The World According to Trump

President Donald Trump has permanently changed the country and the world.  From a shaky peace in the Middle East to tariffs to enforcement of immigration laws, nothing is as it was.  On this episode, Lynn is joined by IT expert and college professor Shane Curington to discuss the mark that Trump has made upon politics, largely through the force of his own personality.  We take a deep dive into what the country and the world would be like if there were no Donald Trump.   

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Planet Logic. Today's episode The World according to Trump.
I'm Lynn Woolley. I'm the pilot of the podcast. Shane
Keering is with me. He's an IT guy, college professor
and man about town and all that kind of stuff.
Political watcher Shane Trump Trump is Trump. I mean, I
don't know any other way to describe the guy. Yeah,

(00:22):
he's not George w Bush by a long shot. He's
he's not George Washington. What do you make of this
first few months of the second Trump so far?

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Well, thank you for having me on your podcast line.
I always enjoy talking with you about politics and what's
going on in the world. My general take on the
first few months is I'm enjoying it. I can't say
anything else because this country needed to be turned around.

(00:54):
I mean talk about you know, a turning point. It
needed needed to be turned round from Biden, Obama, Clinton.
You know, we we've we've definitely strayed from what the
founding fathers envisioned.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
Well, we have. And that's the question that I ask
a lot. And on the Cardlin Willie Show in Austin
on Talk thirteen seventy we talk about this a lot
and I put it this way, and I'll get you
to react to I love most of what Trump's doing.
We can talk tariffs, which is what I don't love.
But I love most of what Trump is doing. But

(01:31):
sometimes I don't like the way he does it. But
on the other hand, if he didn't do it the
way he's doing it, everything he's trying to do.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Would be blocked exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
I mean, so that's where we find ourselves.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, think about this, Okay, Trump does something and then
he sends out a meme to you know whatever Democrat, right,
he does it and everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
I mean, Jeffries, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
There you go, like Jeffries in a sombrero. But but
if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be Trump. And
that was the problem with his first go round as president.
He did great things, okay, but he didn't he he
let other people dictate how he was to act. He

(02:24):
wasn't letting himself be himself. And I think that's the
problem with his first go around as president. Now that
he's now that he's kind of figured it out right,
he's put people in place that are actually doing a
good job. Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio, Pete, Hegsath.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
You know, on and on Secretary of War.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
Now, I know that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
Okay, what's your what I'm hearing you say, and let
me make it say it in a different way.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
In the first term, Trump took a lot of people
and put him in positions of power in the cabinet
and elsewhere that were somewhat loyal to him. Now he's
got people that are totally loyal to him because they
believe in Maga. Yes, so he doesn't have that problem
as much as he did before.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yeah, and now you see the tide turning where where Okay,
we had four years of Trump and then we had
four years of Biden, and then we saw the economy go
to hell, right yeah, and and and so people wanted
Trump back in office because he knew what he what
he's doing. He's a businessman. And and that's what I

(03:35):
like about Trump is that he's not now that he's
figured everything out, he's not letting the rhinos get get
away with anything. You know, most of them are resigning
from Congress. It's great, it's the greatest thing. Right.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Well that's true. Well, let let me start with where
we are right now. You know, we want the podcast
to have a little bit of a shelf life. But
also we have things that are immediate.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
One of those is the government shut down, absolutely, and
that's so amazing. Trump has kind of stayed out of
it to a certain extent. But I don't know if
you noticed this just a couple of days ago. I
think I was the first guy on radio to bring
this up, and other people began to notice it. We
are no longer thirty seven trillion dollars in debt. We

(04:28):
are now thirty eight trillion dollars in debt. Yes, So,
during the pandemic and in the Biden era of just
outrageous drunken sailor type spending, the Democrats decided that they
wanted a temporary stipend on Obamacare to help people get
through the pandemic. Absolutely, the pandemic's over, yep. And the

(04:50):
Democrats don't want to let the temporary stipend go away.
And yet we are thirty eight trillion dollars away from
having no owe money exactly.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Now, now, think think about this. Think about this. Now,
this is tied. The subsidies are tied to opening the government. Okay,
The House of Representatives sent to the Senate. Now, keep
in mind, the Republicans have all three levers of lawmaking. Okay,
they have the House, they have the Senate, and they

(05:23):
have the presidency. Okay, so but the problem is the
filibuster and the Senate. You have to have sixty votes
to do anything worth, you.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Know, and they're only what five votes away?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, they're only five votes away because because three other
Democrats came over, right.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
But you got Rand Paul, Yeah, you have the only Republican.
But Rand Paul is doing it for the right reason.
I mean, he thinks, he thinks anything we do involving
Obamacare is too much spending. And he's not wrong.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
No, he's not wrong on one bit. Obamacare was a monstrosity.
It remains a monstrosity, and it needs to go away.
But but you know, it's like if every other program
in government once, once it comes into play and people
start using it, it's hard to get rid of it.
That's a fact, no kidding. But when you see what

(06:14):
they're trying to do right now, the Republicans just offered
a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open while
they continue the budget making process, right the appropriation bills,
and I think they if I remember right this they
had like half of them done, because there's I think

(06:34):
a total of twelve. Well I think they had like
six or seven done. Okay, they just needed the other ones. So,
but what the Democrats are doing, and particularly Chuck Schumer
in this is, uh, he's attached one point five trillion
dollars in spending, mainly for Obamacare and the Obamacare subsidies.

(06:59):
But now we come to find out it's also for
programs in foreign countries that Trump has already cut. But
he wants one point five trillion dollars, is what it
amounts to. He wants one point five trillion dollars to
sign the continuing Resolution.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
And the Republicans contend that some of this healthcare would
go to illegal aliens.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Well, that's true if you read the if you read
the verbiage, it's in there. It's in there. Okay, well
it's not explicitly in there, but it's it's in there
in such a way it wouldn't deny coverage. Well, that's
one of those it's one of those lawyer verbiage things.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
All right, now we're talking about the world according to Trump. Yes,
there has been some thought that Trump could jump in
and maybe get this government shut down, get the government
back to working again, if if he could use the
power of Trump, the power of his personality, to to

(08:02):
bring some more people over. But right now it's at
an impasse. Do you see a victory for the Democrats
or the Republicans anytime soon?

