April 25, 2026 • 46 mins
ERIC EPSTEIN AND MILLENNIAL BRIAN DISCUSS THE WAR IN IRAN, LEADERSHIP OF THE MILITARY, HEGSETH IN THE SWAMP, KEVIN WARSH BEFORE THE SENATE AND ANOTHER EDITION OF "ASK BRIAN. "
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is Thundertome with Rock the Capital.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Now your hosts Eric Epstein and Millennial Brian Well. Wet, soggy, cold,
ugly Saturday, and it's the twenty fifth of April. I
think people are trying to anticipate or at least.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Playing around weather.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I mean, they mostly do when it comes to this
time of the year, and there's thanks.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I appreciate it, Jacy.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I just don't remember being like this where I had
the air cond issue on, then I turned the heel on,
and then you know how I am when I'm in
your car, I always just like a cold.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
But that's why it's going to be poor.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
You can't get right, you can't plan for the weather.
It's just up and down, you know. So next week
it'll be super I think we are going to move
towards that. We're going to get that not that nice
kind of like cool decent. It's like that nasty hot,
which is going to make it well.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
This is the time of year when I think people
want to regenerate, you know, work in the garden, plant
the flowers, and so the weather now reflects the current
political status of the country ull rise. So we're probably
moving to a red state. So I want to hit
a couple of things because there's a lot going on.
Also want to say hi to our exclusive fan club
of Kathy and Larry and Nancy and Tom get well
(01:34):
to Jeanie and uh So in the ask Brian's segment,
there's really no connective threat here. And I gave Brian
the topics ahead of time, and the first one is
and I don't know that this got enough coverage. Victor Orbon,
who was a close Trump rally, got pummeled.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, so for who don't know Victor Orbon, he's the
Prime Minister of Hungary. He was I would say Trump's
closest ally in Europe as far as ideologically aligned. They
talked together at you know when he Seapac events. Seapack
was held in Hunger. Seapacs the main conservative like political
conference ins the in the world. He lost his election,
(02:20):
so people looked at this as potentially a loss for
Trump or I think it's a little more complicated than
that because the guy that's coming in is not anything
we consider would say the left wing. I say, right,
he's moderate, right.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I think that's where people working at moderation or Bond
had been in power. He used all the resources of
the state to try and uh still another election. It
didn't happen. He was interesting because he had good relations
with Russia and America and China.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Yes, well he was, yeah, and he was. He was
hedging and his argument was we're a small country and
we need to hedge between these great powers. But he
did also have his own media company, which is basically
state run media. That was that was helping him. And
then the guy that came in has a lot of
his policies was essentially be nice to Ukraine. But then
(03:12):
Orbon's immigration and uh, pro family policies but without the
corruption and kind of well.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well it got to be smart, not smart. But let's
be honest. The EU was tired of Orbon. They have
a horrible voting style where one nation can essentially blocker
impede uh the policy. Uh. This week, as soon as
Orbon was gone, the EU made alone to Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yeah, because yeah, he was the one holding up and
he's been the one that.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
But he's also but that because of that, Hungary was
not getting millions, if not billions of dollars from the EU.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That's right, And they also had big dispate debates and
discreements over immigration where Hungry is not race the EU
style immigration they lost money from that. But the guy
coming in I think is going to have similar policies
to the or bono immigration.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
I think across the continent, regardless if you're left, center
or right, you're going to have to have an aggressive
immigration policy. Now, you know, part of this is the
result a couple hundred years of colonialism where some nations
were given privileged status and could come to England, France, Ittalys,
(04:28):
so on. I think Hungary has always been kind of paranoid.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
You know, it wasn't Hungary was between you know, all
the countries that were between Germany and Russia throughout European history.
It's just a constant back and forth between them. They
got obviously independence from Russia, and I think they've been
worried that essentially the EU you can essentially act as
not maybe a Soviet Union or German style like imposing,
(04:52):
but a regulatory and a restrictionist kind of buocracy that
takes away what they can do domestically.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I think we're going back to Clinton policy of trade
being your economic you know, best your policy, best policy
for economic growth. You know the other thing with Hungary
is that it used to be part of the Austro
Hungarian Empire, right so, and it had the same kind
of convulsions as Russia, you know, not wanting to go
west too far east. So we'll see how that plays out.
(05:22):
There was also an election in Romania, very similar results,
move from extreme right to center right now they have
a pretty good relationship with Russia, so we'll see where
that goes. Russia has acknowledged this week that economically they've
taken a big hit. So back in North America, what
(05:45):
is the importance of Tuesday's vote in Virginia to redistrict.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So in Tuesday the voters won by a very small majority,
especially the right to redraw the state lines for legally
can it's can effect the control of the House. And
obviously it affects that the state House in Virginia infects
it a lot because it's and all the states now
we're doing it, so we're in this was gerry Mandering
(06:12):
is a very bad policy that both parties engage in,
and they both are but I think when the other
people do it, but they they support when they do.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Well, here's the problem we have every ten years redistricting
and so there should be no ability to redistrict outside
of that.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
But it started I think with Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
In Texas well round yeah, and then it was responded
by California. But there's a possible and I can't believe
I'm gonna say this, that redistricting could actually benefit the Democrats.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, I think right now it does. I think they're
going to have a slight edge after the Virginia gets
added on. We'll see what FDA does.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
The risk with registering is that in these closer states,
because in order to registrict, we have, if it's let's
say fifty five forty five, in order to redistric so
it's ridiculous where it's like nine to two. As far
as let's say representatives, you have to take a little
bit of risk. And so the argument is that if
you have a spring election that fifty five to forty
five goes, so let's say fifty two to forty eight,
(07:10):
you could then end up losing, you know six. You know.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
The other thing to consider is the Supreme Court has
essentially taken an axe to the Voting Rights Act, so
there's no more guarantee that nine to two in states
that don't want to have, you know, equable distribution representation.
They're not going to be able to They're not gonna
be shoot by the federal government.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
So yeah, So in the South, after the people don't know,
the nineteen sixty five Civil Rights Act the South, they
basically mandated that district's take into account demographics. So black
voters would almost get districts drawn for them because the
argument was that they were disenfranchised for so long that
(07:55):
you can't just have the same majoritarian argument and you
can have the same Jerry Managering that was essentially do
the same thing which Jim Crow did. So that was
the argument. This ree court is going to say, well,
that's we're far past that. You can essentially throw the
districts however you want, which wouldn't be a problem if
everyone doesn't Jerry Manager, but because they do, you're essentially
going to disenfranchise a lot of voters very almost overnight.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Jerry Mannering was named after Elbridge Jerry, who was I
think the governor of Massachusetts. And this is back in
like eighteen twenties or thirties. Everybody does it, and you
don't need to do it anymore. You have a computer
that can essentially design districts on an equitable basis. Politicians
don't want to lose control over that. So last question
(08:41):
for you before we go to break I didn't hear
of it until this week. What's an alpine divorce?
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Okay? So an alpine divorce is where you go on
a date and you go to some type of nature
or hiking trailer somewhere in the woods, and the guy
essentially ghost the girl and just leaves her there and
tries to and then and then she has to kind
of find her way back. It's it's been as a trend,
(09:08):
I would say in general with a dating of ghosting,
which is you're dating someone, rather than have a conversation
about breaking up with them, you just break all communications,
stop talking, would disappear.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
This is a worst cake scenario.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You don't want to confront the person with the fact
that it's not working out.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
So we're just gonna leave you.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
We're gonna do like, yes, we're gonna make we do
something a million times worse that a tough conversation about
breaking up. You see, listen, it's starting on college campuses.
So college campuses it was it was a way to
essentially hook up and then if they want more of
a relationship, rather than having that conversation, they just and
just end all all contacts and and expanded to I
(09:48):
would say city dating with like kind of young people
out of college. And now it's like it's like a
trend where now people are are doing the worst versions
they can find, just suppose on the internet to be like, oh,
let's do you know so some of the red I've
heard of ones where people go out like fishing on
a boat and then they somehow let's say the person
(10:12):
goes to sleep for a little bit and then they
get someone to pick them up, and then they just
leave the person like this crazy stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yeah, let's let's break on that because I hadn't heard
of it, and I think it's also potentially dangerous, uh,
not only leaving the person behind, but apparently this new
generation has never heard of the anger of a scorn
woman that's been since the beginning of time. So this
is Eric Capstein. We're with Millennial Brian. The show is Thunderdome.
(10:40):
The organization has rocked the Capitol. Please check our website
and this Saturday we're being produced by the Great JC.
