World Tour, Budget Battles, and the Usual Chaos

Send us a text

Trump’s globe-trotting again, Congress is burning daylight with budget brinkmanship, and the headlines feel like a fever dream. Tonight, the POGs are diving straight into the madness with unfiltered insight, political shade, and maybe a guest or two who aren't afraid to stir the pot. It’s been a wild week—pull up, pour a drink, and let’s talk about it.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
What do you want to do tonight?

Speaker 2 (00:05):
The same thing we do every night Pinky, Try to take
over the world.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
All right, yo, let's get into it.
Try to take over the world.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
You're preaching freedom.
Try to take over the world.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
And bring this chaplain in the world.
Mr lanson, take over the worldon a sunday.
I had to run out real quick oneof my rappers needed me, so I
had to try to sneak off and beatthe intro, but I'm back though.

(00:46):
Welcome everyone to anotherSunday edition of Two Pogues.
It's your boy, kj Braley, andthe greatest chaplain in the
world, mr Lance O'Neill, and wehave quite an interesting
conversation.
This week it was a lot going on.
We got a lot to talk about.
Obviously, potus keeps usrocking and rolling, but
Congress, in their infinitewisdom, has also gave us a lot

(01:10):
to talk about.
So where in the realm ofpolitics, my dear colleague,
would you like to start?
This week we got Congress, wegot the Supreme Court that was
rocking and rolling this week,and we got POTUS obviously doing
POTUS things this week and wegot potus obviously doing potus
things well, I would say,dealer's choice.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
But the only one that I I I'm guessing we're both, uh
, read up on would be the scotuspushing it back.
Okay, so, great start.
Yes, let's, let's look at whatthe Trump administration is
doing in terms of broad strokes,right?
The Trump administration hassaid we are going to come in and

(01:53):
we are going to.
We have a, we have a mandateand we're going to do what we
think is absolutely necessary tofix this country.
After four years of Sleepy Joebeing asleep at the wheel, and
who signed the auto pen andthat's illegal and blah, okay,
well, what they've also done isthey said we are going to be,
we're going to push the limitsand we're going to be creative,

(02:15):
right?
So one of the first ones andthis is the one that happened
this week was using the aliensand sedition act to say we are
going to deport people who arein this country illegally, using
the Alien and Sedition Act.
The circuit court came out andsaid nope, you can't do that.
I believe it was the FifthCircuit Went to SCOTUS and

(02:37):
SCOTUS said hey, we're not goingto remove the injunction,
because the Fifth said, hey, youcannot use this.
It went to SCOTUS.
Scotus said well, it needs togo back to the Fifth, you need
to be more specific about this.
And they kicked it back to thecourt without removing the

(02:57):
injunction 7-2.
And you have a lot of peoplesaying that's a win for.
I'm not even sure who you'd sayit's a win for for the illegal
aliens, for the Democrats, forthe anti-Trump Trumpers?
I'm not sure.
But I'm not sure who the winnerthere is in that.
But Trump is not.

(03:17):
Trump doesn't win on that perse right.
And, of course, alito andThomas, right in line what I
figured they would do, they saidwell, hey, we're not.
Why are we doing this?
That's not what we're supposedto be doing.
You guys, you know, if youthink this is wrong, you should

(03:39):
remove the injunction and thenkick it back to the fifth.
Why are we not doing that?
So I do think it's interestingthat at the same time, you have
a lot of uh, maga or I don'tknow.
Should we call it everybody amagna or republicans.
I'm not even sure where we'reat in the country, because I
don't think every republican ismaga and I don't think every
maga is a republican either.
I know they're notconservatives but, they're

(03:59):
turning around and freaking out.
I'm like, should we let, oh,these women on the court?
I don't trust any of thesewomen because the three women
are liberal.
And then, uh, amy cohen, amybarrett cohen, or amy cohen
barrett, I always think it'scall me barrett I think it's
call me.
I am acb.
Um, was it a mistake?

(04:20):
Was it a mistake?
And I'm just like you guys,like, look, that's the type of
that is the type of thing thatthe new york times it's just
like oh, we love it.
All the republicans, they'reeating their own.
We don't even have to go afterthem.
So I think this.
But then you and I have talkedabout this now you have the

(04:43):
question and greg easterbrook,we are talked about this.
Now.
You have the question and GregEasterbrook will talk about this
.
At what point does Trump sayyou know what?
I think you're wrong and I'mgoing to ignore not the Supreme
Court because, remember, it'snot the Supreme Court that ruled
, it's the Fifth Circuit.

Speaker 3 (05:02):
He kicked it back down to the Fifth.

Speaker 4 (05:03):
They kicked it back down to the Fifth.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
And so that's another argument.
Trump and Trump's lawyer, theWhite House, the administration
lawyers are also saying, hey, wewant, and I.
This is really weird, becausenormally this is on what's
called the shadow docket, whichis not the normal stuff.
It's the stuff that comes upand normally it's not something
that is even argued.
It's the stuff that comes upand normally it's not something

(05:27):
that is even argued.
It's a paper.
Hey, because this is important,give it to us.
It's the file we're going touse, the secret docket.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
Or not?
The secret, the non-competitivedocket?
Yeah, we write it down, we sendout our ruling and then you let
it go.
Like any other administration,this is not a big deal.
Like they rule it, you'll get anewsflash or a beaker at the
bottom and then it rocks.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
And there's and there's shadow docket.
There's shadow docket, that'snot, it's not a special thing,
it's something they normally do.
But this time what they did isthey said well, we are going to
take up the shadow docket casein terms of these injunctions,
because you and I have talkedabout this.
The Trump administration issaying should a random federal

(06:07):
judge, at any level, it could bea.
I think the example we justwould commonly use is the rando
federal judge in Montana.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Montana.
Yeah, just pick a state Right.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
Some tiny little, you know small population state.
So somebody out of BillingsMontana, the federal judge out
of Billings Montana, says I ambarring the United States
government from doing whatever X, y, z.
So the Trump administration iscoming in and going hey, we
think that's an abuse of power.
Sure, supreme Court, we needyou to really rule on this.

(06:48):
What power does the federalbench have?
Do they have this brought?
Because to me and this is not aTrump, this is not a brand new
thing, I've thought this now fora couple of decades.
New thing I've thought this nowfor a couple of decades.
I have thought that thejudiciary has become basically

(07:10):
too powerful.
It was supposed to be thechecks and balances are supposed
to be here's the executive,here's the legislature, here's
the judicial.
Right now, I would say this Isay here's the executive, here's
the legislative, here's thejudiciary.
And, to be fair, the reason thelegislature is down so low is

(07:33):
because they suck, they're notdoing their job, they're not
claiming their power, they'renot doing what?

Speaker 3 (07:40):
I'll give you that.
But the judiciary branch is, Ithink they're doing exactly what
they're meant to do, like youknow, circuit judges ruling on
on administration issues.
Obviously it's not new Right.
We had the same issue goingback, as far as I can remember,
even in the 90s with with theClinton era, and those guys, the

(08:02):
new Dixie Crats, were doingthat thing.
But a couple of things Inoticed.
The baby SCOTUSs are moremoderate than even this
administration would haveimagined.
I think if they could do a redo,they probably would put more

(08:23):
principally aligned judges onthe court.
Yeah, I don't think.
Yeah, I don't think.
I think he's regretting.
I think he's kind of notnecessarily regretting, but he's
kind of looking sideways at hislast, especially the last two,
last three.
Maybe I can't remember who thethird one was, but Comey,

(08:43):
barrett and Kavanaugh.
He's kind of he's like man.
You know, I'm not sure Ienjoyed you.
I did want to play this clip.
We got a couple of clips we'regoing to play today, so I'm
going to see if I can get thisqueued up and then we'll go from
there.

Speaker 4 (08:57):
But I got to work though, but in this past weekend
, the actual Supreme Court usedits power to stop the Trump
administration from any such newdeportations under the same war
claims I just mentioned.
Court stepped in at the 11thhour and, as I mentioned, if you
follow all your alerts over theweekend, you might have heard
this, but I want to put it inthe full context for you.
Right now, the high courtblocking any more Trump

(09:19):
deportations under that powerand telling federal officials
not to remove any detainees fromthe US a rare overnight short
rule.
Some interpreting this as thehigh court now finding that its
patience is running thin, losingpatience with these type of
Trump ploys and actions whichwould, on their face, and now by

(09:44):
quite obvious laws and limitsthat are established not some
new tough question, but pastcourt precedents so I can agree
with him in the and I can agreewith him in the past court
presence.

Speaker 3 (09:56):
You know, I'm saying the, the, the scotus, trying to
maintain continuity becauseagain, the district judges are
there to to rule and thenthey're, I guess, the, the case,
the cases is twofold, right.
So trump, the trumpadministration is trying to say
man, how in the world can adistrict judge, basically a

(10:16):
regional, you know, municipality, tell, yeah, tell the nation
what they can and can't do?
And?
And the judges, from the judgesperspective, they like it
doesn't matter if I'm a cityjudge, if it's unconstitutional,
I have the.
I have not only the authoritybut the obligation to speak on
it.
So I understand it both ways.

(10:38):
I didn't like it when they didit to Obama and the and the
expansion of Obamacare.
I don't like it now, but I canat least.
I told you.
I told you some of my mostinteresting points of this
administration were going to bethe rulings, because this
administration is going to pushthe budding and I haven't been

(10:59):
disappointed so far in thisjudicial season.
It has been exactly what Ithought it would be, and I
continue to see the attacks onthe Reconstructionist Amendment,
which I knew.
I mean, everyone who's beenfollowing the playbook knew that
that's what that was going tobe, and this is just another
case of it.

(11:19):
I think what's going to happenis the administration is going
to force the issue to a point towhere one of two things are
going to happen.
Is the administration is goingto force the issue to a point to
where one of two things aregoing to happen either scotus is
going to have to make anabsolute ruling or the
legislator is going to have tostep in and say, all right, this
is the law.
Um, because it's too much grayarea to play around in and as

(11:40):
long as you got that gray area,one thing this administration is
absolutely, you know,proficient at is finding that
gray area and swimming in it.
But yeah, I want to play,because there was another ruling
from the 8th district that thatkind of bothered me this week,
but it's in conjunction withthis.
I wanted to start here and thenwe can go into that next.

Speaker 1 (12:01):
So, before you do that, who was the reporter on
that?
Because without, or even.
Was that MSNBC, or was that CNN?

Speaker 3 (12:12):
You had it right.
The first time that was MSNBCyeah.

Speaker 1 (12:15):
And that's the thing when you have a reporter saying
here's what the news report is.
I mean, did you see what theSupreme Court did to President
Trump?
He made President Trump seemlike a clown.
Oh, look at what Scabbit didthey beat.
And you just go.
First of all, that's not whatthe ruling said.