Speaker 2 (08:11):
Well, anytime the government is shut down, Okay, it's a
victory for the American people.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Well, except that when it reopens, the everybody gets paid.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
I know, well, you know when it when it comes
to government workers, you know, okay, fine, they need to
be paid for their work. But okay, So where we
are now is Trump has said, look, if you're not
going to open the government, I'm just going to start
slashing federal workers and in programs that we don't necessarily.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
In programs that Democrats like.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Exactly, which I don't necessarily agree with totally. But I
think right now Trump is just trying to get the
stalemate fixed because he hasn't he hasn't done anything yet.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
I don't think it bothers him much.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
It doesn't. Well, he told him at the outset. You know,
we've voted, we have voted on the content this continuing
resolution in the Senate twelve times now, and not to mention.
I think it was yesterday or the day before they
voted on a bill to if you're not going to

(09:22):
open the government, at least pay the workers that are
working right and the military, and that got shot down
too well.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
The reason for that, though, is if you're going to
pay everybody, you lose a lot of the pressure that
you're trying to put on the other party to get
this done. That's right, you know, it comes to my
mind when we're talking about this in the first term,
I said, first term of Trump, My biggest criticism of
Trump was that he did not address the national debt,

(09:54):
and he brought in Elon Musk this time to doze
the government and try to find it. But if you
you had a stopper, you know, an eye dropper, and
you put one drop or took one drop out of
the ocean, that's about what Doge did. And the and
the left went berserk over that. You can't cut a penny,
and we're headed toward a fiscal cliff that has no bottom.

(10:19):
And when that happens, there won't be money to pay
the military. Ever, there won't be money to pay Social Security. Ever.
That may not be in the next ten years, but
it's just around the corner.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Well, I think what what Trump is doing this time is,
and this was one of the reasons why you pushed
for tariffs. You don't necessarily agree with the tariffs, but
I kind of do because that's how the government was
funded back in the twenties. Okay, they before the income tax.
I would rather have tariffs than an income tax.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
I'll bet you that Shane Keirrington and Lynn Woolly can
find some common ground on the tarraf probably, you know,
you're right, But of course things are different back in
those days. We weren't a superpower, but that is how
we funded the government. But there's let's talk about the
tariffs because I think that's almost something that Trump will

(11:11):
be remembered for as much as anything else.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Well, going back to what I was saying about, you
know this time around with Trump is I think what
he's doing is you know, he's been in office his
second go around less than a year. What I think
he is doing is he's setting up the debt paydown
is what I call it. You know, he What I

(11:36):
think he's doing is he's setting that up because eventually
he's going to amass so much money with these tariffs.
Because we are an economic superpower. Everyone wants to be
a part of our consumer you know it.

Speaker 1 (11:52):
As to our market, they won't.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
Access to it. So if you want access to it,
and I agree with Trump on this, if you want
access to our markets, guess what you're going to pay
the price. I agree with that philosophy.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
All right, I don't you have your point there? Here,
here's the way I've always looked at tariffs and specifically
trade deficits, because that's part of the whole thing. There
is trade deficit. I've never had a problem with the
trade deficit if it's for frivolous stuff. Our stuff that's
not even frivolous. But let's say textiles, clothing, the toys

(12:33):
in the toy aisle at Christmas at Walmart, when those
are made in China, and I know that it knocks
people out of work here, But if we make a
toy in China that sells for let's say nineteen ninety
nine at Walmart, it's probably going to sell for forty
nine ninety nine if it's made in America. So essentially

(12:55):
we're having people that make a very low minimum wage.
If there even is a minimum wage in China and
other parts of Main Ladesha wherever they make these things.
We have we have osha here that that makes a
bigger cost. We have rules, regulations, we have minimum wages,
and and it makes it where it's it's better to

(13:16):
import things that are not crucial to us. Now, let's
get to computer chips, pharmaceuticals, rare earth minerals. Those are
categories that without them, without a reliable source for them,
our country could be in big trouble. Those we need

(13:38):
to do here, yes, or we have to have, especially
for earth minerals. I think the United States is full
of them, but I think we don't know how to
mine them yet. But I think this deal we made
with Australia is good. We have a deal with Ukraine.
I mean, you know, you've got a cell phone sitting here,
so do I. It's got lithium in it, I'm sure,
and probably silver and probably I don't know, rhodium or

(14:03):
whatever else they put in these things. We either have
to figure out how to extract our own from our
land or we have to have it from somewhere because
that's national security. So I get that, and especially pharmaceuticals.
I get that we get our computer chips from taiwanp
but we're going to make them at Taylor, Texas too.

(14:24):
I suppose, yes, we are at some point when Samsung
gets done building what they're building there. But with regard
to the stuff that isn't life threatening, if we make
it all here, prices are going to go through the roof.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Well, I'll agree with you to a certain extent. Okay,
if you think about this like a business person, Okay,
if if your office is spending a lot of money
on office supplies, what's the first thing you're going to do?
Start restricting office supplies? Why? Because it adds up? Okay,

(15:06):
There there is a certain logic to what you're talking about,
frivolity when it comes to when it comes to okay,
an importing a toy versus manufacturing it here. Okay, but
there is a certain quality that we expect if it's
manufactured here. So a nineteen ninety nine toy imported that

(15:31):
falls apart immediately versus a forty nine ninety nine toy
that lasts for a little while.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
I thought all of them fell apart right after they
were open to Christmas.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
Well, they do but but you know, there there's a
certain level of quality that's involved, and are you willing
to pay the extra for that quality?

Speaker 1 (15:53):
I get that. Let me talk about tariffs's weapons. Oh yeah.
Let's say that Trump has got a pretty good way
to end the war in Ukraine, and it involves putting
sanctions on Russian oil, and so he does that, yep.
But then China turns around and triples their purchases of

(16:15):
Russian oil. That's when you slap the two hundred and
fifty tariff on China and say, don't do that. Yeah,
trying to end the war exactly, don't mess with us exactly.
Now that's the way to me to use tariffs, reciprocal tariffs.
Canada charged tariffs US twenty percent. We turn around tariff

(16:37):
Canada twenty Why not just say no tariffs?

Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well, I well didn't. Didn't Hillary Clinton try that and
it didn't work too well.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
I'm just saying she had her easy button.

Speaker 2 (16:52):
I'm just I'm just throwing it out there. But but
here's the here's the thing, I think kind of like
Trump does. Okay, Number one, if you want access to
our markets, you're gonna pay a price for that. So
I agree with Trump's minimum ten percent, because we have

(17:12):
the economy that you need.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
That's true, but who tariffs are at their base taxes
and who's gonna.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Know they're not? Okay? So so statistically right now, prices
have not rows with any significance because of Trump's tariffs.
In fact, the inflation rate is starting to slow, which is.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Great a little bit. But I had a guy over
at the main mansion where we're recording that. Yes, which
you're nice and cool to service my air condition Yes.
And he looked at my two units outside, one for
the south wing and one for the north wing of
the house that's upstairs and downstairs. Yes, And he said,

(18:03):
what did I charge you to put these in a
few years ago? And I said, I believe it was
twelve thousand. He said it'd be closer to twenty thousand.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
Now, yes, you're right, I'm not saying that.

Speaker 1 (18:15):
And that's the tariffs.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Well, say this is a Trump guy, he said, I
love Trump, but he said, boy, it's hurt our business.

Speaker 2 (18:21):
There are some things that, yes, are going to experience
higher higher prices because of the TIFFs, but the majority
of everything if you look at if you look at
the tariffs, as a whole, they haven't really done much
to the economy.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
And I would agree in some areas, I don't feel
like they're affecting me that much. I feel like what
affects me is when I lose a bet at the
radio station, and we have a lot of them on
certain things, and the last time I lost one, I
had to buy producer Casey Johns and host Jim Cartle

(19:01):
lunch and I ate two. Yeah, we went to five guys.
I know, I know, Adam hold on, Okay, three hamburgers,
three drinks, three orders of French fries was over fifty five.
That's the tip.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Yeah, I know. Hey, hey, I'm I'm right there with you,
you know. If but if you look at if you
look at where where the economy is is headed, we
are headed in a positive direction now, as opposed to
when when Biden was in office, we were experiencing what

(19:40):
at the peak, what nine percent inflation.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Biden spent and spent and spent. We had the hilariously
named inflation reduction, actually had the American Rescue Plan.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
I know, but technocrats.

Speaker 1 (19:53):
Don't want to back off from any of them.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
I know that. But technically we're still under the Biden
spending because the new appropriations bills from Congress have not
been passed yet. And that's what the continuing resolution was
all about, is just continuing what our current spending levels are,
which was Biden.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
But look, I work in the City of Austin, have
an apartment there. I know what's going on. I followed
the city council. They took stuff from the American Rescue
Plan or ACT. I guess it is under Biden, of course,
which was supposed to lift us or get us through,
lift us up, get us through this pandemic. Now, wait
a minute. The City of Austin knew this was temporary money, yeah,

(20:36):
but they spent it on things intended to be permanent.
Now they have a thirty three million dollar deficit and
they're asking the citizens of Austin to grant them a
far higher tax increase than they should have. They've spent
so much money on homelessness. It's in the hundreds of millions,
and there is no return on investment for it whatsoever.

(21:00):
We stop some of this spending, but how do we
convince the Democrat But.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
Lynn, if you look at every every liberal city, and
it doesn't matter what city, San Francisco, La Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago,
New York. Take your pick, It doesn't matter. They all
did the same exact thing. The inflation. The Inflation Reduction
Act was the biggest boondoggle.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
It was a change distribution Act, is what it was.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
And they finally admitted it just a couple months ago.
Oh sure, they finally admitted it in some book I forgot.

Speaker 1 (21:37):
I'm gonna ask you a blunt question. Well, we can
move on to the next thing in Trump world. How
in the world do we, as conservatives convince and I'll
put Republicans in with this, but mainly it's Democrats. The
Republicans at least bitch and moan a little bit about,
but then they approve it. How do we convince Democrats
that we have a thirty eight trillion dollar debt and

(21:59):
that it's not a whole lot more before we end
up in a place where every cent that the government
brings in is going toward interest and we have no
money to fund anything. How do we convince them?

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Well, what's funny is the interest on the debt is
getting up to what we what we pay in social security.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
Well, it's already higher than what the military.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
Yeah, it's already higher than the military, buddy.

Speaker 1 (22:25):
So if we didn't have any interest to pay, I
don't fund the military with that money.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
I know exactly. That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (22:32):
But what's wrong with Congress? What's wrong with them? Shane?

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Oh, good lord, Every every Republican, every Democrat since the
beginning of time has has has spent money, and trying
to convince them otherwise is like, you know, hitting your
head against the fence post. I mean, it's kind of
like talking to you Lynn occasionally, but you but you

(23:00):
know what I mean. Think about it, Think about it.
George W. Bush Medicare part D Right, how much does
that add to the chip insurance? Chip insurance? I mean?
And I know some.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
People need is that pharmaceuticals?

Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yeah? Is farm pharmaceuticals? Now? I agree that some people
may may need the help. But here's the here's the
problem that Democrats don't understand. Democrats don't understand market forces.
Wouldn't it be easier to well, not necessarily easier, but

(23:35):
wouldn't it be better instead of paying the federal government
extra taxes for all these programs? What if we force
the market down? What if we force you know, using
market forces, we make these prices go down.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
You're going to use the C word here, which is
what competition exactly Exactly how many airlines do we have
Major Gosh, I believe there's four. Yeah, yeah, United for Delta,
American Southwest. Yeah, we used to have lots of airlines.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
Oh I know, Well they all consolidated exactly because it
costs too much to buy planes.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
Well there's that. But when that when that type of
thing happens, and you know, you look at the big
insurance companies. They're driving this, the big insurance companies. And
I loved, loved it when Obama nationalized student loans.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Oh yeah, they sure did because they.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Looked at well, because there's an unlimited uh taxpayer, a
pool of money that they can tap into. And that's
what we're seeing also now with Obama Care exactly.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
So you have the consolidation of all these companies, right,
that reduces competition, and that means they can basically name
the price in the market. Okay, I mean take take
diabetic supplies. I mean, if you were to pay cash,
you'd be paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars every month
for just your insulin and syringes. And all that, you know, nonsense.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
Well, why don't we go to a system where if
Shane Carrington or Lynn Woolley has broken your little pinky
or something out trying to fix the back porch or something,
you go to the doctor, the doctor mends it and
puts a cast on or whatever, and you write a
check and you go home. But but if you come down,

(25:24):
if you're in a bad car wreck and you're mangled,
or you've got a terrible disease like cancer, that's what's
covered by insurance exactly.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
And see, I like that idea. There's a there's actually
a consortium I think in it was either Kansas or
Missouri some somewhere up in the central US that I
was I was researching, and basically, for you know, one
hundred dollars per family a month, you can have you

(25:53):
have unlimited office visits. You know, if you need antibiotics,
they write you a script. If I think that includes
like cat scans and MRIs and things like that too.
But it's one of those things where you have unlimited
health care. And we're not talking about health insurance, we're

(26:16):
talking about health care.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
Well, that means you're going to use more of it.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
Possibly. But the interesting thing is what they found with
this consortium is that their clientele had better care for
less money, and the consortium was actually profitable.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
Interesting. I know, there's a lot of things out there
we could try. I think I think the problem and
you can answer this yes or no.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
I don't think Congress is driving the bus on health
care and insurance. I think the insurance companies are. And
they I hate to have to say this, but I'm
sure that they own a few congressmen.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
Oh oh, absolutely, the pharmaceutical companies. The reason, you know,
over over in Europe, I was I was listening to
another podcast and it was a doctor who was talking
about a friend okay, who was raging diabetic okay, and

(27:26):
the friend moved his family over to Europe and within
like five years they were he was saying that that
his his friend's diabetes pretty much went a way okay,
And and they were talking about, well, why do you
think that's happening. And the reason this doctor gave was

(27:50):
because of the food over there. They don't they don't
have all the preservatives in YadA yadi.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Yeah, and they know all the stuff that we put
in hours yet well that was what speaking of Trump world,
that was what Robert Kennedy Hunter was supposed to fix.
And and to his credit, he has gotten a lot
of companies to back off of putting all that sugar
and all the preservatives and the and the petroleum based

(28:21):
coloring dyes and all that. That's good. There's some things
Robert Kennedy does that I think or maybe maybe a
little counterproductive. I certainly think when it gets to vaccines,
I'm glad I had a polio vaccine. I'm glad I
had a smallpox vaccine. Well, hooping cough and all that.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
I mean here, what we're talking about, though.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
Is we may even overdo that.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Yeah, we may, we may overdo it. But you know
what what I'm talking about though, is is you have
the pharmaceutical companies, you have the health insurance companies, and
you have the food companies. Okay, all three of those
want to keep us addicted to the products that they're selling.

(29:06):
I mean, would would you know, the pharmaceutical companies, you know,
would they be profitable if if you know, it was
found that diabetes could be.

Speaker 1 (29:17):
Fixed, Well, not in that area anymore. And a lot
of people think that that's why we don't cure cancer. Well,
that's what people that work for pharmaceutical companies and even
the big wigs get cancer.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
So I don't know, I.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
Understand the both sides of the equation. But wouldn't it
be interesting if we could fix some of these problems
just by what we eat.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
Oh sure, the Mediterranean diet is one of the best
out there.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Exactly exactly. But that would put you know, pharmaceutical companies
out of business. That might put the insurance companies out
of business. You know, it would put a lot of
people out of business.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
That is a fact. Or Audi mobiles never broke down,
you know, their shade tree mechanic would go away. I
want to try something else on you as far as
the world according to Trump, and that is the idea
of some narco terrorists out riding around in a boat
and they looked up in the sky and they say,
oh shit.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Oh I love it, I love it. I love it.
I love it. Okay, because think about this they're in
I know, there's a big upheaval about it. You know,
you're you're killing people without due process, blah blah blah. Okay,
think about this.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
But is it a war?

Speaker 2 (30:32):
No, it's not a war.

Speaker 1 (30:33):
What if we declared war against the narco terrorists.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
Well, he's already put them on the Terror Terrorists watch
list or whatever.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
All right, so you like it.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
I think it's they're in international water, okay, which means
they're not you know, we're not beholden to to our
laws for due process or anything. They're bringing contraband into
the United States, and they're.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Talking fentanyl especially that's killing a lot of Americans. Exactly,
here's my problem. And you tell me how to get
around it, okay, And I can think of ways to
get around it, but I'll let you do it. You're
the gas. What if we get a boat and it's
just not narco terraces and we take out like people
it didn't do anything.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Well, see, that's the next thing they're going to do. Okay,
because think about think about drug dealers and gangs and
all that stuff. When you when you stop them from
doing one thing, what do they do? They find a
way around it? Okay. Now, we have not bombed every boat, okay,

(31:41):
they they have intercepted other boats.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
How do we know when the boat we're about to
blow out of the water is laden with illegal drugs
headed for the United States. Well, uh is the little
brown wrapped packages sort of a hint.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Well, you know, keep in mind, they have intelligence that
we don't have. Okay, most of these boats are coming
from you know, unscrupulous countries like Venezuela. Okay, so that's
that's kind of the precursor. It's coming from Venezuela. Now.
Pete hegg Seth in one of his speeches or whatever, said, yeah,

(32:21):
when you see white powder going all over the place,
you kind of know you know what's in the boat.
And I find that true. You know, if if if,
if you see you know, brown packages with white powder
all over them, I mean, what's in the package? You want?