So I just want to follow up on the Alpine
divorce deal. We used to have a sponsor, haven't heard
(11:00):
from for a while, Big Lou, who was big and
I think if I remember his client, tele was his
core client.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Tell you had to have what two or three third divorces?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Three divorces was his goal, you know, Big Blue with
three divorces.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
I can see Big Lou opening an alpine wall practice.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
We see how that goes.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I mean, bring your wife. They don't have one that can.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You imagine back in the day, you know, when they
used to have duels and one guy just ghosted the
other guy.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
There's gonna be a.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Retaliation factor here. In fact, I think the business is
going to be pay for higher retaliation.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yeah. And I think the other thing is, I think
women are really good at kind of like planning and
like digging up information. I think they're gonna try it's
start embarrassing this guy these guys and try to like,
you know, publicize embarrassing information or or or or. I
saw I think I saw one where the girl called
his mom basically don't know what happened. It's like so
(12:01):
it's just it's so just from not having a conversation
doesn't have to be crazy horrible, just like I don't
I don't want to serious relationship.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And the nations, the nations become wilfified. I mean, I
read your abbey every weekend, and we have conventional, you know,
guilt stories, you know, like you know, I didn't tell
my second wife that I killed my first wife.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Should I share it with her? That kind of stuff,
good wholesome stuff, that's right.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
So who was that duel? With? That duel was Aaron
Burr and Hamilton Alexander.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Hamilton, Amilton Fudals.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Yeah, yeah, they had more than one duel?
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Not well, I think I think they had one duel,
but amaton a feel it was. It was not he's
not one duel guy?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Well no, I.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Mean that thus the origination of the term fandel. I mean,
so he can he had really more?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Yeah, I think I think it was like actually like dozens.
In fact, I think one time he got they had
the duel. Most remember most times they had duels because
the guns weren't good. Both guys were mess which people
don't and then that's it, you know, well, and that
was this There was one shot. One time they had
a duel. He got shot. Didn't realize it. I guess
Jacket was getting a drink started bleeding. It's like, oh
(13:16):
I got shot. They had to get I think that
bullet got actually lodged for years.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Well, I mean, you know, I guess the dual has
and the reason I got onto the duels and is
I don't know if you saw the federal government is
bringing back the firing.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Squad for execution, okay, which is.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Going to replace I don't know, lethal injection or what
I thought the firing squad was actually made sense because
with it, with a chemical injection, you're actually creating a
mini hazardous waist site wherever this guy is buried.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Yeah, and also you worry that, you know, is it
going to get stolen or weaked out? I mean, firing
squads are cheaper or for I think the big debate
is on the death penalty is like should we have
a death penalty? Does it work? Does it deter are
we getting right? But then there's the other case of
like people do the most horrendous stuff that's just beyond comprehension.
(14:12):
Do you want the victims to get ultimate justice in
those case?
Speaker 2 (14:16):
To me, I always looked at it like this. The
argument isn't about whether it's the turns. The argument is
that you destroy the destroyer, Okay, and then yet you know,
I'm not going to pay for somebody who killed twenty
people to get braces.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You know.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Yeah, there's an economic coroll area there. But and that's
really come in to be tested with what's the name
of that project with the DNA, the justice.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Or in project.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Yeah, yeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So, first of all, I want to talk about the FED,
but I don't you hear it all the time because
Trump essentially had his Department of Justice prosecute Jerome Power
Uni Comy. This prosecution went nowhere. By the way, I'm
waiting for someone to suit the Federal Administration for harassment suits.
(15:07):
And yeah, I mean that's Trump's calling card. At some point,
there has to be a level modicum that you can
actually be successful. But so when you talk about the FED,
what does it do, because you know, I still struggle
to get my mind around it.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
So the FEDS dual goals or low inflation, so not
no inflation. Low inflation is about two percent of target
and low unemployment, and essentially when one of those two
gets out of whack, they're supposed to raise the lower
rates to essentially put those in check. So it's not
(15:45):
definite reduction. It's not technically growth, although those are factors.
It's unemployment and inflation. So it's the problem that they
were running into is essentially you had high inflation, higher unemployment.
Let's say COVID is the perfect example, get supply chain disruption.
She had high inflation. We also had a lot other
than the stimulus packages essentially shut down the economy. So
(16:07):
economy slows, unemployment was going to rise. So now you're
in a situation where unemployment rises, you're supposed to cut
interest rates. When inflation rises, you're supposed to raise interest rates.
And they were caught in that kind of catch twenty two.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
And so let me ask you this because that's all theory.
You know, this is not science. It's a theory. And
I think economics has a lot to do with psychology
how people are feeling. Yea, And that two percent we've
talked about this a lot is arbitrary, isn't it. It's
like a made up numbers from a guy in Australia.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Yes, it literally just got made. It had to be.
It had it was so when they when they were
debating inflation, it could obviously couldn't be something that really
that was so high that it hurt consumer superlus producers
couldn't projected the future. It couldn't be too low. Where
we had you couldn't essentially build well, so you couldn't
have like house appreciation, you couldn't have asset appreciation. So
(17:04):
it had to be in that like range. But is
there a big reason why it's two percent not two
and a half percent or one and a half percent
or three percent or one percent. It's just it was.
It was a guy that thought it was like it
was a good number.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Was an Australian dude.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Right, In fact he was.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
It wasn't on an island stranded and surrounded by kiwis.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
I think that might be, but it was an Australian dude.
It's very similar to how a lot of economic allions
except the bricks was actually a Wall Street guy who
wanted to try and describe up and coming non develop economy,
and so people in the bricks are the Brits are, Brazil, India, China, Russia,
South Africa, and so that's that. It wasn't actually an
(17:41):
economic alliance. It was just a guy in Wall Street.
And then that became.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Be fair. Part of those countries were part of the
non aligne movement prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
The Union, so I just wanted to.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Point out that it's not usually a sexy supposed to
be a boring outpost. And the fed's independence has been
called into question with Trump, who was suing I believe
Powell over the if this kills me the cost of
renovating his building, and again that got thrown out, so
(18:21):
the replacement the new guy may not get confirmed. This
is really interesting and it's showing you how politics has
really changed. John Kennedy, who's a pretty independent Republican from Louisiana,
asked the new guy, Kevin Warsh, if he was going
to be a sock puppet in a Senate hearing. He
said absolutely not, and he was also asked he's worth
(18:45):
a hundred million one hundred million in investment, which is
probably if he was going to put him in an
independent folder. So the thing that I find most interesting
with this is Tom Tillis. He's a Republican who voted
against the Big Beautiful bill and then he announced he
(19:07):
wasn't gonna run. You know the way it works in
the Senate. One senator can hold it up, right, And
so when Trump was asked about that, he said, well,
Tillis is not a senator anymore. Well, yeah, I mean
he's not running for re election, but he's still a senator.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Yeah. So I think I think it was why is
defend independence matter? And basically it's market confidence and investor
confidence and then essentially political whims dictating sound structural economic
policy because everyone wants, whether it's from the right of
the left, to have just uneconomic policy because it's the
(19:42):
most popular. The most popular is we're only going to
raise taxes and super rich we expand programs ten times
as much. That's the left version, and the right version
is we cut taxes for everyone and keep every single
program that everyone wants, and we'll just get really waste
and fraud. Defed's supposed to step in on especially place
and unemployment, basically check them. Volker very famously did that.
(20:04):
Other Fed governors have done that in place, but they
don't do it Turkey, Argentina. Before recently you have just
run away crazy inflation because the politics takes over and
they don't want to make the tough decisions.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Well, so, I mean to get back to the FED
and its role or roles is the FED the entity
that has the money or has the ability to pump
money into the economy.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
So famously in two thousand and eight they did that
in COVID, they did that. They actually actually reduced the
money suppodcast power for unelected appoint is that's right. And
when you bring up one hundred million dollars in investments
that the guy has a lot of these guys come
straight from Wall Street or industries. The question is are
they giving those banks or those investment companies favorable loan
(20:52):
status that's going to help grow them and then they
get essentially kickbacks. I mean that's the world. I mean
we see it with insider trading and prediction markets. We
had a real sk handle where a con prediction marker market.
So it's it's very yeah, so it's like Calshi, it's
like polymarket. It's it's but you can basically just bet,
(21:12):
It's not exactly that, but sort of bet against your
peers on whether something will happen or not. So, for example,
the big scandal was a US Special Forces. I believe
communications guys in this force, but communications guy bet forty
thousand dollars on will the United States captured Madurero when
(21:34):
it was at like a month more so he had
instant information. He made that prediction market he got I
think whatever it was like five times that payout. Yeah,
so he got Yeah, he's so huge payout and he's
going he's going to jail. There's also been big payouts
in the oil markets among people shorting oil markets based
on what they think, what it seems like, what information
(21:56):
they happened.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
This guy going to jail, but the entire cabinet, and
it happened before. Remember Trump's a guy that was going
to clean the swamp, and apparently the swamp has infested
his cabinet. Most of these folks have enriched themselves, not
even waiting till laughter, but before.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
So, I mean the amount of money, for.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Instance, that Virginia redistricting was ninety three million, ninety three million,
I mean the amount of money that's flowing through politics
and business.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Then, from what I've seen, the number of the model
of wealth concentrated in one percent of the population is
what is that now?
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Sixty maybe more?
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, I think I think it's it's seventy percent. Listen,
it's we see it every day at the local level.
You know, when you have essentially government officials are supposed
to be neutral arbiters that are clearly benefiting from their position.
And and and the problem is it's a cross party,
it's local, like there's no everyone participates in it. And
(22:58):
that's kind of we have to get I think restrictions
on sort of that can donate, who can regulate these things?
