Speaker 1: All right, everybody, welcome to another edition of The Cage
Speaker 1: to Night Live. I am your host the Cage Night
Speaker 1: Jacob Mook and as of time of recording, Happy Mardi
Speaker 1: Gral to everybody. Uh, from what I've been hearing, I
Speaker 1: didn't participate in any of the parades or anything this
Speaker 1: year because I just really have lost my knack for
Speaker 1: it and my taste for it. Apparently there was only
Speaker 1: one death and that was in a small little town
Speaker 1: called Mammoo, New Orleans. Only had a couple of gunshots,
Speaker 1: no stabbings. From what I've been told, I mean, the
Speaker 1: night is young. You know, it's only nine pm Central time.
Speaker 1: You know, as this area goes so things can still
Speaker 1: pop off. But so far, everybody kind of kept it, uh,
Speaker 1: kind of kept it cocopaesthetic as far as everything should
Speaker 1: be done. So that's great, that's good things. What the
Speaker 1: fuck with the hold on? Hold on? Gob Alex just
Speaker 1: sent a message, what the fuck with the hell? What
Speaker 1: to shit? This ain't the cult of Conspiracy? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right. We had to shift things around. Jonathan's going
Speaker 1: to a rodeo and because of that, we have to
Speaker 1: shoot a cult tomorrow night, which is usually the night
Speaker 1: that we would go live, so we had to make
Speaker 1: a slight adjustment, but no big deal. No big deal.
Speaker 1: Tons of things going on in the world around us,
Speaker 1: a lot of things to discuss, and I would very
Speaker 1: much love to hear y'all's two cents or have y'all
Speaker 1: way in on some of these things. For now, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and share the screen. I don't know
Speaker 1: if anybody will be able to really watch it, and
Speaker 1: everybody's kind of got their own lives going on everything.
Speaker 1: But you know, I keep hearing these things about Trump's
Speaker 1: trade war, right, and how now the stock market's going
Speaker 1: to shit now because of these trade wars and these
Speaker 1: terrorists that he's putting on things. He's basically spitting in
Speaker 1: the face of NAFTA and all this. So you know,
Speaker 1: with that in mind, I decided to go to one
Speaker 1: of the most if not the most liberal publication I
Speaker 1: can who is going to take every opportunity they can
Speaker 1: to just shit all over Donnie t and see what
Speaker 1: they have to say about how these trade wars are
Speaker 1: hurting America. And you know, we're gonna see what some
Speaker 1: positive things might be as well. Matter of if I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take the PGS off so I could read this.
Speaker 1: Trump's trade war draws swift retaliation with new tears from Mexico, Canada,
Speaker 1: and China. There's old Trudeau talking about things. This is
Speaker 1: the Washington Associated Press. President Donald Trump launched a trade
Speaker 1: war Tuesday against America's three biggest trading partners, drawing immediate
Speaker 1: retaliation from Mexico, Canada, and China and sending financial markets
Speaker 1: into a tailspin as the US faced the threat to
Speaker 1: rekindle inflation and paralyzing uncertainty for business. Just after midnight,
Speaker 1: Trump imposed a twenty five percent tax or excuse me,
Speaker 1: twenty five percent taxes or tariffs on Mexico and Canadian imports,
Speaker 1: though he limited the levy to ten percent on Canadian energy.
Speaker 1: Trump also doubled the tariff he slapped on last month
Speaker 1: on Chinese products to Okay, Now, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: China was already under a fifteen percent tariff that he
Speaker 1: put on last time he was in office that Biden
Speaker 1: did nothing to repeal in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: So now he's putting them on another twenty or is
Speaker 1: that just like five more? I think it might be
Speaker 1: another twenty person kind of hope. So, but anyway, here
Speaker 1: we go being retaliated, Yeah, retaliated with terrafs of up
Speaker 1: to fifteen percent on a wide array of US farm exports.
Speaker 1: It also expanded the number of US companies subject to
Speaker 1: export controls and other restrictions about to by about two dozen.
Speaker 1: So the top US China goods that will be affected
Speaker 1: by these tariffs cell phones, computers and accessories, electric and
Speaker 1: industrial equipment, toys, games and sporting goods, appliances and furniture.
Speaker 1: All right, And that's that's from the UH. That's imports
Speaker 1: from China to incur a new twenty five or twenty
Speaker 1: percent tariff. The exports to China that will incur a
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen percent tariff, which I don't really know
Speaker 1: why China thought that would be cool or a smart
Speaker 1: anyway to throw a tariff back on us to retaliate.