Speaker 1 (32:39):
Let me make a statement and turn it into a question.
We had the crack down on illegal immigration. I've seen
some of the numbers of people coming across the border
and they're like down in single digits. Are we going
to have a situation forthwith when all the word gets
around down in Venezuela and Nicaragua and plays it like that,
we're not going to see these boats anymore because nobody

(32:59):
wants to be up.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Well, I think that's what we're gonna eventually. That what
will eventually start happening is they'll they'll stop trying to
come by boats and they'll try and find another way. Okay,
because think about it. You know, Maduro in Venezuela is
you know, the narco.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Kingpin, and Trump wants him gone.

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Trump wants him gone. But I mean you can't. You
kind of can't assassinate a country's president.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
Uh hold on, Shane, you said you can't. What about Trump?

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Well, I you know there again, it's kind of that
dippic but.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Just taking out a government building and who knew that
he was in it? Yeah, you know it's going to
end up like that. You remember that Trump got rid
of Isis?

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Did he dropped a moab?

Speaker 1 (33:51):
Yeah, the mother of all bombs? And look look what
happened with Trump's approval in Israel and Gauza. Look what
happened to Hasbola. Their pagers blew up. I know that
was all And the only reason that there is a
peace deal over there is because we and Israel were
bombing the Hohu Thies and Hesbela or Hasbola if you prefer,

(34:15):
was not much of a thread anymore after the pager incident,
and Hamas had been bombed into submission other than that,
there would never be a deal. What happened was realize
we're in a war. Let's kill the enemy.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
Well, yeah, it's amazing what peace through strength will do.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
Well, it's also amazing if you have a head of
of Hamas and Israel takes him out, yep, and they
replace him with another head of Hamas and Israel takes
him out, and the next guy in lines thinking, I
don't know, you know, I don't want to be the world.

(34:54):
According to Trump, we got peace in the Middle East?
Do we do we? Really? Is it lasting?

Speaker 2 (34:59):
Where are we not yet? Not yet? It'll take a
I think it'll take a few a few more months
maybe to truly get it through Hamas's head. Right now,
they're just stalling. Okay, right now, they're just stalling. That's
all they're doing. You know. Yeah, they gave over the

(35:20):
hot osages, but they're not disarming.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
They shot people in the street that they shot people
that they thought had turned them into to Israel exactly.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
So right now they're just they're just kind of stalling.
It's gonna take possibly Israel because Israel bond them for
again for not keeping with the agreement.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
But speaking to Trump, tell me if I'm wrong with
this statement, what there would be no deal right now,
no chance of peace in the Middle East without two
things Trump. Trump did both of them. Number one the
Abraham Accords from his first term and number two when
Trump took out Iran's nuclear capability.

Speaker 2 (36:02):
Yeah. Well, and I'll add a number three. You this
would not happen without Trump being Trump, his.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Person Yes, the force of his personnel, exactly. I have
said that has a third thing at myself. You just
don't know what the hell he's doing. I know, Hey, Ukraine,
maybe Ukraine doesn't have to give up any territory. That
was a couple of weeks ago. Now it's Ukraine's gonna
have to give up the territory of where it is.
And oh, by the way, vlad we may give him

(36:31):
some Tomahawk missiles.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
I yeah. And I've always thought that if Trump wants
to end the Ukraine war with Russia, he needs to
be tougher on Russia. Vladimir Putin is doing what Hamas
is doing. He's just stalling for time. He's just trying
to run out the clock.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
Is he playing Trump for the fool?

Speaker 2 (36:54):
I don't think he's playing Trump for the fool. He's
trying to buy time because think about Trump. Trump is
term limited. He has four years and that's it.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
Yeah, but he's got three more. Something's got to happen
without war before the end of the Trump administerty.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
You and I both know how slow the political system were,
but there.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
Is Okay, but take politics in our country out of
it for just a minute. How would you like to
be the mother of a military age male in Russia
right now and know that Trump is going to send
him off to die. Not Trump, Putin's going to send
him off to die. They've already lost two million soldiers.

(37:31):
When do the Russian people revolt?

Speaker 2 (37:34):
Yeah, but you've got to understand the mindset of the
Russian people. Vladimir's got them brainwashed, you know, it's all Russia.

Speaker 1 (37:43):
Or or he has his thumb on him.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Yeah, well that either way, either way, it's the same result.
I mean, it's kind of like you know, Hillary Clinton
in Russia, Russia, Russia. It's it's all about Russia, no
matter the cost. And that's what Putin has instilled in
the Russian people.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
Getting back to a topic we had earlier and staying
on this topic as well, I think if Trump Trump's
talking about having some kind of an agreement with shijin Ping.
All right, if he can get a good trade agreement,
and part of that trade agreement is you are not
going to help Putin prolong that war in Ukraine if

(38:25):
we can take China out as a big supporter of Putin.
And the only way to do that is to make
it work up. China's wild. So he's going to have
to deal with the tariffs and all that without China
as a backdrop, and Iran has been neutered. That's when
you can end this war.

Speaker 2 (38:45):
Well, I think, I yeah, I agree with you. He's
got to get China involved. But this needs to be
three things with China, because unfortunately China previous administrations has
let China kind of get its tentacles into everything.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Yeah, the belt and road, road and belt program and
all that.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
Well there there's three big things. Okay, So stop buying
oil from Russia. That's number one. That'll end the war
pretty much.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
Well certain it will certainly put the pressure on Yeah,
I agree, I agree with that.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
What's so then then the other thing is the fentanyl.
They need to crack down on their fentanyl, stop shipping
it over here.

Speaker 1 (39:28):
So Trump's got to get that deal. He's got that,
and then we still have but then.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
There but then there's also then there's also the the
on on the economic side. You know, China has been
trying to create a new world currency behind the United
States back with other countries like Brazil and some of
those other ones. So he needs to nip that too.

(39:54):
So those three, those three things.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
I thought you were gonna say, nip it in the bud. Well,
yeah you did.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
He needs to nip it in the.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
Button now you did, all right, So that's to me
the way to end the war in Ukraine. Or is
it possible, to go back to what Trump said a
few days ago, is it possible in any form or
fashion that Ukraine can remain whole when this war ends?

Speaker 2 (40:23):
Yeah, there's a way there, And I'm there again. We're
talking about the force of Trump's personality. Right, give give
Ukraine tomahawks, cut off the funding from China for Russia, right,
and then basically tell putin, look, you know you're going
to get bombed until you withdraw.