Where's the independence of this?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah, but I mean corruption is one of the things
that both parties can agree on. So Eric Epstein here
with Millennial Brian. We're being produced by JC. The show
is thundered down. The organization is Rock Capital Rock at
the Capitol, and we'll be back in a moment, all right,
(23:26):
So I'll just finish up with this betting. I guess
you can bet on just about anything.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Yes, so prediction marks especially, you can bet almost on anything.
I mean, there's like there's obviously tons of political bets,
election bets, what the federation would be. So you have
inside information, you can make tons of money. And then
if you're in the government where you're making policy as
so in the case we brought up the guy placed
that bet before they got Maduro. That's why it was
(23:53):
you got such great odds. Obviously, if someone will figure
that out, if someone will be able to trace it
back to account, or they ever figured out who it was,
they could they could say, oh, this is happening, and
you can put people in danger. So that's why Now
obviously you know, I don't think you would publicize it,
but that's why you have to have these restrictions.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
But that's why I wouldn't publicize it. Obviously, if you
had access to intel, it's potentially treasonous in that. I
agree you should prosecute this guy, but I don't know
that you have to make it a public.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
A public I mean, I think the question is, I
think you got banned government officials from having a tradition
of market accounts in general?
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Should there be a defined list of what you can
gamble on? I mean, based on what you're saying, you
could get ridiculous or you could get really terribly I
don't say violent, but you know, if if you can
gamble on anything, yeah, and you want to make sure
(25:00):
that your result goes your way. I can see where.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
People listen people people, you see it in sports, you
see it.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
I think even during the war, the Iran and Israel war.
There's a bet that Israel would not get struck by
Ian to say a certain day, by any missiles or
journalists reported that there was there was a missile that
got through the r n DL but didn't hit anyone,
but and he got threatened. He got threatened by people
essentially saying, hey, I put a bet on this, you know,
(25:31):
take this down. So you have that. You have that
in sports where you had obviously points shaving, and so
it's now not just you know, bet on the halftime
show or bet on let's say Lakers rockets. It's it's
become where it's as huge effects on like potentially policy outcomes.
And if people start, you know, tracking this stuff like
(25:53):
where the money is, could you essentially get information ahead
of time that I mean in the special forces this case,
if that if someone figured that out and and let's
say they've prepared for the division and we had like
ten guys die, I mean, that's a that's a.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Whole well, yeah, it's a criminal case, but I mean
the bitcoin thing would seem to play could play a
role in this where you're I'm a stuming you could
gamble with bitcoin.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
You it's it's I think it's it's a little harder.
You probably you can typically you can do it on
the casinos, not necessarily prediction markets because you have to
have like payouts.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So so let me ask you this. You know, we've
talked about gaming a lot. I don't gamble because that's
never good at it and I'm cheap. Is gaming becoming
the most devastating addiction?
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Uh, that's an interesting question. Everywhere where gaming has been
legalized and you've expanded online, you've seen let's say, private
credit ratings the average product credit for existence. So it's say,
and those states go down considerably. That affects your ability
to buy Morgans and stuff. I think you would still
say hard drugs and other stuff is worse, and you
can obviously gamble and be well within reasonable limits. But yeah,
(27:07):
I think a lot of people. I think someone brought
this up with alcohol, where they said the ten percent
heaviest drinkers account for like eight percent of the business,
and that's a bad incentive model if you want to
bring people into like responsible drinking. A lot of the
heaviest gamblers account for a huge part of the businesses.
They need big losers to ride their business, yeah and
(27:28):
so and so they're not incentivized to put restrictions on
you know, can you pull stuff out. I think a
good example is like you can't. You shouldn't be able
to bet on credit. You shouldn't be able to say, hey,
I'm going to take a ten thousand dollars loan and
put it on the lakers.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
That what brokers do all the time in Wall Street.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Except that is what brokers do, and let's forget that
the financial crisis or where they essentially bet on bad
loans so much that you essentially had, you know, just
a complete financial mouth.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
So the term responsible gaming bother me. It seems like
if you're saying responsible gaming, you can say responsible alcoholism,
responsible tobacco intake. I mean, I don't, I just don't know.
I mean some people can drink, I can't. I mean,
I'm recovering alcoholic and some can't. But with gaming, it
(28:21):
just seems to me that the reason I issu you
that it's more likely that I don't think there's a
top ten percent kind of here. I think there's lot
a large percentage of folks that gaming.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
So to give an example, two percent is what they
say are positive long term players. So that means you're
betting on sports, you're betting the casino. I mean, you're
betting consistently, over and over again. Two percent of people
are long terms. That means ninety eight percent of losers.
So that means if you're a long term better, you're
betting medium to modern income. That's how they make their money.
(28:57):
They want you and they'll offer you perks. They'll give
you a free room. You know, what's what's the hotel
room if you're gonna lose, you know, ten thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
How would they know that you gamble because I always
wanted to get a room, you know, take the soap,
the pictures off that, you know, everything like that.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
I mean, how would they know if you're gambled?
Speaker 3 (29:13):
I mean they have your account, so they'll see how
much you're gambling to see what they put. And they
have their loss rates, So what what you're expected loss
rate is based on the games you're playing and how
much money you're moving up. Your comp rate is a
third of that. So essentially, let's say you're playing roulette,
your loss rate is how is.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
That tractor getting a free room if you're never going
to be in it?
Speaker 3 (29:34):
Well, I guess you're sleep in it and stuff like that.
I think it's more of like you have to casino,
like you know, it's it's it's it's a very if
you just listen, if you go to the Grandfeld casino
and you compare that, like what it looks like, the food,
the place however, was dressed to like anything else in
that area. It's like a complete outlier. So you're in
that kind of toxic environment of like like a party mentality.
(29:56):
It's a party and so I listen people gamble and
then and and it is completely within their income range
or what they think. But I guess I would just
always say, you gotta think of almost expecting mind, don't
put anything out you don't think you can.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
With gaming.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
So what what are the odds that Defense Secretary Pete
Haigsith fires another admiral or general during the war. I've
never seen anything like that. He just forced out the
head of the Navy. I'm looking at the number of
people that he's gotten rid of, and he's calling it
based on a broken culture. But you know Randy George
(30:37):
h who was incredibly valuable uh military man and Navy admirals,
and what I mean, what's going on.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Well, I think I think he came in he wanted
to get rid of DEI in the military, so he
wanted to bring in what you call it a merit
deocratic process. I think then he got in, uh, and
then he want to also change the industrial basst so
ship building, stuff like that, and so he wanted to
bring in essentially his own people. But in the military
(31:07):
you have people that are kind of build up over
years and years and years, and so we wanted to
bring his own people. He got pushed back, and so
now he's he's he's firing those people. I think, like
I was, I think it's actually good if you were
if you came into the military and said, hey, we
need to be leading mean performance matters and you fire people.
I think the question is is that is that what
(31:28):
he's doing or is this to cover up for his
own short comings.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
No, I think there's a third option. It's not about
being lean and mean.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
If you look at what he wants it with dramatic
increases in the budget, and he wanted a dramatic increase
in ship building that's big and expensive and the military
is by far the foremost worst budgeter of money Oh, yeah,
they're terrible with money.
Speaker 3 (31:50):
And you know when you talk about the big ticket
itams it still with the big healthcare and Medicare and
medicaid and the military that sort of drives our budget.
And it's just you know, I think what we're running
too with these new wars that you need to be
innovative on drone technology and you need a lot of
ships if you just want to deal with the We want.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
To learn from the Cold Wars that conventional war and
asymmetrical war is what we should be preparing for.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
And you know when you look at the firing of
the Secretary of Navy, and this goes back to why
I think it's a nation of woost cakes. So they
fire this guy through a tweet and they tell him
a couple of minutes before. Again, I don't care what
party you are, what gender you are, you do that
(32:38):
face to face man, and and you know I'm going
to disagree with you to a degree. I think the
motivation for Haigsith is is what you said is correct.
Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but it's
deflated the spree de cors of the Pentagon, and it's
not great when.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
You're in the middle of a war.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Yeah, I think that's that's the key. I think that
this all goes back to the Iron War decision, the
preparation as for what, how, how it's unfolded where it
seems like that the military actually performed operationally, very effectively
and strategically. It was completely unplanned for disclosure of MOSE
and then what that might of fact.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Let me let us take a quick break here.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
The problem is that we haven't learned at both parties
that you can't bomber destroy an ideology.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Eric Apstuning with Moni ol Brian. We're being produced by j. C. Floyd.
Will be back in a moment the Capital.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
All right, I just want to kind of follow up.
Jason and I chatted over the break, and I don't
know that hag Sith is going anywhere because he seems
to be a favorite of Trump, you know, and leading
up to the war he was the biggest cheerleader.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Uh, you know, internally, the problem is, I don't know
that this is who you want.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
For the face of the military. I think image much
you project matters, Uh, and uh, he's I don't know
because I understand he and Cash Pateel may have some
extra curricular challenges.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
I mean, right when he was getting confirmed, there was
debates about that. I think the other thing is, like,
you know, he was on Fox News. There's been generals
on MSNBC. I'm not saying obviously they can do that.
