David Boonson, who's one of your think tank conservative economists, said,
I can show you many charts of oil prices and
interest rates from every recession we've ever had that will
show that this.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
They often go hand in hand. So there you go. Yeah,
some of the messaging seems a little suspect to me. Anyway,
more to come after a word from our friends at
simply Save Home Security. I'll tell you what, speaking of policies,
we don't like decriminalizing crime. Scumbags and junkies and burglars
on the streets, and you know, it's a shame you
have to have a security system. But simply safe is
(09:50):
the one to choose.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Yeah, with the active guard outdoor protection can prevent break
ins before they happen. I mean AI powered cameras. Why
monitoring agents all working together to try to catch people
before they get into your house. You'd think that'd be
super expensive because it's so good, But nope, about a
dollar a day. No long term contracts or cancelation fees either.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Why if, like my sweet bride and I, you had
an old timey security system with a subscription and all,
and we're getting paid multiples of this for worse technology.
You're thinking, is this for real?
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
It is, It absolutely is. Visit simply safe dot com
slash armstrong. Claim fifty percent off a new system with
a professional monitoring plan, cats first month free. That's simplysafe
dot com slash armstrong, and again, monitoring plans start affordably
at around a buck a day. Simply safe dot com
slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe. It's interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
So a number of people were predicting a black Monday,
like a historic drop in the stock market today, which
it's down, but it's not like make the history books down.
Charles CW. Cook of the National Review. His take of
that is this suggests to me that the markets think
(11:05):
Trump is going to back off the fact that it's
not the just complete. I hate to use the term bloodbath.
It's amazing that bloodbath became an acceptable term for financial downtterms.
I mean, because a bloodbath is pretty disgusting. It is gruesome, Yes, yes, gruesome,
but you know, a big historic drop so the market.
(11:28):
So the Wall Street crowd thinks hee, he's not gonna
stick with this like long term.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Okay. Yeah, as I was saying earlier, I wish I
had a little more cash on hand, I'd be investing,
because there's still no better place on earth to have
your money than the United States unless this keeps going,
and then you're gonna have to get hip to investing
in foreign markets again if the trade structure changes.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
You know I'm wearing I didn't notice until I put
it on today. I'm wearing a sock, one sock with
a big hole in the heel, And I thought, you
know what, I'm just gonna go ahead, where as low
rent as it is, prepare myself for the financial downturn
if it sticks around, because this might be my new lifestyle,
wearing socks with holes in them. And my question is,
when you took the sock off the last time and
(12:13):
elected to keep it and launder it.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
We must not have noticed the hole.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Surely I didn't keep around a sock with a hole
in the hill, because I mean, that's just at this
point in my life.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
What have I worked every day for to wear holy socks?
I know? Is it like a Saint Francis of a
CC thing if you put a rock in your shoe
or remind you of the suffering of others. I'd be
horrified if I sent my kids off to school with
holes in their socks. Here I am at work.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, has AI ruined sports betting? Like maybe it's over?
I don't know. Stay tuned for that, among other things.
Stay with it.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
The Men's Final four in San Antonio, after the Houston
Cougars completed a stunning comeback against Dude, they'll be in
a fierce fight with the Florida Gators.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
So there you go. You got that your and versus
Gator caa final. Do it what you gotta like the
Gators in that battle because they've got like scales and
the cougar could jump on him and bite him as
much as he wanted. But unless you flip it and
can get at the soft underbelly. So if they gotta
like a gator, especially drags that cougar in the water,
it's over.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
If the actual animals fought as opposed to the college
basketball team.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
That's how I make sports predictions. Gotcha coming up? If
your favorite brothel asked you to fill out a ten
page application with all of your personal information, would you
do it? That's right, we're talking about a house of hoary.
That very thing happened in Boston. Crazy story, we'll tell
you about it. So a couple of AI stories for you.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
First one that centers around the NCAA Championship game tonight.
March Madness bet AI versus pro gamblers one million dollar
March Madness bet. So a professional gambler took on AI,
and this article was from Saturday. I don't know where
they are after the two games that happened on Saturday,
(14:07):
but the one million dollar March Madness wager between a
pro gambler and an artificial intelligence site came down to
the AI platform four C predictions. The guy had missed
thirteen games out of the first sixty, AI only missed ten.