Speaker 1: But okay, soybeans, meat and poultry, cotton, sugar or sorghum.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly what this a food product, I
Speaker 1: know that much. And fish and shellfish. So you know,
Speaker 1: I know that I take every opportunity I can to
Speaker 1: shit on West Taiwan aka China, and I will continue
Speaker 1: to do so because the CCP is a horrible institution.
Speaker 1: Fine with this, but as all right, and this might
Speaker 1: upset some people, and it's not intended to. Before Russia
Speaker 1: stepped foot into Ukraine years ago, I said that Russia's
Speaker 1: military is more along the lines of a paper tiger.
Speaker 1: Nobody from the lowliest private to the highest general had
Speaker 1: been shot at in like forty years. They prove that
Speaker 1: to themselves. This special military operation was supposed to be
Speaker 1: two weeks long. They just rounded the corner of the
Speaker 1: third year of the two week military operation, not taking
Speaker 1: the opportunity to show on Russia. Just hear me out.
Speaker 1: I am of the belief that China is America's biggest
Speaker 1: enemy slash threat. I do not mean in a military standpoint,
Speaker 1: if for nothing else. The sole reason that the exports
Speaker 1: that they are trying to screw us over with are food.
Speaker 1: China is starving. They can't feed their people, and somehow
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be the military powerhouse that's going to
Speaker 1: take over the world. I just don't see it now, economically, financially, intellectually, sure,
Speaker 1: we could have that conversation, but I don't believe that
Speaker 1: China is ever going to actually try to step up
Speaker 1: and slap by America. As far as that's concerned, I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm not of that belief. But anyway, moving on here,
Speaker 1: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that his country would
Speaker 1: plaster tariffs on overall hundred billion dollars worth of American
Speaker 1: goods over the course of twenty one days. This is
Speaker 1: quote today, the United States launched a trade war against Canada,
Speaker 1: their closest partner and ally, that's a bit of a statement, Trudeau.
Speaker 1: But okay, I'll let it slide. Their closest friend. Okay,
Speaker 1: now you're being a little bold there, Trudeau, calm down. Anyway,
Speaker 1: At the same time, they are talking about working positively
Speaker 1: with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying, murderous dictator. Make
Speaker 1: that make sense, Trudeau said, Oh true, du Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: he's got one foot out the door. He's resigned. He
Speaker 1: I don't know when his final day is gonna be.
Speaker 1: I actually should have probably looked it up before we
Speaker 1: started this. But it's not like he's gonna be in
Speaker 1: by the end of the year. At this point, he's
Speaker 1: just trying to pissing everybody's cheerios and kick as many
Speaker 1: hornets as as possible, because it's not gonna be his
Speaker 1: problem here soon. And I get that, But is it
Speaker 1: that Trump is trying to snuggle up to Putin or
Speaker 1: is it that he's trying to be a businessman and
Speaker 1: he's trying to make the best deal possible to end
Speaker 1: the violence. I got another article pulled up here in
Speaker 1: a minute that we'll we'll discuss that a little deeper
Speaker 1: with the top US Canada goods affected by the tariffs.
Speaker 1: So these are imports from Canada to US that are
Speaker 1: about to incur a twenty five percent tariff. Oil and
Speaker 1: petroleum products, okay, cars and trucks, auto parts, aluminum and
Speaker 1: box site and metal products. Okay, these are industrial things.
Speaker 1: I'm with you, I hear this. So they're saying that,
Speaker 1: now we got that to deal with as far as
Speaker 1: I goes twenty five percent tariff on that exports to
Speaker 1: Canada to incur a twenty five percent tariff. Household appliances peril,
Speaker 1: wine and beer, orange juice, and motorcycles, all right. So
Speaker 1: I didn't expect that list to go that route when
Speaker 1: I first read it. Household appliances meh, okay, apparel, I
Speaker 1: mean all right, cool wine and beer. I did not
Speaker 1: think that Canada really needed any more alcohol as far
Speaker 1: as that's concerned. Canada kind of got their alcoholics in line,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a whole thing with them orange juice.
Speaker 1: That was out of left field for me. I didn't
Speaker 1: realize that Canada was that thirsty for the OJ to
Speaker 1: where it had to be listed in the top five
Speaker 1: things that are gonna be affected by the tariffs. But
Speaker 1: all right, and motorcycles, yo, y'all are crazy as hell.