You know, you can have your own political opinions. I'm
not sure if you've had the military you want to
have those if you if you look at this press conference,
(34:38):
the guy next one, who's actually done a lot of
the press conferences on the operation of the war, who
seems like a very down in the middle, this is
what it is, this is what's going on now. We
think I think it's General Caine. He seems to be
like a more guy that you want to put out there.
Because I can understand the conservative steps of like, hey,
(34:59):
you don't want these generals that go on MSNBC because
you have if you're if you're trying to make this
an a political organization, you don't want that either, So
I I could see that. I think the problem is
that you just flipped it. You just you put a
guy who's who's clearly got a political bet and it's
clearly a Trump guy, which is fine, But then now
you're the head of the organization where you have everyone,
(35:19):
everyone from every walk of life in there.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
The argument's made is he had some military experience, but
you're replacing the people who had a career in the military.
And yeah, I get that, you may want to shake
it up, but there's something to be said about experience
in the military. And and look there it's getting a
bit crazy. So Secretary of Labor is about to resign. Uh,
(35:45):
Kristen Noman was fired. Brian Bondi was fired. I don't
they They said to tell maybe, but I don't.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
I think he's gonna hang on. We'll see. I mean, listen,
first term Trump shuffled, it went through lot of yeah,
right he I think I think I actually heard an
interview he says, this is healthy competition. We need this
to give people. The question is if you don't have
continuity in your cabinet.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
But it's not competition, and it's unhealthy because it's who
can suck up the most. It's not based on competence
and it's not based on Merit is who can get
your lips closer to his romp? And Uh, I hope
you're not there when he farts, but you know, presidents
(36:31):
all have different styles, and he was elected and he
is you know, has the ability to uh, you know,
implement whatever stall he wants. The problem is this, does
he have the ability to acknowledge a mistake or to
you know, implement a corrective And I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
I mean, yeah, that's the quest. That's not He's not,
you know, a changed direction type of politician. I think
I think the wrong war that this is gonna be.
The big thing is we have to you know, how
this shakes out could affect his entire presidency. In fact,
basically since nine to eleven, foreign policy has paid an
outside influence on every single presidency.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Well that's why he was right on the campaign throw
where he's like.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
We got to stop getting Yeah, listen, this has hurt
his base because of the three issues. He wanted to
renegotiate trade deals, he wanted a much stricter immigration policy,
and he wanted to end foreign involvement in Middle Eastern wars.
Now part of that coalition and you see it with
the podcasts are pushed away from of his support base.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
Well, he lost what's his name, Carson.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly that have been critical of him.
Now listen, like the Venezuela thing, if this does end
and it does look like let's say the United States
gets a better deal or something and the oil prices
come back down, then he'll be able to say it's
a win, because you know, we will The American public
doesn't like long protracted wars, but they will tolerate essentially
(38:01):
strikes to deals.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
This, I don't know the declare victory over Iran. I
think right now the Saudis and the Emordis are you know,
a little worried, and so they're looking for some kind
of coalition. But yeah, I think Haiksis survives just because
he has a really good relationship with Trump, and it's.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Not I always you know.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
The military guy I loved was Colin Powell because he
was very experienced, he was very direct. He wasn't calling
reporters and giving him you know, military information. But he
was the one who I think restored credibility to the military.
And he had a famous quote when they asked him,
(38:42):
you know, how are you going to defeat the rock
and he said, well, we're going to find the head
of the snake and cut.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
It off, you know.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
And I think everybody's like, yeah, yeah, that sounds a
good idea. So what's going on in the house. You know,
if you're just looking at this, and I don't know
how much people follow this, but you have a situation
in the house. You had a Democrat who an eighty
year old gentleman from Georgia died. You have the guy
and he's a Democrat, the Republican from New Jersey who
(39:09):
hasn't voted since March, which seemed to indicate that he
may not be doing well. On top of that, you
had the expulsion of two legislators, one Democrat one Republican
for sexual transgressions. Now there's another there's a Democrat now
who I think just resigned. She's a female Democratic legislator
(39:32):
from Florida. On top of that, you have Nancy Mace,
who's kind of like a protege of Marjorie Tayler.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Green says.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
She once Representative Mills out for apparently alleged sexual harassment
spouse spousal. So Representative Mills responded by saying, if you
come after me, and apparently Mace is being audited for
nine thousand dollars in expenditures that were done that that
(40:07):
were done, you know, for her personal home.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
So I mean there is.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
It's it's it's interesting to me, how uh when it
came to the male members of the House, Democrats and Republican women,
you know, came together to force a hand.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
But is that a lot or is am? I uh?
Speaker 3 (40:30):
It's even more I think when they were going over
and this is back when the me too out stuff
was coming out, I think they said that there was
eight congressmen that had closed or sealed files on sexul
harassment in the House was obviously which would be that
they had ethics in the investigation and complaints and so.
(40:55):
And that's so that's not including people that I say,
do could talk about. I think this is a common
uh more common people realize you have guys who were
let's say, not successful in a normal everyday life to
become congressmen that haven't such the access to women that
want to move up the political file, and then they
take advantage.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
But you just really raise a good point. People have
knowledge of this behavior. So you have what turned out
to be a degenerate Democrat running for governor in California
who had just a sleut about and it was everybody
knew that this dynamic happens where you know, the guys
are in power forty years old, fifty years old.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Have these young women work for him?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
And I just thought, how did how did sal I
forget how to I don't really know how to say
his name swallow Law. Yeah, and this has been going
on for a while. He's married, as three kids, and
he was in the lead to win the Desert Walking Away.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
So, I mean, the Democratic Party can't claim to be
some bastion of.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
Oh no, listen, this is a corruption. This is mismavor.
It's by Parson, It's by Parson, and it's across and
obviously this is these are men, maybe badly, but you
see women behave badly too, Like this is bad behavior,
especially when you can insulate it from consequences. It's just
across the board endemic and it shows this is why
people are losing faith. I think just in any political
(42:25):
process in jenneral So, I feel like it'd be one
thing there's a few people and they get punished for
the problem is that it seems like it's endemic across
the board, and they don't get punched for it, or
they get plunshed very little.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
For Yeah, but the Supreme Court is weakened corruption, I mean,
for prosecution. I mean, you can just about do anything
and the Supreme Court will let you off. I mean,
I'm starting to feel nostalgic for the guy from New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
Who got gold bricks.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
I just thought, yeah, oh my god, what a scumbag.
But what a ballsy scumback, you know, just dropped the
gold bricks off in.
Speaker 3 (42:58):
My protectingly guess inflation. I mean, really ahead of the game, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I mean, look, there's something to be said about intelligent criminals,
you know. And so when you look at this and
its entirety, the impact is when it's all said and done,
I'm not really sure who's going to control the House.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
I mean, you know, a lot of.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
These people that have been removed. It's the governor who
makes a decision when the election occurs. In Florida, and Dessantus,
to be consistent, has been calling on that for a while.
But Florida, although it's a it is a red state
now it's it's always a gamble.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Yeah, and it can flip and listen, I think you're
looking at Typically midterm elections go against the incumbent president,
especially in their first term, you would assume the Democrats
would get a swing in the direction the questions with
I think the cherry managering across the board does not
affect it either way and essentially making the swing even
more or the Republican's able to get more gains.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
With the best strowing party is independence. And I think
the mess that Trump has gotten into has basically precluded
him from a third term and has and has likely
impaired his agenda. I mean that's and so guys, a survivor,
a street fighter, will see what happens. He's like a
(44:23):
feral cat. You know, He's got really good political instincts,
but this one's kind of hard to get get out
of it. Also, I think most importantly diverts his attention
from nationalizing elections.
Speaker 3 (44:35):
Yeah, I think the Save Act, which is a big push,
is going to get put on the bat or Also,
because you know the Iran war too, is that you
know that that's an example of foreign policy. Now now
it's the number one issue, and that's the it's going
to affect gas prices, and so how that shakes out
and how that ends, well.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
I think the problem for Trump he was really good
at vilifying people, whether it was Hillary or Kamala whomever.
And so when you're not in power, he was really
good at making promises he wouldn't keep. But you know,
finding the issues of the hot button issues. So we
have what jaycon two more minutes. So anything you want
(45:15):
to add to the broadcast before we check off.
Speaker 4 (45:17):
Now you've touched on just about everything that I can
think of that's important. I reiterate the Hagstaff thing. I
think that is going to be a big disaster too.
And what's his name, the Patel?
Speaker 1 (45:31):
He's going out, all right, So do you have any
predictions on who may be the next I mean.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
Well, it's I think, I think for the military, especially
now with the war. So I don't think, hey, I
don't think that any of ahead people that are drug
reporter to Trump will go until afterwards, although I think
I think he is going to depending on the deal.
I would like to see how the deal shakes out.
I think that's gonna be the big thing, the big.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Well, I think the issue is not how the deal
shakes out, but how the deal is promoted, because at
the end of the day, if you cut a deal
and you're just essentially going back to where you were
with Obama, that would be a victory. Now, that'd be
so anything. What are you doing this weekend? What you
got going hot?
Speaker 3 (46:19):
Playoffs?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Yeah, hockey. You're probably watching basketball. But all right, look
we'll be back in two weeks. I want to thank
Jaz for producing Millennial. You are brilliant. Uh and of
course I was exquisite. Eric Epstein, this is thunder Dum.