(12:38):
The ruling said we are notremoving what the circuit court
said.
We are not removing what thecircuit court said.
We are going to kick it back tothe circuit court and leave the
injunction in place.
Yeah, and that's that's wherethe bias of journalism and msnbc
and, trust me, I'm sure, well,not sure.

(13:00):
I assume that the way Fox Newssaid it was, you know, supreme
Court did not do what PresidentTrump and they all know should
have.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
They labeled it as an attack on the administration,
which is interesting and I'mlike yeah of course that's yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
Now you say I like that.
Of course that's what they do.
So, to me that's why it's soimportant to me is to go in and
actually have that analysis,your own analysis.
Now, is it possible for us togo in, like you and I?
We could probably do an entireshow, we could probably pull up
the ruling and we could probablygo through the ruling and we'd

(13:41):
probably be wrong on about 80 ofwhat it said, because neither
of us are lawyers.
But, that said, there are partsof any scotus ruling like if
you read the first page, pageand a half, it's like a synopsis
of any research and you kind ofgo here's what it is, here's

(14:01):
what they say, and then you jumpto the very end and says here's
what that means as far aswhat's going to happen.
So here's what we think, here'swhy.
And then at the very bottomgoes so we're kicking it back to
the fifth so that they need todefine what this really means I
like, I like the, the, I likethe.

Speaker 3 (14:18):
It was a 7-2 ruling, but alito and and thomas kind of
surprised me.
They didn't say no, they.
But they didn't say I agreewith you at the same time.
Essentially what theirobjection was was like hey, are
we sure we want to leave theinjunction in place while the
district figures it out?
Right, he's like you know.

(14:40):
And then Thomas is, and I toldyou he walks that fine line.
I can't stand that dude, hegets on my nerves, man.
He walks that fine line, justlike.
So he's like.
His whole summary was like hey,I think I agree with you.
However, if we're not going totake it up fully, then we should
lift the injunction and let thedistrict figure it out, and if

(15:02):
they want to kick it up to us,then we'll explore it all the
way through.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
And that's exactly what Liberty is saying.
There is.
You know, liberty, I thinkyou're right on.
If the Supreme Court doesn'ttake up the case, it sometimes
means it's just not to thatlevel.
And that was one of thosethings a few weeks ago that the
Supreme Court took up and saidOK, we're going to, we're going
to have the emergency injunctionand we're going to say no

(15:29):
deportations.
Even though SCOTUS and Alitoboth came back and said what are
you doing?
We're not even following ourown rules and we're putting an
injunction in place without itbeing vetted, without it going
through the initial stages orthe appeals court, through the
initial stages or the appealscourt Now.

(15:50):
So somebody now can just filewith the Supreme Court and
bypass every all the otherlevels of of the court which are
supposed to be there.
And so the argument.
And I think that I think itwould have been interesting if
Alito and Thomas had basicallymade the point and said OK, well
, if you guys are going to ruleat 7-2 that we should have this
injunction in place without allthis other stuff, then I guess
we're just in charge ofeverything.

(16:11):
What's the next traffic ticket?
I would have made that you knowto be absurd.
You reducto ad absurdum and youmake it to the most ridiculous
point and the Supreme Courtgoing.
So if we're going to bypass allthis other stuff, if chaplain

(16:32):
o'neill gets a jaywalking ticketand he files for relief with
the sir, with the supreme court,should we take that up?
Why not, I mean, if we're justgoing to jump over everybody
else?
So I think scotus scotus in alot of ways are being viewed as
both savior and stopgap andfacilitator, and waterfall

(16:58):
depending on what side you're onand what the ruling is.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
I mean, it was the DOJ that fast-tracked it.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
Well, but the thing is it doesn't matter, right, it
doesn't matter who it is, itdoesn't matter if it's the Trump
administration saying, hey, weneed an emergency ruling, the
Supreme Court's going.
So this is where, again, I kindof look at the justices and I
like that Alito and Thomas aresaying hey.

(17:28):
I think Alito and Thomas aretrying to say this is the strike
zone.
It's either a ball or it's astrike.
This is the zone and the otherones are going.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
well, I mean sometimes you'll give a corner
over here.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Well, that one.
Are we talking about the middleof the knee or is it the bottom
of the knee for a strike?
Well, it was a check swing, soI think it was a strike.
Well, you know.
So I think Alito and Thomas arevery much like this is the
strike zone.
We don't call anything out ofthe strike zone period.

Speaker 3 (18:02):
For better or for worse.
You know how I feel about thosetwo and they are they're ruling
exactly how I thought theywould.
So it's just kind of like it'sone of those things.
I am more, I guess, impressedwith the baby scotuses than I
thought they would be.
I did not expect them to put upas much resistance, even with
with Kentucky Brown Jackson, upas much resistance Even with

(18:23):
Kentucky Brown Jackson.
Resistance to what?
Resistance to theadministration's advances.
Let's face it, alito and Thomasbullied the last session Last
year.
Alito and Thomas bullied theSCOTUS session.
I don't even know why they evensent up stuff to the SCOTUS

(18:45):
because in my opinion it wasn'ta fair ruling.
It wasn't.
It wasn't a fair SCOTUSdecision.
I think on a couple of this wasthe Biden's administration.
Biden was trying to get I can'tremember off the top of my head
.
It was a couple of them where Iwas like SCOTUS and Alito are

(19:08):
going to push it back.
Um, I think, well, a big one,the presidential immunity.
I know that was a huge.
That one did not.
That one was pushed through andI I mean, I get it, you know,
you get the my, you get themajority, you get the opinion, I
get it, you know, but it just I.
I am pleasantly surprised tosee the baby justices kind of
finding their own path, which iswhich is you know what you
would want from a bench.

(19:30):
You don't want everybody to belockstep.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Oh, oh sure, and I'll agree with you.
I think that they are thejustices.
I don't care if it's Alito andThomas or if it's Sotomayor and
whoever.
I want them to look at a case.
Look at what the Constitutionsays, debate it behind closed

(19:57):
doors, write an opinion that alayman can read and go oh okay,
this is why that a layman canread and go oh okay, this is why
.
And then the other side, ifthey are so inclined to say now
we think you're wrong, becausethat's, that's how it's supposed
to work, I I don't have anyproblem, like the presidential
immunity one.
I looked at that.

(20:17):
I thought it was so funny whenthe democrats were freaking out
about it, because I was like.
So your argument is that becauseof presidential immunity and
remember what it said was thatthe president in, in acting in
an official capacity, could notbe held to criminal standards

(20:40):
Right, Basically, that's what itwas.
Sure they were freaking out.
Well, that means Trump could goin and just assassinate, and
I'm sitting there going, youguys, Biden's still the
president.
If that's where you're goingwith it and you're so worried
about Trump, why doesn't Bidenjust assassinate?
Oh wait, no, oh wait.
Assassinate Trump.

(21:02):
Oh, I think the piece is I thinkwe didn't have time.
I think Biden was the one whoBiden.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
Biden was on vacation for like the last one.
All right, so let's get back tothe second part.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
You know where he was though he was, he was, he was
on the grassy knoll, he was theone who was telling the sniper.

Speaker 3 (21:17):
His body was there, but nobody was behind the wheel.
All right, all right, here wego.
So I'm going to play this realquick and we're going to talk
about it here we go AURN News.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
I'm Ebony McMorris.
A major blow to the VotingRights Act just landed, this
time courtesy of a federalappeals panel affecting seven
states across the Midwest.
In a controversial two to onedecision, judges from the Eighth
Circuit Court ruled privatecitizens can no longer bring
lawsuits to enforce Section 2 ofthe Voting Rights Act, a
cornerstone of civil rightslitigation against racial

(21:48):
discrimination at the polls.
Now, historically, theseprivate lawsuits accounted for
hundreds of critical votingrights victories.
The latest ruling comes from acase involving North Dakota's
Native American voters whoserepresentation has vanished from
the state Senate after gop-ledredistricting.
Advocates argue the new linesystematically diluted native

(22:09):
voting strength, the chiefdissenting.
With the trump administrationpulling back justice department
enforcement efforts, questionsloom.
Who exactly will safeguardvoters now for aurnewscom?
I'm ebony McMorris.

Speaker 3 (22:24):
So a little bit of backstory on this case.
The Native Americans in NorthDakota was like hey, this
gerrymandering has gotten out ofcontrol.
They picked them, picked themand cut up the districts to
where we literally have norepresentation.
No, say so, no matter how wevote, it's going to be, you know

(22:44):
, it's going to be arepresentation against our I
guess, against our beliefs, ourvalues, right, no different than
everything that's happening inother states.
Like we've had the discussionbefore about what's going on in
Georgia and the redistricting, Ithink this case is going to go

(23:05):
into the Supreme Court.
It has to because that rulingaffected the seven or eight
states in the eighth district.
They got another one coming outof the fifth district in the
South that's coming up SCOTUS is.
They're going to be busy man.
They have a limited document.

(23:27):
They're going to be some busy,busy individuals because that
voting thing is going to be.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
What's your?

Speaker 3 (23:34):
thought man.

Speaker 1 (23:35):
First, there's no such thing as a limit to the
Supreme Court.
They can take up any case theywant.
It's not like they say hey,we're only going to take 15
cases, case they want, right.
It's not like we can.
We're only going to take 15cases.
If they want to take onehundred and fifty or fifteen
hundred, they can.
But as as far as I look at itlike this, if anybody thinks

(23:59):
gerrymandering is a Republican,republican thing and nobody else
does it, go look at whatChicago looks like, go look at
what Illinois.
The Democrats do it just asmuch as the Republicans do,
right?
I think the interesting thingabout that, what the state said,
or what the news report said,was that individual voters can

(24:24):
no longer individual rightVoters can no longer bring up
the lawsuit.
I'm curious how that would work, because I think that that's
where the unconstitutionalitycomes in.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, it can be.
So they were talking aboutSection two of the 14th
Amendment where you had a rightto if anything was like.
So if I feel like my votingrights were being discriminated
against, I don't have to gothrough anybody else.
I can file a case on behalf ofme.
And the courts have to hear Nowthey're saying you have to go

(25:01):
through the DOJ of the state.
Now they're saying you have togo through the DOJ of the state
and then the state has toapprove it before you can even
file a case, which I think atthat point SCOTUS is going to
say no, no, no, we can't do that.
And they got I mean they got apretty, pretty valid point.
But I mean in terms ofgerrymandering, unless you're
doing a complete reform ofgovernment, you're not, you're

(25:24):
not gonna stop it right, becauseevery I mean these are 10, 15
year plans you know to to censusreports and and adjusting, it's
just, it's too much murky todirect it, I think so the way
utah is broken up is basicallysalt lake city does not have its
own um right.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
Salt Lake is broken up into parts of the other four
districts.
One of the reasons that is isbecause Salt Lake is turning
into Austin.
It's turning into a little bluedot in the middle of a red seat
.
And the Republicans.
It's still dominated byRepublicans.
I think it's something like70-30, right?
So if you're a Republican andyou're seeing that people in

(26:06):
Salt Lake City are coming outand not just voting Democrat but
pretty far left, I would argueSalt Lake City is legitimately
going cuckoo as far as lefty,like Berkeley style.
The last time I went there Isaw more pride flags than I've
seen than I saw when I was inSan Francisco.