Speaker 1 (40:46):
Well, and we don't want to do it, no, but
all we got to do is send tomahawks. So things
have a fifteen hundred mile range they could take out
They could take at Kremlin with those things.

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Well, yeah, they can hit Moscow. They can also take
out drone factories over there. They can they can take
out pretty much anything.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
And that would be amazing because that's what Putin's using.

Speaker 2 (41:10):
Oh yeah, so you can, you can take out I
think I saw a map where it's basically the entire
eastern side of Russia. Those those tomahawks have ranged to hit,
so I I think, I think if you want to
to end this and and and Zelensky get his land back,

(41:31):
Trump needs to use his personality to cut off the
funding with China, give tomahawks to Ukraine, and then just
tell Putin, look, you're gonna get bombed until you withdraw.

Speaker 1 (41:43):
Well wait, let's bring it back on shore as we
as we get close to the end, because you can't
have anything about, you know, doing something on where we
stand with Trump without talking about James Komy, John Brenna,
Latitia James come up, all right, well is this tit

(42:07):
for tat or do you think this what Trump is
doing with his so called political enemies. Remember, Letitia James
ran on a platform of I will go after Trump,
and she sued him as many times as she could.
And if you're going to do that, you can't be stupid.
If you're going to do that, you can't have anything
on your record at all that she signed a deal

(42:27):
for a mortgage and yep, that was not exactly by
the books, shall we say? And so she's gotten herself
in trouble. She's indicted Comy. Comy did all kinds of
Comy's a piece of work. I'll tell you that. Oh yeah,
And lately, the most recent is Brennan. And I think
Clapper is worried right now.

Speaker 2 (42:47):
You should.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
And I wonder about if if there's still something where
the statute of limitations is still open, where where Hillary
Clinton could be indicted. What do you make of all this?

Speaker 2 (42:57):
Well, Hillary can't be indicted for the emails are in
for too bad.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
Well, they destroyed it with hammers, all the laptops.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
Yeah, but it's the statue of limitations has expired. But
but okay, so.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
There's ways to get around that too, because the statute
of limitations limitations had expired on the e. Gene Carrol case,
and they still went after Trump because they found some
email or something that happened later and said, oh, well,
we'll use that.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
That's being appealed, and from what I understand, it's it's
going to get overturned.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
The Boy I Hope show. That woman went on Rachel
mad Cow's show Mad House Show on MSNBC soon to
be ms NOW or ms COW as we call it,
on the radio show, and she was delighting in this
and taking a big victory lap. It would be fun
to see her broad down.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
It would. But but you know, getting back to the
law fair, I guess you know, I kind of agree
with what you were saying. Look, if you're going to
go after Trump, you have to have clean hands.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
You have to be one hundred percent clean. I have
challenged the irs online. You know, there is nothing they
can find with me. Nothing. I am such a straight arrow.
It's ridiculous. It's hard to get a date.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
It is ridiculous, folks.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
I gotta tell you, I am a straight arrow. If
I owe you money, I will pay you. And uh
if I promise to take you out to lunch after
the podcast, I will think about it.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
Well, see, well think about this, okay. There there are
so many laws on the book, state, at federal, local, whatever.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
There are so many laws shows I'll show you the
cross exactly.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
And that's that's the point, Okay. No one in this
world is one hundred percent clean, okay in terms of
our laws and maintaining one hundred OCAs.

Speaker 1 (44:50):
If you come down on the side of nobody can
know what all the laws are. Therefore it is easy
to break one of them. And we have thousands upon
thousands of laws. But I hire somebody to do my
income taxes because I don't know how to do it.
And the reason I don't know how to do it
is because the income tax code is beyond ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
But see what Letitia James did, okay, is she signed
a mortgage document stating that that was going to be
her primary residence or one of them.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
Yes, and then she turned around and rented it, yes,
to somebody for profit exactly.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
And so you can't do that, you are then defrauding
the mortgage company because they gave you a better rescue
question the primary residence.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
I have a big house. Here's where the podcast studio
is the main mansion. Yes, I have thought about selling.
Let's let's say I decided to sell it. Now I'm
over sixty five, so I get a freeze on school taxes. Yes,
and I have a homesteaded. Now what do I do

(46:01):
or what if I forget to do anything? If I
move out and decide to keep the house and b
and be it or or lease it to a family, Well,
I mean I have to go down to the tax
office and uh and undo the homestead and I mean
the sixty five exemption. Uh yeah, and all that sort

(46:22):
of thing. Yeah, that has to be undone unless I'm
actually living here exactly and declare this as my primary
residence and can prove that it is exactly. And that's
what she didn't do.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
That's what she did not do. She signed a document
you know where it stated, you know, look this is
going to be my primary horizons. Blah blah blah. So
in Trump's court case, okay, no one was defrauded.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
Okay, Well the thing about how much merri Lago was worth, well.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
Yeah, but that was the judges thing. He's you know, and.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
That was crazy. Look if the bank says okay, and
all the money's paid back, where's the victim.

Speaker 2 (47:02):
But that's what I'm saying. It was a victimless you
know whatever. It wasn't exactly, it wasn't a crime because
the bank said, Okay, well we agree with this.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
James really was a victimless crime, except for she wasn't
paying taxes and defrauding the state.

Speaker 2 (47:18):
But that's what I'm saying. There was a victim here.
The mortgage company gave her a better rate than they
would have otherwise. So there was a victim, and that
was the mortgage That was the mortgage company.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
All right, let me ask you this Crossfire, Hurricane and
other such operations. Russia, Russia, Russia.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
Lock them up? What lock them up?

Speaker 1 (47:44):
Shane, I'm going to ask you about a specific incident.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Do you know how many years we wasted on that
and how much money we wasted on that?