We're from Rock to Capitol. Please visit our website. Com'all,
(46:43):
I like it.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
I like this
This is Thundertome with Rock the Capital.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Now your hosts Eric Epstein and Millennial Brian Well. Wet, soggy, cold,
ugly Saturday, and it's the twenty fifth of April. I
think people are trying to anticipate or at least.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Playing around weather.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I mean, they mostly do when it comes to this
time of the year, and there's thanks.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I appreciate it, Jacy.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I just don't remember being like this where I had
the air cond issue on, then I turned the heel on,
and then you know how I am when I'm in
your car, I always just like a cold.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
But that's why it's going to be poor.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
You can't get right, you can't plan for the weather.
It's just up and down, you know. So next week
it'll be super I think we are going to move
towards that. We're going to get that not that nice
kind of like cool decent. It's like that nasty hot,
which is going to make it well.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
This is the time of year when I think people
want to regenerate, you know, work in the garden, plant
the flowers, and so the weather now reflects the current
political status of the country ull rise. So we're probably
moving to a red state. So I want to hit
a couple of things because there's a lot going on.
Also want to say hi to our exclusive fan club
of Kathy and Larry and Nancy and Tom get well
(01:34):
to Jeanie and uh So in the ask Brian's segment,
there's really no connective threat here. And I gave Brian
the topics ahead of time, and the first one is
and I don't know that this got enough coverage. Victor Orbon,
who was a close Trump rally, got pummeled.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, so for who don't know Victor Orbon, he's the
Prime Minister of Hungary. He was I would say Trump's
closest ally in Europe as far as ideologically aligned. They
talked together at you know when he Seapac events. Seapack
was held in Hunger. Seapacs the main conservative like political
conference ins the in the world. He lost his election,
(02:20):
so people looked at this as potentially a loss for
Trump or I think it's a little more complicated than
that because the guy that's coming in is not anything
we consider would say the left wing. I say, right,
he's moderate, right.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I think that's where people working at moderation or Bond
had been in power. He used all the resources of
the state to try and uh still another election. It
didn't happen. He was interesting because he had good relations
with Russia and America and China.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Yes, well he was, yeah, and he was. He was
hedging and his argument was we're a small country and
we need to hedge between these great powers. But he
did also have his own media company, which is basically
state run media. That was that was helping him. And
then the guy that came in has a lot of
his policies was essentially be nice to Ukraine. But then
(03:12):
Orbon's immigration and uh, pro family policies but without the
corruption and kind of well.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well it got to be smart, not smart. But let's
be honest. The EU was tired of Orbon. They have
a horrible voting style where one nation can essentially blocker
impede uh the policy. Uh. This week, as soon as
Orbon was gone, the EU made alone to Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Yeah, because yeah, he was the one holding up and
he's been the one that.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
But he's also but that because of that, Hungary was
not getting millions, if not billions of dollars from the EU.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That's right, And they also had big dispate debates and
discreements over immigration where Hungry is not race the EU
style immigration they lost money from that. But the guy
coming in I think is going to have similar policies
to the or bono immigration.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
I think across the continent, regardless if you're left, center
or right, you're going to have to have an aggressive
immigration policy. Now, you know, part of this is the
result a couple hundred years of colonialism where some nations
were given privileged status and could come to England, France, Ittalys,
(04:28):
so on. I think Hungary has always been kind of paranoid.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
You know, it wasn't Hungary was between you know, all
the countries that were between Germany and Russia throughout European history.
It's just a constant back and forth between them. They
got obviously independence from Russia, and I think they've been
worried that essentially the EU you can essentially act as
not maybe a Soviet Union or German style like imposing,
(04:52):
but a regulatory and a restrictionist kind of buocracy that
takes away what they can do domestically.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
I think we're going back to Clinton policy of trade
being your economic you know, best your policy, best policy
for economic growth. You know the other thing with Hungary
is that it used to be part of the Austro
Hungarian Empire, right so, and it had the same kind
of convulsions as Russia, you know, not wanting to go
west too far east. So we'll see how that plays out.
(05:22):
There was also an election in Romania, very similar results,
move from extreme right to center right now they have
a pretty good relationship with Russia, so we'll see where
that goes. Russia has acknowledged this week that economically they've
taken a big hit. So back in North America, what
(05:45):
is the importance of Tuesday's vote in Virginia to redistrict.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So in Tuesday the voters won by a very small majority,
especially the right to redraw the state lines for legally
can it's can effect the control of the House. And
obviously it affects that the state House in Virginia infects
it a lot because it's and all the states now
we're doing it, so we're in this was gerry Mandering
(06:12):
is a very bad policy that both parties engage in,
and they both are but I think when the other
people do it, but they they support when they do.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Well, here's the problem we have every ten years redistricting
and so there should be no ability to redistrict outside
of that.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
But it started I think with Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
In Texas well round yeah, and then it was responded
by California. But there's a possible and I can't believe
I'm gonna say this, that redistricting could actually benefit the Democrats.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, I think right now it does. I think they're
going to have a slight edge after the Virginia gets
added on. We'll see what FDA does.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
The risk with registering is that in these closer states,
because in order to registrict, we have, if it's let's
say fifty five forty five, in order to redistric so
it's ridiculous where it's like nine to two. As far
as let's say representatives, you have to take a little
bit of risk. And so the argument is that if
you have a spring election that fifty five to forty
five goes, so let's say fifty two to forty eight,
(07:10):
you could then end up losing, you know six. You know.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
The other thing to consider is the Supreme Court has
essentially taken an axe to the Voting Rights Act, so
there's no more guarantee that nine to two in states
that don't want to have, you know, equable distribution representation.
They're not going to be able to They're not gonna
be shoot by the federal government.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
So yeah, So in the South, after the people don't know,
the nineteen sixty five Civil Rights Act the South, they
basically mandated that district's take into account demographics. So black
voters would almost get districts drawn for them because the
argument was that they were disenfranchised for so long that
(07:55):
you can't just have the same majoritarian argument and you
can have the same Jerry Managering that was essentially do
the same thing which Jim Crow did. So that was
the argument. This ree court is going to say, well,
that's we're far past that. You can essentially throw the
districts however you want, which wouldn't be a problem if
everyone doesn't Jerry Manager, but because they do, you're essentially
going to disenfranchise a lot of voters very almost overnight.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Jerry Mannering was named after Elbridge Jerry, who was I
think the governor of Massachusetts. And this is back in
like eighteen twenties or thirties. Everybody does it, and you
don't need to do it anymore. You have a computer
that can essentially design districts on an equitable basis. Politicians
don't want to lose control over that. So last question
(08:41):
for you before we go to break I didn't hear
of it until this week. What's an alpine divorce?
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Okay? So an alpine divorce is where you go on
a date and you go to some type of nature
or hiking trailer somewhere in the woods, and the guy
essentially ghost the girl and just leaves her there and
tries to and then and then she has to kind
of find her way back. It's it's been as a trend,
(09:08):
I would say in general with a dating of ghosting,
which is you're dating someone, rather than have a conversation
about breaking up with them, you just break all communications,
stop talking, would disappear.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
This is a worst cake scenario.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
You don't want to confront the person with the fact
that it's not working out.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
So we're just gonna leave you.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
We're gonna do like, yes, we're gonna make we do
something a million times worse that a tough conversation about
breaking up. You see, listen, it's starting on college campuses.
So college campuses it was it was a way to
essentially hook up and then if they want more of
a relationship, rather than having that conversation, they just and
just end all all contacts and and expanded to I
(09:48):
would say city dating with like kind of young people
out of college. And now it's like it's like a
trend where now people are are doing the worst versions
they can find, just suppose on the internet to be like, oh,
let's do you know so some of the red I've
heard of ones where people go out like fishing on
a boat and then they somehow let's say the person
(10:12):
goes to sleep for a little bit and then they
get someone to pick them up, and then they just
leave the person like this crazy stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Yeah, let's let's break on that because I hadn't heard
of it, and I think it's also potentially dangerous, uh,
not only leaving the person behind, but apparently this new
generation has never heard of the anger of a scorn
woman that's been since the beginning of time. So this
is Eric Capstein. We're with Millennial Brian. The show is Thunderdome.
(10:40):
The organization has rocked the Capitol. Please check our website
and this Saturday we're being produced by the Great JC.
So I just want to follow up on the Alpine
divorce deal. We used to have a sponsor, haven't heard
(11:00):
from for a while, Big Lou, who was big and
I think if I remember his client, tele was his
core client.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Tell you had to have what two or three third divorces?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Three divorces was his goal, you know, Big Blue with
three divorces.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
I can see Big Lou opening an alpine wall practice.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
We see how that goes.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I mean, bring your wife. They don't have one that can.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You imagine back in the day, you know, when they
used to have duels and one guy just ghosted the
other guy.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
There's gonna be a.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Retaliation factor here. In fact, I think the business is
going to be pay for higher retaliation.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yeah. And I think the other thing is, I think
women are really good at kind of like planning and
like digging up information. I think they're gonna try it's
start embarrassing this guy these guys and try to like,
you know, publicize embarrassing information or or or or. I
saw I think I saw one where the girl called
his mom basically don't know what happened. It's like so
(12:01):
it's just it's so just from not having a conversation
doesn't have to be crazy horrible, just like I don't
I don't want to serious relationship.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And the nations, the nations become wilfified. I mean, I
read your abbey every weekend, and we have conventional, you know,
guilt stories, you know, like you know, I didn't tell
my second wife that I killed my first wife.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Should I share it with her? That kind of stuff,
good wholesome stuff, that's right.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
So who was that duel? With? That duel was Aaron
Burr and Hamilton Alexander.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Hamilton, Amilton Fudals.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Yeah, yeah, they had more than one duel?
