2 POGs Save the World Podcast
Two Army veterans—one left, one right—unite for the ultimate mission: tackling real-world problems with common sense, logic, and a healthy dose of military humor. 2 POGs Save the World isn’t your typical political podcast. Hosts Kj Bradley & Lance O'Neil bring unfiltered discussions, sharp debates, and tactical solutions to the chaos of modern society.
From politics and national security to sports and pop culture, no topic is off-limits. With battle-tested insights and zero tolerance for BS, these two POGs (Personnel Other than Grunts) prove that you don’t have to agree on everything to find real solutions.
Join the fight every Sunday at 8:30 PM EST, where the only thing sharper than the takes is the wit. Mission: Common Sense. Execution: Hilarious. Victory: Inevitable
🎙️ Listen. Debate. Disagree. Laugh. Take Notes.
2 POGs Save the World Podcast
World Tour, Budget Battles, and the Usual Chaos
Trump’s globe-trotting again, Congress is burning daylight with budget brinkmanship, and the headlines feel like a fever dream. Tonight, the POGs are diving straight into the madness with unfiltered insight, political shade, and maybe a guest or two who aren't afraid to stir the pot. It’s been a wild week—pull up, pour a drink, and let’s talk about it.
What do you want to do tonight?
Speaker 2:The same thing we do every night Pinky, Try to take over the world.
Speaker 3:All right, yo, let's get into it. Try to take over the world.
Speaker 1:You're preaching freedom. Try to take over the world.
Speaker 3:And bring this chaplain in the world. Mr lanson, take over the world on a sunday.
Speaker 3:I had to run out real quick one of my rappers needed me, so I had to try to sneak off and beat the intro, but I'm back though. Welcome everyone to another Sunday edition of Two Pogues. It's your boy, kj Braley, and the greatest chaplain in the world, mr Lance O'Neill, and we have quite an interesting conversation. This week it was a lot going on. We got a lot to talk about. Obviously, potus keeps us rocking and rolling, but Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has also gave us a lot to talk about. So where in the realm of politics, my dear colleague, would you like to start? This week we got Congress, we got the Supreme Court that was rocking and rolling this week, and we got POTUS obviously doing POTUS things this week and we got potus obviously doing potus things well, I would say, dealer's choice.
Speaker 1:But the only one that I I I'm guessing we're both, uh, read up on would be the scotus pushing it back. Okay, so, great start.
Speaker 1:Yes, let's, let's look at what the Trump administration is doing in terms of broad strokes, right? The Trump administration has said we are going to come in and we are going to. We have a, we have a mandate and we're going to do what we think is absolutely necessary to fix this country. After four years of Sleepy Joe being asleep at the wheel, and who signed the auto pen and that's illegal and blah, okay, well, what they've also done is they said we are going to be, we're going to push the limits and we're going to be creative, right? So one of the first ones and this is the one that happened this week was using the aliens and sedition act to say we are going to deport people who are in this country illegally, using the Alien and Sedition Act. The circuit court came out and said nope, you can't do that. I believe it was the Fifth Circuit Went to SCOTUS and SCOTUS said hey, we're not going to remove the injunction, because the Fifth said, hey, you cannot use this. It went to SCOTUS. Scotus said well, it needs to go back to the Fifth, you need to be more specific about this. And they kicked it back to the court without removing the injunction 7-2.
Speaker 1:And you have a lot of people saying that's a win for. I'm not even sure who you'd say it's a win for for the illegal aliens, for the Democrats, for the anti-Trump Trumpers? I'm not sure. But I'm not sure who the winner there is in that. But Trump is not. Trump doesn't win on that per se right. And, of course, alito and Thomas, right in line what I figured they would do, they said well, hey, we're not. Why are we doing this? That's not what we're supposed to be doing. You guys, you know, if you think this is wrong, you should remove the injunction and then kick it back to the fifth. Why are we not doing that? So I do think it's interesting that at the same time, you have a lot of uh, maga or I don't know. Should we call it everybody a magna or republicans. I'm not even sure where we're at in the country, because I don't think every republican is maga and I don't think every maga is a republican either. I know they're not conservatives but, they're turning around and freaking out.
Speaker 1:I'm like, should we let, oh, these women on the court? I don't trust any of these women because the three women are liberal. And then, uh, amy cohen, amy barrett cohen, or amy cohen barrett, I always think it's call me barrett I think it's call me.
Speaker 1:I am acb. Um, was it a mistake? Was it a mistake? And I'm just like you guys, like, look, that's the type of that is the type of thing that the new york times it's just like oh, we love it. All the republicans, they're eating their own. We don't even have to go after them. So I think this.
Speaker 1:But then you and I have talked about this now you have the question and greg easterbrook, we are talked about this. Now. You have the question and Greg Easterbrook will talk about this. At what point does Trump say you know what? I think you're wrong and I'm going to ignore not the Supreme Court because, remember, it's not the Supreme Court that ruled, it's the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 3:He kicked it back down to the Fifth.
Speaker 4:They kicked it back down to the Fifth.
Speaker 1:And so that's another argument. Trump and Trump's lawyer, the White House, the administration lawyers are also saying, hey, we want, and I. This is really weird, because normally this is on what's called the shadow docket, which is not the normal stuff. It's the stuff that comes up and normally it's not something that is even argued. It's the stuff that comes up and normally it's not something that is even argued. It's a paper. Hey, because this is important, give it to us. It's the file we're going to use, the secret docket.
Speaker 3:Or not? The secret, the non-competitive docket? Yeah, we write it down, we send out our ruling and then you let it go. Like any other administration, this is not a big deal. Like they rule it, you'll get a newsflash or a beaker at the bottom and then it rocks.
Speaker 1:And there's and there's shadow docket. There's shadow docket, that's not, it's not a special thing, it's something they normally do. But this time what they did is they said well, we are going to take up the shadow docket case in terms of these injunctions, because you and I have talked about this. The Trump administration is saying should a random federal judge, at any level, it could be a. I think the example we just would commonly use is the rando federal judge in Montana.
Speaker 3:Montana. Yeah, just pick a state Right.
Speaker 1:Some tiny little, you know small population state. So somebody out of Billings Montana, the federal judge out of Billings Montana, says I am barring the United States government from doing whatever X, y, z. So the Trump administration is coming in and going hey, we think that's an abuse of power. Sure, supreme Court, we need you to really rule on this. What power does the federal bench have? Do they have this brought? Because to me and this is not a Trump, this is not a brand new thing, I've thought this now for a couple of decades. New thing I've thought this now for a couple of decades. I have thought that the judiciary has become basically too powerful. It was supposed to be the checks and balances are supposed to be here's the executive, here's the legislature, here's the judicial. Right now, I would say this I say here's the executive, here's the legislative, here's the judiciary. And, to be fair, the reason the legislature is down so low is because they suck, they're not doing their job, they're not claiming their power, they're not doing what?
Speaker 3:I'll give you that. But the judiciary branch is, I think they're doing exactly what they're meant to do, like you know, circuit judges ruling on on administration issues. Obviously it's not new Right. We had the same issue going back, as far as I can remember, even in the 90s with with the Clinton era, and those guys, the new Dixie Crats, were doing that thing. But a couple of things I noticed. The baby SCOTUSs are more moderate than even this administration would have imagined.
Speaker 3:I think if they could do a redo, they probably would put more principally aligned judges on the court. Yeah, I don't think. Yeah, I don't think. I think he's regretting. I think he's kind of not necessarily regretting, but he's kind of looking sideways at his last, especially the last two, last three. Maybe I can't remember who the third one was, but Comey, barrett and Kavanaugh. He's kind of he's like man. You know, I'm not sure I enjoyed you. I did want to play this clip. We got a couple of clips we're going to play today, so I'm going to see if I can get this queued up and then we'll go from there.
Speaker 4:But I got to work though, but in this past weekend, the actual Supreme Court used its power to stop the Trump administration from any such new deportations under the same war claims I just mentioned. Court stepped in at the 11th hour and, as I mentioned, if you follow all your alerts over the weekend, you might have heard this, but I want to put it in the full context for you. Right now, the high court blocking any more Trump deportations under that power and telling federal officials not to remove any detainees from the US a rare overnight short rule. Some interpreting this as the high court now finding that its patience is running thin, losing patience with these type of Trump ploys and actions which would, on their face, and now by quite obvious laws and limits that are established not some new tough question, but past court precedents so I can agree with him in the and I can agree with him in the past court presence.
Speaker 3:You know, I'm saying the, the, the scotus, trying to maintain continuity because again, the district judges are there to to rule and then they're, I guess, the, the case, the cases is twofold, right. So trump, the trump administration is trying to say man, how in the world can a district judge, basically a regional, you know, municipality, tell, yeah, tell the nation what they can and can't do? And? And the judges, from the judges perspective, they like it doesn't matter if I'm a city judge, if it's unconstitutional, I have the. I have not only the authority but the obligation to speak on it. So I understand it both ways. I didn't like it when they did it to Obama and the and the expansion of Obamacare. I don't like it now, but I can at least. I told you. I told you some of my most interesting points of this administration were going to be the rulings, because this administration is going to push the budding and I haven't been disappointed so far in this judicial season.
Speaker 3:It has been exactly what I thought it would be, and I continue to see the attacks on the Reconstructionist Amendment, which I knew.
