October 31, 2025 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Ai possibilities & sceptics
- Doing away with the filibuster
- Handing out potatoes to trick or treaters & Biden was out of touch
- Sending a text to the wrong person
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, arm Strong and
Jetty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Authorities in Michigan told parents to be on the lookout
after discovering candy and snacks containing THC and hallucinogenic mushroom products.
Said parents, Oh, we've been on the lookout for those.
So is this a serious problem?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I would assume if you're a stoner drug fiend, you
don't want to be given away your stuff, and.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Especially given the fact that it's a felony and give
you a child. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, And if something that happened, you'd go to prison.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I suspect Jack, that there will be and have been
a small handful of cases around a gigantic country where
somebody who's either just monumentally stupid or has monumentally terrible
judgment will do this, and everyone in America will hear
about it over and over again. So it'll be the
(01:17):
classic exceptionality bias news story. It gets attention because it's
so rare. Yeah, it will be incredibly fencing people that
is common. It will be incredibly rare. And I'm not
worried about it for my own kids.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
But I could see I've known numb nuts that would
think it was funny to get kids high.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Get kids high. I could see that, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
That's your really top tier of stupid.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Yep, it really is.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So I came across this in substack yesterday from this
guy named Timothy Lee, who I do not know. But
his article was he writes about AI for a living,
and his headline was AI skeptics and AI boosters are
both wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And I gave that a look.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Everybody's guessing to a certain extent here, but I just
thought this was an interesting tank a take I hadn't
heard before. Earlier this month, he writes, I attended an
AI conference called the Curve in Berkeley, California, in just
a few miles from where we are. A lot of
people there were AGI pilled, he calls it. For example,
I participated in a role playing exercise organized by this
(02:22):
dude who argues that AI systems will soon achieve human
level intelligence. Then they will rapidly improve themselves, leading to
superhuman AI capabilities and an extreme acceleration of scientific discovery
and economic growth. Then he went across the hall to
another conference where a different AGI pilled writer. That's someone
(02:46):
who believes so much of this, who believes the super
intelligent AI will kill everyone on the planet.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
He said, to go back to the first one.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
He said, at the opposite end of the spectrum or
skeptic to believe AI is not just overhyped, but practically useless.
This perspective wasn't well represented at the conference, but it
came up a lot. We mentioned this a couple of
weeks ago. There was a piece in The New York
Times quoting this study. One of your big godfathers of AI.
You know, there's a handful of people that are really
well respected whenever they talk about AI. One of those
(03:20):
people wrote a column in The New York Times citing
this MIT study, which we have talked about before. A
recent study run by MIT's program that looks into this
sort of stuff found that ninety five percent of companies
that did AI pilot studies found little or no return
on their investment, and a financial analysis projects an estimated
(03:41):
shortfall of eight hundred billion dollars in revenue for AI
companies by the end of twenty thirty. That it's not
going to pan out near the way they thought so.
That article got a lot of attention at the time,
and apparently came up a lot in this conference.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
I can contradict that right now, but go ahead to
that later. No, go ahead, Oh just happened to yesterday afternoon.
I have a conversation with a good friend who is
an attorney of great experience and success and worked for
a fairly important law firm. And he's actually my friend
who I've mentioned to his license to practice both in
(04:16):
the US and Britain.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
He is no dummy.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
He and his company are working with a certain university
on AI programs for law, and he was describing to
me how they were designing AI personas I think was
the term he used that would approach a problem as
he would not just as a generic attorney or as
(04:39):
a computer, but as he has and would throughout his career.
And that's based on extensive interviews and study of how
he doesn't And he said the results.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Were scary good. Wow.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yeah, I don't buy the it's not going to be
profitable or be a thing. I lean more toward ruining
the world than toward making it better personally, even though
I think it will make it better and it'll be
able to cure diseases and help you figure out medication
and all kinds of different things. But it at the
same time is going to.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Ruin the world. And you know, if it ruins the world,
what good does it do?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
If I mean, if nobody has jobs and nobody gets
together in relationships anymore, who cares if it's curing these
obscure answers.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Right in the few remaining human beings, right produced Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
But anyway, I wanted to get to this part and
then I will shut up about it because I won't
worry out. But I thought it was this interesting, this
guy writes. My view is between these two extremes. I
think that AI has genuinely impressive capabilities that are likely
to improve further in the coming months and years. I
think the AI industry is likely to be profitable in
the wrong run, and that open AI's basic business model
is perfectly reasonable. But I don't think we're very close
(05:47):
to human level intelligence at all. I don't think AI
is about to drive the kind of massive social and
economic changes that AGI pilled folks expect. And then it
gets into some of his reasoning after that that gets
complicated and uses rais in terms that you have to
look up. But there is a crowd out there that believes, well,
kind of what I just kind of what I just said,
but not completely. He believes, Yeah, it's a thing and
(06:08):
gonna it's gonna come along, and it's it's going to
be impactful, but it's not going to upend society and
our economic models in ways that we need to be
worried about.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
And I hope the more right. Yeah, Yeah, I don't
think he is.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
I think there is a wide swath of so called
white collar jobs that will vanish.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I'm completely convinced to that there's that.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And then I think a lot of these people, because
they're computer geeks, which in most cases by definition means
you're kind of like not a normal person in society,
I think they vastly underestimate what it's going to do
to relationships and society and coupling and all that sort
(06:54):
of stuff, because there's such outliers as human beings to
start with, and I'm not sure that a lot of
these people even can conceive of thinking about that issue
because they just don't live in that world of like going.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Out in dating and blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Well, and a lot of opinion leaders are also self
motivated go getters, and so they can't conceive of because
you no longer have to work to take care of yourself,
you become a blob of dinner on weik because they
would find something right. But a hell of a lot
of human beings aren't made like that. Most, Yeah, the
(07:31):
vast majority. And I feel like we've already seen enough of.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
The people having relationships with chatbots when it's at its
current level of engagement, that it's inevitable that it becomes
a huge problem. I can't I can't imagine the argument
that says, no, it's not going to be a big deal.
You aren't going to have millions of in cell dudes
(08:00):
who are so obsessed with their AI, chat bot and
porn that they never get with a real woman.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
That won't happen. I don't understand that argument at all.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Right, Oh my gosh, I've got a great think piece
around here somewhere about the rise of that very sort
of young man and how they quickly become embittered and
hateful and for instance, kill Charlie Kirk or try to
put a bullet in Donald J. Trump's head for the
very scenario you were describing, and.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Then then for women, because women tend to be more
about the emotions than most dudes in general. Man, the
getting some sort of comfort from a chat dude that
talks to you about your problems and agrees that you've
been wrong by your mom and your sister, I just think.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
That's gonna be a huge thing, right, just as an
aside as you were a speaking jack, I quickly did
a search on how old is the saying I have
had or the devil's playthings? Or are similar phrasings of
the same thought? And it definitely goes back to the
Old Testament. Sure it's in proverbs. Idle hands are the
(09:10):
d well? It depends which just you know the translation
you have. It endured throughout the early days of Christianity.
Here are a bunch of citations from the medieval period.
Here are early English usages in the fifteen hundreds through
the seventeen hundreds. The wording probably solidified in the eighteenth
(09:31):
or nineteenth century, but the idea itself is at least
fourteen hundred years old, with deep roots in early Christian
moral teaching. It is an idea that has never receded
from human consciousness, that idle hands are the devil's playthings.