(14:28):
The point of this article and the discussion was and
that became a thing online over the weekend. Is if
AI is as good as or better than your top
five percent of sports gamblers, which it seems it is, well,
then where where does that leave sports gambling at all?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And will it continue to exist in the form that
it has?
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Wow. One of the big betting houses said that they
have been concerned about this and knew it might be coming,
that didn't would be here yet, and they feel that
perhaps the decision is here earlier than they had expected.
It's gone beyond even what we had expected at the
start of AI.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Well, the house always wins on average, That's why casinos
exist and supports betting sites exist too. Individuals will win
against the house semi regularly. That's why you keep going
back If AI, well, the question is will AI win enough? Well?
(15:33):
Sad profit turns into a loss because if it's a
thinner margin, they'll just restructure what they do a little bit.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Well, I would think that, and I don't know a
lot about this, but I would think that your big
betting houses, they get a lot of people betting that
you know, most of them aren't professionals, and most of
them aren't that good.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
They lose a lot.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
So if AI's better than the top five percent and
every other dufus now can just use AI. Then all
of the betters are like the top five percent. That's
got to be a different profit margin. Oh yeah, for
the bedding houses than what they've had in the past. Yeah,
I know, their profit margins are very, very large. Yeah,
that's that's a great question.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I could easily believe that it would cut the profit
down to this is not worth it. It's going to
be even turned it into a loss.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Yeah, it's going to be a complete restructure of what
they've had in the past because they are counting on
dufuses like me that get all excited for their you know,
their home team when they make a run and that
sort of thing. Not the professional gamblers. They might even
expect to lose on the professional gamblers. But if everybody
is professional gambler level, that's something AnyWho. One of the
(16:38):
many repercussions of AI. Here's a guy who used an
AI avatar in a legal appeal. The judge didn't dig it.
Let's listen to this audio and then I'll fill in
any of the blanks.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Twelve.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Michael, the appellant has submitted a video.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
We will hear that video. Now, may it please the court?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
I come here today a humble proceeds were a panel
of five distinguished justices?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Is this hold on? Is that counsel for the case.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I generated that that is not a real person.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
You did not tell me that, sir, And you have
appeared before this court and been able to testify verbally.
You are not going to use this courtroom as a
launch for your business.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So if you are.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Able to shut that off, hold you have five minutes.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Wow, that judge was not happy with that. So the
guy tried to use an AI lawyer. Yeah, she clearly
thinks there. I say, I'm reading this New York Times article,
but I didn't read the whole thing. She clearly thinks
it's some attempt to like advertise his AI lawyer business.
But at least in the first couple of pages of
(17:44):
this article that I read, it is just a guy
who didn't have any representation and felt like he was
in a bad position and so used AI, which you've
heard about, you know, around the country, various people using
AI lawyers.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Huh, where is that going to go?
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
You just got to hire a flesh and blood human
to read what the AI told him to say, right, yes, fine,
that doesn't make any sense obviously. Hmm. We got a
lot on the way.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I hope you can stay here if you missed a second,
and get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
And Getty Pain in the Market.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
At some point, you're unwilling to tolerate this idea of
a Trump put they're a threshold.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I think your question is so stupid.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
I mean, I think it's a I don't want anything
to go down, but sometimes you have to take beticon
to fix something. As questions are stupid. I suppose they
got to ask him. It's just what the what?
Speaker 1 (18:36):
What?
Speaker 3 (18:38):
So the whole point is to scare a bunch of
these country Yeah, these countries into thinking, wow, we better,
we better adjust here because he's serious long term, and
and he's gonna tell a reporter asked not I'm not
serious long term. This is just to scare them, and
so I'm going to back off of them just as
soon as I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, but what conclusion? Is he looking for a rebalancing
of tariffs to a truly reciprocal relationship, or is he
trying to permanently restructure trade around the world by putting
up high tariffs against imports for the US for good
good question. That's why nobody knows quite what to think,
(19:20):
and the explanations out of the White House are a
little difficult to follow at times. More on that next hour,
including two great conservative historians taking different views of the
tariffs and where they might be going. Also, this is
an unnecessarily snarky headline, but it made me giggle. Great
news for humanity. Depressed liberals are increasingly suicidal due to
(19:43):
climate anxiety, according to a new study, and those that
remain to stick around aren't having children. So might progressives
be self depopulating? Be fine with me, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
The suicide part is troubling, but not having children's that's
that's absolutely happening.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Although I've got to admit it, and I believe it
or not a fairly compassionate fellow. But if you're committing
suicide over climate anxiety, you have profound mental problems. Anyway,
More on that to come. Here's a question for you.