(26:29):
Right now, virtual signalingcomes into play and all that
stuff.
But if I'm a Republican or I'mrunning the Republican state or
I'm whoever, I'm going, why inthe world do I want to change
the districting to make it quoteunquote more fair and
potentially lose seats inCongress to my rival party, when

(26:52):
I know that California does itto make sure that the people in
Orange County or in Fresno orthe people in Oregon who do it
for Portland and the east sideof the state against the west
side of the state or Washington?
You know it happens.
And so if I'm in Utah, I'm notgoing to bend over backwards or
even lose any sleep If.

(27:13):
If I can keep all four seats asa Republican, keep them red,
why wouldn't I?
Because I know the same thingis happening in every other
state, just depending on youknow where they lean.
We've seen a movement ineastern oregon.
They, eastern oregon, wants tobreak away.

(27:33):
Eastern oregon, easternwashington and parts of northern
california want to break awayfrom the rest of those states.
Because the same argumentthey're saying it doesn't matter
if I go in, how I go in to vote, if I live in oregon, it's
whatever.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
Portland, yeah, it's gonna be blue, it's gonna be so.

Speaker 1 (27:52):
So where's my representation?
And so do I think it's gonna goanywhere, I don't know.
I again, the question to me ishow that was worded.
Was that an individual citizendoesn't have the right to bring
it.
Okay, my guess is, supremecourts, if it, if it goes to
scotus, they're gonna say, thenwhat's the relief?

(28:12):
Because if an individual orhere's the other part of it if
the legislature does its job andsays an individual, absolutely,
you know, we're going to passthe law that says any individual
can make that challenge or, uh,basically turn it into some
part of a class action, whateverthe limit is, you know,

(28:35):
whatever the number, you have tohave x number of people that
are signed on to the lawsuit tomake it valid, and then it has
to be heard.
I'm sure there's relief.
But this is part of the problemis at what point we can sit
here and say, well, scotus, orwhatever, but two to one, is it
going to be?

(28:55):
Is SCOTUS going to take it upand be 5-4?
Is it going to be 9-0?
I mean, this is one of thosethat they could also turn around
and say, while we are notstriking down the ruling itself,
we are striking down the verynarrow part of it that says

(29:16):
because my guess is, the rulingis much broader than just that
one little yes, I mean.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
So the focus, yeah, the focus on that one part on,
on the constitutionality of it.
But the ruling, the rulingbasically says all right, cool,
hey man, if you want to do thisor whatever, if you want to, if
you want to challenge our, ourredistrict, redistricting, you
have to present your case beforethe doj, and the DOJ has to go
basically present it on yourbehalf.

(29:49):
You can't just go in your home,which is, and that, that, I
think, is where they are goingto fail.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
I'll tell you right now I'm against that because
it's another level ofbureaucracy.
I'm against bureaucracy.
I think one of the death knellsof this country is the red tape
that's involved in everything.
Look, I think that, if you canconvince, but I also think
there's a way to fix a lot ofthis stuff right.
So I think Congress should passa law that says and I don't

(30:20):
know what, maybe they do it,maybe they already have this.
And I don't know what, maybethey do it, maybe they already
have this.
But if you file a frivolouslawsuit and whatever judge hears
it says this is absolutelyfrivolous, you can be fined.
Something fair.
I mean, I don't care if it's$500 or $1,000 or you know, or a

(30:41):
big for a big law firm, youknow, if you take this up,
because we both know there arelaw firms that you know
ambulance chasers that go in.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
Yeah, sure.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
Because part of the problem is especially lawyers
and accidents, one of thereasons that you have so many of
these billboards.
Okay, so I'm driving along,somebody in front of me cuts me
off and I and I hit the back oftheir car.
Okay, well, I rear-ended them,even though they cut in front of

(31:12):
me.
I even have it on camera, right.
But I slam it and they sue meand they're oh, I've got a neck
injury, back injury, da-da-da-da.
My insurance company is going tolook at that and they're going
to say my insurance company isgoing to look at that and
they're going to say they'resuing you for $15,000 for loss
of work, for their car and fortheir injury.

(31:32):
If we go to court, it's goingto cost us $20,000 to $30,000
just for a summary judgment,which is going to the judge and
say judge, please throw this out.
I don't know why it costs thatmuch, but it does right.
So the insurance company isgoing to turn around and go.
You know what?
We'll just pay $15,000.
It's easier to do that.
When I worked in insurance manymoons ago, we insured high-risk

(31:58):
places like taxis in New Yorkand Philadelphia, things like
that, right.
So we would have this happen.
One of our insured taxi cabsrear-ended a bus in Philadelphia
.
Do you know how many peoplewere on the bus when it got hit?
About three, maybe four, Ithink they counted.
You know how many people filed?
You know how many people filedinsurance claims?

Speaker 3 (32:21):
How many Like 60.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
It was like 60.
Like when it hit.
People jumped on their cameras,people jumped onto the bus and
it's oh, wait for the police.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
That's a free check, yeah, man.

Speaker 1 (32:38):
Yeah, and that's again.
I would love to see a law thatsays, basically, if there's a
frivolous lawsuit that you couldbe Liberty, I won't say I don't
know if they're Dems orRepublican.
I will say this is in downtownPhiladelphia, so from what we

(33:00):
saw on the camera, it was a bluedistrict.
From what we saw on the camera,it was a blue district.
Yeah, it was Well, come onLiberty.
We're being racial here.
They looked more like KJ than me, but I will also say this there
were some people that lookedlike me that jumped on the bus

(33:21):
too.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
It's not, that is more socioeconomic than it is.
Yeah, I haven't seen anybodyturn down a free check
opportunity Black, white, purpleor green.
All right, Are you ready, sir?
Here we go.
And for my next trick, Medicaid.
Listen so for months and monthsand months, and even before the
election cycle.
Right, the Republicansstaunching like we talked about

(33:44):
it.
We talked about.
No, I hate, just I hate, man.
Listen you about to get me on acompletely different brand.

Speaker 1 (33:52):
Go read the last one, go watch the last episode yeah,
past episodes about your Thomas.

Speaker 3 (33:56):
So the big beautiful bill is struggling because more
and more information are comingout about the cuts to Medicaid,
because more and moreinformation are coming out about
the cuts to Medicaid, which wenow know is going to affect
predominantly red districts morethan it's going to affect blue
districts.
So you're starting to see a lotmore Republican opposition to

(34:20):
the bill.
Yeah, mostly because one,there's a lot of spending that
they weren't anticipating.
Um, a lot of, yeah, I thinkspending was going up four to
six trillion dollars at the lastreport, which, you know,
traditional conservatives arelike no, no, no, we don't.
You got to cut that out, wecan't, we can't it wasn't four

(34:42):
to trillion annually, wasn't it?

Speaker 1 (34:44):
No, not annually Over the budget.

Speaker 3 (34:45):
I think it's 10 years , they said.
And then the cuts to Medicaidwere just too massive.
I can't remember the Republicanrepresentative's name, but he
went on a media tour tobasically talk about how this

(35:06):
bill isn't in the interest ofyou know the people.
And I guess my question is didthey just now read the bill?
So there was a report came outwhere a lot of Republicans are
like oh well, we didn't.
You know, when we first readthe bill, we didn't know it was
going to be this much spendingadded to the bill and we didn't
know the cuts were going to bethis expansive.

(35:27):
So, as reporters on both sidesconservative outlets and liberal
outlets are starting to askrepresentatives All right, so
bottom line, we see the bill, wesee the cuts.
Are you voting for us?
Yes, no, you're starting to seemore representatives kind of
come out of like you know whatwe're going to have to
renegotiate it.
I think it failed once or twicelast week.

(35:49):
They have a vote tonight or ameeting tonight.
The House representative leaderis having a meeting with
everyone tonight to hash thisthing through.
What are your thoughts, man?
That Medicaid is a hard pill toswallow, but they can't find
the money anywhere else.

Speaker 1 (36:13):
I think that part of the problem with the federal
government is nobody wants tocut anything, because then they
are going to lose the nextelection.
Well, yeah, it doesn't matterif it makes sense or not.

(36:36):
Broadways and abuse oh, wecan't have Doge, we can't.
Doge is ruining the federalworkforce.
And we can't cut the federalworkforce by 15%, because then
it will make the irs unable todo the audits that it's supposed
to do.
And then, well, we can't adjustsocial security because, well,

(36:58):
that's what people have paidinto and so they deserve that
money.
And so if you start peoplemessing with people's social
security, well, and you can andyou can't
mess with the Fed because, well,you know the Federal Reserve,
it's an independent thing and soif you actually go in and try
to audit the Fed, well, that'sbeyond the purview of the
federal government because,realistically, the Fed is not a

(37:21):
federal agency.
So if you want to go in and dothat, sorry, the Fed's not going
to open it.
So it's always something right,and it used to be that an
increase in the federal deficitwas seen as a bad thing.
When the Reagan numbers went upso Jimmy Carter, and the high

(37:44):
levels of inflation during the70s, late 70s, and the gas, the
economic issues with gas, withOPEC, all that stuff, that was a
big deal Reagan came along andsaid, ok, basically, we need to
fix this, the spending is goingto go up, we're going to
outspend because we need to have, you know, the military needs

(38:05):
to be strong because of the ColdWar, the Berlin Wall fell and
then.
But again, once the spendinggoes up, it never goes down.
So even when the federal budgetwas balanced under Clinton, it
was like, well, yeah, it wasbalanced because of all the
internet.
Boom, I remember there was oneI'm trying to remember what it

(38:26):
was called but there was a dotcom that had a website and that
was it.
And it was like Coop, likeCoopcom, something like that,
and it was trading on the NewYork Stock Exchange for $4 a
share.
Jesus, coopcom made nothing,had nothing, traded nothing,

(38:46):
manufactured nothing, providednothing.
It was literally a website witha name on it and that was it.
And they listed and it wasworthless.
So then the bubble popped.
So now it goes back down untilit gets bad enough that we take

(39:11):
it seriously that the federaldeficit actually matters.
It doesn't even matter.
It might have been GregEasterbrook and again, I know
friend of the show, gregEasterbrook, I think it was his
article he wrote and he saidbasically, if, if, this is if if
we're in a situation with afiat, fiat monetary system, that

(39:36):
it doesn't matter if the UnitedStates is three trillion in
debt, thirty five trillion indebt or three hundred trillion
in debt, because literally it'sjust a number and it doesn't
matter.
So I'm of the opinion that itmust not matter.