And yet we are moving as quickly as possible toward
(09:54):
a mechanism to idle as many hands as possible.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
That only works, That's true.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
It only works because you believe that a lot of
people are not self motivated to do something. The remember
Nancy Pelosi famously saying, this will be a chance everybody
can be an artist or a poet or whatever. Yeah,
a lot of people are going to kind of talk
about that, but they aren't going to like engage in
eight hours of effort every single day to be whatever
(10:21):
they're going to be and be occupied. No, they're going
to sit around and get you know, naval gazingly selfish
and insular in their lives, and it's going to go
off the rails and high and hi.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
All right, here's a little poetry for you, Nancy, Roses
are red, violets are blue. AGI is here, Humanity's through
there you go.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
There's a little.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Uh artificial generalized intelligence.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
That's the AGI. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Yeah, Yeah, it's not a good poem, but you know,
I'm a beginner. Hey, work from our friends that simply
save home security, the goose, ghosts and goblins and ghouls
and little skeletons running around are just charming and sweet.
What's scary is the bums and junkies who want to
break into your house and steal your stuff and god forbid,
hurt your family. Trust simply Safe Home Security and it's
(11:13):
incredible combination of AI and professional monitoring agents.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
It stops a crime before it starts.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
You know that giant ghost clearly an adult walking around
in neighborhood. They're case in your house, That's what they're
doing this getting ready for the opportunity, checking out, looking
through your windows, seeing what you got. You got the
whole simply Safe set up. You're okay, see, the only
home security that we trust to keep our homes safe.
I love the fact that I've got simply Safe set
up with the cameras and the censors and all the
(11:41):
different sorts of stuff, and you can tune with the
sixty day money back guarantee and no long term contract.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Why wouldn't you at least try it.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
You're in your business every single day because they know
you're gonna love it and you're gonna use it. Go
to simplysafe dot com slash armstrong to save fifty percent
off on your simply safe home security system. That's simplysafe
dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe flights, simply save.
Trump dropped a bit of a political bomb earlier. We
can talk about suggesting the Republican Senate do away with
(12:08):
the filibuster. I don't know how much you understand that,
but that is trulliot, don't doli. It's highly troubling. Among
other things we can talk about stay here a strong.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
President Trump says enough is enough. It is time to
nuke the filibuster and reopen the government. Here's what he
posted last night on truth Social It's now time for
Republicans to play their Trump card and go for what
is called the nuclear option. Get rid of the filibuster
and get rid of it now. That would allow Senate
Republicans to reopen the government on their own, even though
(12:44):
Senate leaders generally don't like the idea of ending the filibuster.
But pressure is mounting. Troops are getting paid today after
the Pentagon shifted some funds around, but federal snap benefits
run out this weekend, and we're already seeing major flight
disruptions in places like Orlando and here in Washington.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
That would be a horrible thing to do. To end
the filibuster, Currently, you need sixty votes in the Senate
see and usually need the party with the majority and
a decent handful of the other party. In other words,
the bulk of America needs to agree on something for it.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
To pass, is the theory.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
And if it's probably the last vestige of Yeah, we
disagree with each other, but we care about the country,
so let's talk about it.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Probably is as supposed to just naked partisan. Probably is
the last vestige of that.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
And if you do away with the filibuster and then
it just becomes majority rule like it is in the House,
then whichever party holds power in the Senate has fifty votes,
and then if you have the vice presidency, you only
need fifty. We'll just pass everything they want. So the
House will pass it, the Center will pass it, and
there you go. It's a law without any say whatsoever
(13:56):
from the other party, which would.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Be horrible, horrible, horrible.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Now, Trump's argument is that the Democrats tried to do
it for three years but couldn't because Senators Joe Manchin
of West Virginia and Kirsten Cinema of Arizona wouldn't vote
for it because they're decent Americans. I also don't think
all those Democrats that voted for it actually meant it,
because I think there are enough institutionalists, grown up Democrats
(14:20):
also in the Senate that Okay, you two are going
to vote against it, Okay, then I can vote for
it to look like I'm for it for my crowd.
I think, you know, a couple would have stepped up
to make sure it didn't pass. We may we're going
to cross the line at some point. I think at
least that's direction all our politics are going, where one
party is going to do with this, away with this,
and Trump's making the argument they're going to do away
(14:41):
with it when they take over the Senate. Then they'll
be able to pack the Supreme Court with whoever the
hell they want.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Because all you will need is fifty of votes.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
And we might as well do it now to get
the jump on them, which is which is the classic
definition what I've been the phrase I've been using for
a long time.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Race to the b I mean, that's just the perfect
race to the bottom. Yeah. I wish I could declare
that those folks are.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Just wrong, categorically wrong, but they might not be it
could be that we're heading toward a future where it
is simple majority for everything, and elections have enormous consequences
and policy swings wildly back and forth. Of course, with
the you know, Congress forgetting its job, forgetting the Constitution
(15:27):
and all of us worshiping the chief executive as something
like a king, we're having wild swings and policy back
and forth.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Anyway, Well, imagine the kind of just make it worse.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Imagine the kind of judges we might get if you
just need the majority and you've got a strong president
with a big following like Barack Obama. Biden didn't have it,
but like Barack Obama or Donald Trump, where you could
get somebody through fairly extreme, and there'd be a tremendous
amount of pressure to put on your fifty senators to say,
put this person on the Supreme Court. Then we've completely
(16:00):
own up that institution. Also, we get a whack jobs on.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Yeah, you might have a handful of senators on the
president's party on his side thinking this person's a monster,
they shouldn't be on the bench.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Right. I hate still get through.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
I hate the idea of doing away at the filibuster,
but I do think it's inevitably going to happen. It
just it's the direction everything is going. Wow, and then
we're just going to be majority rule. You might as
well just combine the House and the Senate into one thing.
Five hundred and thirty five members of that.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
God dang, that's what the Democratic Socialists of America party wants.
They want to elimination of Senate and just a pure
you know, majority rules, single House. Speaking of which I've
got a zoron Mumdani update coming up later on the show.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Monadanie. Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
I don't know where I am on the weather because
I think Trump might be right that it's going to happen.
It'd be better if we do it, then they do it,
and you get no credit through history for.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
We weren't the party that did it. It was the
other part.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
That ain't gonna matter when the other party does await
the fillbuster and then just starts passing whenever the hell
way want to pass.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Yeah, I'm of two minds. I'm against.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
I would if I were a Senator, I would I
would try to stop this from happening.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Yeah, I agree, complains well, especially reminded of conversations go ahead.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Especially around this.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Trump's argument is to end this shutdown, the freaking shutdown.
You're gonna blow up the damn Senate over the shutdown
of all things, which is the Democrat's fault. Come on now, no, no, no,
don't bail them out. The WAPO editorial Board today says
the quickest way to end the shutdown is to have
the Democrats enough Democrats to vote for passing this. The
(17:43):
WAPO Editorial Board, right, yeah, don't do anything much less
blow up the Senate. By the way, on Tuesday, we
will officially be in the longest to shut down this
country has ever had. And I think we're gonna get there.
Over what nothing. We have a way to run a republic.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
We got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
If you missed a secment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Armstrong and Geeddy.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
There's a new star of the spooky season. That is
kid saying trick or tato potato Yeah. Videos of homeowners
handing out potatoes on Halloween have been sprowling up on
social media in recent years, leaving some puzzled, but surprisingly
most ecstatic.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
You have potatoes.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
More trick or treaters are poised to strike Yukon gold.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Now I have been ladling out hot cream corn for
years at Halloween, you know, hold out your little basket
and I just give you a full scoop of cream
corn in there.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
On top of all your candy. And yet potatoes might
as well. The last kid.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
The thing any kid needs is more candy. It's ubiquitous candy.