Speaker 3:I mean, everyone who's been following the playbook knew that that's what that was going to be, and this is just another case of it. I think what's going to happen is the administration is going to force the issue to a point to where one of two things are going to happen. Is the administration is going to force the issue to a point to where one of two things are going to happen either scotus is going to have to make an absolute ruling or the legislator is going to have to step in and say, all right, this is the law. Um, because it's too much gray area to play around in and as long as you got that gray area, one thing this administration is absolutely, you know, proficient at is finding that gray area and swimming in it. But yeah, I want to play, because there was another ruling from the 8th district that that kind of bothered me this week, but it's in conjunction with this. I wanted to start here and then we can go into that next.
Speaker 1:So, before you do that, who was the reporter on that? Because without, or even. Was that MSNBC, or was that CNN?
Speaker 3:You had it right. The first time that was MSNBC yeah.
Speaker 1:And that's the thing when you have a reporter saying here's what the news report is. I mean, did you see what the Supreme Court did to President Trump? He made President Trump seem like a clown. Oh, look at what Scabbit did they beat. And you just go. First of all, that's not what the ruling said. The ruling said we are not removing what the circuit court said. We are not removing what the circuit court said. We are going to kick it back to the circuit court and leave the injunction in place. Yeah, and that's that's where the bias of journalism and msnbc and, trust me, I'm sure, well, not sure. I assume that the way Fox News said it was, you know, supreme Court did not do what President Trump and they all know should have.
Speaker 3:They labeled it as an attack on the administration, which is interesting and I'm like yeah of course that's yeah.
Speaker 1:Now you say I like that. Of course that's what they do.
Speaker 1:So, to me that's why it's so important to me is to go in and actually have that analysis, your own analysis. Now, is it possible for us to go in, like you and I? We could probably do an entire show, we could probably pull up the ruling and we could probably go through the ruling and we'd probably be wrong on about 80 of what it said, because neither of us are lawyers. But, that said, there are parts of any scotus ruling like if you read the first page, page and a half, it's like a synopsis of any research and you kind of go here's what it is, here's what they say, and then you jump to the very end and says here's what that means as far as what's going to happen. So here's what we think, here's why. And then at the very bottom goes so we're kicking it back to the fifth so that they need to define what this really means I like, I like the, the, I like the.
Speaker 3:It was a 7-2 ruling, but alito and and thomas kind of surprised me. They didn't say no, they. But they didn't say I agree with you at the same time. Essentially what their objection was was like hey, are we sure we want to leave the injunction in place while the district figures it out? Right, he's like you know. And then Thomas is, and I told you he walks that fine line. I can't stand that dude, he gets on my nerves, man. He walks that fine line, just like. So he's like. His whole summary was like hey, I think I agree with you. However, if we're not going to take it up fully, then we should lift the injunction and let the district figure it out, and if they want to kick it up to us, then we'll explore it all the way through.
Speaker 1:And that's exactly what Liberty is saying. There is. You know, liberty, I think you're right on.
Speaker 1:If the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case, it sometimes means it's just not to that level. And that was one of those things a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court took up and said OK, we're going to, we're going to have the emergency injunction and we're going to say no deportations. Even though SCOTUS and Alito both came back and said what are you doing? We're not even following our own rules and we're putting an injunction in place without it being vetted, without it going through the initial stages or the appeals court, through the initial stages or the appeals court Now. So somebody now can just file with the Supreme Court and bypass every all the other levels of of the court which are supposed to be there. And so the argument. And I think that I think it would have been interesting if Alito and Thomas had basically made the point and said OK, well, if you guys are going to rule at 7-2 that we should have this injunction in place without all this other stuff, then I guess we're just in charge of everything. What's the next traffic ticket?
Speaker 1:I would have made that you know to be absurd. You reducto ad absurdum and you make it to the most ridiculous point and the Supreme Court going. So if we're going to bypass all this other stuff, if chaplain o'neill gets a jaywalking ticket and he files for relief with the sir, with the supreme court, should we take that up? Why not, I mean, if we're just going to jump over everybody else? So I think scotus scotus in a lot of ways are being viewed as both savior and stopgap and facilitator, and waterfall depending on what side you're on and what the ruling is.
Speaker 3:I mean, it was the DOJ that fast-tracked it.
Speaker 1:Well, but the thing is it doesn't matter, right, it doesn't matter who it is, it doesn't matter if it's the Trump administration saying, hey, we need an emergency ruling, the Supreme Court's going. So this is where, again, I kind of look at the justices and I like that Alito and Thomas are saying hey. I think Alito and Thomas are trying to say this is the strike zone. It's either a ball or it's a strike. This is the zone and the other ones are going.
Speaker 2:well, I mean sometimes you'll give a corner over here.
Speaker 1:Well, that one. Are we talking about the middle of the knee or is it the bottom of the knee for a strike? Well, it was a check swing, so I think it was a strike. Well, you know. So I think Alito and Thomas are very much like this is the strike zone. We don't call anything out of the strike zone period.
Speaker 3:For better or for worse. You know how I feel about those two and they are they're ruling exactly how I thought they would. So it's just kind of like it's one of those things. I am more, I guess, impressed with the baby scotuses than I thought they would be. I did not expect them to put up as much resistance, even with with Kentucky Brown Jackson, up as much resistance Even with Kentucky Brown Jackson. Resistance to what? Resistance to the administration's advances. Let's face it, alito and Thomas bullied the last session Last year. Alito and Thomas bullied the SCOTUS session. I don't even know why they even sent up stuff to the SCOTUS because in my opinion it wasn't a fair ruling. It wasn't. It wasn't a fair SCOTUS decision.
Speaker 3:I think on a couple of this was the Biden's administration. Biden was trying to get I can't remember off the top of my head. It was a couple of them where I was like SCOTUS and Alito are going to push it back. Um, I think, well, a big one, the presidential immunity. I know that was a huge. That one did not. That one was pushed through and I I mean, I get it, you know, you get the my, you get the majority, you get the opinion, I get it, you know, but it just I. I am pleasantly surprised to see the baby justices kind of finding their own path, which is which is you know what you would want from a bench. You don't want everybody to be lockstep.
Speaker 1:Oh, oh sure, and I'll agree with you. I think that they are the justices. I don't care if it's Alito and Thomas or if it's Sotomayor and whoever. I want them to look at a case. Look at what the Constitution says, debate it behind closed doors, write an opinion that a layman can read and go oh okay, this is why that a layman can read and go oh okay, this is why. And then the other side, if they are so inclined to say now we think you're wrong, because that's, that's how it's supposed to work, I I don't have any problem, like the presidential immunity one. I looked at that. I thought it was so funny when the democrats were freaking out about it, because I was like.
Speaker 1:So your argument is that because of presidential immunity and remember what it said was that the president in, in acting in an official capacity, could not be held to criminal standards Right, Basically, that's what it was. Sure they were freaking out. Well, that means Trump could go in and just assassinate, and I'm sitting there going, you guys, Biden's still the president. If that's where you're going with it and you're so worried about Trump, why doesn't Biden just assassinate? Oh wait, no, oh wait. Assassinate Trump.
Speaker 1:Oh, I think the piece is I think we didn't have time. I think Biden was the one who Biden.
Speaker 3:Biden was on vacation for like the last one. All right, so let's get back to the second part.
Speaker 1:You know where he was though he was, he was, he was on the grassy knoll, he was the one who was telling the sniper.
Speaker 3:His body was there, but nobody was behind the wheel. All right, all right, here we go. So I'm going to play this real quick and we're going to talk about it here we go AURN News.
Speaker 2:I'm Ebony McMorris. A major blow to the Voting Rights Act just landed, this time courtesy of a federal appeals panel affecting seven states across the Midwest. In a controversial two to one decision, judges from the Eighth Circuit Court ruled private citizens can no longer bring lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of civil rights litigation against racial discrimination at the polls. Now, historically, these private lawsuits accounted for hundreds of critical voting rights victories. The latest ruling comes from a case involving North Dakota's Native American voters whose representation has vanished from the state Senate after gop-led redistricting. Advocates argue the new line systematically diluted native voting strength, the chief dissenting. With the trump administration pulling back justice department enforcement efforts, questions loom. Who exactly will safeguard voters now for aurnewscom? I'm ebony McMorris.
Speaker 3:So a little bit of backstory on this case. The Native Americans in North Dakota was like hey, this gerrymandering has gotten out of control. They picked them, picked them and cut up the districts to where we literally have no representation. No, say so, no matter how we vote, it's going to be, you know, it's going to be a representation against our I guess, against our beliefs, our values, right, no different than everything that's happening in other states. Like we've had the discussion before about what's going on in Georgia and the redistricting, I think this case is going to go into the Supreme Court. It has to because that ruling affected the seven or eight states in the eighth district. They got another one coming out of the fifth district in the South that's coming up SCOTUS is. They're going to be busy man. They have a limited document. They're going to be some busy, busy individuals because that voting thing is going to be.
Speaker 1:What's your?
Speaker 3:thought man.
Speaker 1:First, there's no such thing as a limit to the Supreme Court. They can take up any case they want.
Speaker 1:It's not like they say hey, we're only going to take 15 cases, case they want, right. It's not like we can. We're only going to take 15 cases. If they want to take one hundred and fifty or fifteen hundred, they can. But as as far as I look at it like this, if anybody thinks gerrymandering is a Republican, republican thing and nobody else does it, go look at what Chicago looks like, go look at what Illinois. The Democrats do it just as much as the Republicans do, right? I think the interesting thing about that, what the state said, or what the news report said, was that individual voters can no longer individual right Voters can no longer bring up the lawsuit. I'm curious how that would work, because I think that that's where the unconstitutionality comes in.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it can be. So they were talking about Section two of the 14th Amendment where you had a right to if anything was like. So if I feel like my voting rights were being discriminated against, I don't have to go through anybody else. I can file a case on behalf of me. And the courts have to hear Now they're saying you have to go through the DOJ of the state.