Speaker 3 (40:01):
Moody's did downgrade the credit rating.
So I mean there's that creditrating.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
It went from AAA to AA1, which basically means it's
slightly, tiny bit moredifficult for the United States
government to borrow money.
You know what that also means?
Nothing, because the UnitedStates, if it wants to borrow
money, it will.
Again from the federal bank.

(40:28):
Do you think the European banksare going to be like well, we
better not lend money.
It's ridiculous, it's allsilliness.
So, unless you're going to makereal cuts and you're going to
go through austerity which Ibelieve is going to happen,
maybe in my lifetime, maybe nearthe end of my lifetime the

(40:49):
United States is going to gothrough a Greece level early
2000s of austerity.
Austerity is when you have totighten the belt and you have to
say we have to cut back orwe're going to literally default
.
I think that is when, to me, ifyou're going to have a second
civil war, that's where it'sgoing to come from.
If you're going to have asecond civil war, that's where
it's going to come from.
You're going to see people onsocial security, on Medicare, on

(41:14):
food stamps, on all thesethings.
The people that are really lookat the federal government as
not as a safety net, but as aprimary provider, primary
provider.
If you're going to cut back myfood stamps from $1,000 every

(41:38):
month to $700 a month, f thatI'm going to just go in and
break the windows and steal whatI got to steal and do what I
got to do.
That's where I think it's goingto happen and at that point
what comes of it, I don't know.
I think that's where the realthreat of it I don't want to say

(42:00):
an economic collapse Cause Idon't.
I don't think that's what willhappen, but I do think that it's
going to make the BLM riotslook fairly dangerous, like
Amherst Owl, yeah, and I thinkthat, while it still will be

(42:20):
mostly urban and the reason Isay mostly urban is just because
of the concentration of people.
And the reason I say mostlyurban is just because of the
concentration of people Because,like, realistically, if you're
on full stamps and you live outin Jasper, alabama, what are you
going to do?
Are you going to go burn downlike the farmhouse next door?
And I love Jasper, but there'snot.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
No, those are potential.
I mean, in urban areas you havesmall pockets of food deserts,
right, and that's usually in theyou know, underprivileged areas
.
But in the rural areas you havehuge you know huge food deserts
, so it would affect them quitea whole.

(43:00):
So you couple that food andhere's why I think the
Republicans or the red team isin a bind, why I think the
Republicans or the red team isin a bind.
Right, the POTUS has said he'snot averse to taxing, you know,
making, you know hiring, thetech level for those who are
more well-off, yeah, which isstaunchly averse to what the

(43:23):
guys in Congress want to doright, because they don't want
to piss off this fund.

Speaker 1 (43:26):
Yeah, and then on the GOP.

Speaker 3 (43:27):
Yeah.
And then, on the lower end, youhave the actual people who vote
for him and saying well, yougot to find the money somewhere.
If you're going to pass thisbill, you got to find the money
somewhere.
And if you're not going toraise more money through taxes
and you're promising you know,you're promising to eradicate
overtime taxes and all theseother taxes, that money's got to

(43:47):
come from somewhere.
And you know, yeah.
And when you start talkingabout cutting and that's why I
say I love, I love Americans butwe are, as a society, we are
ignorant to the facts of thematter, right, because everybody
was down for cuts until yourealize the services that are
being cut.
You know what I mean.

(44:08):
So everybody was like yeah,yeah, cut Medicaid, cut Medicaid
, cut Medicaid.
Then they realized that, youknow, somewhere between 60 and
65 percent of their constituentsare on Medicaid, and then
they're like all right, well,hold on, maybe we acted too
hastily.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
So I'd be curious what district has 60 to 65% of
people on Medicaid?

Speaker 3 (44:28):
On Medicaid.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
I mean that is a huge number that would have to be
backwater West VirginiaAppalachian that has had no coal
or manufacturing happening inthe last 20 years.
I can't imagine that.

Speaker 3 (44:47):
All right, I mean, that's a huge number that is
that is a big number, but I'mgonna pull it up and we'll see.
See the times got realistically.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
Well, think about it like even 10 let's say it's 10,
10 percent of.

Speaker 3 (45:01):
I mean that's a big yeah that's pretty, pretty
significant too, though, right,right, yeah, I mean 10% of your
voting population is going to beput off by what you're doing.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Well, I mean, if you're looking at any district
in America, 10% swing.
If you go from a 60-40, excuseme, let's say 60-40 in Cook
County for Blue Team, right andfor whatever reason, the Dems do
something that pisses off 10 toswitch.
Well, now you're 50 50, so 10of the of of the voting

(45:34):
population.
Remember, people have toactually vote and if you go and
screw somebody over, what theythink is screwing over and
that's why.
But again, that's also why themedia covers it the way it does
now.

Speaker 3 (45:46):
Let me get this for you.
See if I can get that.
I don't know if you can seethat, can you see?

Speaker 1 (45:50):
that States with the most Medicaid recipients.
So from looking at that withoutbeing able to see it perfectly
well, new Mexico.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (46:01):
New Mexico.

Speaker 3 (46:01):
West Virginia, kentucky.
So you got what do you got?
33, 33 and a Kentucky.
So you got, what do you got?
33, 33 and a half.
So I was yeah, I was off, so 33and a half is yeah, I had it,
but still even okay.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
So that's actually kind of amazing.
A third of New Mexico is onMedicaid.
I mean that's, that's crazy.
A third of the entire stateneeds assistance.
That's crazy.
A third of the entire stateneeds assistance.
What is going on in New Mexicothat so many people are on
Medicare?
On Medicaid, I mean I don'tknow, it's not, I don't think

(46:39):
New Mexico's All that, you know,it's not like it's that old.
It's got to be something goingon.
Well, because Medicare andMedicaid you know it's people
that need Medicaid is basicallythe one that takes care of drug
prescriptions and doctor visitsand all that stuff, right?
So I mean, my guess is there'sa higher level of indigenous,

(46:59):
you know, native Americans inNew Mexico than some of the
other states.
But that wouldn't apply to,like, louisiana.
I mean, there's not more NativeAmericans in Louisiana than
Georgia or in Kentucky and WestVirginia.
Now, west Virginia and Kentuckyagain, you're probably talking
about the Appalachian that havelost all their manufacturing and

(47:20):
coal New York and California.

Speaker 3 (47:23):
they kind of balance each other out because they pay
in more taxes than they receivebenefits-wise anyway.
It's a couple of states likethat.
It's like Alaska, texas, alaskaTexas, california, new York.
Those are the plus states.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
Think of why Alaska's a great one.
Why does Alaska pay more intothe system than they take out?

Speaker 3 (47:52):
Well, the oil reserves.
The oil reserves, oil, right,yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 1 (47:56):
Why does Texas pay in more than their population?

Speaker 3 (47:59):
Well, yeah, of course , the oil reserves.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
Liquefied natural gas .
Right yeah.
Why does California pay in moreAgriculture it?

Speaker 3 (48:12):
used to be agriculture, now it's tech.
Well, yeah Well yeah, tech too,yeah, yeah yeah.
New York.
Why does New York pay more?
New York City, yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
I would say, yeah, yeah, tourism, maybe enterprise.
Well, yeah, I'm sure tourism toa degree, but it's it's.
It's the financial sector.
It's the financial sector thatthat you still have to have
certain taxes that go intooutright.
So, Right, and that's, andthat's fine.
I mean, that's why we're theUnited States of America.
That's one of the things thatalways has bothered me in this
whole idea of, well, red statesget more money from the blue

(48:45):
states than by.
Look, we're all in thistogether.
Like, isn't that the point ofof having a country that takes
care of everybody as needed?
My bigger problem is when we'retaking care of people that
don't need to be taken care of,if that makes sense.
Yeah, we were at dinner and wewere having we were just just a

(49:06):
little while ago and my daughtersaid something about one of her
friends and she said I'll betyou didn't know my friend
so-and-so is autistic.
And I went what, what are youtalking about?
And so we started going into itand I'm like, if she's autistic
, then everybody's autistic,right?
Then by that argument it's kindof like my argument against um,

(49:29):
two genders there's either.
There's only two choicesthere's either two genders, male
and female, or there is 7.2billion genders, because
everybody has their owndefinition of whatever their
gender, right?
So autism is the same thing.
Autism is to.
If you're going to say that,you can say everybody's on the

(49:49):
spectrum, but it goes like thisRight, the real outliers are the
ones that actually have realsignificant issues, but for the
most part most people are, let'ssay, normal, and I know people
get up to normal.
There is such a thing as normalright.
So the vast majority of peopleare normal, but we all have our

(50:13):
own quirks, we all have our but,and this started because my I
think one of my kids or my wifemight've said well, you're
autistic.
I'm like no, I'm not autistic,I'm smart.
I think about things, I'm quickon the ball.
I I'm not.
I don't have ADHD, I thinkthings quickly.
Now I'm getting to the pointwhere I'm worried a little bit

(50:34):
about my cognitive, simplybecause I'm older and I lose
words and I'm not able toexpress myself in the same way
I'd like to or have been able toin the past.
But that's age.

Speaker 3 (50:43):
We've seen.
We've seen that come out thisweek right, we've seen.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
We've seen that this week, right, well, I guarantee
you, if I went through testing,if, if 12 year old I'll probably
be younger than that right, ifthey took eight year old lance
and put him into testing, 100would have been labeled adhd and
or autistic.
Because, because I, just Iwould do stuff.
I had my.
My teachers were like, oh, thiskid won't sit still, all he

(51:12):
does is talk.
Yeah, because I would finishthe homework that was supposed
to.
Here's, here's the instructionfor the class.
Now I'm going to give you thehomework, so you have the next
30 minutes to work on yourhomework and whatever isn't
finished you take home ashomework.
I'd be done with the homeworkin literally five minutes.
So then, what do you do whenyou're done with all the
homework?
You start talking and you saywhat else can I do?