It's everywhere, it's practically free, right right, yeah, yeah, that
is kind of funny. Oh I might do that myself tonight. Honestly,
Henry would love that. We'll get a We'll get a
bag of potatoes, potatoes, just full raw potatoes. Is that
(19:20):
the way you do with Katie? Just like a big
brown raw.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Potato?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And am I missing the joke here? Is it just ironic?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Just it's well, I don't know if it's ironic, it's
just odd, all right, whatever?
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Why not a turnip, That's what I say? Or a
California prunes. Check out californiaprudnes dot org. Let's see where
was I?
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Yeah, uh, just a handful of stories that worth are
worth at least tipping our cap to I'm always torn
with like looking back at Joe Biden's presidency the Free
Press with a scathing, scathing report on the House Oversight
Committee report that just came out about how incredibly out
touched Joe Biden was.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
I got some great details from that writer.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, yeah, grab them or we can do it now whatever,
particularly the use of the auto pen and all of
the pardons. It's become completely clear that his activist staff
just had some very broad perimeters, didn't look at individual parameters, rather,
didn't look at individual cases at all, and gave pardons
(20:24):
to some really monstrous people and people who didn't deserve
it at all.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
But and Biden had no idea of any of it.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
So, not surprisingly, the mainstream media, which was involved in
covering for an obviously addled president, is not reporting on
the report that just came out.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
But this is a legit report.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
This is not like Comer, you know, the Republican committee
member who makes all these claims and then they never
come true. This was the testimony of actual people who
worked in the Biden administration. And I became aware of
this only through Mark Alpern's podcast yesterday. He was losing
his mind over the fact that this was not in
The New York Times of the Washington Post, because this
(21:03):
came out two days ago, and he's like, how is
nobody talking about this?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Here's what Axios had. This is from Thompson.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
He's the other guy with Jake Tapper that wrote the book,
one of the very few journalists in America who was
being honest about Biden's mental decline. Alex Thompson Thompson, Yeah, yeah,
so he wrote this in Acxios. This is from the
report that came out two days ago that's getting no coverage.
Former Biden chief of staff, his chief of staff, Jeff Zeins,
told the panel that he, Jake Sullivan, the NSA advisor,
(21:34):
Anthony Blincoln, the Secretary of State, the Commerce Secretary of
the VIA secretary all expressed concern about Biden continuing his
re election campaign after the debate. Zeins told all lawmakers
that within a few days after the debate, Biden was
aware of my view that I thought it was prudent
to get out of the race. They didn't think he
was mentally competent to be president. The Secretary of State,
(21:59):
his own chief of staff right didn't think he should
be president at that time, let alone for another four years.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
And they all kept their mouths shut, and they kept
their mouths shut.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
And that's not a big enough story for the New
York Times of the Washington Poast. As I heard someone describe, well,
they were complicit in the cover up. So how do
they report at this point that it's shocking that somebody
was not saying out loud what was clearly true. So,
like I said, Mark Awpern was losing his mind over
how this is not a big national story that the
secretary of State and the guy's own chief of staff
(22:33):
knew the guy shouldn't be president, that he was incompetent
and kept their mouths shut. The Democrats should have this
hung around their head for many cycles.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
Right right, So, as I started to say at the
beginning of the segment, I mean, there's a part of
me that thinks, you know, we got plenty of problems
now dissecting the past. You know, what good would it
do Biden's hat office and soon to be out of life.
But at the same time, I mean, we've not to
hold people to account it, or even a political party
(23:03):
on some less.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Oh yeah, yet it's not about Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
But there are a whole bunch of people involved that
plan to continue to be major movers and shakers of
the Democratic Party right that we now know because they testified.
They had to testify, and I'm thinking the only reason
they testified this is because they knew either other people
were gonna say it, or it's documented somewhere or whatever.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
The freaking secretary of State.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
What kind of patriot are you if of the secretary
of State, everything that's going on in the world, a
couple of wars, all the different awful things that could happen.
You know, the guy's not competent to be president of
the United States and can keep your mouth shut.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Don't smesh them in awak unless you want to get
the back.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And part of it, I guess is Trump during syndrome,
they probably that will be better than having Hitler as president.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Part of it was that, and the other part of
it was that people who are closest to Biden, who
are politically very very dangerous, would cut you off at
the knees if you dared break ranks, for instance. And
the fact that this is not like covered a lot
in the mainstream media just shows how incredibly biased they
are because it's a super interesting political story. Mike Donalan
(24:13):
is a campaign consultant he's been with Biden for nearly
forty five years. People close to Biden. This is in
twenty twenty one in the Washington Post see donal and
is Biden's conscience, his alter ego, a shared brain. One
long time Biden advisor estimated no fewer than ten thousand
times in their working relationship. As the President turned to
(24:34):
Donalin and asked, Mike, what do you think. Closest guy
to Biden had a four million dollar bonus coming if
Biden got reelected. As his campaign consultant, he got paid
four million bucks for getting Biden in the White House
the first time, and if he could keep Biden in
the race, he would earn four million more. Mike Donalin
(24:59):
was the hatchet man behind the nobody says anything scheme
about Biden, and.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
He's under oath.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Here the transcript of the committee's interview with the Donald.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
He spells it all out.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
Man, if you're cheapest staff to a president and you've
gone to the guy and said I don't think you
should run for reelection, you can't keep your mouth shut
and let that play out.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Yeah, I know, I know. It's terrible.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
What if he'd had a crisis that he maybe we did.
Maybe that's the next shoe that's going to drop. Maybe
not for twenty five years when a variety of things
are finally released. But who knows was making variety of
decisions around, you know, our Israel policy or Ukraine policy
or whatever policy it might have just been, you know,
(25:51):
the chiefest staff in the Secretary of State and signing it.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Is there a big historic shoe foot that's going to drop?
Shoot the trubet shoe. Shoe that's gonna drop when Biden Croakes.
Is Anthony Blinkin gonna unleash his book?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah? I don't think you could. I don't think you
could because you're implicating yourself as a really bad person.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, yeah, I guess so.
Speaker 4 (26:15):
Speaking of media and politics and that sort of thing,
here's a headline for you.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Bloodbath.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
CBS parent company announces mass layoffs, slashes race and culture
unit at CBS. They announced Wednesday around two thousand layoffs,
including one hundred in the newsroom. Well, I eliminated the
outlets race and culture unit in an effort to crack
down on ideological bias.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
I haven't paid attention to the ratings for the evening
newscast for many, many years. Because it has become much
much less relevant. Used to be so important the three
evening newscasts, and they are barely important now. But I
didn't realize CBS was so far behind the other two.
I mean absolutely getting trounced by ABC and NBC, and
(26:58):
so yeah, I mean it's not some sort of of
right wing berry wise fascist. It's I mean, if you're
just running a business, you would come in and lay
waste because you're getting your ass kicked.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Yeah, it's funny. In spite of that clear, unmistakable reality,
the folks at CBS are tweeting, mostly anonymously or on
slack messages, that it's just it's a blood bath. It's
nerve wracking. It's so unfair. It's a blah blah blah. No, No,
you're losing. Your team loses all of its games. Don't
(27:33):
like weep bitter tears when you fire the offensive coordinator.
That's what you're supposed to do. But that sense of
entitlement is nothing new in the media. Let's see, I
want to squeeze in one more. Oh that's really good. Oh,
here's a good one for you. Here's a headline for you.