Speaker 1 (47:53):
How many impeachments? Yeah, I'm going to ask you a
specific question. Fifty two, I believe, is the number of
at that time current or former members of the intelligence
community that signed a letter saying them hunter Biden's laptop.
I believe it was something to the effect of had
all the signs of Russian disinformation, but the message to

(48:16):
the people was it's not real. The Republicans are making
this up, the Russians are involved in it, and I
think that affected the election. It did those those fifty two,
every one of them be indicted.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
No, because you know, if if that's what they believed
and that's based on the evidence that they saw at
the time, I would I would say no, what.

Speaker 1 (48:46):
If they saw the evidence and knew that that laptop
was reached, then.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Yeah they should be because the left that's interfering. I mean,
think about think about this. Okay, So the twenty twenty election, right,
Trump lost by what forty two thousand votes?

Speaker 1 (49:04):
Well, yeah, Joe Biden got eighty two million votes, which
is completely physically impossible.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
I know. Well, I'm not talking about the popularity contest.
I'm talking about the electoral college. All right, he lost
by like forty two thousand votes. Okay, there was a
study done that basically said out of the likely voters

(49:30):
in the twenty twenty election, I think it was between
twenty and twenty five percent would have changed their vote
had they known about the Hunter Biden laptop.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
Well, then there's another group out there that's at fault,
and that's the mainstream media that completely ignored it when
they the only way they didn't ignore the Hunter Biden
laptop was when they were telling you and me and
all of America that it wasn't a real thing.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
Well not everyone's usling, We're not everyone's as good as
we are.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
Well we know, but there's a lot of people that
believe them. If you get your news from David from
David Muir or Tom Yamas at NBC at five point thirty,
and maybe maybe Brett Bayer on the CBS News, if
CBS is able to lure him, as the rumors are saying, yeah,
I don't think so, but that would CBS would would
soar if that were to happen, because he's he's he's

(50:23):
he's believable and he's dependable. But what what Trump went through? Yeah,
on that whole Russia, Russia, Russia thing, I don't know
if I could have withstood it. Now, he's a billionaire
and I'm not so he had the money to stay
out of jail and to do things that you know could.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
Well money maybe side hold on, yes, hold on.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
But nobody should have had to go through that.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
You're right, you're right, but money aside could do you
think you would have had the spine to withstand it?

Speaker 1 (50:56):
Well, that's that's Trump.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
I know that's true.

Speaker 1 (50:59):
I don't know that he's one of a kind, but
name me somebody else that could have withstood it, I
can you. I can't.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Every other person that has been present in my lifetime,
even Ronald Reagan himself, I don't think could have withstood Now.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
Wait a minute. You remember when what Ronald Reagan said
as they were wheeling him into surgery after he was shot.
He said to his doctors, Yeah, he said, I hope,
I hope you're a republic Yeah. All right, but let
me just point out a few things. All right, there's Russia, Russia, Russia. Yes,
we had two actual impeachments and one semi impeachment, which

(51:37):
was the J six hearing. Yep, all right. Then we
had a guy in Butler, Pennsylvania try to shoot Trump
through the brain and he nicked him on the ear
due to a very fortunate turn of the head.

Speaker 2 (51:49):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
Then we had another guy at a golf course in
Florida that was poised to shoot a Trump again.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
And now we have a third, possibly a third.

Speaker 1 (51:59):
One who could withstand this.

Speaker 2 (52:02):
I don't know. Did you hear about the third one?

Speaker 1 (52:04):
Though?

Speaker 2 (52:04):
There's a There was a deer stand yes, yes, yes.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
Yes, yes, yes, yeah, near the airport that had a
clean line of sight. I didn't know what you're what
you're driving out there front, But yes, I am aware
of that.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
So I don't know. I think that inded what ninety
two times.

Speaker 1 (52:21):
Or something something like something like Reltitia James went back
and forth. Alvin Bragg yep, you know, and the one
Fanny willis down in Georgia yep. So it was just
costant and yet the man ran for president. He won.
He has changed literally the world with his piece in
the Middle East. If this holds up, will he get

(52:42):
the Nobel Peace Prize?

Speaker 2 (52:44):
Well, they snubbed him this year.

Speaker 1 (52:47):
Well it was too late for the Peace Team, but
it wasn't too late for the Abraham of Courts and
his in some of his work trying to get these
piece skills. But remember they gave the Nobel Peace Prize
to Obama because he was Obama. Yeah, it never gave anything.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
They gave it to Obama for what he was going
to do, which by the way, was nothing.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
You know, he didn't even save South Chican.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
No.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
All right, final topic here because we're running out of time.
But this is this is good stuff. Like Trump. Trump
cleaned up d C. Yes, now whether it stays cleaned up,
I mean you put, you put hundreds of cops on
the street or any other kind of officer, you can
clean it up. But they sometimes, you know, if it's
a temporary thing, you may have to do it again.

(53:34):
Trump can do that, Yes, because d C is a district.

Speaker 2 (53:37):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
What do you make of Trump? Part of it's involving
ice and part of it's involving just cleaning up a
town that's got a lot of violent Antifa people like Portland? Say,
should he even care about these left wing cities other
than preserving federal federal property.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
This goes to kind of Trump's integrity as well. Everyone says, oh,
he's a fascist, Oh he's an authoritarian, whatever, But this
kind of goes to Trump's integrity. He could let all
of these left wing cities in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC.

(54:20):
He could let all of them crash and burn.

Speaker 1 (54:23):
But let me ask you which questions which hold.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
On hold on? Which would be their just desserts for
how they run their right But he could let them
crash and burn, but you know what, he doesn't want
to do that.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
Let me here's my questions.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
Okay, okay, here's my question.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
South Chicago, lots of gangs, lots of illegal guns, right, yes, yes,
down in the south part of Chicago where you don't
mess around with gym or big badly Roy Brown? What color?
What race are those little children that are getting caught
in the crossfire of those gangs?

Speaker 2 (54:57):
They are African American?

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Do black lives matter or not? Do black lives matter
to Brandon Johnson, know, the mayor of Chicago. Do black
lives matter to one of the silliest, stupidest, most idiotic
politicians of my lifetime, JB. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois.