(51:34):
What else can I do?
Right, and?
And?
Yeah, I probably would havebeen put on meds.
I hope my, my parents wouldn'thave put me on meds.
Um and and now.
Oh my gosh, can you imagine now, eight-year-old Lance?
Now, give him an iPad on top ofeverything else, with TV shows

(51:55):
and little snippets of theinterwebs that are all based on?
You can't watch this for longerthan 60 seconds before you lose
interest.
You lose interest, kj and Iwould.
Kj cuts these little snippets.
He keeps them under a minutebecause we want people to see
them, because we know by thealgorithm people will watch them

(52:16):
for more than a minute.
So are we contributing to ADHD?
Sure why, because that's theonly reason people will watch it
.
That's a good clip.
There's a good clip for youthat works.
But to take it full circle, togo back to, you know, welfare
and Medicare and Medicaid andall that stuff, I think the only

(52:36):
there is one way to get thecountry out of debt and to kind
of fix what's going on, andhonestly it's.
It's a.
It starts with electricity andstarts with fuel.
And if you go in and the UnitedStates decides that we are
going to go all in on petroleumand on fossil fuels along with

(53:03):
nuclear, that we become a majorplayer in the export, especially
of oil, over the next 30 to 50years.
That's how it happens.
The reason Saudi Arabia andQatar and these countries have
all the money is because of theoil.
There is more oil in the UnitedStates and natural gas than

(53:26):
there is in Saudi Arabia andQatar in the Middle East, but
for us it's all up in.
It's either A up in Alaska,it's in oil shale, which is
harder to process, or it's offthe coast.
Do you remember when the Horizonrig blew up and it was such a
big deal?
The reason it was so hard tofix was because the

(53:47):
environmentalists had said youcannot drill this close to the
shoreline.
If that drill and they didn'tneed to remember they will be
blood.
Right, there will be blood.
It says your field is over hereand I've got my straw.
I drink your milkshake, I drinkit up.
Milkshake, I'd drink it up.

(54:15):
The Deepwater Horizon didn'tneed to be built 50 miles off
the coast and 30 miles deep, orwhatever the numbers were.
It could have been done rightby the shore and then if it had
popped, it would have been likeoh crap, turn it off, let's get
it fixed.
It would have been a minorissue.
It would have probably dumped afew thousand, maybe 10,000
gallons, but instead it was.
Although tin hat time, I'mgoing to make a major detour on

(54:40):
this one.
Do you remember how they weresaying that the Deepwater
Horizon was spilling tens ofthousands of gallons every
single day into the ocean?
and it was all washing up on thebeaches, all there, and it was
going to be an ecologicaldisaster worse than we've ever

(55:01):
seen in the history of the worldand all the beaches were going
to be ruined.
Do you remember ever seeingbeaches that were actually
covered in oil?
I remember little patches.

Speaker 3 (55:15):
To be fair, I wasn't really interested at that time
so I couldn't tell you I was.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah, that was a huge deal, but.
I never understood, like Inever saw the outcome, and so I
don't know, and I'm sure peoplewill go back and go no, no,
you're completely wrong, you'recrazy, maybe so, but I don't
remember seeing the effects ofthe deep water horizon, the way
that because, again, this wassomething that was supposed to

(55:40):
be just one of the biggestecological disasters.
And that's one of the reasonsthey say we can't, you can't
drill here.
You can't drill there, anwar.
You can't drill in Anwarprovince because it's a
spectacular place that is themost pristine part of the world.
It's also a part of the worldthat less than 0.00001% of

(56:01):
people will ever see.
It's one of the most remote,difficult places to get to,
right?
Yeah, so until we get seriousabout drilling and using that
oil, because it's not just aboutfuel.
Kj, what did you just pick up?
You just took a drink out of it, right?
Sure how much petroleum, howmany petroleum products were

(56:24):
used in this cup.
This cup cannot be made withoutfossil fuels.
My glasses cannot be madewithout fossil fuels.
My phone, this shirt, much ofour food can't be made without
fossil fuels.
So, to me, what I would love tosee as an American, I would

(56:51):
love to see an energy policythat says we are going to
dominate the world when it comesto energy, whether it's nuclear
power or whether it's liquefiednatural gas or other fossil
fuels, petroleum oil.

Speaker 3 (57:11):
I am definitely all for nuclear.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
And me too, and until we do that, this is always
going to be the sort of Damocleshanging over our head going
when's it going to break?
When are we going to have allthese financial issues?
When is the budget going to getus?
But instead we kick it down theroad because environmentalists
are dirtbags flat out.

(57:35):
The environmentalist is a scam,the people that do
environmental studies.
They don't want anything to bebuilt, they want to be able to
keep a job.
And so what do they do?
Hey, we have to have anenvironmental impact study done
on this piece of property.
Somebody wants to build anapartment building that would

(57:56):
provide housing, right?
Oh, now we have to have anenvironmental impact study and
that environmental impact studyhas to be paid for.
So now the government has to payfor the environmental impact
study, or the private citizenhas to.
And then the environmentalimpact guy goes well, you know,
this doesn't meet theenvironmental impact?
Ooh, it doesn't.
It doesn't meet the rules ofthe EPA or whatever federal

(58:18):
we've put in place.
And so then the builder goesokay, well, what do we need?
And they go, you just didn'tpass.
I mean, here's some of theproblems with it.
If you're in the military, it'slike the S1.
Okay, here, this memo's wrong.
Well, what's wrong with it?
Well, we circle, what's wrongwith it?
And then you turn it in asecond time and they go nope,
this paragraph needs to bechanged.
You're in the wrong font.
Why didn't you tell me that thefirst time?

(58:40):
Sorry, go fix it.
Third time, well, okay, andthey go.

Speaker 3 (58:45):
sorry, your paragraph four can't be done now, well,
to be fair, to be fair,environmental studies have kind
of predicted some, some badstuff, like what was the, the
pipeline that ran through fromfrom the gulf to canada, and the
environment.
And yeah, the environmentalimpact study was like, hey, this

(59:07):
is gonna leak because it'srunning across the fault line
and when it does, it's gonnaspill over everything.
And then it was completelydismissed.
As liberal, you knowsensationalism and yada, yada,
yada, lo and behold, the faultslipped and then the pipe
cracked and then everybody wasleft saying, oh, if only we knew
.
But I mean, so there is.

(59:27):
I mean there are mean, butthere's corruption.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
I assume you're talking about a different
pipeline Keystone.
Keystone was never finished.

Speaker 3 (59:36):
Was it Keystone?
Which one that popped?
Oh, we got to go.
Hey, so not, we got to go, butwe got to end.
Yep, all right.
So the guys that are followingus on CTR, we're about to hit
that one minute, one hour timelimit.
We will talk to you guys nextweek.
If you want to continue thediscussion, come hop over into
Facebook, instagram, youtube orTwitch.
Join us, because we're going tocontinue this and then I'm

(59:58):
going to pull this up.
All right, now that we are back, I got to go pull it up.
So I did post the informationfor the results of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
I didn't know.
It happened in 2010,.
Man, yeah, I was.
I was completely on acompletely different mission
back then.
But what was the oil spill?

(01:00:18):
Because the oil spill, I thinkit spilled in like the Native
Americans were bugging out aboutit spilling in there.

Speaker 1 (01:00:25):
It spilled in like the Native Americans were
bugging out about it spilling inthere Because, ok, so Keystone,
what it was going to do isgoing to take oil from Canada
down to Louisiana where it wasgoing to be refined, because
Canada basically has norefineries Right.
So this was going to cut downon the shipping costs and all
that stuff has no refineriesright.

(01:00:46):
So this was going to cut downon the shipping costs and all
that stuff.
Where the pipeline was going togo was going to go right
through a native one of thetribal areas and it was going to
go under the lake.
They were going to actuallybuild it under the lake, so
that's what they were worriedabout.

Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
Right, it did spill.
Yeah, it was Keystone thatspilled in October of 22.
It was never finished.
So how did it spill?
It wasn't.
It spilled since the 2022Kansas spill.
This spill released anestimated five hundred and

(01:01:25):
eighty eight thousand gallons ofcrude oil into a creek,
according to the EPA.
Additionally, a recent spill inApril of 2025 in North Dakota
resulted in an estimated 3,500barrels 147,000 gallons of oil
being released into anagricultural field Keystone.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
There are pipelines, but Keystone was never finished.
That's why.

Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
Yeah, I don't know, apparently it was, at least some
parts of it was because maybeyeah, it says the.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
Keystone was not going to be completed.

Speaker 3 (01:01:55):
Yeah, wiki, ap Pipeline Safety Trust.
Yeah, they're all reporting onit.
Rutgers reported on it.
The EPA the first bill was in22 in Kansas and then the second
one was in April of 2025.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
April of 25.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Last month.

Speaker 3 (01:02:20):
Yeah, april 14th, where they lost 147,000 gallons.

Speaker 1 (01:02:27):
That must be nothing.
Did you see anything in thenews?

Speaker 3 (01:02:30):
about that.
Well, I mean, given theadministration, probably.

Speaker 1 (01:02:36):
To be fair, I don't really watch the news.

Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
I'm going to say, given the sensationalism of the
administration, that probablyran across the screen as a blip
compared to the stuff that wasgoing on.

Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
It's definitely there Keystone Phase 1 was from
Hardesty Alberta to Steel City,nebraska, and eastward to Patoka
, illinois, completed in 2010.
Phase 2 was from Steel City,nebraska, to Cushing, oklahoma,

(01:03:09):
completed in February of 11.
Phase three, from CushingOklahoma to Port Arthur, texas,
was completed in January of 14.
The proposed phase four,keystone XL, which aimed to
create a more direct route fromHardesty Alberta to Stills City,
nebraska, was never completed.
It faced significant oppositionand was officially terminated

(01:03:30):
by TC Energy in June 2021, afterPresident Biden revoked a key
permit in January 2021.
OK, so it sounds like you hadKeystone going like this, and
then they wanted part of it togo like that yeah, that was the
part that got me OK.
So, and then they wanted partof it to go like that yeah, and
that was the part that got meOkay.
So I mean again, I look at alot of this stuff and go, okay,

(01:03:59):
it's probably easier to clean upa spill from a pipeline than it
is from an oil tanker, like howmuch?
Well, let's look how much didthe Exxon valve?
So you said the big one wasabout 600,000 gallons.
Is that what it was?

Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
Yeah, it was 588,000.
I wonder how much.
Well, you got Exxon Valdez, andthen the other one.
What was the other one?

Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
I remember Exxon Valdez.
I'm sure there's a few.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
That was one of the biggest ones.

Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
Yes, that was a huge one in Alaska.
I remember that one.
I think the captain Wasarrested.

Speaker 2 (01:04:31):
Wasn't he drunk?
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
Oh so deep water Spilled 206 million gallons of
oil.
Yeah, oh, I knew that was ahuge number and then Exxon
Valdez spilled 11 milliongallons, so deep water horizon
absolutely trumped everybodyokay so okay.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
So think about it like this though the the
pipelines.
One of them, one of the majorones that you just said was 35
000 gallons, yeah.
The other one was 500 000.
Those are big ones forpipelines, right?
Yes, one tanker lost 11 milliongallons, yeah.

(01:05:10):
So to me the pipeline's a waybetter plan and it's easier to
clean up.
If it breaks in land, it's indirt, it's easier to clean up.
Now I'm sure the argument wouldbe it can get into the
groundwater and all that stuff,sure, but my guess is any
rational person I shouldn't saythat because environmentalists

(01:05:34):
aren't rational.