We've all, you know, applied for colleges or jobs or
(20:26):
loans or whatever, and you sit down, you fill out
a long detailed application with your financial information, your employment information,
your past addresses that sort of thing. Would you do
that for a horror house? No, not just no, but
(20:46):
hell no. Story out of the Boston area, there's this
high end brothel operating out of a luxury apartment complex,
charged up to six hundred dollars an hour for sexual encounters,
an elite club near Harvard University. And you had biotech execs, doctors, lawyers, politicians,
(21:11):
filled out applications and handed over IDs, work badges, personal references.
This cant what kind of a reference. Joe was a
fine and upstanding young man. He coached my son in baseball.
I know, I don't think that was part of the reference,
(21:33):
although you make an excellent point. So this this Cambridge
brothel they're calling it. The gal who ran it was
a former sex worker in Vietnam, an immigrant to the
country forty two years old. They wanted to attract rich
(21:53):
and powerful men and with very good security, high standards,
no danger to anybody involved in the process, so to
being arrested, I issome well, well, right, yeah, until it happened,
(22:14):
so that there were no you know, junkies or scumbags
or violent people or whatever. And so the young women
involved and it's all women as far as I can tell,
had much less risk on their end, and the guys
had the Johns had much less risk on their end.
And as an amateur economist, the dismal science, indeed, I'm
(22:36):
interested that though they mentioned the up to six hundred
dollars an hour, it was frequently less expensive than that,
and I think that's because they had figured out a
way to mitigate risk. I mean, you hear about your
your Las Vegas call girls or whatever or whatever. It's
more than three hundred and fifty bucks an hour, way more.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
And all the normal caveats on all different sides in that,
I don't think this is a good lifestyle from the
john standpoint of making yourself happy. I think you're seeking
some happiness that you're not going to find. And I'm
going to make assumptions that none of these women are, like,
(23:23):
you know, drug slave, being trafficked by violent pimps at
this level, although they might be. But if that's but
if you don't have that, I can't imagine why I,
as a taxpayer, care if some attractive twenty five year
old woman is willing to have sex with some rich
(23:43):
businessman for money. I just can't imagine why I care
about of all the things going on in my community
that I'm worried about on a daily basis, Right, how
about you attack those first?
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Yeah? To what extent should the government criminal eye immorality?
Especially if it's I mean, there was no streetwalking hose here.
This is you know, you'd never know it existed, right, can't?
This is an interesting question.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
This is not that it's bringing in a criminal element
and driving down home prices and all that sort of stuff.
With the streetwalking, hourly hotel situation.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Right, and this woman paid the workers far more than
generally is the tradition in this sort of work. And
again I'm not arguing in favor of it. But one interesting,
really interesting aspect to this, and I'm glad I almost forgot,
was that the bust took place in two places, the
(24:42):
Boston area. And also it just says Virginia, Oh, just
out there. It is just outside Washington, d City. I
was just about to say, you're gonna tell me. I know,
I've read enough history to know this sort of thing
has existed near the capital forever and always will probably sure.
But so the Boston authorities have pursued charges against the Johns,
(25:04):
and in a recent court ruling, the names have emerged.