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Not well, I think I think they had one duel,
but amaton a feel it was. It was not he's
not one duel guy?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Well no, I.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Mean that thus the origination of the term fandel. I mean,
so he can he had really more?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Yeah, I think I think it was like actually like dozens.
In fact, I think one time he got they had
the duel. Most remember most times they had duels because
the guns weren't good. Both guys were mess which people
don't and then that's it, you know, well, and that
was this There was one shot. One time they had
a duel. He got shot. Didn't realize it. I guess
Jacket was getting a drink started bleeding. It's like, oh
(13:16):
I got shot. They had to get I think that
bullet got actually lodged for years.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Well, I mean, you know, I guess the dual has
and the reason I got onto the duels and is
I don't know if you saw the federal government is
bringing back the firing.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Squad for execution, okay, which is.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Going to replace I don't know, lethal injection or what
I thought the firing squad was actually made sense because
with it, with a chemical injection, you're actually creating a
mini hazardous waist site wherever this guy is buried.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Yeah, and also you worry that, you know, is it
going to get stolen or weaked out? I mean, firing
squads are cheaper or for I think the big debate
is on the death penalty is like should we have
a death penalty? Does it work? Does it deter are
we getting right? But then there's the other case of
like people do the most horrendous stuff that's just beyond comprehension.
(14:12):
Do you want the victims to get ultimate justice in
those case?
Speaker 2 (14:16):
To me, I always looked at it like this. The
argument isn't about whether it's the turns. The argument is
that you destroy the destroyer, Okay, and then yet you know,
I'm not going to pay for somebody who killed twenty
people to get braces.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You know.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Yeah, there's an economic coroll area there. But and that's
really come in to be tested with what's the name
of that project with the DNA, the justice.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Or in project.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Yeah, yeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So, first of all, I want to talk about the FED,
but I don't you hear it all the time because
Trump essentially had his Department of Justice prosecute Jerome Power
Uni Comy. This prosecution went nowhere. By the way, I'm
waiting for someone to suit the Federal Administration for harassment suits.
(15:07):
And yeah, I mean that's Trump's calling card. At some point,
there has to be a level modicum that you can
actually be successful. But so when you talk about the FED,
what does it do, because you know, I still struggle
to get my mind around it.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
So the FEDS dual goals or low inflation, so not
no inflation. Low inflation is about two percent of target
and low unemployment, and essentially when one of those two
gets out of whack, they're supposed to raise the lower
rates to essentially put those in check. So it's not
(15:45):
definite reduction. It's not technically growth, although those are factors.
It's unemployment and inflation. So it's the problem that they
were running into is essentially you had high inflation, higher unemployment.
Let's say COVID is the perfect example, get supply chain disruption.
She had high inflation. We also had a lot other
than the stimulus packages essentially shut down the economy. So
(16:07):
economy slows, unemployment was going to rise. So now you're
in a situation where unemployment rises, you're supposed to cut
interest rates. When inflation rises, you're supposed to raise interest rates.
And they were caught in that kind of catch twenty two.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
And so let me ask you this because that's all theory.
You know, this is not science. It's a theory. And
I think economics has a lot to do with psychology
how people are feeling. Yea, And that two percent we've
talked about this a lot is arbitrary, isn't it. It's
like a made up numbers from a guy in Australia.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Yes, it literally just got made. It had to be.
It had it was so when they when they were
debating inflation, it could obviously couldn't be something that really
that was so high that it hurt consumer superlus producers
couldn't projected the future. It couldn't be too low. Where
we had you couldn't essentially build well, so you couldn't
have like house appreciation, you couldn't have asset appreciation. So
(17:04):
it had to be in that like range. But is
there a big reason why it's two percent not two
and a half percent or one and a half percent
or three percent or one percent. It's just it was.
It was a guy that thought it was like it
was a good number.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Was an Australian dude.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Right, In fact he was.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
It wasn't on an island stranded and surrounded by kiwis.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
I think that might be, but it was an Australian dude.
It's very similar to how a lot of economic allions
except the bricks was actually a Wall Street guy who
wanted to try and describe up and coming non develop economy,
and so people in the bricks are the Brits are, Brazil, India, China, Russia,
South Africa, and so that's that. It wasn't actually an
(17:41):
economic alliance. It was just a guy in Wall Street.
And then that became.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Be fair. Part of those countries were part of the
non aligne movement prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
The Union, so I just wanted to.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Point out that it's not usually a sexy supposed to
be a boring outpost. And the fed's independence has been
called into question with Trump, who was suing I believe
Powell over the if this kills me the cost of
renovating his building, and again that got thrown out, so
(18:21):
the replacement the new guy may not get confirmed. This
is really interesting and it's showing you how politics has
really changed. John Kennedy, who's a pretty independent Republican from Louisiana,
asked the new guy, Kevin Warsh, if he was going
to be a sock puppet in a Senate hearing. He
said absolutely not, and he was also asked he's worth
(18:45):
a hundred million one hundred million in investment, which is
probably if he was going to put him in an
independent folder. So the thing that I find most interesting
with this is Tom Tillis. He's a Republican who voted
against the Big Beautiful bill and then he announced he
(19:07):
wasn't gonna run. You know the way it works in
the Senate. One senator can hold it up, right, And
so when Trump was asked about that, he said, well,
Tillis is not a senator anymore. Well, yeah, I mean
he's not running for re election, but he's still a senator.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Yeah. So I think I think it was why is
defend independence matter? And basically it's market confidence and investor
confidence and then essentially political whims dictating sound structural economic
policy because everyone wants, whether it's from the right of
the left, to have just uneconomic policy because it's the
(19:42):
most popular. The most popular is we're only going to
raise taxes and super rich we expand programs ten times
as much. That's the left version, and the right version
is we cut taxes for everyone and keep every single
program that everyone wants, and we'll just get really waste
and fraud. Defed's supposed to step in on especially place
and unemployment, basically check them. Volker very famously did that.
(20:04):
Other Fed governors have done that in place, but they
don't do it Turkey, Argentina. Before recently you have just
run away crazy inflation because the politics takes over and
they don't want to make the tough decisions.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Well, so, I mean to get back to the FED
and its role or roles is the FED the entity
that has the money or has the ability to pump
money into the economy.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
So famously in two thousand and eight they did that
in COVID, they did that. They actually actually reduced the
money suppodcast power for unelected appoint is that's right. And
when you bring up one hundred million dollars in investments
that the guy has a lot of these guys come
straight from Wall Street or industries. The question is are
they giving those banks or those investment companies favorable loan
(20:52):
status that's going to help grow them and then they
get essentially kickbacks. I mean that's the world. I mean
we see it with insider trading and prediction markets. We
had a real sk handle where a con prediction marker market.
So it's it's very yeah, so it's like Calshi, it's
like polymarket. It's it's but you can basically just bet,
(21:12):
It's not exactly that, but sort of bet against your
peers on whether something will happen or not. So, for example,
the big scandal was a US Special Forces. I believe
communications guys in this force, but communications guy bet forty
thousand dollars on will the United States captured Madurero when
(21:34):
it was at like a month more so he had
instant information. He made that prediction market he got I
think whatever it was like five times that payout. Yeah,
so he got Yeah, he's so huge payout and he's
going he's going to jail. There's also been big payouts
in the oil markets among people shorting oil markets based
on what they think, what it seems like, what information
(21:56):
they happened.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
This guy going to jail, but the entire cabinet, and
it happened before. Remember Trump's a guy that was going
to clean the swamp, and apparently the swamp has infested
his cabinet. Most of these folks have enriched themselves, not
even waiting till laughter, but before.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
So, I mean the amount of money, for.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Instance, that Virginia redistricting was ninety three million, ninety three million,
I mean the amount of money that's flowing through politics
and business.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Then, from what I've seen, the number of the model
of wealth concentrated in one percent of the population is
what is that now?
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Sixty maybe more?
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, I think I think it's it's seventy percent. Listen,
it's we see it every day at the local level.
You know, when you have essentially government officials are supposed
to be neutral arbiters that are clearly benefiting from their position.
And and and the problem is it's a cross party,
it's local, like there's no everyone participates in it. And
(22:58):
that's kind of we have to get I think restrictions
on sort of that can donate, who can regulate these things?
Where's the independence of this?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah, but I mean corruption is one of the things
that both parties can agree on. So Eric Epstein here
with Millennial Brian. We're being produced by JC. The show
is thundered down. The organization is Rock Capital Rock at
the Capitol, and we'll be back in a moment, all right,
(23:26):
So I'll just finish up with this betting. I guess
you can bet on just about anything.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Yes, so prediction marks especially, you can bet almost on anything.