(27:53):
Hesbola is rearming putting cease fire with Israel at risk HESBLA.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
They're the ones that got their junk going off by pagers,
not enough of them.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Apparently Israel is losing patience as the levities militant group
restocks rockets, anti anti tank missiles and artillery or on
that afterward from our friends at PRIs.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Here BBDBP and you say, hold on a second, somebody's
trying to get a hold of let me see what
this is then, Bluey no gonads mmmm, disappointing.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Prize Picks is the best way to cash in on
your baseball theories for tonight, which players are going to
go off? Which ones are over hyped? To make your
picks in less than sixty seconds, turn your takes into
cash all season long on Prize Picks.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Plenty of NFL action this weekend, of course in basketball
all the time. We're into that. So you got plenty
of sports you can cover and take your opinion turn
it into money with Prize Picks. Download the Price Picks
app today and use the code Armstrong and you get
fifty dollars in lineups after you play your first five
dollars lineup.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
I love this Prize Picks off also offers injury reboots.
If one of your players leaves the game in the
first half and doesn't return, Prize Picks will not count
that as a loss.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
That is fair.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Download the prize picks at today again. Use that code
Armstrong and you get fifty dollars in lineups after you
play just a five dollars lineup.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
You don't have to win. It's automatic.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
That's the code Armstrong the prize picks at Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
It's good to be right.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
So you've got Hamas continuing attacks, trying to regroup as
fast as it can, and Hesbela re arming. It's almost
as if you can't make peace with religious zelots who
vowed to wipe you off the face of the earth.
If it takes a thousand years, turns out you can't
just you know, knock them around a little bit and
(29:35):
get them to come to their sentences.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Census doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
We haven't mentioned the foiled terrorist plot that cash Ptel
announced today the FBI stopped. Maybe we'll get into some
of the details of that if it's all accurate. It was.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
It was a big one in a major mom Dammi
the Kami update next hour.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Cool.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
And if you haven't heard our tip up the easiest
costume for couples. You're going to a party tonight, you
gotta throw something together real quick. It's the hot costume
stick around. Okay, Joe's gonna have to come up with something.
Speaker 7 (30:16):
I'm a little distracted. Oh oh, we've all done this.
Oh I sent a text to the wrong person.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Oh oh, I was going to guess phone and toilet,
judging by the look in your face.
Speaker 8 (30:34):
But now that phone and toilet, that's Is this going
to have consequences kind of a text?
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Yes, can you send it? No, they already responded, deepic, deepic.
It was not a deepic. I did not send it. Deepict.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Somebody, Oh my god, I can't even come close to
hinting what it's about.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
But it is not a good one, damn it.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Were you you talking smack about the particular person you
sent it.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
To, not smack in the sense of like, uh, you know,
backbiting gossip for fun or something like that, Like a
serious conversation about someone and their shortcomings to the to
that person. Oh and that was all designed around helping them.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And interesting wrinkle. Well, it's my role to help this person.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
You can probably figure out what I'm talking about, Okay,
my biological role, and I sent. I sent the conversation
to them about a problem.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
That they have gotten. Dang it, I've only done this.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
This is the third time I've done I've done it
a bunch of times, we all have, but I've only
done it three times with like actual ramifications.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I'm not sure I have good for you.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I have. It's been so long because I'm usually really careful,
partly because you have, and the idea scares me so
much when you tell us about it, I think, never
do that. You know.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
It's an absent minded guy, it's an ever present threat.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
You know, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
No.
Speaker 8 (32:18):
My issue lately has been the audio messages. I don't
know how I keep hitting that button, but I'll text
somebody and then it turns on the audio recording and
then I learned down at my phone and it's like
I was, I haven't sent one, but I've been too
close many a time.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Wow, can you like ask SII to do me a favorite?
Don't ever turn that on until you've asked me if
I'm sure I.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Want it on? Good idea?
Speaker 3 (32:48):
This could have been so much worse. I got really
lucky that I worded it the way I did.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Or it could have been disastrous. Oh boy. But so
here's the lesson.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
Before you press send every single time, check at the
top to see who it's going.
Speaker 4 (33:08):
Yeah. I'm a big fan of note private thread. If
you go from say a group, maybe you're putting together
a tea time for the golf course for something very innocent,
and Al Jones signs up and Al is a known cheater,
(33:30):
and you don't want to have anything to do with it,
and I'll send a text to you know, a person,
say no, this is a private thread, this is not
the same thread, Just to avoid that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Yeah, yeah, if you're in that situation, that's a good idea.
I was not in that situation. I don't know how
I did this. I think I was just a mind.
I was thinking about the person and I was sending
it to someone else, and just in my mind I
conflated it somehow that I should be sending it to the.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Person that it's about.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
I have done the whole thing where you got two
conversations to go it at once with two different people,
and so they're coming in back and forth, back and forth,
and you just reply to a reply, and the other
one had jumped in, and you say.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
And you in and fort invertently tell Michelangelo love you too.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
For instance, Yes I remember that. Yeah, I've got a
few of those.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
It's time I came to terms with my feelings for you.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Those are mildly embarrassing, as opposed to oh my god,
this could change my life. Ish you could easily have
some that changed your life. Man, there is nothing more
true than the whole. You can't run ring a bell
about things said. Yes, it just it's just one hundred
ironclad true.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
It got back to me a hundred years ago that
one of my good friends had expressed to somebody else.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
I cared about that.
Speaker 8 (34:50):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
I don't get why he's with Judy. I don't see
anything there at all. This is when we were dating. Wow,
that's never been the same, still in touch, never been
the same. Of course it's not, you know, And he's
entitled to his opinion. I mean, it's fine, but just
of course you wouldn't be the same.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Well, that's been very kind of you to say he's
entitled to his opinion, which of course he is. But
he did did he need to be saying that to anyone.
Speaker 4 (35:20):
Yeah, you gotta be really careful about that, because you
don't know what's happening in a relationship if you're not
in it.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
No, you don't anyway.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Anyway, Oh, speaking of difficult conversations.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Okay, I got that out of my system, all right, Yeah,
that's good. That's good.
Speaker 4 (35:36):
Science has proved that shouting obscenities is good for you.
Just not in the crowd at McDonald's. Speaking of difficult
conversations that ought.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
To be had, you shouldn't at church, just sitting there
and appeal. There are a number of settings. Sorry, I'm
thinking of something else.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
You got nothing new with your actually, just to summarize
several settings, or that's in uppurp. What's being of difficult conversations?
The great Seth Dillon, the genius behind the Babylon b
wrote a piece for the Free Press about the foolishness
of no enemies to the right, the idea that don't
(36:10):
don't attack the nutty right wing as a conservative because
we got to train all of our firepower on the left.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
And how foolish that is.
Speaker 4 (36:20):
And it surprises me not a bit, how eloquent and
persuasive his case is.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
We'll get to that later on.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
I think originally it was always no enemies to the left,
but it is caught on both sides.
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Well, the humorous part, and you may know this already, Jack,
is that that emerged from the French Revolution there to
the left came.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Right and that ended just beautifully. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Yeah, no, No matter how crazy the people to the
left of us are, we're all together, so we're gonna
And you see that on the left all the time. Right,
the average Democrat is not down with a lot of
this nuttiness, but they feel like they should have no
enemies to the left.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
You got moderate Democrats afraid to say no dudes and
beat up on girls in women's sports. That's ridiculous. They're
afraid no enemies to the left. Well, let's call out
our enemies.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
To the right.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah, okay, if you miss a segment, get the podcast.