The various attorneys asked to keep them quiet because the
damage that would be done would be disproportionate to the
nature of the crime. Blah blah blah, But the judge said, no,
you can turn them loose. Interestingly, just outside the capital
in Virginia, the local authorities there said no, we're not
(25:25):
going to go after any of the Johns. Well, uh,
we'll just prosecute the madam and the sex workers. Yeah,
so that's a problem. It's either a law or it's not.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
And if you're going to enforce it on you know,
an hourly wage dude who goes to a crappy massage
parlor in a bad street, and you're going to ruin
his life sometime over catching me, you got to treat
the rich dude the same way.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Well, and I will I will never ever know for sure,
but I would bet heavily on the opposition that the
non going after the Johns in Washington, d C. Is
entirely because they're powerful people of the government and or
lobbyists and the authorities, and you know Fairfax and Falls
Church and the various incredibly rich suburbs of DC and
(26:16):
It's funny. How does everybody get so rich in DC
They don't manufacture anything, huh. Anyway, I don't think it's
any accident that the local authorities said, no, let's keep
these names out of the paper. Unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah, again, it seems like such a sad, not going
good place as a lifestyle. But remember what was the
thing with Heidi Flies way back in the day. He
got to be old to remember Heidi flies in Los
Angeles in Hollywood.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
But that that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
It was like a high end hooker thing that eventually
got busted.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Great deal of discretion, and everybody was on the up
and up. She had changing sex for money.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
She had her black book, her list, and then I
was coming out in drips and drabs that include various
movie stars.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Charlie Sheen shot. You know, I everybody has their own
opinion on this based on their own morality and religious beliefs.
If it's an occasional seeking of pleasure as opposed to
a lifestyle, as you put it, you know, teach their own.
And I'm not sure the government needs to be involved
in it. Frankly, new listeners to the show. I've been
(27:20):
faithfully married to my wife forever and don't indulge.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
But well, I'm serial no interest in that. But you know,
like I said, I'm not concerned about somebody else who
is interested in that. With all the caveats I threw
out there of you know, it's not some doesn't speak
English woman from El Salvador who's basically.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Yeah, yeah, that's not. Oh, that's abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent. Yeah,
and a lot of prostitution is that, especially in urban areas,
it's absolutely terrible. A brutal a pimp who who who
well brutalizes the women under his thumb.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yes, I don't know. We did a sex workers panel
many years ago. It was very interesting sex workers of
various levels. What percentage is what I described? You're a
good looking twenty five year old completely doing this of
your own volition, nobody's forcing you to do it whatsoever,
(28:21):
with guys you trust, and it's what percentage is that?
Is that such a minor percentage? I wonder that it's
not even worth having the discussion around that.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
I don't know, that might be true.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Maybe such a tiny percentage of all prostitution is that
To throw that out there is just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, It's like the percentage of golf courses that are
ritzy private clubs. For instance, there are fifty golf courses
that aren't for each one that is, right, So crafting
any laws or having attitudes about the whole prostitution business
with that in mind is really distract might be I
wish I knew that. Yeah, Yeah, And there are some cases,
(29:04):
just again to get back to the philosophy of governance,
where terrain in the truly horrific, sometimes the just mildly
ikey gets caught up in It's it's well, like you know,
these wealthy guys going to these apartments in Cambridge. I mean,
I don't care. Is it mildly icky from a moral
(29:26):
point of view, yes, But that is what has to
exist to prevent sixteen year old girls from l Salvador
being trafficked by the cartels and becoming rape slaves in
the United States under the thumb of some brutal pimp, Right,
And that's the reality. I think it's important to know.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
If that's the case, then I am all for having
a standard and making it clear every now and then
we ain't.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Cool with this. Yeah, I would love to know that.
I know there are folks in law enforcement listening, drop
us a note mail bag at armstrong and Getty dot com.
What have you seen the actual reality? So this is
terrible and I am going to pretend to be troubled
by it. Depressed liberals are increasingly at risk of suicide
due to so called climate change. According to a group
(30:12):
of European and French Canadian scientists. The alleged findings, while morbid,
could signal a bright future for the human race. Rights
Andrew Styles, who apparently is not upset by this. A
world with fewer annoying people would make life more tolerable
for the rest of us, The species would grow more resilient,
and the planet might also somewhat ironically benefit from the
decline in population, assuming it isn't all a hoax.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
That is a cold eyed look that will jump into
the whole terriff discussion. See where we are on that
on a Monday, on day three of Liberation Day, so
stick around for that.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Stay with us.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Mental health experts are saying that adults can help deal
with trauma by sleeping with a stuffed animal, which is
the same thing goofy whispered to your wife. Subway has
partnered with Doritos to offer new foot long nachos. But
I don't love the slogan, eat out of this trough,
you pig.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
I don't like this. It's not a good slogan.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
I watched a musical act a young lesbian and an
older lesbian. The musical act Brandy Carlyle and Elton John.