I mean, there's like there's obviously tons of political bets,
election bets, what the federation would be. So you have
inside information, you can make tons of money. And then
if you're in the government where you're making policy as
so in the case we brought up the guy placed
that bet before they got Maduro. That's why it was
(23:53):
you got such great odds. Obviously, if someone will figure
that out, if someone will be able to trace it
back to account, or they ever figured out who it was,
they could they could say, oh, this is happening, and
you can put people in danger. So that's why Now
obviously you know, I don't think you would publicize it,
but that's why you have to have these restrictions.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
But that's why I wouldn't publicize it. Obviously, if you
had access to intel, it's potentially treasonous in that. I
agree you should prosecute this guy, but I don't know
that you have to make it a public.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
A public I mean, I think the question is, I
think you got banned government officials from having a tradition
of market accounts in general?
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Should there be a defined list of what you can
gamble on? I mean, based on what you're saying, you
could get ridiculous or you could get really terribly I
don't say violent, but you know, if if you can
gamble on anything, yeah, and you want to make sure
(25:00):
that your result goes your way. I can see where.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
People listen people people, you see it in sports, you
see it.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
I think even during the war, the Iran and Israel war.
There's a bet that Israel would not get struck by
Ian to say a certain day, by any missiles or
journalists reported that there was there was a missile that
got through the r n DL but didn't hit anyone,
but and he got threatened. He got threatened by people
essentially saying, hey, I put a bet on this, you know,
(25:31):
take this down. So you have that. You have that
in sports where you had obviously points shaving, and so
it's now not just you know, bet on the halftime
show or bet on let's say Lakers rockets. It's it's
become where it's as huge effects on like potentially policy outcomes.
And if people start, you know, tracking this stuff like
(25:53):
where the money is, could you essentially get information ahead
of time that I mean in the special forces this case,
if that if someone figured that out and and let's
say they've prepared for the division and we had like
ten guys die, I mean, that's a that's a.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Whole well, yeah, it's a criminal case, but I mean
the bitcoin thing would seem to play could play a
role in this where you're I'm a stuming you could
gamble with bitcoin.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
You it's it's I think it's it's a little harder.
You probably you can typically you can do it on
the casinos, not necessarily prediction markets because you have to
have like payouts.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So so let me ask you this. You know, we've
talked about gaming a lot. I don't gamble because that's
never good at it and I'm cheap. Is gaming becoming
the most devastating addiction?
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Uh, that's an interesting question. Everywhere where gaming has been
legalized and you've expanded online, you've seen let's say, private
credit ratings the average product credit for existence. So it's say,
and those states go down considerably. That affects your ability
to buy Morgans and stuff. I think you would still
say hard drugs and other stuff is worse, and you
can obviously gamble and be well within reasonable limits. But yeah,
(27:07):
I think a lot of people. I think someone brought
this up with alcohol, where they said the ten percent
heaviest drinkers account for like eight percent of the business,
and that's a bad incentive model if you want to
bring people into like responsible drinking. A lot of the
heaviest gamblers account for a huge part of the businesses.
They need big losers to ride their business, yeah and
(27:28):
so and so they're not incentivized to put restrictions on
you know, can you pull stuff out. I think a
good example is like you can't. You shouldn't be able
to bet on credit. You shouldn't be able to say, hey,
I'm going to take a ten thousand dollars loan and
put it on the lakers.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
That what brokers do all the time in Wall Street.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Except that is what brokers do, and let's forget that
the financial crisis or where they essentially bet on bad
loans so much that you essentially had, you know, just
a complete financial mouth.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
So the term responsible gaming bother me. It seems like
if you're saying responsible gaming, you can say responsible alcoholism,
responsible tobacco intake. I mean, I don't, I just don't know.
I mean some people can drink, I can't. I mean,
I'm recovering alcoholic and some can't. But with gaming, it
(28:21):
just seems to me that the reason I issu you
that it's more likely that I don't think there's a
top ten percent kind of here. I think there's lot
a large percentage of folks that gaming.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
So to give an example, two percent is what they
say are positive long term players. So that means you're
betting on sports, you're betting the casino. I mean, you're
betting consistently, over and over again. Two percent of people
are long terms. That means ninety eight percent of losers.
So that means if you're a long term better, you're
betting medium to modern income. That's how they make their money.
(28:57):
They want you and they'll offer you perks. They'll give
you a free room. You know, what's what's the hotel
room if you're gonna lose, you know, ten thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
How would they know that you gamble because I always
wanted to get a room, you know, take the soap,
the pictures off that, you know, everything like that.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
I mean, how would they know if you're gambled?
Speaker 3 (29:13):
I mean they have your account, so they'll see how
much you're gambling to see what they put. And they
have their loss rates, So what what you're expected loss
rate is based on the games you're playing and how
much money you're moving up. Your comp rate is a
third of that. So essentially, let's say you're playing roulette,
your loss rate is how is.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
That tractor getting a free room if you're never going
to be in it?
Speaker 3 (29:34):
Well, I guess you're sleep in it and stuff like that.
I think it's more of like you have to casino,
like you know, it's it's it's it's a very if
you just listen, if you go to the Grandfeld casino
and you compare that, like what it looks like, the food,
the place however, was dressed to like anything else in
that area. It's like a complete outlier. So you're in
that kind of toxic environment of like like a party mentality.
(29:56):
It's a party and so I listen people gamble and
then and and it is completely within their income range
or what they think. But I guess I would just
always say, you gotta think of almost expecting mind, don't
put anything out you don't think you can.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
With gaming.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
So what what are the odds that Defense Secretary Pete
Haigsith fires another admiral or general during the war. I've
never seen anything like that. He just forced out the
head of the Navy. I'm looking at the number of
people that he's gotten rid of, and he's calling it
based on a broken culture. But you know Randy George
(30:37):
h who was incredibly valuable uh military man and Navy admirals,
and what I mean, what's going on.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Well, I think I think he came in he wanted
to get rid of DEI in the military, so he
wanted to bring in what you call it a merit
deocratic process. I think then he got in, uh, and
then he want to also change the industrial basst so
ship building, stuff like that, and so he wanted to
bring in essentially his own people. But in the military
(31:07):
you have people that are kind of build up over
years and years and years, and so we wanted to
bring his own people. He got pushed back, and so
now he's he's he's firing those people. I think, like
I was, I think it's actually good if you were
if you came into the military and said, hey, we
need to be leading mean performance matters and you fire people.
I think the question is is that is that what
(31:28):
he's doing or is this to cover up for his
own short comings.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
No, I think there's a third option. It's not about
being lean and mean.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
If you look at what he wants it with dramatic
increases in the budget, and he wanted a dramatic increase
in ship building that's big and expensive and the military
is by far the foremost worst budgeter of money Oh, yeah,
they're terrible with money.
Speaker 3 (31:50):
And you know when you talk about the big ticket
itams it still with the big healthcare and Medicare and
medicaid and the military that sort of drives our budget.
And it's just you know, I think what we're running
too with these new wars that you need to be
innovative on drone technology and you need a lot of
ships if you just want to deal with the We want.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
To learn from the Cold Wars that conventional war and
asymmetrical war is what we should be preparing for.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
And you know when you look at the firing of
the Secretary of Navy, and this goes back to why
I think it's a nation of woost cakes. So they
fire this guy through a tweet and they tell him
a couple of minutes before. Again, I don't care what
party you are, what gender you are, you do that
(32:38):
face to face man, and and you know I'm going
to disagree with you to a degree. I think the
motivation for Haigsith is is what you said is correct.
Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know, but it's
deflated the spree de cors of the Pentagon, and it's
not great when.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
You're in the middle of a war.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Yeah, I think that's that's the key. I think that
this all goes back to the Iron War decision, the
preparation as for what, how, how it's unfolded where it
seems like that the military actually performed operationally, very effectively
and strategically. It was completely unplanned for disclosure of MOSE
and then what that might of fact.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Let me let us take a quick break here.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
The problem is that we haven't learned at both parties
that you can't bomber destroy an ideology.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Eric Apstuning with Moni ol Brian. We're being produced by j. C. Floyd.
Will be back in a moment the Capital.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
All right, I just want to kind of follow up.
Jason and I chatted over the break, and I don't
know that hag Sith is going anywhere because he seems
to be a favorite of Trump, you know, and leading
up to the war he was the biggest cheerleader.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Uh, you know, internally, the problem is, I don't know
that this is who you want.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
For the face of the military. I think image much
you project matters, Uh, and uh, he's I don't know
because I understand he and Cash Pateel may have some
extra curricular challenges.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
I mean, right when he was getting confirmed, there was
debates about that. I think the other thing is, like,
you know, he was on Fox News. There's been generals
on MSNBC. I'm not saying obviously they can do that.
You know, you can have your own political opinions. I'm
not sure if you've had the military you want to
have those if you if you look at this press conference,
(34:38):
the guy next one, who's actually done a lot of
the press conferences on the operation of the war, who
seems like a very down in the middle, this is
what it is, this is what's going on now. We
think I think it's General Caine. He seems to be
like a more guy that you want to put out there.