Speaker 3:Now they're saying you have to go through the DOJ of the state and then the state has to approve it before you can even file a case, which I think at that point SCOTUS is going to say no, no, no, we can't do that. And they got I mean they got a pretty, pretty valid point. But I mean in terms of gerrymandering, unless you're doing a complete reform of government, you're not, you're not gonna stop it right, because every I mean these are 10, 15 year plans you know to to census reports and and adjusting, it's just, it's too much murky to direct it, I think so the way utah is broken up is basically salt lake city does not have its own um right.
Speaker 1:Salt Lake is broken up into parts of the other four districts. One of the reasons that is is because Salt Lake is turning into Austin. It's turning into a little blue dot in the middle of a red seat.
Speaker 1:And the Republicans. It's still dominated by Republicans. I think it's something like 70-30, right? So if you're a Republican and you're seeing that people in Salt Lake City are coming out and not just voting Democrat but pretty far left, I would argue Salt Lake City is legitimately going cuckoo as far as lefty, like Berkeley style. The last time I went there I saw more pride flags than I've seen than I saw when I was in San Francisco. Right now, virtual signaling comes into play and all that stuff.
Speaker 1:But if I'm a Republican or I'm running the Republican state or I'm whoever, I'm going, why in the world do I want to change the districting to make it quote unquote more fair and potentially lose seats in Congress to my rival party, when I know that California does it to make sure that the people in Orange County or in Fresno or the people in Oregon who do it for Portland and the east side of the state against the west side of the state or Washington?
Speaker 1:You know it happens. And so if I'm in Utah, I'm not going to bend over backwards or even lose any sleep If. If I can keep all four seats as a Republican, keep them red, why wouldn't I? Because I know the same thing is happening in every other state, just depending on you know where they lean. We've seen a movement in eastern oregon. They, eastern oregon, wants to break away. Eastern oregon, eastern washington and parts of northern california want to break away from the rest of those states. Because the same argument they're saying it doesn't matter if I go in, how I go in to vote, if I live in oregon, it's whatever.
Speaker 3:Portland, yeah, it's gonna be blue, it's gonna be so.
Speaker 1:So where's my representation? And so do I think it's gonna go anywhere, I don't know. I again, the question to me is how that was worded. Was that an individual citizen doesn't have the right to bring it. Okay, my guess is, supreme courts, if it, if it goes to scotus, they're gonna say, then what's the relief? Because if an individual or here's the other part of it if the legislature does its job and says an individual, absolutely, you know, we're going to pass the law that says any individual can make that challenge or, uh, basically turn it into some part of a class action, whatever the limit is, you know, whatever the number, you have to have x number of people that are signed on to the lawsuit to make it valid, and then it has to be heard.
Speaker 1:I'm sure there's relief. But this is part of the problem is at what point we can sit here and say, well, scotus, or whatever, but two to one, is it going to be? Is SCOTUS going to take it up and be 5-4? Is it going to be 9-0? I mean, this is one of those that they could also turn around and say, while we are not striking down the ruling itself, we are striking down the very narrow part of it that says because my guess is, the ruling is much broader than just that one little yes, I mean.
Speaker 3:So the focus, yeah, the focus on that one part on, on the constitutionality of it. But the ruling, the ruling basically says all right, cool, hey man, if you want to do this or whatever, if you want to, if you want to challenge our, our redistrict, redistricting, you have to present your case before the doj, and the DOJ has to go basically present it on your behalf. You can't just go in your home, which is, and that, that, I think, is where they are going to fail.
Speaker 1:I'll tell you right now I'm against that because it's another level of bureaucracy. I'm against bureaucracy. I think one of the death knells of this country is the red tape that's involved in everything. Look, I think that, if you can convince, but I also think there's a way to fix a lot of this stuff right. So I think Congress should pass a law that says and I don't know what, maybe they do it, maybe they already have this. And I don't know what, maybe they do it, maybe they already have this. But if you file a frivolous lawsuit and whatever judge hears it says this is absolutely frivolous, you can be fined. Something fair. I mean, I don't care if it's $500 or $1,000 or you know, or a big for a big law firm, you know, if you take this up, because we both know there are law firms that you know ambulance chasers that go in.
Speaker 2:Yeah, sure.
Speaker 1:Because part of the problem is especially lawyers and accidents, one of the reasons that you have so many of these billboards. Okay, so I'm driving along, somebody in front of me cuts me off and I and I hit the back of their car. Okay, well, I rear-ended them, even though they cut in front of me. I even have it on camera, right. But I slam it and they sue me and they're oh, I've got a neck injury, back injury, da-da-da-da.
Speaker 1:My insurance company is going to look at that and they're going to say my insurance company is going to look at that and they're going to say they're suing you for $15,000 for loss of work, for their car and for their injury. If we go to court, it's going to cost us $20,000 to $30,000 just for a summary judgment, which is going to the judge and say judge, please throw this out. I don't know why it costs that much, but it does right. So the insurance company is going to turn around and go. You know what? We'll just pay $15,000. It's easier to do that. When I worked in insurance many moons ago, we insured high-risk places like taxis in New York and Philadelphia, things like that, right. So we would have this happen. One of our insured taxi cabs rear-ended a bus in Philadelphia. Do you know how many people were on the bus when it got hit? About three, maybe four, I think they counted. You know how many people filed? You know how many people filed insurance claims?
Speaker 3:How many Like 60.
Speaker 1:It was like 60. Like when it hit. People jumped on their cameras, people jumped onto the bus and it's oh, wait for the police.
Speaker 2:That's a free check, yeah, man.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's again. I would love to see a law that says, basically, if there's a frivolous lawsuit that you could be Liberty, I won't say I don't know if they're Dems or Republican. I will say this is in downtown Philadelphia, so from what we saw on the camera, it was a blue district. From what we saw on the camera, it was a blue district. Yeah, it was Well, come on Liberty. We're being racial here.
Speaker 1:They looked more like KJ than me, but I will also say this there were some people that looked like me that jumped on the bus too.
Speaker 3:It's not, that is more socioeconomic than it is. Yeah, I haven't seen anybody turn down a free check opportunity Black, white, purple or green. All right, Are you ready, sir? Here we go. And for my next trick, Medicaid. Listen so for months and months and months, and even before the election cycle. Right, the Republicans staunching like we talked about it. We talked about. No, I hate, just I hate, man. Listen you about to get me on a completely different brand.
Speaker 1:Go read the last one, go watch the last episode yeah, past episodes about your Thomas.
Speaker 3:So the big beautiful bill is struggling because more and more information are coming out about the cuts to Medicaid, because more and more information are coming out about the cuts to Medicaid, which we now know is going to affect predominantly red districts more than it's going to affect blue districts. So you're starting to see a lot more Republican opposition to the bill. Yeah, mostly because one, there's a lot of spending that they weren't anticipating. Um, a lot of, yeah, I think spending was going up four to six trillion dollars at the last report, which, you know, traditional conservatives are like no, no, no, we don't. You got to cut that out, we can't, we can't it wasn't four to trillion annually, wasn't it?
Speaker 1:No, not annually Over the budget.
Speaker 3:I think it's 10 years, they said. And then the cuts to Medicaid were just too massive. I can't remember the Republican representative's name, but he went on a media tour to basically talk about how this bill isn't in the interest of you know the people. And I guess my question is did they just now read the bill? So there was a report came out where a lot of Republicans are like oh well, we didn't. You know, when we first read the bill, we didn't know it was going to be this much spending added to the bill and we didn't know the cuts were going to be this expansive. So, as reporters on both sides conservative outlets and liberal outlets are starting to ask representatives All right, so bottom line, we see the bill, we see the cuts.
Speaker 3:Are you voting for us? Yes, no, you're starting to see more representatives kind of come out of like you know what we're going to have to renegotiate it. I think it failed once or twice last week. They have a vote tonight or a meeting tonight. The House representative leader is having a meeting with everyone tonight to hash this thing through. What are your thoughts, man? That Medicaid is a hard pill to swallow, but they can't find the money anywhere else.
Speaker 1:I think that part of the problem with the federal government is nobody wants to cut anything, because then they are going to lose the next election. Well, yeah, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Broadways and abuse oh, we can't have Doge, we can't. Doge is ruining the federal workforce. And we can't cut the federal workforce by 15%, because then it will make the irs unable to do the audits that it's supposed to do. And then, well, we can't adjust social security because, well, that's what people have paid into and so they deserve that money. And so if you start people messing with people's social security, well, and you can and you can't
Speaker 1:mess with the Fed because, well, you know the Federal Reserve, it's an independent thing and so if you actually go in and try to audit the Fed, well, that's beyond the purview of the federal government because, realistically, the Fed is not a federal agency. So if you want to go in and do that, sorry, the Fed's not going to open it. So it's always something right, and it used to be that an increase in the federal deficit was seen as a bad thing. When the Reagan numbers went up so Jimmy Carter, and the high levels of inflation during the 70s, late 70s, and the gas, the economic issues with gas, with OPEC, all that stuff, that was a big deal Reagan came along and said, ok, basically, we need to fix this, the spending is going to go up, we're going to outspend because we need to have, you know, the military needs to be strong because of the Cold War, the Berlin Wall fell and then. But again, once the spending goes up, it never goes down. So even when the federal budget was balanced under Clinton, it was like, well, yeah, it was balanced because of all the internet.