Speaker 2 (55:13):
Well did you watch JB. Pritzker on Fox News with
Brett Behar the other day? Of course, all he was
doing was spouting talking points. Ice is taking people off
the streets. No, they're not.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
Well, let me say this. If Ice Ice goes to
where the illegals are, and there may be some legal
people there. If you're arresting two hundred three hundred people,
you may get one wrong, you're processing these people. The
ones you got wrong, you let them go, exactly, It's
not a big deal. And this separating families. You know
you have a family, Yes, you have a son.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
Do you love them?

Speaker 2 (55:45):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Have you ever thought of robbing a bank. No, if
you did rob a bank, would they separate you from Yes? Okay,
Nuf said, I know that's the way it works when
you break the law. I'm going to ask you this,
we'll wrap it up.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
If the Democrats are so so upset about ice raids
and ICE is, if you break it down to its basics,
ice is simply enforcing laws that are on the books. Yes,
why don't they go to the Republicans and say, all right,
we got three main categories here, plus HB one VSUS

(56:18):
is a different thing. But let's say we've got the
hospitality industry. We need immigrants that will come in and
work at a low price and make our beds and
sweep the halls and vacuum the rooms. All right. Then
there's the construction industry, where the illegal immigrants are the
best there are in the world at putting roofs on
houses and helping build the framework of a new house.

(56:39):
We need that. And then we need them to pick
our fruit, and we need them to work in our
agriculture fields. So why don't they come up with something
where a they're fully vetted for criminal activity, be they're
fully vetted for healthcare C. They're given to temporary a
Green card D. They are told right up front, you
cannot bring somebody in pregnant and stay here forever, because

(57:00):
birthright citizenship is the dumbest asked thing that any country
has ever done. And that alone, thanks to to LBJ
and Ted Kennedy, has caused all this chain migration, which
is royal the country. We fix those things, we fix
the immigration problem.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
Well, let me start with with you know all these
questions that you've posed to me, that.

Speaker 1 (57:26):
You can handle them, shame caring, that's right.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
That's right. I used to be able to do a
talk show like this that's three hours, but but here. Okay,
so let's start with birthright citizenship. That's at the Supreme
Court right now. It is they're they're just citing that,
and I I agree with Trump's premise. Look, you can't
come into the country if you're pregnant and have the

(57:52):
baby here and and and give it all the citizenship
benefits unless the husband or unless the father is a citizen.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
Using an amendment to the Constitution that was made to
make sure that Southern slaves were freed, that they could
get citizenship, that's what that Amendment was for and it
was very specific.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
That's right. So Trump is wanting the Supreme Court to
basically reinterpret and to specify.

Speaker 1 (58:24):
Well, what he wanted them to do is to go
back to the original intent. I know, and it's all there.
We have transcripts of the debates.

Speaker 2 (58:32):
Yes, I know, but that's not what the ruling by
the court was. I think it was, you know, mid
nineteen hundreds somewhere where they you know, interpreted the fourteenth
Amendment in a different way. But and I'm surprised I
have to tell you this, but the reason why the

(58:54):
Democrats don't want to do anything on immigration is because
they get vote.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
They need a permanent underclass exactly so they can keep
spending copious amounts of money.

Speaker 2 (59:05):
Exactly. If the Democrats were actually would actually offer to
fix immigration, the Democrats would never get voted into power.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
Ever. Again, you are absolutely right on that.

Speaker 2 (59:16):
Say that again. I want that recording.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
I think it is recorded. You're an it guy. You
can go back in and pull that out and make
a meme out of it and put a sombrero on.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
I know that that's going to be my ring, all.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
Right, Ai Trump. Trump says, we have to be in
the lead in AI.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
He's right, yeah, good for it.

Speaker 1 (59:35):
Is this podcast that we're doing real or did some
AI imitate our voices?

Speaker 2 (59:40):
I guess we'll never know, you worry me. Yes, it's real.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
Is AI going to be our masters?

Speaker 2 (59:53):
I could? I could see if you've watched Terminator I.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
Seek, I knew this was going to get to that. Hey,
So let me tell you a little story in with
that and you can react to it. There was a
bunch of scientists, some of them were believers in God
and some weren't, and they were having a discussion on
it and trying to figure out. They were the most
brilliant minds in the country, and they were trying to
figure out how to determine whether it is a god

(01:00:17):
or not. So they decided that they would put all
their collective intellectualism together and they would create an AI
that was powerful enough to tell them is there or
is there not? A God? And they finally succeeded, and
they all gathered around and they asked the AI, is
there a God? And the AI said there is? Now? Jeez, well,

(01:00:41):
that is that the way it's going to play out?

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
That's creepy, you know, you know, as great as AI is,
there is there is only one God who is not
beholden to time, space or matter, and and he is
the ultimate God and and deserves our praise and adoration.
But you know, AI is definitely here to stay. And

(01:01:09):
I don't uh. The problem I see with AI is
we need to learn how to use it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:16):
You remember when I sent you the script of a
short story I was working on and ask you if
my characterization of AI is correct, and you told me
some things to change. Yeah, and boy, how far have
we come since then?

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
Trump seems to believe that God had him turn his
head in Butler.

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
I agree, I agree. What other possibility could could there be?
One hundred and fifty yards? Is like a chip shot
in golf?

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
Oh yeah, I.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
Mean with with with a rifle. You know, It's kind
of like just a chip shot. And if Trump had
not turned his head at the exact moment and the
exact angle he did, he would he would not be.

Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
He would be dead right now. The world would be
very different, exactly all right, The world, according to Trump,
better better than Biden, of course, better than the world
under Kamala Harris had she been elected.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Oh good lord, I would be tired of the.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Word SIDS by now, I think we all would be.
Shane Keirrington, how can people find you?

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:02:27):
Are you online? Website?

Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
No, no website, no Instagram, no, no Facebook, no social
media no nothing. All right, Well, if you want to
send a letter, you can email it to me and
I'll get it over to him. I'm fairly easy to find,
Shane Keirrington. It guy, where are you teaching?

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
I'm teaching at Central Texas College and the Computer Science
department in Colleen.

Speaker 1 (01:02:51):
All right, great place, All right, Shane Keirrrington. I'm Lynn Woolle.
This is Planet Logic. Be logical, and we will see
you next time.