Speaker 3 (01:05:37):
But here's the issue that you're going to have.
It's the same thing with thehighways, the highways, and then
when they put up all the towers, where are you going to put
them?
With the highways, and then thehighways, and then when they
put up all the, the uh, what'sit?
The?
The towers, right, where areyou gonna put them?
Yeah, where do you put them?
You don't put them in theaffluent neighborhoods because
they don't want to see them.
So now you're gonna run themstraight through the

(01:05:58):
underprivileged areas, right,and then you're gonna have to.
You don't want to acknowledgethe health effects that come
with it, right, like all it.
I'll give you an example of thepeople who were affected from
the cell tower, who got cancer.
Then the companies were like ohwell, it's not our fault, it's
not our fault because this iswhere they told us to put it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:21):
This stuff goes back for as long as you want to argue
, look at New York City.
The Long Island Expressway wasexplicitly used by the guy who
ran New York and was the guy whobasically engineered all of New
York, new York City.

Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
He had it planned out .

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
And then he went in to strong arm the rich people
and said hey, if you don'tdonate to this, this or this,
I'm going to put the Long IslandExpressway right through your
backyard.
And they went what do you need?
How much?
Okay done.
And so then he built it ontothe farmers and the farmers were
like no, no, no, you can't doit here.
And he was like yes, ma'am.

(01:07:02):
So it's always.
And that dude was a massiveDemocrat, so so it's not like
this is just a Republican.
This is always affluent versuspoor, and it's always been like
that through the history.
My guess is, when the pharaohcame in and said, hey, I want to
build the pyramids over here,the rich people were like, hey,

(01:07:27):
no, no, no, hey, hey, we, youknow, we, we do the trading in
this.
No, don't go over there.
And they were like oh well, waita minute, you don't this is our
farmland and the pharaoh wentyeah, too bad, that's where
we're gonna, because my, mybuddy, hepateth, that's where he
, you know I can't build it overthere because that's where his
trading barges are yep, so thatreminds me emperor's new groove.

Speaker 3 (01:07:44):
I want to put a water slide right there.

Speaker 1 (01:07:49):
I just need an answer .
Would you say?
These are the most beautifulhills?
Oh, and the light is a face.
All right, great, oh, is thatall you needed for it?
Yep, I just needed to work mynew vacation house with
Cuscotopia.
That is one of my favorite.
I love the Emperor's New Groove.
It is so good, especially likewait, how'd you beat us back

(01:08:14):
here?
Well, actually, there's noreason we should have beat you
back here.
It's totally flowing off, it'sperfect.
It's the best little insidejoke, like yeah it shouldn't
happen.

Speaker 3 (01:08:27):
That was probably one of the most underrated Disney
movies that they.
That movie was absolutelyhilarious.
All right, we got to keep goingWrong lever, All right.
So we talked about SupremeCourt.
We talked about.
What else did we talk about?
We talked about Medicaid.
Oh, this is a good one.

Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
Are you ready?
What do we want to do?
Should we just go for the90-minute mark?
Go another 20?

Speaker 3 (01:08:50):
minutes.
Yeah, let's knock that out.
We'll do this one and then I'llhit you with a surprise one at
the end.
So here we go.
So you know your boy had somesuccesses, right?
Let's call them that.
And or potential successes thedeals were were put on paper, so
we'll kind of see how that goes.

(01:09:10):
Once again, though, well, Imean just yeah, just not, not.
I mean I use that term loosely,you know, it's just one of
those things so it's like it'slike the effort.
Yeah, it's like all right.
So our boy trumpOTUS, ourrepresentative to the world, had
some wins.
I got a couple of clips andwe'll rock it from there, but

(01:09:36):
from my favorite news station.

Speaker 4 (01:09:40):
Historic four days.
The jobs and money coming intoour country has never been
anything like it Just amazingwhat they've done so one man's
hero is another man's villain,right?

Speaker 3 (01:10:01):
So let's talk about it here we go.

Speaker 4 (01:10:03):
Trump has an ongoing relationship with the
Saudi-backed golf tournament,which again uses government
money.
That is quite common in thatregion, but the question is
where does that money head If,like the jet, we are seeing a
veritable map of self-dealing,as the US government interests
your safety and security aroundthe world, our soldiers, et
cetera, is somehow mixed or evencomes second to all of these

(01:10:27):
business dealings.

Speaker 3 (01:10:28):
Trump has an ongoing so there you have it Two sides
of the coin.
One side is telling this ishistoric, you know potential
deals with trillions of dollarspossibly coming into the country
, and the other side, I wouldn'tsay two sides of the coin, I'll
just say two differentperspectives in reporting.
Right, because they're bothtrue.

(01:10:49):
They're both true, just dependson how you want to, I guess,
interpret the data you'rereceiving.
So what are your thoughts?

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
I think it's just that.
I think it's somewhere in themiddle.
I think that Saudi Arabia issaying I think it was Saudi that
said we're going to invest atrillion dollars in the United
States.
You see celebrities all thetime pledge.
I'm going to pledge $100,000 tothis, and then the charity

(01:11:20):
comes back and goes hey, wenever got that money.
Well, that's because it waspledged.
It's not donated, it's notgiven.
Wait a minute.

Speaker 3 (01:11:29):
Hold on Before you could go.
Our boy Trump did that on thecampaign trail.
He went into a restaurant for aphoto op and promised to pay
everybody's meal on camera, andwhen the camera took off, he
left and stiffed everybody withthe bill.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
Sure, it looks good, right, and so think about it
like this what was reported?
The clip of him.
it was probably the clip of himsaying I'm paying for
everybody's meal exactly andthey didn't follow up and it
wasn't like it wasn't thatPresident Trump today went into
Moe's Diner and he offered tobuy everybody's bill.

(01:12:09):
He then said this da, da, da,da da.
At the end of the bill, thefuture the Republican candidate
got on his bus and left.
However, we found that hedidn't pay for anything, and
then they go.
But then, of course, plausibledeniability, right, of course.
And this is what would havehappened.
President Trump, cnn reportingyesterday, when you went into

(01:12:31):
Moe's Diner, you offered to payeverybody's bill and you left
without paying anything.
What do you have to say to that?
Well, I'd say that my campaignobviously dropped the ball.
I said that, I mean, you don'tthink, you don't think I
actually have the credit card todo this.
The campaign Are you telling methe camp?
Oh, what?
Who am I going to fire?
It's always plausibledeniability, Right?

(01:12:52):
So, as far as, as far as, likeSaudi and all this goes like, I
mean, I think it's funny for CNN.

Speaker 3 (01:13:02):
Was that?
Cnn or MSNBC?
Was the?
That was, that was both.
So was fox fox with thegreatest, greatest deals ever,
and msnbc was like, yeah, well,we got business dealings
everywhere else, yeah, so.

Speaker 1 (01:13:11):
so I you know when the whole thing came out with,
uh, one of the deals was itsyria.
I think that that trump isrecognizing the president of
syria, who, uh, definitely haspast terror ties right, and he's
saying well, you know, we'vegot to.
They're the legitimategovernment now We've got to work
with them, we've got to try tocome to some sort of peace.

(01:13:33):
I believe I tweeted out that ifthat had been the Harris
administration doing that, the,you know, cnn and MSNBC would
have been bending over backwardssaying what a great foreign
policy it was.
So this is, this is the problemwith it.
Like I don't trust any of the ofthe Middle East states, I think

(01:13:55):
that they are all out forthemselves in a very different
way than because I've said thisbefore Every state is out for
themselves, right?
It doesn't matter if it'sBotswana and Indonesia and
Taiwan and Peru, right?
Each of those countries, nomatter what trade deal they do,

(01:14:18):
whatever treaties, whateverthey're doing, they want to win,
they want to have the bestoutcome of whatever they do, and
that's true of the UnitedStates, it's true of Saudi
Arabia and whatever.
I do have much more concernwith countries like Saudi Arabia
, qatar, turkey, countries thatare Muslim, because there is not

(01:14:44):
a real difference.
If you understand Islam, there'snot a big difference between
Islam and the government.
An Islamic government is Islam.
Islam is 18% religious and 82%way of life and government and

(01:15:04):
all that stuff.
So you have a very.
It's a very, very differentthing, and if you're not willing
to acknowledge it, you're justnot being honest.
And so for Trump to go in andsay, well, we're going to get
this from Saudi Arabia and thinkthat Saudi Arabia is going to
be the best partner.
Saudi Arabia has funded moreterrorism against the United
States than any other country.

(01:15:25):
Saudi Arabia has funded moreterrorism against the United
States than any other countrysince terrorism really started
with the Muslim Brotherhood inthe children, in the ways of

(01:15:46):
Islam, especially in traditionalIslam that pushes for jihad and
the evil of the West right, andso that's where you know, and
if you want to tell me thatthat's not what they're doing
anymore, okay, we can have thatdiscussion.
And if you're telling methey're not going to anymore,
but I look at somewhere likeSyria and Lebanon and go, you

(01:16:09):
know what, maybe the first stepis not to be rounding up
Christians in their churches andlighting the church on fire
with people inside.
That's a good start to get mefeeling better about your
country, and until then I don't,I'm not going to trust saudi
arabia anymore.
That's what's funny.
Is you know this whole thingabout I?

(01:16:29):
I saw something today about whywe're spending billions of
dollars bombing a place peoplecan't find on the map and he was
.
It was a new york times articletalking about yemen, and I'm
sitting there going.
Just because you can't find iton a map, mr new york times
writer, doesn't mean that Ican't.
And so ultimately if Trump goingin and doing deals with Saudi

(01:16:50):
Arabia and Syria and Qatar andwhatever other Middle East
country, if that lowers the riskof A United States being
involved in military action inthose Middle Eastern countries
and B that those Middle EasternI'm not even going to say Middle
Eastern, I'm going to flat outsay those Muslim countries

(01:17:15):
having an active goal ofdestroying and wiping out Israel
and creating a genocide ofIsrael, I'm all for it.
Do I think that's what'shappening?
No not really.
I think, once again, it allcomes down to showing themselves
and being in the best position.
Do I think Trump's doing itspecifically to put money in his
own pocket?
No, I think he just kind oflooks at it as that's a nice

(01:17:37):
byproduct of of greasing thewheels.
He looks at this as business.
I think Trump looks at it as, ifI go and do this deal with,
let's say, saudi Arabia, it'sgoing to be easier for Eric to
set up a deal where Trump Towersin Riyadh, and I think Trump

(01:18:03):
just looks at it as that's justa nice little coincidence that
that's what happens.
I'm not going to go in and do adeal in Saudi Arabia to get a
new tower in Riyadh, but if thatis the end result, well, cool,
great.
I want every person who isgoing to Mecca to stay at Trump

(01:18:29):
Tower, because during the seasonyou have somewhere like a
million visitors every day thatgo to the Hodge.
So if I can get all of thosepeople into Trump Towers or
Trump Hotels to pay and they'rethere then yeah.
Of course, all I'm doing isproviding a service.