Speaker 1:Boom, I remember there was one I'm trying to remember what it was called but there was a dot com that had a website and that was it. And it was like Coop, like Coopcom, something like that, and it was trading on the New York Stock Exchange for $4 a share. Jesus, coopcom made nothing, had nothing, traded nothing, manufactured nothing, provided nothing. It was literally a website with a name on it and that was it. And they listed and it was worthless.
Speaker 1:So then the bubble popped. So now it goes back down until it gets bad enough that we take it seriously that the federal deficit actually matters. It doesn't even matter. It might have been Greg Easterbrook and again, I know friend of the show, greg Easterbrook, I think it was his article he wrote and he said basically, if, if, this is if if we're in a situation with a fiat, fiat monetary system, that it doesn't matter if the United States is three trillion in debt, thirty five trillion in debt or three hundred trillion in debt, because literally it's just a number and it doesn't matter. So I'm of the opinion that it must not matter.
Speaker 3:Moody's did downgrade the credit rating. So I mean there's that credit rating.
Speaker 1:It went from AAA to AA1, which basically means it's slightly, tiny bit more difficult for the United States government to borrow money. You know what that also means? Nothing, because the United States, if it wants to borrow money, it will. Again from the federal bank.
Speaker 1:Do you think the European banks are going to be like well, we better not lend money. It's ridiculous, it's all silliness. So, unless you're going to make real cuts and you're going to go through austerity which I believe is going to happen, maybe in my lifetime, maybe near the end of my lifetime the United States is going to go through a Greece level early 2000s of austerity. Austerity is when you have to tighten the belt and you have to say we have to cut back or we're going to literally default. I think that is when, to me, if you're going to have a second civil war, that's where it's going to come from. If you're going to have a second civil war, that's where it's going to come from. You're going to see people on social security, on Medicare, on food stamps, on all these things. The people that are really look at the federal government as not as a safety net, but as a primary provider, primary provider.
Speaker 1:If you're going to cut back my food stamps from $1,000 every month to $700 a month, f that I'm going to just go in and break the windows and steal what I got to steal and do what I got to do. That's where I think it's going to happen and at that point what comes of it, I don't know. I think that's where the real threat of it I don't want to say an economic collapse Cause I don't. I don't think that's what will happen, but I do think that it's going to make the BLM riots look fairly dangerous, like Amherst Owl, yeah, and I think that, while it still will be mostly urban and the reason I say mostly urban is just because of the concentration of people.
Speaker 1:And the reason I say mostly urban is just because of the concentration of people Because, like, realistically, if you're on full stamps and you live out in Jasper, alabama, what are you going to do? Are you going to go burn down like the farmhouse next door? And I love Jasper, but there's not.
Speaker 3:No, those are potential. I mean, in urban areas you have small pockets of food deserts, right, and that's usually in the you know, underprivileged areas. But in the rural areas you have huge you know huge food deserts, so it would affect them quite a whole. So you couple that food and here's why I think the Republicans or the red team is in a bind, why I think the Republicans or the red team is in a bind. Right, the POTUS has said he's not averse to taxing, you know, making, you know hiring, the tech level for those who are more well-off, yeah, which is staunchly averse to what the guys in Congress want to do right, because they don't want to piss off this fund.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and then on the GOP.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And then, on the lower end, you have the actual people who vote for him and saying well, you got to find the money somewhere. If you're going to pass this bill, you got to find the money somewhere. And if you're not going to raise more money through taxes and you're promising you know, you're promising to eradicate overtime taxes and all these other taxes, that money's got to come from somewhere. And you know, yeah. And when you start talking about cutting and that's why I say I love, I love Americans but we are, as a society, we are ignorant to the facts of the matter, right, because everybody was down for cuts until you realize the services that are being cut. You know what I mean. So everybody was like yeah, yeah, cut Medicaid, cut Medicaid, cut Medicaid. Then they realized that, you know, somewhere between 60 and 65 percent of their constituents are on Medicaid, and then they're like all right, well, hold on, maybe we acted too hastily.
Speaker 1:So I'd be curious what district has 60 to 65% of people on Medicaid?
Speaker 3:On Medicaid.
Speaker 1:I mean that is a huge number that would have to be backwater West Virginia Appalachian that has had no coal or manufacturing happening in the last 20 years. I can't imagine that.
Speaker 3:All right, I mean, that's a huge number that is that is a big number, but I'm gonna pull it up and we'll see. See the times got realistically.
Speaker 1:Well, think about it like even 10 let's say it's 10, 10 percent of.
Speaker 3:I mean that's a big yeah that's pretty, pretty significant too, though, right, right, yeah, I mean 10% of your voting population is going to be put off by what you're doing.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, if you're looking at any district in America, 10% swing. If you go from a 60-40, excuse me, let's say 60-40 in Cook County for Blue Team, right and for whatever reason, the Dems do something that pisses off 10 to switch. Well, now you're 50 50, so 10 of the of of the voting population. Remember, people have to actually vote and if you go and screw somebody over, what they think is screwing over and that's why. But again, that's also why the media covers it the way it does now.
Speaker 3:Let me get this for you. See if I can get that. I don't know if you can see that, can you see?
Speaker 1:that States with the most Medicaid recipients. So from looking at that without being able to see it perfectly well, new Mexico.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:New Mexico.
Speaker 3:West Virginia, kentucky. So you got what do you got? 33, 33 and a Kentucky. So you got, what do you got? 33, 33 and a half. So I was yeah, I was off, so 33 and a half is yeah, I had it, but still even okay.
Speaker 1:So that's actually kind of amazing. A third of New Mexico is on Medicaid. I mean that's, that's crazy. A third of the entire state needs assistance. That's crazy. A third of the entire state needs assistance. What is going on in New Mexico that so many people are on Medicare? On Medicaid, I mean I don't know, it's not, I don't think New Mexico's All that, you know, it's not like it's that old. It's got to be something going on. Well, because Medicare and Medicaid you know it's people that need Medicaid is basically the one that takes care of drug prescriptions and doctor visits and all that stuff, right? So I mean, my guess is there's a higher level of indigenous, you know, native Americans in New Mexico than some of the other states. But that wouldn't apply to, like, louisiana. I mean, there's not more Native Americans in Louisiana than Georgia or in Kentucky and West Virginia. Now, west Virginia and Kentucky again, you're probably talking about the Appalachian that have lost all their manufacturing and coal New York and California.
Speaker 3:they kind of balance each other out because they pay in more taxes than they receive benefits-wise anyway. It's a couple of states like that. It's like Alaska, texas, alaska Texas, california, new York. Those are the plus states.
Speaker 1:Think of why Alaska's a great one. Why does Alaska pay more into the system than they take out?
Speaker 3:Well, the oil reserves. The oil reserves, oil, right, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1:Why does Texas pay in more than their population?
Speaker 3:Well, yeah, of course, the oil reserves.
Speaker 1:Liquefied natural gas. Right yeah. Why does California pay in more Agriculture it?
Speaker 3:used to be agriculture, now it's tech. Well, yeah Well yeah, tech too, yeah, yeah yeah. New York. Why does New York pay more? New York City, yeah.
Speaker 1:I would say, yeah, yeah, tourism, maybe enterprise. Well, yeah, I'm sure tourism to a degree, but it's it's. It's the financial sector. It's the financial sector that that you still have to have certain taxes that go into outright.
Speaker 1:So, Right, and that's, and that's fine. I mean, that's why we're the United States of America. That's one of the things that always has bothered me in this whole idea of, well, red states get more money from the blue states than by. Look, we're all in this together. Like, isn't that the point of of having a country that takes care of everybody as needed? My bigger problem is when we're taking care of people that don't need to be taken care of, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we were at dinner and we were having we were just just a little while ago and my daughter said something about one of her friends and she said I'll bet you didn't know my friend so-and-so is autistic. And I went what, what are you talking about? And so we started going into it and I'm like, if she's autistic, then everybody's autistic, right? Then by that argument it's kind of like my argument against um, two genders there's either. There's only two choices there's either two genders, male and female, or there is 7.2 billion genders, because everybody has their own definition of whatever their gender, right? So autism is the same thing. Autism is to. If you're going to say that, you can say everybody's on the spectrum, but it goes like this Right, the real outliers are the ones that actually have real significant issues, but for the most part most people are, let's say, normal, and I know people get up to normal.
Speaker 1:There is such a thing as normal right. So the vast majority of people are normal, but we all have our own quirks, we all have our but, and this started because my I think one of my kids or my wife might've said well, you're autistic. I'm like no, I'm not autistic, I'm smart. I think about things, I'm quick on the ball. I I'm not. I don't have ADHD, I think things quickly. Now I'm getting to the point where I'm worried a little bit about my cognitive, simply because I'm older and I lose words and I'm not able to express myself in the same way I'd like to or have been able to in the past. But that's age.
Speaker 3:We've seen. We've seen that come out this week right, we've seen.
Speaker 1:We've seen that this week, right, well, I guarantee you, if I went through testing, if, if 12 year old I'll probably be younger than that right, if they took eight year old lance and put him into testing, 100 would have been labeled adhd and or autistic. Because, because I, just I would do stuff. I had my. My teachers were like, oh, this kid won't sit still, all he does is talk. Yeah, because I would finish the homework that was supposed to. Here's, here's the instruction for the class.