Check who you're sending your text to.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, arm Strong and
Jetty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Authorities in Michigan told parents to be on the lookout
after discovering candy and snacks containing THC and hallucinogenic mushroom products.
Said parents, Oh, we've been on the lookout for those.
So is this a serious problem?
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I would assume if you're a stoner drug fiend, you
don't want to be given away your stuff, and.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Especially given the fact that it's a felony and give
you a child. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yeah, And if something that happened, you'd go to prison.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I suspect Jack, that there will be and have been
a small handful of cases around a gigantic country where
somebody who's either just monumentally stupid or has monumentally terrible
judgment will do this, and everyone in America will hear
about it over and over again. So it'll be the
(01:17):
classic exceptionality bias news story. It gets attention because it's
so rare. Yeah, it will be incredibly fencing people that
is common. It will be incredibly rare. And I'm not
worried about it for my own kids.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
But I could see I've known numb nuts that would
think it was funny to get kids high.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Get kids high. I could see that, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
That's your really top tier of stupid.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Yep, it really is.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So I came across this in substack yesterday from this
guy named Timothy Lee, who I do not know. But
his article was he writes about AI for a living,
and his headline was AI skeptics and AI boosters are
both wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
And I gave that a look.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Everybody's guessing to a certain extent here, but I just
thought this was an interesting tank a take I hadn't
heard before. Earlier this month, he writes, I attended an
AI conference called the Curve in Berkeley, California, in just
a few miles from where we are. A lot of
people there were AGI pilled, he calls it. For example,
I participated in a role playing exercise organized by this
(02:22):
dude who argues that AI systems will soon achieve human
level intelligence. Then they will rapidly improve themselves, leading to
superhuman AI capabilities and an extreme acceleration of scientific discovery
and economic growth. Then he went across the hall to
another conference where a different AGI pilled writer. That's someone
(02:46):
who believes so much of this, who believes the super
intelligent AI will kill everyone on the planet.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
He said, to go back to the first one.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
He said, at the opposite end of the spectrum or
skeptic to believe AI is not just overhyped, but practically useless.
This perspective wasn't well represented at the conference, but it
came up a lot. We mentioned this a couple of
weeks ago. There was a piece in The New York
Times quoting this study. One of your big godfathers of AI.
You know, there's a handful of people that are really
well respected whenever they talk about AI. One of those
(03:20):
people wrote a column in The New York Times citing
this MIT study, which we have talked about before. A
recent study run by MIT's program that looks into this
sort of stuff found that ninety five percent of companies
that did AI pilot studies found little or no return
on their investment, and a financial analysis projects an estimated
(03:41):
shortfall of eight hundred billion dollars in revenue for AI
companies by the end of twenty thirty. That it's not
going to pan out near the way they thought so.
That article got a lot of attention at the time,
and apparently came up a lot in this conference.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
I can contradict that right now, but go ahead to
that later. No, go ahead, Oh just happened to yesterday afternoon.
I have a conversation with a good friend who is
an attorney of great experience and success and worked for
a fairly important law firm. And he's actually my friend
who I've mentioned to his license to practice both in
(04:16):
the US and Britain.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
He is no dummy.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
He and his company are working with a certain university
on AI programs for law, and he was describing to
me how they were designing AI personas I think was
the term he used that would approach a problem as
he would not just as a generic attorney or as
(04:39):
a computer, but as he has and would throughout his career.
And that's based on extensive interviews and study of how
he doesn't And he said the results.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Were scary good. Wow.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yeah, I don't buy the it's not going to be
profitable or be a thing. I lean more toward ruining
the world than toward making it better personally, even though
I think it will make it better and it'll be
able to cure diseases and help you figure out medication
and all kinds of different things. But it at the
same time is going to.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Ruin the world. And you know, if it ruins the world,
what good does it do?
Speaker 3 (05:14):
If I mean, if nobody has jobs and nobody gets
together in relationships anymore, who cares if it's curing these
obscure answers.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Right in the few remaining human beings, right produced Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
But anyway, I wanted to get to this part and
then I will shut up about it because I won't
worry out. But I thought it was this interesting, this
guy writes. My view is between these two extremes. I
think that AI has genuinely impressive capabilities that are likely
to improve further in the coming months and years. I
think the AI industry is likely to be profitable in
the wrong run, and that open AI's basic business model
is perfectly reasonable. But I don't think we're very close
(05:47):
to human level intelligence at all. I don't think AI
is about to drive the kind of massive social and
economic changes that AGI pilled folks expect. And then it
gets into some of his reasoning after that that gets
complicated and uses rais in terms that you have to
look up. But there is a crowd out there that believes, well,
kind of what I just kind of what I just said,
but not completely. He believes, Yeah, it's a thing and
(06:08):
gonna it's gonna come along, and it's it's going to
be impactful, but it's not going to upend society and
our economic models in ways that we need to be
worried about.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
And I hope the more right. Yeah, Yeah, I don't
think he is.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
I think there is a wide swath of so called
white collar jobs that will vanish.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I'm completely convinced to that there's that.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And then I think a lot of these people, because
they're computer geeks, which in most cases by definition means
you're kind of like not a normal person in society,
I think they vastly underestimate what it's going to do
to relationships and society and coupling and all that sort
(06:54):
of stuff, because there's such outliers as human beings to
start with, and I'm not sure that a lot of
these people even can conceive of thinking about that issue
because they just don't live in that world of like going.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Out in dating and blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Well, and a lot of opinion leaders are also self
motivated go getters, and so they can't conceive of because
you no longer have to work to take care of yourself,
you become a blob of dinner on weik because they
would find something right. But a hell of a lot
of human beings aren't made like that. Most, Yeah, the
(07:31):
vast majority. And I feel like we've already seen enough of.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
The people having relationships with chatbots when it's at its
current level of engagement, that it's inevitable that it becomes
a huge problem. I can't I can't imagine the argument
that says, no, it's not going to be a big deal.
You aren't going to have millions of in cell dudes
(08:00):
who are so obsessed with their AI, chat bot and
porn that they never get with a real woman.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
That won't happen. I don't understand that argument at all.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Right, Oh my gosh, I've got a great think piece
around here somewhere about the rise of that very sort
of young man and how they quickly become embittered and
hateful and for instance, kill Charlie Kirk or try to
put a bullet in Donald J. Trump's head for the
very scenario you were describing, and.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Then then for women, because women tend to be more
about the emotions than most dudes in general. Man, the
getting some sort of comfort from a chat dude that
talks to you about your problems and agrees that you've
been wrong by your mom and your sister, I just think.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
That's gonna be a huge thing, right, just as an
aside as you were a speaking jack, I quickly did
a search on how old is the saying I have
had or the devil's playthings? Or are similar phrasings of
the same thought? And it definitely goes back to the
Old Testament. Sure it's in proverbs. Idle hands are the
(09:10):
d well? It depends which just you know the translation
you have. It endured throughout the early days of Christianity.
Here are a bunch of citations from the medieval period.
Here are early English usages in the fifteen hundreds through
the seventeen hundreds. The wording probably solidified in the eighteenth
(09:31):
or nineteenth century, but the idea itself is at least
fourteen hundred years old, with deep roots in early Christian
moral teaching. It is an idea that has never receded
from human consciousness, that idle hands are the devil's playthings.