Speaker 3 (01:18:52):
You don't see that as a conflict of interest?
I mean we crushed, but yeah,but we crushed.
Well, not we, but the mediacrushed Hunter Biden.
They destroyed Hunter Bidenthere but, now it's okay, I'm
gonna let you finish and I'lltell you why it's different the

(01:19:16):
business deal, like even in thefirst administration, with
ivanka trump being an officialmember of the the administration
and still making you know realestate deals.
I mean their net worth tripledduring the first administration.
Then you got all these otherbills.
I mean even to the point wherethey're using the meme coin to

(01:19:36):
have a dinner with the president.
Like none of that is concerned,like none of that bothers you,
like none of that, like oh no,oh no, no no.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
It's clear conflict of interest.
However, I will say this.
There's an old saying a fooland his money are soon parted.
If you want to go in and buy ameme coin based on trump, okay,
mean, there are people that wentin and and the Hoctaw girl did

(01:20:08):
a coin Right, and so people wentin and spent Thousands and tens
of thousand dollars and thenthe next day it crashed because
she dumped it all and said look,I just made three million
dollars.
It was legal, she could do it.
So if, if people want to go inand they want to stay at trump
towers or they want to do andthe reason here's why I believe

(01:20:30):
it's different than whathappened with hunter biden the
trump name and the trump brandwas around long before trump got
into politics and ran forpresident.
Right, you had Trump Towers,you had Trump Champagne, trump

(01:20:51):
University, and we're trying toset aside the fact that Trump
University got sued.

Speaker 4 (01:20:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
All that stuff, but the Trump brand it got into
politics.
So is it necessarily the samewhen it's like that business
just kept going while he waspresident?
Now then you're supposed likewhat's always happened is
allegedly it goes into the blindtrust and blah, blah, blah.
But we've also seen and we'vespoken at length about Nancy

(01:21:23):
Pelosi and other members ofCongress taking advantage
because there is no law againstit.
There is no law that says thepresident has to stop doing
their business dealings whilethey're in office.
So it's legal.
So again, this goes back to thelegislature should probably
pass some laws for futureconsideration, right, um, but as

(01:21:45):
far as, as far as conflict ofinterest, yes, should it happen?
No, not necessarily.
Is it as concerning as hunterbiden?
No, I think what hunter bidendid was a flat out pay to play.
That said, I don't think it wasany different than what the

(01:22:06):
clinton foundation did, hey waita minute, wait a minute, wait a
minute.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
You think the hunter biden issue was pay to play.
But trump's what trump is doing.
They're literally buying memecoins for the opportunity to
have dinner with the president.
But that's not pay to play, butwait, who's who's buying them,
the last three companies thatare based, the last three
companies who have the moststock in the meme coin are just
having to coincidentally be inthe countries that he just

(01:22:32):
visited.
So that's not even the leastbit.
You know eyebrow raising,that's just kind of you know.
Business as usual.

Speaker 1 (01:22:42):
Oh, that's well, it's absolutely buying access as
usual.
Oh, that's well, it'sabsolutely buying access.
And so the difference?
Personally, I think thedifference is when you're saying
here's the public, we are doingthis meme, anybody can buy it.
I'm not going to control whobuys it.
Very specifically, versus I'mgoing to go to Ukraine and I'm

(01:23:06):
on the board of a Ukraine energycompany that I have no
experience doing this and you'regoing to give me half a million
dollars a year because my nameis Hunter Biden.
By the way, 10% of that isgoing directly to my father and
if you need a meeting, I'm I'mconcerned with all of it.

(01:23:26):
It's the same thing, though theonly difference.
But the difference is again oneis above board and one was
sneaky as shit.
It's all 30.

Speaker 3 (01:23:42):
It's okay to rob a person as long as you
acknowledge and let them knowthat you're robbing them in
public as opposed to doing it inprivate.

Speaker 1 (01:23:50):
If you walk up and you say hey man, are you a fan
of Michael Jordan?
Michael Jordan is in arestaurant and I will tell you
where he is.
If you give me 50 bucks, you godude, I love Michael.
Jordan Cool, here's 50 bucks.
And you say he's in thatrestaurant right over there and

(01:24:13):
you go in and there's MichaelJordan, but you're not getting
near him because he's got hisbodyguard there, right.

Speaker 4 (01:24:23):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
And come out and go.
Hey, what the freak dude.
You told me Michael Jordan wasin there.

Speaker 4 (01:24:29):
Yeah, Is he?

Speaker 1 (01:24:30):
Yeah Well, I gave you 50 bucks for that.
Thank you, I appreciate that,but you said I could meet him.
I said he was in the restaurant.
You're the idiot who gave me 50bucks.
So there's a point where, again, if the Saudi Arabia let's say

(01:24:55):
the Saudi companies was anythingpromised, whoever bought the
most meme coin.

Speaker 3 (01:24:59):
what was promised if you bought the most meme coin?
To have a sit-down dinner withthe president.
Right Come dinner with thepresident.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
Right.
What is different than that?
Then saying, if you come tothis fundraiser for our, you
come to our fundraiser and it's10,000.
Actually it could be.
It's $5,000 a plate To come tothis fundraiser.

(01:25:25):
But if you go to our goldstandard for $50,000 a plate, we
only have five of those for$50,000 donation.
At this plate, you get to sitdown with Candidate X for 20
minutes.
You know how many of thoseplates get sold All five of them

(01:25:47):
.

Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
No, candidate X is absolutely different.
Depending blurring scales I gotyou.
But we are talking about thesitting president of the United
States advertising a dinner withhim for whoever invests the
most in his meme coin and we'resaying that's completely okay
because we know about it.

(01:26:07):
But Hunter Biden being put onthe board because of nepotism is
absolutely and objectivelyillegal and wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:26:16):
Well, it is objectively illegal and wrong.
And what I'm saying is, it'snot that the meme coin is okay,
I think it's shady as hell, butagain, that's why Congress needs
to come in and fix this crap.
It's all stupid, it's allridiculous.
Okay, let's back up a minute.
Let's go even further, let'sreally go back historically.

(01:26:42):
You or I, probably me more thanyou for historical reasons.

Speaker 3 (01:26:47):
Yeah, it depends on how far back we go in history,
how far back we go.

Speaker 1 (01:26:51):
I could have walked up to the White House during
Abraham Lincoln and knocked onthe door and said I would like
to set an appointment.
I would really like to speak toMr Lincoln, I would like five
minutes.
I drove, I got on my horse, Icame up here from Georgia and
I'm going to only be in town fora couple of days and I would

(01:27:13):
really like to speak with MrLincoln for five minutes.
Is there any way I can do that?
And the secretary maybe looksat the schedule?
Whoever, you know it's prettytough.
You know, maybe Mr Lincolncould fit in.
Could you be here Now?
You, if you go knock on thedoor during President, well,
first of all, you're not goingto be able to knock on the door

(01:27:35):
during President Lincoln's term.
I'd be out of touch and thenfast forward to Obama, and even
Obama, like you couldn't get upand knock on the door, you would
have been tackled right, right,anybody for to Obama, and even
Obama, like you couldn't get upand knock on the door, you would
have been tackled Right, youknow right.
So anybody, anybody.
But that's my point is it usedto be that you could go in and
you could actually have theseconversations with anybody.
So I would love, honestly, Iwould love a journalist to next

(01:28:00):
time President Trump is is doinga press conference to say to
him.
So, president Trump, I'm reallycurious if you could explain to
me.
Maybe Peter Doocy will do it, Idon't know.
He seems to like to stir thingsup and I like how he does it,
mr President, for four years orlonger.

(01:28:21):
So for four years or longer weheard that Hunter Biden was
getting payments from Ukraine tobe on the board, because, you
know, at that point Trump's likeoh yeah, let's go, let's nail
him, and.
And then in China, and he wasput on boards and there was
there was a lot of peoplebelieve some fairly serious

(01:28:45):
graft involved.
That was going to the formerpresident Biden.
And my question to you is canyou explain why that is not the
case with something like theTrump meme coin, when the
highest bidder for that is givendirect access to you, sir?
And how is that not pay to play?

(01:29:09):
If somebody gives you a certainamount of money, does that mean
you are going to sit down,regardless of who it is?
If it's a terrorist, if Hamashad come up, is affiliated with

(01:29:31):
the terrorists in Yemen, if Iranhad given $5 million to
purchase in meme coin orwhatever the number was, and you
were going to sit down withAhmed from Yemen, would that
have been okay?
How is that any different, sir?
I'd love for that question.
I think Trump would start goingtime's up.

(01:29:54):
I don't think we, yeah, hey, letme, let me get my callister out
here.

Speaker 3 (01:30:02):
Yeah, I can't answer.
My time's up.
I can't answer.

Speaker 1 (01:30:08):
That's a great Peter.
I really't answer.
My time's up, I can't answer.
That's a great Peter.
I really appreciate thatquestion and oh, oh oh, I'm
being told by the Secret Servicethat there's a bomb in the
building and we need to evacuateimmediately.

Speaker 3 (01:30:18):
So I got to go.
All right, man, that was fun.
We are at 90 minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
my brother let's go ahead and get to the final.
I want to hear what you weregoing to hit me with.

Speaker 3 (01:30:28):
We're going to talk about.
We're going to talk about theBiden cognitive decline, but
then the but.
Then Trump is kind of showingthe same symptoms that Biden did
at the beginning of his, of hisadministration.

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
I'm showing.
I'm showing the same symptoms.

Speaker 3 (01:30:46):
So well, it depends I don't know.
You got 15 minutes in you.
I know we on the screen, ohyeah, so here we go, all right.
So let's run through this realquick, all right.
So the book came out right andit talked about how, toward the
end of the administration, bidenwas just a shell of himself,
and we all saw it.

(01:31:06):
We know we were lied to.

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
We're talking about the Jake Tapper book.
Yeah, we know the true graft ofthis whole thing.

Speaker 3 (01:31:16):
Yeah, I mean, but anybody with two eyes kind of
saw that Biden he was likeeverybody's grandpa he had good
days and some not so good.
Yeah, and it happened.
But one of the things that cameup was talking about POTUS
showing the same signs.
They did a side by side withBiden in 2020 when he first got

(01:31:40):
in the office.
How it started, with justlittle minor slips and losing
you know, losing his thoughtprocess during speeches and that
sort of thing and then itprogressively got worse to
making up stories and events andstuff that he'd never been into
.
And they were showing a side byside of POTUS progressively
getting worse.
And they're saying this is wherethe new POTUS is now and he's

(01:32:03):
following a similar trajectory.
However, comma the, obviouslythe reporting is completely
different, so I wanted to bringthat to your attention and say
how do you feel about it,knowing that we're on a similar
trajectory?
It's just a different side ofthe coin.
I don't think the.
I think the Trumpadministration is going to do

(01:32:24):
the exact same thing that theBiden administration did they're
going to try to hide as much ofhis weaknesses as they can and
present him in a position ofstrength.
Let me see if I got it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:39):
You're right.
Here's what I will say.
This is not a new thing.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt wasbasically paralyzed from polio
as a child and was in awheelchair as an adult and as
president.