If you just glanced to the screen, it looked like
a young lesbian and an old lesbian singing the duel,
which was very good.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Musically, it was very good. Sure, not that there's anything
wrong with it. Coming on.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
I want to read some stuff from a Shell Obama
that came out over the weekend. I thought it was
really interesting about it kind of clears up where things
are with the Obama's marriage. You know, there been a
lot of rumors flying around, and it really that sort
of level of partisanship really bothers me. The like, if
you would take joy in the Obama's marriage breaking up,
(32:00):
I think you're deranged in the same way that people
who anybody with the last name Trump has personal problems
that makes you happy.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
I that's just weird. That's weird, man.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Anyway, Michelle Obama said some things about their marriage. I
thought everybody should hear that I thought were really really good.
They did have some really tough spots and anyway, I'll
read them later and we can discuss.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
So you want Michelle Obama to be the next president,
that's a good lord. Some texts on things we talked about.
We got this text.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
I used to frequent prostitutes often after my divorce. Here's
what I learned. You don't have to pay a hooker alimony.
That's not a good text, that's not helpful to the conversation.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Yeah, please, aren't the.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Intelligence agencies from China, Russia in the US. They must
love these madams, these high dollar madams in these hotels,
especially around DC. I guarantee you they have cameras set
up so that every one of these brothels following these girls,
so they.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Know who came and went. I don't know, maybe maybe not,
but you know, if they knew it was happening, But yeah,
that would be an enormous trove of blackmail material for
foreign intelligence agencies. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
On sports gambling and whether AI has ruined it, Gents,
I've been using AI for the past six weeks, probably
with a lot of March Madness stuff. For gambling, and
it's not that great. At best, it's fifty to fifty,
so it's like a coin flip. But I can do
that for you. I would think you would have to be.
I mean, if there's such thing as professional sports gamblers,
(33:33):
because they dedicate so much time to taking in through
so many statistics, that they're better than a coin flip,
AI's got to be able to do that, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Well if yeah, yeah, I don't know. That's an interesting question.
I'd like to see a statistical study of how many
gamblers are better than fifty to fifty and how many worse.
But I think for the average schmo, they're definitely worse
than fifty to fifty. Oh, I know, I would be Yeah,
so use AI.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Somebody said they're just watching Jim Kramer, and he said
Wall Street made twenty percent each of the last two years.
A correction needed to happen. It should be resetting around
thirty five thousand. Anyway, that's an interesting take.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah, it was crazy overheated the price to earnings ratios.
I won't get technical on you, but they were like
twice as high as the historic highs in a lot
of sectors.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
I mean, just insane and everybody knew that, So I
guess the question would be, is did this tariff thing
just kick in the correction that was bound to happen.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
At some point anyway, I don't know that either. That's possible.
It couldn't continue the way it had been. That's true
where the tariff thing comes to rest. That's not an
argument in favor of what Trump's doing, but it's a
point worth observing.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
I'm somewhat amused by the stories Fox is doing so
that they have something to.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Talk about other than the stock market and the tariff thing.
Looking up there. This is a big story this morning.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Disc golfer refuses to play against trans athlete out into
the worlds disc golfing.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
You know something.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Viewers can get around well, but they head over in
the corner. Dow down seven hundred points. It was down
as many as almost two thousand earlier in the day
and is now back to being down between low hundreds,
two hundred.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
To five hundred.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
So it's possible that we reached some sort of correction bottom.
It's possible, like I mentioned earlier from one pundit, that
Wall Street believes Trump's not gonna stick with this and
have some reason to think that I have some inside
knowledge on that.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I don't know. Yeah, he's made a couple of noises
that hinted at that, but it's you cannot possibly overestimate
the importance of speculation in the US stock market at
this point. Speculation being i'll bet it's gonna go up
sw I'm going to buy regardless of I would like
a share of this company for I believe it will
be profitable in future days. That's what investing is supposed
(36:01):
to be. And so people sell when they think it's
gonna go down, by when they think it's gonna go up,
and the the you know, the underlying principles of what's
a good investment what's not tend to get lost. So
we're dealing with a lot of speculation change right now.
More of that coming up.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Biggest movie debut of the year happened over the weekend too,
and a bunch of other stuff. I hope you can
stay with us, Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!