Speaker 1:Now I'm going to give you the homework, so you have the next 30 minutes to work on your homework and whatever isn't finished you take home as homework. I'd be done with the homework in literally five minutes. So then, what do you do when you're done with all the homework? You start talking and you say what else can I do? What else can I do? Right, and? And? Yeah, I probably would have been put on meds. I hope my, my parents wouldn't have put me on meds. Um and and now. Oh my gosh, can you imagine now, eight-year-old Lance? Now, give him an iPad on top of everything else, with TV shows and little snippets of the interwebs that are all based on? You can't watch this for longer than 60 seconds before you lose interest. You lose interest, kj and I would. Kj cuts these little snippets. He keeps them under a minute because we want people to see them, because we know by the algorithm people will watch them for more than a minute. So are we contributing to ADHD? Sure why, because that's the only reason people will watch it. That's a good clip. There's a good clip for you that works.
Speaker 1:But to take it full circle, to go back to, you know, welfare and Medicare and Medicaid and all that stuff, I think the only there is one way to get the country out of debt and to kind of fix what's going on, and honestly it's. It's a. It starts with electricity and starts with fuel. And if you go in and the United States decides that we are going to go all in on petroleum and on fossil fuels along with nuclear, that we become a major player in the export, especially of oil, over the next 30 to 50 years. That's how it happens. The reason Saudi Arabia and Qatar and these countries have all the money is because of the oil. There is more oil in the United States and natural gas than there is in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the Middle East, but for us it's all up in. It's either A up in Alaska, it's in oil shale, which is harder to process, or it's off the coast.
Speaker 1:Do you remember when the Horizon rig blew up and it was such a big deal? The reason it was so hard to fix was because the environmentalists had said you cannot drill this close to the shoreline. If that drill and they didn't need to remember they will be blood. Right, there will be blood. It says your field is over here and I've got my straw. I drink your milkshake, I drink it up. Milkshake, I'd drink it up. The Deepwater Horizon didn't need to be built 50 miles off the coast and 30 miles deep, or whatever the numbers were. It could have been done right by the shore and then if it had popped, it would have been like oh crap, turn it off, let's get it fixed. It would have been a minor issue. It would have probably dumped a few thousand, maybe 10,000 gallons, but instead it was. Although tin hat time, I'm going to make a major detour on this one. Do you remember how they were saying that the Deepwater Horizon was spilling tens of thousands of gallons every single day into the ocean?
Speaker 1:and it was all washing up on the beaches, all there, and it was going to be an ecological disaster worse than we've ever seen in the history of the world and all the beaches were going to be ruined. Do you remember ever seeing beaches that were actually covered in oil? I remember little patches.
Speaker 3:To be fair, I wasn't really interested at that time so I couldn't tell you I was.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that was a huge deal, but. I never understood, like I never saw the outcome, and so I don't know, and I'm sure people will go back and go no, no, you're completely wrong, you're crazy, maybe so, but I don't remember seeing the effects of the deep water horizon, the way that because, again, this was something that was supposed to be just one of the biggest ecological disasters.
Speaker 1:And that's one of the reasons they say we can't, you can't drill here. You can't drill there, anwar. You can't drill in Anwar province because it's a spectacular place that is the most pristine part of the world. It's also a part of the world that less than 0.00001% of people will ever see. It's one of the most remote, difficult places to get to, right? Yeah, so until we get serious about drilling and using that oil, because it's not just about fuel. Kj, what did you just pick up? You just took a drink out of it, right? Sure how much petroleum, how many petroleum products were used in this cup. This cup cannot be made without fossil fuels. My glasses cannot be made without fossil fuels. My phone, this shirt, much of our food can't be made without fossil fuels. So, to me, what I would love to see as an American, I would love to see an energy policy that says we are going to dominate the world when it comes to energy, whether it's nuclear power or whether it's liquefied natural gas or other fossil fuels, petroleum oil.
Speaker 3:I am definitely all for nuclear.
Speaker 1:And me too, and until we do that, this is always going to be the sort of Damocles hanging over our head going when's it going to break? When are we going to have all these financial issues? When is the budget going to get us? But instead we kick it down the road because environmentalists are dirtbags flat out. The environmentalist is a scam, the people that do environmental studies. They don't want anything to be built, they want to be able to keep a job. And so what do they do? Hey, we have to have an environmental impact study done on this piece of property.
Speaker 1:Somebody wants to build an apartment building that would provide housing, right? Oh, now we have to have an environmental impact study and that environmental impact study has to be paid for.
Speaker 1:So now the government has to pay for the environmental impact study, or the private citizen has to. And then the environmental impact guy goes well, you know, this doesn't meet the environmental impact? Ooh, it doesn't. It doesn't meet the rules of the EPA or whatever federal we've put in place. And so then the builder goes okay, well, what do we need? And they go, you just didn't pass. I mean, here's some of the problems with it. If you're in the military, it's like the S1. Okay, here, this memo's wrong. Well, what's wrong with it? Well, we circle, what's wrong with it? And then you turn it in a second time and they go nope, this paragraph needs to be changed. You're in the wrong font. Why didn't you tell me that the first time? Sorry, go fix it. Third time, well, okay, and they go.
Speaker 3:sorry, your paragraph four can't be done now, well, to be fair, to be fair, environmental studies have kind of predicted some, some bad stuff, like what was the, the pipeline that ran through from from the gulf to canada, and the environment. And yeah, the environmental impact study was like, hey, this is gonna leak because it's running across the fault line and when it does, it's gonna spill over everything. And then it was completely dismissed. As liberal, you know sensationalism and yada, yada, yada, lo and behold, the fault slipped and then the pipe cracked and then everybody was left saying, oh, if only we knew. But I mean, so there is. I mean there are mean, but there's corruption.
Speaker 1:I assume you're talking about a different pipeline Keystone. Keystone was never finished.
Speaker 3:Was it Keystone? Which one that popped? Oh, we got to go. Hey, so not, we got to go, but we got to end. Yep, all right. So the guys that are following us on CTR, we're about to hit that one minute, one hour time limit. We will talk to you guys next week. If you want to continue the discussion, come hop over into Facebook, instagram, youtube or Twitch. Join us, because we're going to continue this and then I'm going to pull this up. All right, now that we are back, I got to go pull it up. So I did post the information for the results of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I didn't know. It happened in 2010,. Man, yeah, I was. I was completely on a completely different mission back then. But what was the oil spill? Because the oil spill, I think it spilled in like the Native Americans were bugging out about it spilling in there.
Speaker 1:It spilled in like the Native Americans were bugging out about it spilling in there Because, ok, so Keystone, what it was going to do is going to take oil from Canada down to Louisiana where it was going to be refined, because Canada basically has no refineries Right. So this was going to cut down on the shipping costs and all that stuff has no refineries right. So this was going to cut down on the shipping costs and all that stuff. Where the pipeline was going to go was going to go right through a native one of the tribal areas and it was going to go under the lake. They were going to actually build it under the lake, so that's what they were worried about.
Speaker 3:Right, it did spill. Yeah, it was Keystone that spilled in October of 22. It was never finished. So how did it spill? It wasn't. It spilled since the 2022 Kansas spill. This spill released an estimated five hundred and eighty eight thousand gallons of crude oil into a creek, according to the EPA. Additionally, a recent spill in April of 2025 in North Dakota resulted in an estimated 3,500 barrels 147,000 gallons of oil being released into an agricultural field Keystone.
Speaker 1:There are pipelines, but Keystone was never finished. That's why.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't know, apparently it was, at least some parts of it was because maybe yeah, it says the.
Speaker 1:Keystone was not going to be completed.
Speaker 3:Yeah, wiki, ap Pipeline Safety Trust. Yeah, they're all reporting on it. Rutgers reported on it. The EPA the first bill was in 22 in Kansas and then the second one was in April of 2025.
Speaker 1:April of 25.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Last month.
Speaker 3:Yeah, april 14th, where they lost 147,000 gallons.
Speaker 1:That must be nothing. Did you see anything in the news?
Speaker 3:about that. Well, I mean, given the administration, probably.
Speaker 1:To be fair, I don't really watch the news.
Speaker 3:I'm going to say, given the sensationalism of the administration, that probably ran across the screen as a blip compared to the stuff that was going on.
Speaker 1:It's definitely there Keystone Phase 1 was from Hardesty Alberta to Steel City, nebraska, and eastward to Patoka, illinois, completed in 2010. Phase 2 was from Steel City, nebraska, to Cushing, oklahoma, completed in February of 11. Phase three, from Cushing Oklahoma to Port Arthur, texas, was completed in January of 14. The proposed phase four, keystone XL, which aimed to create a more direct route from Hardesty Alberta to Stills City, nebraska, was never completed. It faced significant opposition and was officially terminated by TC Energy in June 2021, after President Biden revoked a key permit in January 2021.
Speaker 1:OK, so it sounds like you had Keystone going like this, and then they wanted part of it to go like that yeah, that was the part that got me OK. So, and then they wanted part of it to go like that yeah, and that was the part that got me Okay. So I mean again, I look at a lot of this stuff and go, okay, it's probably easier to clean up a spill from a pipeline than it is from an oil tanker, like how much?
Speaker 1:Well, let's look how much did the Exxon valve? So you said the big one was about 600,000 gallons. Is that what it was?
Speaker 3:Yeah, it was 588,000. I wonder how much. Well, you got Exxon Valdez, and then the other one. What was the other one?
Speaker 1:I remember Exxon Valdez. I'm sure there's a few.