Because I can understand the conservative steps of like, hey,
(34:59):
you don't want these generals that go on MSNBC because
you have if you're if you're trying to make this
an a political organization, you don't want that either, So
I I could see that. I think the problem is
that you just flipped it. You just you put a
guy who's who's clearly got a political bet and it's
clearly a Trump guy, which is fine, But then now
you're the head of the organization where you have everyone,
(35:19):
everyone from every walk of life in there.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
The argument's made is he had some military experience, but
you're replacing the people who had a career in the military.
And yeah, I get that, you may want to shake
it up, but there's something to be said about experience
in the military. And and look there it's getting a
bit crazy. So Secretary of Labor is about to resign. Uh,
(35:45):
Kristen Noman was fired. Brian Bondi was fired. I don't
they They said to tell maybe, but I don't.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
I think he's gonna hang on. We'll see. I mean, listen,
first term Trump shuffled, it went through lot of yeah,
right he I think I think I actually heard an
interview he says, this is healthy competition. We need this
to give people. The question is if you don't have
continuity in your cabinet.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
But it's not competition, and it's unhealthy because it's who
can suck up the most. It's not based on competence
and it's not based on Merit is who can get
your lips closer to his romp? And Uh, I hope
you're not there when he farts, but you know, presidents
(36:31):
all have different styles, and he was elected and he
is you know, has the ability to uh, you know,
implement whatever stall he wants. The problem is this, does
he have the ability to acknowledge a mistake or to
you know, implement a corrective And I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
I mean, yeah, that's the quest. That's not He's not,
you know, a changed direction type of politician. I think
I think the wrong war that this is gonna be.
The big thing is we have to you know, how
this shakes out could affect his entire presidency. In fact,
basically since nine to eleven, foreign policy has paid an
outside influence on every single presidency.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Well that's why he was right on the campaign throw
where he's like.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
We got to stop getting Yeah, listen, this has hurt
his base because of the three issues. He wanted to
renegotiate trade deals, he wanted a much stricter immigration policy,
and he wanted to end foreign involvement in Middle Eastern wars.
Now part of that coalition and you see it with
the podcasts are pushed away from of his support base.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
Well, he lost what's his name, Carson.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly that have been critical of him.
Now listen, like the Venezuela thing, if this does end
and it does look like let's say the United States
gets a better deal or something and the oil prices
come back down, then he'll be able to say it's
a win, because you know, we will The American public
doesn't like long protracted wars, but they will tolerate essentially
(38:01):
strikes to deals.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
This, I don't know the declare victory over Iran. I
think right now the Saudis and the Emordis are you know,
a little worried, and so they're looking for some kind
of coalition. But yeah, I think Haiksis survives just because
he has a really good relationship with Trump, and it's.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Not I always you know.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
The military guy I loved was Colin Powell because he
was very experienced, he was very direct. He wasn't calling
reporters and giving him you know, military information. But he
was the one who I think restored credibility to the military.
And he had a famous quote when they asked him,
(38:42):
you know, how are you going to defeat the rock
and he said, well, we're going to find the head
of the snake and cut.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
It off, you know.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
And I think everybody's like, yeah, yeah, that sounds a
good idea. So what's going on in the house. You know,
if you're just looking at this, and I don't know
how much people follow this, but you have a situation
in the house. You had a Democrat who an eighty
year old gentleman from Georgia died. You have the guy
and he's a Democrat, the Republican from New Jersey who
(39:09):
hasn't voted since March, which seemed to indicate that he
may not be doing well. On top of that, you
had the expulsion of two legislators, one Democrat one Republican
for sexual transgressions. Now there's another there's a Democrat now
who I think just resigned. She's a female Democratic legislator
(39:32):
from Florida. On top of that, you have Nancy Mace,
who's kind of like a protege of Marjorie Tayler.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Green says.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
She once Representative Mills out for apparently alleged sexual harassment
spouse spousal. So Representative Mills responded by saying, if you
come after me, and apparently Mace is being audited for
nine thousand dollars in expenditures that were done that that
(40:07):
were done, you know, for her personal home.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
So I mean there is.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
It's it's it's interesting to me, how uh when it
came to the male members of the House, Democrats and Republican women,
you know, came together to force a hand.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
But is that a lot or is am? I uh?
Speaker 3 (40:30):
It's even more I think when they were going over
and this is back when the me too out stuff
was coming out, I think they said that there was
eight congressmen that had closed or sealed files on sexul
harassment in the House was obviously which would be that
they had ethics in the investigation and complaints and so.
(40:55):
And that's so that's not including people that I say,
do could talk about. I think this is a common
uh more common people realize you have guys who were
let's say, not successful in a normal everyday life to
become congressmen that haven't such the access to women that
want to move up the political file, and then they
take advantage.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
But you just really raise a good point. People have
knowledge of this behavior. So you have what turned out
to be a degenerate Democrat running for governor in California
who had just a sleut about and it was everybody
knew that this dynamic happens where you know, the guys
are in power forty years old, fifty years old.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Have these young women work for him?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
And I just thought, how did how did sal I
forget how to I don't really know how to say
his name swallow Law. Yeah, and this has been going
on for a while. He's married, as three kids, and
he was in the lead to win the Desert Walking Away.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
So, I mean, the Democratic Party can't claim to be
some bastion of.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
Oh no, listen, this is a corruption. This is mismavor.
It's by Parson, It's by Parson, and it's across and
obviously this is these are men, maybe badly, but you
see women behave badly too, Like this is bad behavior,
especially when you can insulate it from consequences. It's just
across the board endemic and it shows this is why
people are losing faith. I think just in any political
(42:25):
process in jenneral So, I feel like it'd be one
thing there's a few people and they get punished for
the problem is that it seems like it's endemic across
the board, and they don't get punched for it, or
they get plunshed very little.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
For Yeah, but the Supreme Court is weakened corruption, I mean,
for prosecution. I mean, you can just about do anything
and the Supreme Court will let you off. I mean,
I'm starting to feel nostalgic for the guy from New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
Who got gold bricks.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
I just thought, yeah, oh my god, what a scumbag.
But what a ballsy scumback, you know, just dropped the
gold bricks off in.
Speaker 3 (42:58):
My protectingly guess inflation. I mean, really ahead of the game, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I mean, look, there's something to be said about intelligent criminals,
you know. And so when you look at this and
its entirety, the impact is when it's all said and done,
I'm not really sure who's going to control the House.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
I mean, you know, a lot of.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
These people that have been removed. It's the governor who
makes a decision when the election occurs. In Florida, and Dessantus,
to be consistent, has been calling on that for a while.
But Florida, although it's a it is a red state
now it's it's always a gamble.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Yeah, and it can flip and listen, I think you're
looking at Typically midterm elections go against the incumbent president,
especially in their first term, you would assume the Democrats
would get a swing in the direction the questions with
I think the cherry managering across the board does not
affect it either way and essentially making the swing even
more or the Republican's able to get more gains.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
With the best strowing party is independence. And I think
the mess that Trump has gotten into has basically precluded
him from a third term and has and has likely
impaired his agenda. I mean that's and so guys, a survivor,
a street fighter, will see what happens. He's like a
(44:23):
feral cat. You know, He's got really good political instincts,
but this one's kind of hard to get get out
of it. Also, I think most importantly diverts his attention
from nationalizing elections.
Speaker 3 (44:35):
Yeah, I think the Save Act, which is a big push,
is going to get put on the bat or Also,
because you know the Iran war too, is that you
know that that's an example of foreign policy. Now now
it's the number one issue, and that's the it's going
to affect gas prices, and so how that shakes out
and how that ends, well.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
I think the problem for Trump he was really good
at vilifying people, whether it was Hillary or Kamala whomever.
And so when you're not in power, he was really
good at making promises he wouldn't keep. But you know,
finding the issues of the hot button issues. So we
have what jaycon two more minutes. So anything you want
(45:15):
to add to the broadcast before we check off.
Speaker 4 (45:17):
Now you've touched on just about everything that I can
think of that's important. I reiterate the Hagstaff thing. I
think that is going to be a big disaster too.
And what's his name, the Patel?
Speaker 1 (45:31):
He's going out, all right, So do you have any
predictions on who may be the next I mean.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
Well, it's I think, I think for the military, especially
now with the war. So I don't think, hey, I
don't think that any of ahead people that are drug
reporter to Trump will go until afterwards, although I think
I think he is going to depending on the deal.
I would like to see how the deal shakes out.
I think that's gonna be the big thing, the big.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Well, I think the issue is not how the deal
shakes out, but how the deal is promoted, because at
the end of the day, if you cut a deal
and you're just essentially going back to where you were
with Obama, that would be a victory. Now, that'd be
so anything. What are you doing this weekend? What you
got going hot?
Speaker 3 (46:19):
Playoffs?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Yeah, hockey. You're probably watching basketball. But all right, look
we'll be back in two weeks. I want to thank
Jaz for producing Millennial. You are brilliant. Uh and of
course I was exquisite. Eric Epstein, this is thunder Dum.
We're from Rock to Capitol. Please visit our website. Com'all,
(46:43):
I like it.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
I like this
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.