And yet we are moving as quickly as possible toward
(09:54):
a mechanism to idle as many hands as possible.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
That only works, That's true.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
It only works because you believe that a lot of
people are not self motivated to do something. The remember
Nancy Pelosi famously saying, this will be a chance everybody
can be an artist or a poet or whatever. Yeah,
a lot of people are going to kind of talk
about that, but they aren't going to like engage in
eight hours of effort every single day to be whatever
(10:21):
they're going to be and be occupied. No, they're going
to sit around and get you know, naval gazingly selfish
and insular in their lives, and it's going to go
off the rails and high and hi.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
All right, here's a little poetry for you, Nancy, Roses
are red, violets are blue. AGI is here, Humanity's through
there you go.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
There's a little.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Uh artificial generalized intelligence.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
That's the AGI. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Yeah, Yeah, it's not a good poem, but you know,
I'm a beginner. Hey, work from our friends that simply
save home security, the goose, ghosts and goblins and ghouls
and little skeletons running around are just charming and sweet.
What's scary is the bums and junkies who want to
break into your house and steal your stuff and god forbid,
hurt your family. Trust simply Safe Home Security and it's
(11:13):
incredible combination of AI and professional monitoring agents.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
It stops a crime before it starts.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
You know that giant ghost clearly an adult walking around
in neighborhood. They're case in your house, That's what they're
doing this getting ready for the opportunity, checking out, looking
through your windows, seeing what you got. You got the
whole simply Safe set up. You're okay, see, the only
home security that we trust to keep our homes safe.
I love the fact that I've got simply Safe set
up with the cameras and the censors and all the
(11:41):
different sorts of stuff, and you can tune with the
sixty day money back guarantee and no long term contract.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Why wouldn't you at least try it.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
You're in your business every single day because they know
you're gonna love it and you're gonna use it. Go
to simplysafe dot com slash armstrong to save fifty percent
off on your simply safe home security system. That's simplysafe
dot com slash armstrong. There's no safe flights, simply save.
Trump dropped a bit of a political bomb earlier. We
can talk about suggesting the Republican Senate do away with
(12:08):
the filibuster. I don't know how much you understand that,
but that is trulliot, don't doli. It's highly troubling. Among
other things we can talk about stay here a strong.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
President Trump says enough is enough. It is time to
nuke the filibuster and reopen the government. Here's what he
posted last night on truth Social It's now time for
Republicans to play their Trump card and go for what
is called the nuclear option. Get rid of the filibuster
and get rid of it now. That would allow Senate
Republicans to reopen the government on their own, even though
(12:44):
Senate leaders generally don't like the idea of ending the filibuster.
But pressure is mounting. Troops are getting paid today after
the Pentagon shifted some funds around, but federal snap benefits
run out this weekend, and we're already seeing major flight
disruptions in places like Orlando and here in Washington.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
That would be a horrible thing to do. To end
the filibuster, Currently, you need sixty votes in the Senate
see and usually need the party with the majority and
a decent handful of the other party. In other words,
the bulk of America needs to agree on something for it.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
To pass, is the theory.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
And if it's probably the last vestige of Yeah, we
disagree with each other, but we care about the country,
so let's talk about it.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Probably is as supposed to just naked partisan. Probably is
the last vestige of that.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
And if you do away with the filibuster and then
it just becomes majority rule like it is in the House,
then whichever party holds power in the Senate has fifty votes,
and then if you have the vice presidency, you only
need fifty. We'll just pass everything they want. So the
House will pass it, the Center will pass it, and
there you go. It's a law without any say whatsoever
(13:56):
from the other party, which would.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Be horrible, horrible, horrible.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Now, Trump's argument is that the Democrats tried to do
it for three years but couldn't because Senators Joe Manchin
of West Virginia and Kirsten Cinema of Arizona wouldn't vote
for it because they're decent Americans. I also don't think
all those Democrats that voted for it actually meant it,
because I think there are enough institutionalists, grown up Democrats
(14:20):
also in the Senate that Okay, you two are going
to vote against it, Okay, then I can vote for
it to look like I'm for it for my crowd.
I think, you know, a couple would have stepped up
to make sure it didn't pass. We may we're going
to cross the line at some point. I think at
least that's direction all our politics are going, where one
party is going to do with this, away with this,
and Trump's making the argument they're going to do away
(14:41):
with it when they take over the Senate. Then they'll
be able to pack the Supreme Court with whoever the
hell they want.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Because all you will need is fifty of votes.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
And we might as well do it now to get
the jump on them, which is which is the classic
definition what I've been the phrase I've been using for
a long time.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Race to the b I mean, that's just the perfect
race to the bottom. Yeah. I wish I could declare
that those folks are.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Just wrong, categorically wrong, but they might not be it
could be that we're heading toward a future where it
is simple majority for everything, and elections have enormous consequences
and policy swings wildly back and forth. Of course, with
the you know, Congress forgetting its job, forgetting the Constitution
(15:27):
and all of us worshiping the chief executive as something
like a king, we're having wild swings and policy back
and forth.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Anyway, Well, imagine the kind of just make it worse.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Imagine the kind of judges we might get if you
just need the majority and you've got a strong president
with a big following like Barack Obama. Biden didn't have it,
but like Barack Obama or Donald Trump, where you could
get somebody through fairly extreme, and there'd be a tremendous
amount of pressure to put on your fifty senators to say,
put this person on the Supreme Court. Then we've completely
(16:00):
own up that institution. Also, we get a whack jobs on.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Yeah, you might have a handful of senators on the
president's party on his side thinking this person's a monster,
they shouldn't be on the bench.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Right. I hate still get through.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
I hate the idea of doing away at the filibuster,
but I do think it's inevitably going to happen. It
just it's the direction everything is going. Wow, and then
we're just going to be majority rule. You might as
well just combine the House and the Senate into one thing.
Five hundred and thirty five members of that.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
God dang, that's what the Democratic Socialists of America party wants.
They want to elimination of Senate and just a pure
you know, majority rules, single House. Speaking of which I've
got a zoron Mumdani update coming up later on the show.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Monadanie. Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
I don't know where I am on the weather because
I think Trump might be right that it's going to happen.
It'd be better if we do it, then they do it,
and you get no credit through history for.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
We weren't the party that did it. It was the
other part.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
That ain't gonna matter when the other party does await
the fillbuster and then just starts passing whenever the hell
way want to pass.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Yeah, I'm of two minds. I'm against.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
I would if I were a Senator, I would I
would try to stop this from happening.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Yeah, I agree, complains well, especially reminded of conversations go ahead.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Especially around this.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Trump's argument is to end this shutdown, the freaking shutdown.
You're gonna blow up the damn Senate over the shutdown
of all things, which is the Democrat's fault. Come on now, no, no, no,
don't bail them out. The WAPO editorial Board today says
the quickest way to end the shutdown is to have
the Democrats enough Democrats to vote for passing this. The
(17:43):
WAPO Editorial Board, right, yeah, don't do anything much less
blow up the Senate. By the way, on Tuesday, we
will officially be in the longest to shut down this
country has ever had. And I think we're gonna get there.
Over what nothing. We have a way to run a republic.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
We got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
If you missed a secment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Armstrong and Geeddy.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
There's a new star of the spooky season. That is
kid saying trick or tato potato Yeah. Videos of homeowners
handing out potatoes on Halloween have been sprowling up on
social media in recent years, leaving some puzzled, but surprisingly
most ecstatic.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
You have potatoes.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
More trick or treaters are poised to strike Yukon gold.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Now I have been ladling out hot cream corn for
years at Halloween, you know, hold out your little basket
and I just give you a full scoop of cream
corn in there.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
On top of all your candy. And yet potatoes might
as well. The last kid.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
The thing any kid needs is more candy. It's ubiquitous candy.