Speaker 3:That was one of the biggest ones.
Speaker 1:Yes, that was a huge one in Alaska. I remember that one. I think the captain Was arrested.
Speaker 2:Wasn't he drunk? I don't know.
Speaker 3:Oh so deep water Spilled 206 million gallons of oil. Yeah, oh, I knew that was a huge number and then Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons, so deep water horizon absolutely trumped everybody okay so okay.
Speaker 1:So think about it like this though the the pipelines. One of them, one of the major ones that you just said was 35 000 gallons, yeah. The other one was 500 000. Those are big ones for pipelines, right? Yes, one tanker lost 11 million gallons, yeah. So to me the pipeline's a way better plan and it's easier to clean up. If it breaks in land, it's in dirt, it's easier to clean up. Now I'm sure the argument would be it can get into the groundwater and all that stuff, sure, but my guess is any rational person I shouldn't say that because environmentalists aren't rational.
Speaker 3:But here's the issue that you're going to have. It's the same thing with the highways, the highways, and then when they put up all the towers, where are you going to put them? With the highways, and then the highways, and then when they put up all the, the uh, what's it? The? The towers, right, where are you gonna put them? Yeah, where do you put them? You don't put them in the affluent neighborhoods because they don't want to see them. So now you're gonna run them straight through the underprivileged areas, right, and then you're gonna have to. You don't want to acknowledge the health effects that come with it, right, like all it. I'll give you an example of the people who were affected from the cell tower, who got cancer. Then the companies were like oh well, it's not our fault, it's not our fault because this is where they told us to put it.
Speaker 1:This stuff goes back for as long as you want to argue, look at New York City. The Long Island Expressway was explicitly used by the guy who ran New York and was the guy who basically engineered all of New York, new York City.
Speaker 4:He had it planned out.
Speaker 1:And then he went in to strong arm the rich people and said hey, if you don't donate to this, this or this, I'm going to put the Long Island Expressway right through your backyard. And they went what do you need? How much? Okay done. And so then he built it onto the farmers and the farmers were like no, no, no, you can't do it here. And he was like yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1:So it's always. And that dude was a massive Democrat, so so it's not like this is just a Republican. This is always affluent versus poor, and it's always been like that through the history. My guess is, when the pharaoh came in and said, hey, I want to build the pyramids over here, the rich people were like, hey, no, no, no, hey, hey, we, you know, we, we do the trading in this. No, don't go over there.
Speaker 1:And they were like oh well, wait a minute, you don't this is our farmland and the pharaoh went yeah, too bad, that's where we're gonna, because my, my buddy, hepateth, that's where he, you know I can't build it over there because that's where his trading barges are yep, so that reminds me emperor's new groove.
Speaker 3:I want to put a water slide right there.
Speaker 1:I just need an answer. Would you say? These are the most beautiful hills? Oh, and the light is a face. All right, great, oh, is that all you needed for it? Yep, I just needed to work my new vacation house with Cuscotopia. That is one of my favorite. I love the Emperor's New Groove. It is so good, especially like wait, how'd you beat us back here? Well, actually, there's no reason we should have beat you back here. It's totally flowing off, it's perfect. It's the best little inside joke, like yeah it shouldn't happen.
Speaker 3:That was probably one of the most underrated Disney movies that they. That movie was absolutely hilarious. All right, we got to keep going Wrong lever, All right. So we talked about Supreme Court. We talked about. What else did we talk about? We talked about Medicaid. Oh, this is a good one.
Speaker 1:Are you ready? What do we want to do? Should we just go for the 90-minute mark? Go another 20?
Speaker 3:minutes. Yeah, let's knock that out. We'll do this one and then I'll hit you with a surprise one at the end. So here we go. So you know your boy had some successes, right? Let's call them that. And or potential successes the deals were were put on paper, so we'll kind of see how that goes. Once again, though, well, I mean just yeah, just not, not. I mean I use that term loosely, you know, it's just one of those things so it's like it's like the effort.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's like all right. So our boy trumpOTUS, our representative to the world, had some wins. I got a couple of clips and we'll rock it from there, but from my favorite news station.
Speaker 4:Historic four days. The jobs and money coming into our country has never been anything like it Just amazing what they've done so one man's hero is another man's villain, right?
Speaker 3:So let's talk about it here we go.
Speaker 4:Trump has an ongoing relationship with the Saudi-backed golf tournament, which again uses government money. That is quite common in that region, but the question is where does that money head If, like the jet, we are seeing a veritable map of self-dealing, as the US government interests your safety and security around the world, our soldiers, et cetera, is somehow mixed or even comes second to all of these business dealings.
Speaker 3:Trump has an ongoing so there you have it Two sides of the coin. One side is telling this is historic, you know potential deals with trillions of dollars possibly coming into the country, and the other side, I wouldn't say two sides of the coin, I'll just say two different perspectives in reporting. Right, because they're both true. They're both true, just depends on how you want to, I guess, interpret the data you're receiving. So what are your thoughts?
Speaker 1:I think it's just that. I think it's somewhere in the middle. I think that Saudi Arabia is saying I think it was Saudi that said we're going to invest a trillion dollars in the United States. You see celebrities all the time pledge. I'm going to pledge $100,000 to this, and then the charity comes back and goes hey, we never got that money. Well, that's because it was pledged. It's not donated, it's not given. Wait a minute.
Speaker 3:Hold on Before you could go. Our boy Trump did that on the campaign trail. He went into a restaurant for a photo op and promised to pay everybody's meal on camera, and when the camera took off, he left and stiffed everybody with the bill.
Speaker 1:Sure, it looks good, right, and so think about it like this what was reported? The clip of him.
Speaker 1:it was probably the clip of him saying I'm paying for everybody's meal exactly and they didn't follow up and it wasn't like it wasn't that President Trump today went into Moe's Diner and he offered to buy everybody's bill. He then said this da, da, da, da da. At the end of the bill, the future the Republican candidate got on his bus and left. However, we found that he didn't pay for anything, and then they go. But then, of course, plausible deniability, right, of course. And this is what would have happened. President Trump, cnn reporting yesterday, when you went into Moe's Diner, you offered to pay everybody's bill and you left without paying anything. What do you have to say to that? Well, I'd say that my campaign obviously dropped the ball. I said that, I mean, you don't think, you don't think I actually have the credit card to do this. The campaign Are you telling me the camp? Oh, what? Who am I going to fire? It's always plausible deniability, Right? So, as far as, as far as, like Saudi and all this goes like, I mean, I think it's funny for CNN.
Speaker 3:Was that? Cnn or MSNBC? Was the? That was, that was both. So was fox fox with the greatest, greatest deals ever, and msnbc was like, yeah, well, we got business dealings everywhere else, yeah, so.
Speaker 1:so I you know when the whole thing came out with, uh, one of the deals was it syria. I think that that trump is recognizing the president of syria, who, uh, definitely has past terror ties right, and he's saying well, you know, we've got to. They're the legitimate government now We've got to work with them, we've got to try to come to some sort of peace. I believe I tweeted out that if that had been the Harris administration doing that, the, you know, cnn and MSNBC would have been bending over backwards saying what a great foreign policy it was. So this is, this is the problem with it.
Speaker 1:Like I don't trust any of the of the Middle East states, I think that they are all out for themselves in a very different way than because I've said this before Every state is out for themselves, right? It doesn't matter if it's Botswana and Indonesia and Taiwan and Peru, right? Each of those countries, no matter what trade deal they do, whatever treaties, whatever they're doing, they want to win, they want to have the best outcome of whatever they do, and that's true of the United States, it's true of Saudi Arabia and whatever. I do have much more concern with countries like Saudi Arabia, qatar, turkey, countries that are Muslim, because there is not a real difference.
Speaker 1:If you understand Islam, there's not a big difference between Islam and the government. An Islamic government is Islam. Islam is 18% religious and 82% way of life and government and all that stuff. So you have a very. It's a very, very different thing, and if you're not willing to acknowledge it, you're just not being honest. And so for Trump to go in and say, well, we're going to get this from Saudi Arabia and think that Saudi Arabia is going to be the best partner.
Speaker 1:Saudi Arabia has funded more terrorism against the United States than any other country. Saudi Arabia has funded more terrorism against the United States than any other country since terrorism really started with the Muslim Brotherhood in the children, in the ways of Islam, especially in traditional Islam that pushes for jihad and the evil of the West right, and so that's where you know, and if you want to tell me that that's not what they're doing anymore, okay, we can have that discussion. And if you're telling me they're not going to anymore, but I look at somewhere like Syria and Lebanon and go, you know what, maybe the first step is not to be rounding up Christians in their churches and lighting the church on fire with people inside.
Speaker 1:That's a good start to get me feeling better about your country, and until then I don't, I'm not going to trust saudi arabia anymore. That's what's funny. Is you know this whole thing about I? I saw something today about why we're spending billions of dollars bombing a place people can't find on the map and he was. It was a new york times article talking about yemen, and I'm sitting there going. Just because you can't find it on a map, mr new york times writer, doesn't mean that I can't.
Speaker 1:And so ultimately if Trump going in and doing deals with Saudi Arabia and Syria and Qatar and whatever other Middle East country, if that lowers the risk of A United States being involved in military action in those Middle Eastern countries and B that those Middle Eastern I'm not even going to say Middle Eastern, I'm going to flat out say those Muslim countries having an active goal of destroying and wiping out Israel and creating a genocide of Israel, I'm all for it. Do I think that's what's happening?