Speaker 3 (01:32:59):
About they dropped him up.

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
They dropped him and they dropped him up.
He was in a wheelchair about99.5% of the time that he was
president and the 0.1% that hewasn't.
They put braces on him while hewas giving speeches so he
looked like he was not in awheelchair.
Now that is not to say that acognitive decline is the same as

(01:33:22):
a physical decline, but Kennedyhad massive physical problems
that they did.
You know, reagan was startingto show decline at the end and
by the time he was out of officeI believe a year and a half by
the time he was out of officethat they went yeah, he's in
full-on Alzheimer's.

(01:33:43):
So you don't generally gofull-on Alzheimer's in a matter
of just a couple of weeks.

Speaker 4 (01:33:49):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:33:49):
It's generally a pretty good onset and I saw
something that said Trump rightnow is the same age as Biden was
when he at the same point Rightat the same point right.
So 120 days into the Trumppresidency and he's the same age

(01:34:10):
as Biden was 120 days in Iagree that the media will be
much more harsh towards anythingTrump says or does.
That may point towards mentaldecline.
I think that's obvious, justthe way the media works and the

(01:34:30):
way they are.
I think the Trumpadministration will, of course,
do the same thing that the Bidenadministration did.
I just think it's going to be alot harder for the Trump
administration to hide anyserious decline by Trump,
because A Trump doesn't seemlike the type of person who

(01:34:54):
allows himself to be handledright.
Trump is more that you stick amicrophone in Trump's face and
he's going to be like.
This is what I think.
I don't think you're going tosee the Easter Bunny anytime
soon coming over and wranglingPresident Trump.

(01:35:20):
Okay, decline.
I would hope.
I would hope that Trump'sfamily and the leaders of the
administration, such as the vicepresident, if they see the
decline that warrants seriouslike hey, no, kidding, this is

(01:35:45):
something we I would for theparty I would hope that they
would say we don't want to.
We're going to lose.
It doesn't matter who it is,we're going to lose in 2028 if
it looks like we're covering upTrump the way that the Dems
covered up Biden.
We need to learn from that.

(01:36:06):
So year up Biden, we need tolearn from that.
So year one we're going to,because remember it's early, so
the end of year one.
I think they need to go in anddo a no kidding like real, a
real honest cognitive assessment.
Okay, not the White House guy.

Speaker 3 (01:36:23):
I want I was going to say you know, yeah, you know,
you know his doctors are goingto do it.
He's the best.

Speaker 1 (01:36:30):
He's the best.
Yes, he's not.
He's not obese, he's perfectlyslim for his weight.
Ok, I want, like I want, themost hardcore leftist
psychologist there is.
I want them calling up oh, I'mdead serious, I want, I want
whoever the most vicious leftist, uh, clinical psychiatrist

(01:36:56):
there is, and for them to flythat person in, so it.
So if that person goes in andgoes you know, I think he's okay
, I don't know or if he goes,hey, this guy, forget the

(01:37:20):
politics, this guy islegitimately losing his
confidence Then the White Househas to take that seriously, and
I think that's the way to avoidhaving a Biden 2.0.
And you have to have thecabinet.
I think again, though, thedifference here is that Trump

(01:37:43):
loves the camera and thespotlight, and he is not going
to, I don't think, evencognitive decline, trump, I
don't think that changes yourpersonality, because you saw
times when Biden, angry Biden,came.
Joe Biden is a very angryperson, I don't care, you see it

(01:38:04):
.
Yeah, you saw Grandpa Biden.
You saw Grandpa Biden.

Speaker 3 (01:38:08):
You saw, grandpa?

Speaker 1 (01:38:09):
Joe quite a bit, but you've seen, but here's the
thing Go back to 1994 when hewas talking about the crime bill
.
Oh, these people, they're theones that are going to ruin our
country.
Grandpa Joe's been around.
Angry Joe's been around for along, long time.

Speaker 3 (01:38:29):
Well, to be fair.

Speaker 1 (01:38:32):
Some people speak by the cognitive decline.
I think you see things inpersonality that stay right.
Absolutely.
What I mean by that isnarcissistic spotlight.
Trump is going to stay aroundyeah, so absolutely, even if he
starts to decline and they'relike, hey, uh, come with me, mr

(01:38:54):
president.
He's gonna be like oh, hey,what's up man?
Do see hit me with your bestone what's up?
you know I'm huge, I got, I gotthe greatest.
I mean there's.
There's things that Trump doesthat are like are you?
Are you crazy, or are you crazylike a fox?
He's also 79 years old, is that?

(01:39:17):
Is that right, 79.
I've seen less mental declinein my 85 year old mother than I
saw in Biden, but I have.
But my mom has declined.
She's 85 years old, is notrunning arguably the most

(01:39:46):
pressure-filled position in theworld.
I'm not sure there is a moredifficult job than the president
of the United States of America, because if you're the king of
England, what are you doing Do?
you think King Charles is real.

(01:40:07):
He works as hard as he wantsand if he doesn't want to, he's
like I'll send somebody else,what do I care, I'll send one of
the princes, I'll send whoeverto go and cover.
Realistically, being in chargeof the UK is not nearly as
difficult as America.
Maybe the premier of China,President Xi, simply because of

(01:40:31):
the sheer numbers involved andthe pressure.
But at the same time, he's adictator to the point where he
can say you know, trump can't dothis.
Trump can't say you know what Idon't like how SCOTUS is ruled,
so why don't you all just goand arrest Sotomayor, or just

(01:40:55):
have her go on vacation, andwhoever and whoever right, he
can't go out and say those sevenjustices that just ruled
against me, I don't know aboutthem, I think they need to be
replaced.
So I'm going to replace them.
President Xi could do that.
Did you notice?

(01:41:15):
The founder of Alibabadisappeared for almost a year,
yeah, and he came back andsuddenly was singing all the
praises of China and how greatChina was.
What happened to that dude?
We all know.
Right, he went on vacation.
He went on vacation, yes, to alittle camp right next door to

(01:41:38):
the Muslims that are all upthere working on iPhones.
So Trump can't do that right.
Trump's got to deal with a lotof this.
So to have a 78, 79-year-oldindividual.
You saw I think you've seenevery president pretty much go

(01:41:58):
through this.
George Bush, when he came inoffice, looked very different
than eight years later.
Barack Obama looked verydifferent than different than
eight years later.
Barack Obama looked verydifferent than he did eight
years later.
Those guys, those weren't eightyears of getting a little bit
older, those were eight years ofthe most hardcore.
You know, when you see that 35year old person on the side of

(01:42:23):
the road that's holding up thesign and and they have they've
been addicted, they've lived onthe streets, they've struggled
their entire life.
Or you go to the gas station hey, can you, can you loan me five
bucks?
And you're like, how old areyou?
I'm 35.
You're like, oh my gosh, that'sthe hardest 35 I've ever seen.
And we, that's what thepresidency does to you.

(01:42:45):
The presidency ages you likenothing else.
And so if Trump and this is why, to me, the easy argument when
people criticize Trump for goinggolfing the Trump
administration should be likehey, if he doesn't, he's going

(01:43:08):
to be worn down you can say hegoes golfing every single day
and he's out there for threehours every single day, because
the other eight not even thatthree hours a day, because the
other 21 hours a day he is inthe toughest job in the world.

Speaker 3 (01:43:25):
Keep in mind that started with obama, with the
golfing and they, they haveright right and of course, but
yeah, I agree, it's like dude.
It's like dude, real leader ofthe free world.

Speaker 1 (01:43:35):
You deserve to have some time to unwind yeah, yeah
and and the whole thing withlike, um, you know, I I still
remember criticizing obama forstuff like he's flying to hawaii
and it's going to cost fivemillion dollars to fly him to
hawaii for for a week and thevacation.
And it's not the criticism offive million dollars, it's

(01:44:00):
because why?

Speaker 2 (01:44:00):
does it cost that much like?

Speaker 1 (01:44:02):
like we've talked about this parade.
Why is this, this military, thearmy, the army birthday?
They're talking about 50 to ahundred million dollars.
Why You're not paying thesoldiers that unless you're
saying, hey, every singlesoldier that is going to be
marked, that's part of their pay, they're getting paid either
way I mean they're.
They're on active duty manNational guard.

(01:44:23):
You're going to bring theNational Guard Guess what?
Anybody that participates atthat's reserved for National
Guard.
They're doing it for AT theywere going to be doing AT or
drill anyway, so it's not.
Yeah, so if Trump goes out, hegoes golfing.
It's the same thing that I usedto say about Bush, about W In

(01:44:47):
this term.
The president is in charge, buthe's not running everything.
I don't think there's a singleperson that can run the United
States.
You just can't do it.
He's got how many cabinetmembers?
And they all have deputy headcabinet members, and then they

(01:45:09):
all have senior officials underthem, and they all have senior
officials under them, and theyall have senior officials under
them, and then they all havejunior, and then they have staff
and blah, blah, blah, blah blah.
There's a reason.
There's what?
How many federal jobs?
I mean how many millions ofpeople are in federal jobs?
A lot Do I think there's toomany people in federal jobs.

(01:45:30):
Yes because I think thegovernment should GTFO just get
out of the way declines at thesame rate as President Biden,
then I will be the same personsaying that 20,.

(01:45:51):
Is it 24th or 25th?
Amendment 25th 25th 25th thatthe cabinet needs to gather, and
if they feel like he iscognitively impaired to the
point that he cannot be presentanymore, then they need to have

(01:46:11):
the, as we say in the Army, theintestinal fortitude to make the
right choice, will they?
Probably not?

Speaker 3 (01:46:22):
Of course not.
I think that's a perfect endingspot.

Speaker 4 (01:46:25):
We are good man you good.

Speaker 3 (01:46:28):
Oh, I'm always good.
Let's get it, man.
Same bedtime, same bed channelnext week.
We will talk to you guys later.

Speaker 1 (01:46:34):
The banner is up, who knows?

Speaker 3 (01:46:37):
That's the plan.
Talk to you, guys, we out.

Speaker 1 (01:46:43):
Chief man, what do you want to do tonight?

Speaker 2 (01:46:45):
The same thing we do every night.

Speaker 3 (01:46:47):
Pinky, Try to take over the world.
All right, yo let's get into it.
Try to take over the world.

Speaker 2 (01:46:58):
You're preaching freedom.
Try to take over the world ForAndrew.

Speaker 3 (01:47:05):
He's chaplain in the world.
Mr Lampanil, take over theworld.