It's everywhere, it's practically free, right right, yeah, yeah, that
is kind of funny. Oh I might do that myself tonight. Honestly,
Henry would love that. We'll get a We'll get a
bag of potatoes, potatoes, just full raw potatoes. Is that
(19:20):
the way you do with Katie? Just like a big
brown raw.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Potato?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And am I missing the joke here? Is it just ironic?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Just it's well, I don't know if it's ironic, it's
just odd, all right, whatever?
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Why not a turnip, That's what I say? Or a
California prunes. Check out californiaprudnes dot org. Let's see where
was I?
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Yeah, uh, just a handful of stories that worth are
worth at least tipping our cap to I'm always torn
with like looking back at Joe Biden's presidency the Free
Press with a scathing, scathing report on the House Oversight
Committee report that just came out about how incredibly out
touched Joe Biden was.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
I got some great details from that writer.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Yeah, yeah, grab them or we can do it now whatever,
particularly the use of the auto pen and all of
the pardons. It's become completely clear that his activist staff
just had some very broad perimeters, didn't look at individual parameters, rather,
didn't look at individual cases at all, and gave pardons
(20:24):
to some really monstrous people and people who didn't deserve
it at all.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
But and Biden had no idea of any of it.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
So, not surprisingly, the mainstream media, which was involved in
covering for an obviously addled president, is not reporting on
the report that just came out.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
But this is a legit report.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
This is not like Comer, you know, the Republican committee
member who makes all these claims and then they never
come true. This was the testimony of actual people who
worked in the Biden administration. And I became aware of
this only through Mark Alpern's podcast yesterday. He was losing
his mind over the fact that this was not in
The New York Times of the Washington Post, because this
(21:03):
came out two days ago, and he's like, how is
nobody talking about this?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Here's what Axios had. This is from Thompson.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
He's the other guy with Jake Tapper that wrote the book,
one of the very few journalists in America who was
being honest about Biden's mental decline. Alex Thompson Thompson, Yeah, yeah,
so he wrote this in Acxios. This is from the
report that came out two days ago that's getting no coverage.
Former Biden chief of staff, his chief of staff, Jeff Zeins,
told the panel that he, Jake Sullivan, the NSA advisor,
(21:34):
Anthony Blincoln, the Secretary of State, the Commerce Secretary of
the VIA secretary all expressed concern about Biden continuing his
re election campaign after the debate. Zeins told all lawmakers
that within a few days after the debate, Biden was
aware of my view that I thought it was prudent
to get out of the race. They didn't think he
was mentally competent to be president. The Secretary of State,
(21:59):
his own chief of staff right didn't think he should
be president at that time, let alone for another four years.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
And they all kept their mouths shut, and they kept
their mouths shut.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
And that's not a big enough story for the New
York Times of the Washington Poast. As I heard someone describe, well,
they were complicit in the cover up. So how do
they report at this point that it's shocking that somebody
was not saying out loud what was clearly true. So,
like I said, Mark Awpern was losing his mind over
how this is not a big national story that the
secretary of State and the guy's own chief of staff
(22:33):
knew the guy shouldn't be president, that he was incompetent
and kept their mouths shut. The Democrats should have this
hung around their head for many cycles.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
Right right, So, as I started to say at the
beginning of the segment, I mean, there's a part of
me that thinks, you know, we got plenty of problems
now dissecting the past. You know, what good would it
do Biden's hat office and soon to be out of life.
But at the same time, I mean, we've not to
hold people to account it, or even a political party
(23:03):
on some less.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Oh yeah, yet it's not about Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
But there are a whole bunch of people involved that
plan to continue to be major movers and shakers of
the Democratic Party right that we now know because they testified.
They had to testify, and I'm thinking the only reason
they testified this is because they knew either other people
were gonna say it, or it's documented somewhere or whatever.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
The freaking secretary of State.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
What kind of patriot are you if of the secretary
of State, everything that's going on in the world, a
couple of wars, all the different awful things that could happen.
You know, the guy's not competent to be president of
the United States and can keep your mouth shut.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Don't smesh them in awak unless you want to get
the back.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And part of it, I guess is Trump during syndrome,
they probably that will be better than having Hitler as president.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Part of it was that, and the other part of
it was that people who are closest to Biden, who
are politically very very dangerous, would cut you off at
the knees if you dared break ranks, for instance. And
the fact that this is not like covered a lot
in the mainstream media just shows how incredibly biased they
are because it's a super interesting political story. Mike Donalan
(24:13):
is a campaign consultant he's been with Biden for nearly
forty five years. People close to Biden. This is in
twenty twenty one in the Washington Post see donal and
is Biden's conscience, his alter ego, a shared brain. One
long time Biden advisor estimated no fewer than ten thousand
times in their working relationship. As the President turned to
(24:34):
Donalin and asked, Mike, what do you think. Closest guy
to Biden had a four million dollar bonus coming if
Biden got reelected. As his campaign consultant, he got paid
four million bucks for getting Biden in the White House
the first time, and if he could keep Biden in
the race, he would earn four million more. Mike Donalin
(24:59):
was the hatchet man behind the nobody says anything scheme
about Biden, and.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
He's under oath.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Here the transcript of the committee's interview with the Donald.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
He spells it all out.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
Man, if you're cheapest staff to a president and you've
gone to the guy and said I don't think you
should run for reelection, you can't keep your mouth shut
and let that play out.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Yeah, I know, I know. It's terrible.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
What if he'd had a crisis that he maybe we did.
Maybe that's the next shoe that's going to drop. Maybe
not for twenty five years when a variety of things
are finally released. But who knows was making variety of
decisions around, you know, our Israel policy or Ukraine policy
or whatever policy it might have just been, you know,
(25:51):
the chiefest staff in the Secretary of State and signing it.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Is there a big historic shoe foot that's going to drop?
Shoot the trubet shoe. Shoe that's gonna drop when Biden Croakes.
Is Anthony Blinkin gonna unleash his book?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Yeah? I don't think you could. I don't think you
could because you're implicating yourself as a really bad person.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, yeah, I guess so.
Speaker 4 (26:15):
Speaking of media and politics and that sort of thing,
here's a headline for you.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Bloodbath.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
CBS parent company announces mass layoffs, slashes race and culture
unit at CBS. They announced Wednesday around two thousand layoffs,
including one hundred in the newsroom. Well, I eliminated the
outlets race and culture unit in an effort to crack
down on ideological bias.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
I haven't paid attention to the ratings for the evening
newscast for many, many years. Because it has become much
much less relevant. Used to be so important the three
evening newscasts, and they are barely important now. But I
didn't realize CBS was so far behind the other two.
I mean absolutely getting trounced by ABC and NBC, and
(26:58):
so yeah, I mean it's not some sort of of
right wing berry wise fascist. It's I mean, if you're
just running a business, you would come in and lay
waste because you're getting your ass kicked.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Yeah, it's funny. In spite of that clear, unmistakable reality,
the folks at CBS are tweeting, mostly anonymously or on
slack messages, that it's just it's a blood bath. It's
nerve wracking. It's so unfair. It's a blah blah blah. No, No,
you're losing. Your team loses all of its games. Don't
(27:33):
like weep bitter tears when you fire the offensive coordinator.
That's what you're supposed to do. But that sense of
entitlement is nothing new in the media. Let's see, I
want to squeeze in one more. Oh that's really good. Oh,
here's a good one for you. Here's a headline for you.