Speaker 1:No not really. I think, once again, it all comes down to showing themselves and being in the best position. Do I think Trump's doing it specifically to put money in his own pocket? No, I think he just kind of looks at it as that's a nice byproduct of of greasing the wheels. He looks at this as business.
Speaker 1:I think Trump looks at it as, if I go and do this deal with, let's say, saudi Arabia, it's going to be easier for Eric to set up a deal where Trump Towers in Riyadh, and I think Trump just looks at it as that's just a nice little coincidence that that's what happens. I'm not going to go in and do a deal in Saudi Arabia to get a new tower in Riyadh, but if that is the end result, well, cool, great. I want every person who is going to Mecca to stay at Trump Tower, because during the season you have somewhere like a million visitors every day that go to the Hodge. So if I can get all of those people into Trump Towers or Trump Hotels to pay and they're there then yeah. Of course, all I'm doing is providing a service.
Speaker 3:You don't see that as a conflict of interest? I mean we crushed, but yeah, but we crushed. Well, not we, but the media crushed Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3:They destroyed Hunter Biden there but, now it's okay, I'm gonna let you finish and I'll tell you why it's different the business deal, like even in the first administration, with ivanka trump being an official member of the the administration and still making you know real estate deals. I mean their net worth tripled during the first administration. Then you got all these other bills. I mean even to the point where they're using the meme coin to have a dinner with the president. Like none of that is concerned, like none of that bothers you, like none of that, like oh no, oh no, no no.
Speaker 1:It's clear conflict of interest. However, I will say this. There's an old saying a fool and his money are soon parted. If you want to go in and buy a meme coin based on trump, okay, mean, there are people that went in and and the Hoctaw girl did a coin Right, and so people went in and spent Thousands and tens of thousand dollars and then the next day it crashed because she dumped it all and said look, I just made three million dollars. It was legal, she could do it. So if, if people want to go in and they want to stay at trump towers or they want to do and the reason here's why I believe it's different than what happened with hunter biden the trump name and the trump brand was around long before trump got into politics and ran for president. Right, you had Trump Towers, you had Trump Champagne, trump University, and we're trying to set aside the fact that Trump University got sued.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 1:All that stuff, but the Trump brand it got into politics. So is it necessarily the same when it's like that business just kept going while he was president? Now then you're supposed like what's always happened is allegedly it goes into the blind trust and blah, blah, blah. But we've also seen and we've spoken at length about Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress taking advantage because there is no law against it. There is no law that says the president has to stop doing their business dealings while they're in office. So it's legal. So again, this goes back to the legislature should probably pass some laws for future consideration, right, um, but as far as, as far as conflict of interest, yes, should it happen? No, not necessarily. Is it as concerning as hunter biden? No, I think what hunter biden did was a flat out pay to play. That said, I don't think it was any different than what the clinton foundation did, hey wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Speaker 3:You think the hunter biden issue was pay to play. But trump's what trump is doing. They're literally buying meme coins for the opportunity to have dinner with the president. But that's not pay to play, but wait, who's who's buying them, the last three companies that are based, the last three companies who have the most stock in the meme coin are just having to coincidentally be in the countries that he just visited. So that's not even the least bit. You know eyebrow raising, that's just kind of you know. Business as usual.
Speaker 1:Oh, that's well, it's absolutely buying access as usual. Oh, that's well, it's absolutely buying access. And so the difference? Personally, I think the difference is when you're saying here's the public, we are doing this meme, anybody can buy it. I'm not going to control who buys it. Very specifically, versus I'm going to go to Ukraine and I'm on the board of a Ukraine energy company that I have no experience doing this and you're going to give me half a million dollars a year because my name is Hunter Biden. By the way, 10% of that is going directly to my father and if you need a meeting, I'm I'm concerned with all of it. It's the same thing, though the only difference.
Speaker 1:But the difference is again one is above board and one was sneaky as shit. It's all 30.
Speaker 3:It's okay to rob a person as long as you acknowledge and let them know that you're robbing them in public as opposed to doing it in private.
Speaker 1:If you walk up and you say hey man, are you a fan of Michael Jordan? Michael Jordan is in a restaurant and I will tell you where he is. If you give me 50 bucks, you go dude, I love Michael. Jordan Cool, here's 50 bucks. And you say he's in that restaurant right over there and you go in and there's Michael Jordan, but you're not getting near him because he's got his bodyguard there, right.
Speaker 4:Sure.
Speaker 1:And come out and go. Hey, what the freak dude. You told me Michael Jordan was in there.
Speaker 4:Yeah, Is he?
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, I gave you 50 bucks for that. Thank you, I appreciate that, but you said I could meet him. I said he was in the restaurant. You're the idiot who gave me 50 bucks. So there's a point where, again, if the Saudi Arabia let's say the Saudi companies was anything promised, whoever bought the most meme coin.
Speaker 3:what was promised if you bought the most meme coin? To have a sit-down dinner with the president. Right Come dinner with the president.
Speaker 1:Right. What is different than that? Then saying, if you come to this fundraiser for our, you come to our fundraiser and it's 10,000. Actually it could be. It's $5,000 a plate To come to this fundraiser. But if you go to our gold standard for $50,000 a plate, we only have five of those for $50,000 donation. At this plate, you get to sit down with Candidate X for 20 minutes. You know how many of those plates get sold All five of them.
Speaker 3:No, candidate X is absolutely different. Depending blurring scales I got you. But we are talking about the sitting president of the United States advertising a dinner with him for whoever invests the most in his meme coin and we're saying that's completely okay because we know about it. But Hunter Biden being put on the board because of nepotism is absolutely and objectively illegal and wrong.
Speaker 1:Well, it is objectively illegal and wrong. And what I'm saying is, it's not that the meme coin is okay, I think it's shady as hell, but again, that's why Congress needs to come in and fix this crap. It's all stupid, it's all ridiculous. Okay, let's back up a minute. Let's go even further, let's really go back historically. You or I, probably me more than you for historical reasons.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it depends on how far back we go in history, how far back we go.
Speaker 1:I could have walked up to the White House during Abraham Lincoln and knocked on the door and said I would like to set an appointment. I would really like to speak to Mr Lincoln, I would like five minutes. I drove, I got on my horse, I came up here from Georgia and I'm going to only be in town for a couple of days and I would really like to speak with Mr Lincoln for five minutes. Is there any way I can do that? And the secretary maybe looks at the schedule? Whoever, you know it's pretty tough. You know, maybe Mr Lincoln could fit in. Could you be here Now? You, if you go knock on the door during President, well, first of all, you're not going to be able to knock on the door during President Lincoln's term.
Speaker 1:I'd be out of touch and then fast forward to Obama, and even Obama, like you couldn't get up and knock on the door, you would have been tackled right, right, anybody for to Obama, and even Obama, like you couldn't get up and knock on the door, you would have been tackled Right, you know right. So anybody, anybody. But that's my point is it used to be that you could go in and you could actually have these conversations with anybody. So I would love, honestly, I would love a journalist to next time President Trump is is doing a press conference to say to him. So, president Trump, I'm really curious if you could explain to me. Maybe Peter Doocy will do it, I don't know. He seems to like to stir things up and I like how he does it, mr President, for four years or longer.
Speaker 1:So for four years or longer we heard that Hunter Biden was getting payments from Ukraine to be on the board, because, you know, at that point Trump's like oh yeah, let's go, let's nail him, and. And then in China, and he was put on boards and there was there was a lot of people believe some fairly serious graft involved. That was going to the former president Biden. And my question to you is can you explain why that is not the case with something like the Trump meme coin, when the highest bidder for that is given direct access to you, sir? And how is that not pay to play? If somebody gives you a certain amount of money, does that mean you are going to sit down, regardless of who it is?
Speaker 1:If it's a terrorist, if Hamas had come up, is affiliated with the terrorists in Yemen, if Iran had given $5 million to purchase in meme coin or whatever the number was, and you were going to sit down with Ahmed from Yemen, would that have been okay? How is that any different, sir? I'd love for that question. I think Trump would start going time's up.
Speaker 1:I don't think we, yeah, hey, let me, let me get my callister out here.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I can't answer. My time's up. I can't answer.
Speaker 1:That's a great Peter. I really't answer. My time's up, I can't answer. That's a great Peter. I really appreciate that question and oh, oh oh, I'm being told by the Secret Service that there's a bomb in the building and we need to evacuate immediately.
Speaker 3:So I got to go. All right, man, that was fun. We are at 90 minutes.
Speaker 1:my brother let's go ahead and get to the final. I want to hear what you were going to hit me with.
Speaker 3:We're going to talk about. We're going to talk about the Biden cognitive decline, but then the but. Then Trump is kind of showing the same symptoms that Biden did at the beginning of his, of his administration.
Speaker 1:I'm showing. I'm showing the same symptoms.
Speaker 3:So well, it depends I don't know. You got 15 minutes in you. I know we on the screen, oh yeah, so here we go, all right. So let's run through this real quick, all right. So the book came out right and it talked about how, toward the end of the administration, biden was just a shell of himself, and we all saw it. We know we were lied to.
Speaker 1:We're talking about the Jake Tapper book. Yeah, we know the true graft of this whole thing.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, but anybody with two eyes kind of saw that Biden he was like everybody's grandpa he had good days and some not so good. Yeah, and it happened. But one of the things that came up was talking about POTUS showing the same signs. They did a side by side with Biden in 2020 when he first got in the office. How it started, with just little minor slips and losing you know, losing his thought process during speeches and that sort of thing and then it progressively got worse to making up stories and events and stuff that he'd never been into. And they were showing a side by side of POTUS progressively getting worse.