(27:53):
Hesbola is rearming putting cease fire with Israel at risk HESBLA.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
They're the ones that got their junk going off by pagers,
not enough of them.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Apparently Israel is losing patience as the levities militant group
restocks rockets, anti anti tank missiles and artillery or on
that afterward from our friends at PRIs.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Here BBDBP and you say, hold on a second, somebody's
trying to get a hold of let me see what
this is then, Bluey no gonads mmmm, disappointing.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Prize Picks is the best way to cash in on
your baseball theories for tonight, which players are going to
go off? Which ones are over hyped? To make your
picks in less than sixty seconds, turn your takes into
cash all season long on Prize Picks.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Plenty of NFL action this weekend, of course in basketball
all the time. We're into that. So you got plenty
of sports you can cover and take your opinion turn
it into money with Prize Picks. Download the Price Picks
app today and use the code Armstrong and you get
fifty dollars in lineups after you play your first five
dollars lineup.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
I love this Prize Picks off also offers injury reboots.
If one of your players leaves the game in the
first half and doesn't return, Prize Picks will not count
that as a loss.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
That is fair.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Download the prize picks at today again. Use that code
Armstrong and you get fifty dollars in lineups after you
play just a five dollars lineup.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
You don't have to win. It's automatic.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
That's the code Armstrong the prize picks at Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
It's good to be right.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
So you've got Hamas continuing attacks, trying to regroup as
fast as it can, and Hesbela re arming. It's almost
as if you can't make peace with religious zelots who
vowed to wipe you off the face of the earth.
If it takes a thousand years, turns out you can't
just you know, knock them around a little bit and
(29:35):
get them to come to their sentences.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Census doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
We haven't mentioned the foiled terrorist plot that cash Ptel
announced today the FBI stopped. Maybe we'll get into some
of the details of that if it's all accurate. It was.
Speaker 4 (29:51):
It was a big one in a major mom Dammi
the Kami update next hour.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Cool.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
And if you haven't heard our tip up the easiest
costume for couples. You're going to a party tonight, you
gotta throw something together real quick. It's the hot costume
stick around. Okay, Joe's gonna have to come up with something.
Speaker 7 (30:16):
I'm a little distracted. Oh oh, we've all done this.
Oh I sent a text to the wrong person.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Oh oh, I was going to guess phone and toilet,
judging by the look in your face.
Speaker 8 (30:34):
But now that phone and toilet, that's Is this going
to have consequences kind of a text?
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Yes, can you send it? No, they already responded, deepic, deepic.
It was not a deepic. I did not send it. Deepict.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Somebody, Oh my god, I can't even come close to
hinting what it's about.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
But it is not a good one, damn it.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Were you you talking smack about the particular person you
sent it.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
To, not smack in the sense of like, uh, you know,
backbiting gossip for fun or something like that, Like a
serious conversation about someone and their shortcomings to the to
that person. Oh and that was all designed around helping them.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And interesting wrinkle. Well, it's my role to help this person.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
You can probably figure out what I'm talking about, Okay,
my biological role, and I sent. I sent the conversation
to them about a problem.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
That they have gotten. Dang it, I've only done this.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
This is the third time I've done I've done it
a bunch of times, we all have, but I've only
done it three times with like actual ramifications.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I'm not sure I have good for you.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
I have. It's been so long because I'm usually really careful,
partly because you have, and the idea scares me so
much when you tell us about it, I think, never
do that. You know.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
It's an absent minded guy, it's an ever present threat.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
You know, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
No.
Speaker 8 (32:18):
My issue lately has been the audio messages. I don't
know how I keep hitting that button, but I'll text
somebody and then it turns on the audio recording and
then I learned down at my phone and it's like
I was, I haven't sent one, but I've been too
close many a time.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Wow, can you like ask SII to do me a favorite?
Don't ever turn that on until you've asked me if
I'm sure I.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Want it on? Good idea?
Speaker 3 (32:48):
This could have been so much worse. I got really
lucky that I worded it the way I did.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Or it could have been disastrous. Oh boy. But so
here's the lesson.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
Before you press send every single time, check at the
top to see who it's going.
Speaker 4 (33:08):
Yeah. I'm a big fan of note private thread. If
you go from say a group, maybe you're putting together
a tea time for the golf course for something very innocent,
and Al Jones signs up and Al is a known cheater,
(33:30):
and you don't want to have anything to do with it,
and I'll send a text to you know, a person,
say no, this is a private thread, this is not
the same thread, Just to avoid that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
Yeah, yeah, if you're in that situation, that's a good idea.
I was not in that situation. I don't know how
I did this. I think I was just a mind.
I was thinking about the person and I was sending
it to someone else, and just in my mind I
conflated it somehow that I should be sending it to the.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Person that it's about.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
I have done the whole thing where you got two
conversations to go it at once with two different people,
and so they're coming in back and forth, back and forth,
and you just reply to a reply, and the other
one had jumped in, and you say.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
And you in and fort invertently tell Michelangelo love you too.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
For instance, Yes I remember that. Yeah, I've got a
few of those.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
It's time I came to terms with my feelings for you.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Those are mildly embarrassing, as opposed to oh my god,
this could change my life. Ish you could easily have
some that changed your life. Man, there is nothing more
true than the whole. You can't run ring a bell
about things said. Yes, it just it's just one hundred
ironclad true.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
It got back to me a hundred years ago that
one of my good friends had expressed to somebody else.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
I cared about that.
Speaker 8 (34:50):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
I don't get why he's with Judy. I don't see
anything there at all. This is when we were dating. Wow,
that's never been the same, still in touch, never been
the same. Of course it's not, you know, And he's
entitled to his opinion. I mean, it's fine, but just
of course you wouldn't be the same.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Well, that's been very kind of you to say he's
entitled to his opinion, which of course he is. But
he did did he need to be saying that to anyone.
Speaker 4 (35:20):
Yeah, you gotta be really careful about that, because you
don't know what's happening in a relationship if you're not
in it.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
No, you don't anyway.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Anyway, Oh, speaking of difficult conversations.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Okay, I got that out of my system, all right, Yeah,
that's good. That's good.
Speaker 4 (35:36):
Science has proved that shouting obscenities is good for you.
Just not in the crowd at McDonald's. Speaking of difficult
conversations that ought.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
To be had, you shouldn't at church, just sitting there
and appeal. There are a number of settings. Sorry, I'm
thinking of something else.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
You got nothing new with your actually, just to summarize
several settings, or that's in uppurp. What's being of difficult conversations?
The great Seth Dillon, the genius behind the Babylon b
wrote a piece for the Free Press about the foolishness
of no enemies to the right, the idea that don't
(36:10):
don't attack the nutty right wing as a conservative because
we got to train all of our firepower on the left.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
And how foolish that is.
Speaker 4 (36:20):
And it surprises me not a bit, how eloquent and
persuasive his case is.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
We'll get to that later on.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
I think originally it was always no enemies to the left,
but it is caught on both sides.
Speaker 4 (36:33):
Well, the humorous part, and you may know this already, Jack,
is that that emerged from the French Revolution there to
the left came.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Right and that ended just beautifully. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Yeah, no, No matter how crazy the people to the
left of us are, we're all together, so we're gonna
And you see that on the left all the time. Right,
the average Democrat is not down with a lot of
this nuttiness, but they feel like they should have no
enemies to the left.
Speaker 4 (36:57):
You got moderate Democrats afraid to say no dudes and
beat up on girls in women's sports. That's ridiculous. They're
afraid no enemies to the left. Well, let's call out
our enemies.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
To the right.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah, okay, if you miss a segment, get the podcast.
Check who you're sending your text to.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!