Speaker 3:And they're saying this is where the new POTUS is now and he's following a similar trajectory. However, comma the, obviously the reporting is completely different, so I wanted to bring that to your attention and say how do you feel about it, knowing that we're on a similar trajectory? It's just a different side of the coin. I don't think the. I think the Trump administration is going to do the exact same thing that the Biden administration did they're going to try to hide as much of his weaknesses as they can and present him in a position of strength. Let me see if I got it.
Speaker 1:You're right. Here's what I will say. This is not a new thing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was basically paralyzed from polio as a child and was in a wheelchair as an adult and as president.
Speaker 3:About they dropped him up.
Speaker 1:They dropped him and they dropped him up. He was in a wheelchair about 99.5% of the time that he was president and the 0.1% that he wasn't. They put braces on him while he was giving speeches so he looked like he was not in a wheelchair. Now that is not to say that a cognitive decline is the same as a physical decline, but Kennedy had massive physical problems that they did. You know, reagan was starting to show decline at the end and by the time he was out of office I believe a year and a half by the time he was out of office that they went yeah, he's in full-on Alzheimer's. So you don't generally go full-on Alzheimer's in a matter of just a couple of weeks.
Speaker 4:Right.
Speaker 1:It's generally a pretty good onset and I saw something that said Trump right now is the same age as Biden was when he at the same point Right at the same point right.
Speaker 1:So 120 days into the Trump presidency and he's the same age as Biden was 120 days in I agree that the media will be much more harsh towards anything Trump says or does. That may point towards mental decline. I think that's obvious, just the way the media works and the way they are. I think the Trump administration will, of course, do the same thing that the Biden administration did. I just think it's going to be a lot harder for the Trump administration to hide any serious decline by Trump, because A Trump doesn't seem like the type of person who allows himself to be handled right. Trump is more that you stick a microphone in Trump's face and he's going to be like. This is what I think. I don't think you're going to see the Easter Bunny anytime soon coming over and wrangling President Trump.
Speaker 1:Okay, decline. I would hope. I would hope that Trump's family and the leaders of the administration, such as the vice president, if they see the decline that warrants serious like hey, no, kidding, this is something we I would for the party I would hope that they would say we don't want to. We're going to lose. It doesn't matter who it is, we're going to lose in 2028 if it looks like we're covering up Trump the way that the Dems covered up Biden. We need to learn from that. So year up Biden, we need to learn from that. So year one we're going to, because remember it's early, so the end of year one.
Speaker 1:I think they need to go in and do a no kidding like real, a real honest cognitive assessment. Okay, not the White House guy.
Speaker 3:I want I was going to say you know, yeah, you know, you know his doctors are going to do it. He's the best.
Speaker 1:He's the best. Yes, he's not. He's not obese, he's perfectly slim for his weight. Ok, I want, like I want, the most hardcore leftist psychologist there is. I want them calling up oh, I'm dead serious, I want, I want whoever the most vicious leftist, uh, clinical psychiatrist there is, and for them to fly that person in, so it. So if that person goes in and goes you know, I think he's okay, I don't know or if he goes, hey, this guy, forget the politics, this guy is legitimately losing his confidence Then the White House has to take that seriously, and I think that's the way to avoid having a Biden 2.0. And you have to have the cabinet. I think again, though, the difference here is that Trump loves the camera and the spotlight, and he is not going to, I don't think, even cognitive decline, trump, I don't think that changes your personality, because you saw times when Biden, angry Biden, came. Joe Biden is a very angry person, I don't care, you see it. Yeah, you saw Grandpa Biden. You saw Grandpa Biden.
Speaker 3:You saw, grandpa?
Speaker 1:Joe quite a bit, but you've seen, but here's the thing Go back to 1994 when he was talking about the crime bill. Oh, these people, they're the ones that are going to ruin our country. Grandpa Joe's been around. Angry Joe's been around for a long, long time.
Speaker 3:Well, to be fair.
Speaker 1:Some people speak by the cognitive decline. I think you see things in personality that stay right. Absolutely. What I mean by that is narcissistic spotlight. Trump is going to stay around yeah, so absolutely, even if he starts to decline and they're like, hey, uh, come with me, mr president. He's gonna be like oh, hey, what's up man? Do see hit me with your best one what's up?
Speaker 1:you know I'm huge, I got, I got the greatest. I mean there's. There's things that Trump does that are like are you? Are you crazy, or are you crazy like a fox? He's also 79 years old, is that? Is that right, 79. I've seen less mental decline in my 85 year old mother than I saw in Biden, but I have. But my mom has declined. She's 85 years old, is not running arguably the most pressure-filled position in the world. I'm not sure there is a more difficult job than the president of the United States of America, because if you're the king of England, what are you doing Do?
Speaker 1:you think King Charles is real. He works as hard as he wants and if he doesn't want to, he's like I'll send somebody else, what do I care, I'll send one of the princes, I'll send whoever to go and cover. Realistically, being in charge of the UK is not nearly as difficult as America. Maybe the premier of China, President Xi, simply because of the sheer numbers involved and the pressure. But at the same time, he's a dictator to the point where he can say you know, trump can't do this. Trump can't say you know what I don't like how SCOTUS is ruled, so why don't you all just go and arrest Sotomayor, or just have her go on vacation, and whoever and whoever right, he can't go out and say those seven justices that just ruled against me, I don't know about them, I think they need to be replaced. So I'm going to replace them. President Xi could do that. Did you notice?
Speaker 1:The founder of Alibaba disappeared for almost a year, yeah, and he came back and suddenly was singing all the praises of China and how great China was. What happened to that dude? We all know. Right, he went on vacation. He went on vacation, yes, to a little camp right next door to the Muslims that are all up there working on iPhones. So Trump can't do that right. Trump's got to deal with a lot of this. So to have a 78, 79-year-old individual. You saw I think you've seen every president pretty much go through this. George Bush, when he came in office, looked very different than eight years later. Barack Obama looked very different than different than eight years later. Barack Obama looked very different than he did eight years later. Those guys, those weren't eight years of getting a little bit older, those were eight years of the most hardcore. You know, when you see that 35 year old person on the side of the road that's holding up the sign and and they have they've been addicted, they've lived on the streets, they've struggled their entire life.
Speaker 1:Or you go to the gas station hey, can you, can you loan me five bucks? And you're like, how old are you? I'm 35. You're like, oh my gosh, that's the hardest 35 I've ever seen. And we, that's what the presidency does to you. The presidency ages you like nothing else. And so if Trump and this is why, to me, the easy argument when people criticize Trump for going golfing the Trump administration should be like hey, if he doesn't, he's going to be worn down you can say he goes golfing every single day and he's out there for three hours every single day, because the other eight not even that three hours a day, because the other 21 hours a day he is in the toughest job in the world.
Speaker 3:Keep in mind that started with obama, with the golfing and they, they have right right and of course, but yeah, I agree, it's like dude. It's like dude, real leader of the free world.
Speaker 1:You deserve to have some time to unwind yeah, yeah and and the whole thing with like, um, you know, I I still remember criticizing obama for stuff like he's flying to hawaii and it's going to cost five million dollars to fly him to hawaii for for a week and the vacation. And it's not the criticism of five million dollars, it's because why?
Speaker 2:does it cost that much like?
Speaker 1:like we've talked about this parade. Why is this, this military, the army, the army birthday? They're talking about 50 to a hundred million dollars. Why You're not paying the soldiers that unless you're saying, hey, every single soldier that is going to be marked, that's part of their pay, they're getting paid either way I mean they're. They're on active duty man National guard. You're going to bring the National Guard Guess what? Anybody that participates at that's reserved for National Guard.
Speaker 1:They're doing it for AT they were going to be doing AT or drill anyway, so it's not. Yeah, so if Trump goes out, he goes golfing. It's the same thing that I used to say about Bush, about W In this term. The president is in charge, but he's not running everything. I don't think there's a single person that can run the United States. You just can't do it. He's got how many cabinet members? And they all have deputy head cabinet members, and then they all have senior officials under them, and they all have senior officials under them, and they all have senior officials under them, and then they all have junior, and then they have staff and blah, blah, blah, blah blah.
Speaker 1:There's a reason. There's what? How many federal jobs? I mean how many millions of people are in federal jobs? A lot Do I think there's too many people in federal jobs. Yes because I think the government should GTFO just get out of the way declines at the same rate as President Biden, then I will be the same person saying that 20,. Is it 24th or 25th?
Speaker 1:Amendment 25th 25th 25th that the cabinet needs to gather, and if they feel like he is cognitively impaired to the point that he cannot be present anymore, then they need to have the, as we say in the Army, the intestinal fortitude to make the right choice, will they? Probably not?
Speaker 3:Of course not. I think that's a perfect ending spot.
Speaker 4:We are good man you good.
Speaker 3:Oh, I'm always good. Let's get it, man. Same bedtime, same bed channel next week. We will talk to you guys later.
Speaker 1:The banner is up, who knows?
Speaker 3:That's the plan. Talk to you, guys, we out.
Speaker 1:Chief man, what do you want to do tonight?
Speaker 2:The same thing we do every night.
Speaker 3:Pinky, Try to take over the world. All right, yo let's get into it. Try to take over the world.
Speaker 2:You're preaching freedom. Try to take over the world For Andrew.
Speaker 3:He's chaplain in the world. Mr Lampanil, take over the world.