Speaker 1: Y'all are basically the South Arctic Circle and you're riding
Speaker 1: motorcycles out there. Ya, y'all are part Polar Bears. That's
Speaker 1: the Great White north Man. They're insane. But all right,
Speaker 1: fair enough, the motorcycle industry is gonna suffer a tariff
Speaker 1: on that. Moving on here. Later in the day, Commerce
Speaker 1: Secretary Howard Lutnick said the US would likely meet Canada
Speaker 1: and Mexico quote unquote in the middle, with an announcement
Speaker 1: coming as soon as Wednesday. Lutnick told Fox Business that
Speaker 1: the terriffs would not be paused, but that Trump would
Speaker 1: reach a compromise that you know, I'm sure there's going
Speaker 1: to be some sort of a compromise to be made here.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing with the whole Mexico thing. They recently
Speaker 1: gave over some cartel members as a sign of good
Speaker 1: faith to America. I think it was like twenty three
Speaker 1: cartel I'll call them leaders. It's not like they were
Speaker 1: the top dogs by any means, but some sort of
Speaker 1: like street captains, some mid to you know, high mid
Speaker 1: level guys, and they handed them over to the US
Speaker 1: as a way to say like, hey man, we got you. Now,
Speaker 1: can you stop with the whole tariff talk. America's response
Speaker 1: was basically, yeah, we'll take off the tariffs as soon
Speaker 1: as drug stopped flowing into our country. And Mexico kind
Speaker 1: of laughed about that, which, all right, the tariffs are
Speaker 1: going to continue. I guess, let's see here in the
Speaker 1: Canadian side of things, I don't really know what the
Speaker 1: overarching goal here is other than to just screw them,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know. Mexican President, like I was
Speaker 1: saying here, Claudia Shinbaum, God, I hope I'm saying that right, said,
Speaker 1: Mexico will respond to the new taxes with its own
Speaker 1: retaliatory tariffs. Don't think that's gonna play out. The way
Speaker 1: they think it's gonna play out. Shinbaum says she will
Speaker 1: announce the products Mexico will target on Sunday. The delay
Speaker 1: might indicate that Mexico still hopes to de escalate Trump's
Speaker 1: trade war. The president is abandoning the free trade policies
Speaker 1: the United States pursued for decades after World War Two.
Speaker 1: He argues that the open trade costs America millions of
Speaker 1: factory jobs, and the tariffs are the path to national prosperity.
Speaker 1: He rejects the views of mainstream economic economists excuse me,
Speaker 1: who contend that such protectionism is costly and inefficient. Import
Speaker 1: taxes are a very powerful weapon that politicians haven't used
Speaker 1: because they were either dishonest, stupid, or paid off in
Speaker 1: some other form. Trump said on Monday, and now we're
Speaker 1: using them. Okay, Yes, and not of this. I see
Speaker 1: where he's going. I don't necessarily disagree. What I will
Speaker 1: say is, as soon as NAFTA was formed, look at
Speaker 1: what happened to Detroit. Okay, as soon as these manufacturers
Speaker 1: realized that they could make cars just south of the
Speaker 1: border and transport them to America for free because of NAFTA,
Speaker 1: or at least with no extra taxes or feast thone
Speaker 1: on there. Detroit went down instantly and became the shithole
Speaker 1: it is now. Not talking shit to any people from Detroit.
Speaker 1: I love you all. I'm not talking about the people.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the industry right. The same could be
Speaker 1: said for Philly, for the steel right. There's so many
Speaker 1: different types of industrial jobs that as soon as NAFTA
Speaker 1: came into play, so many American cities and industries went
Speaker 1: to shit. Now, that's not government fault. That's how business works.
Speaker 1: If you can make something for a fraction of the
Speaker 1: price and sell it for the same price that you
Speaker 1: were beforehand, why wouldn't you do that? That's capitalism. That's
Speaker 1: how this works. Good business. However, Trump is not in
Speaker 1: the place for good business. He's in this office for
Speaker 1: the betterment of America at this moment. So, yeah, the
Speaker 1: tariffs are trying to bring industry back to this country.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's gonna work out the way
Speaker 1: he thinks it will. I have hopes. You know, there's
Speaker 1: at least a little bit of some some leg work
Speaker 1: to do. But is it possible that we could get
Speaker 1: some industrial jobs back in America? I hope so I
Speaker 1: also hope that there's enough people that are willing to
Speaker 1: actually work for their dollar to do that, because judging
Speaker 1: from what we just saw through COVID, so many people
Speaker 1: just don't want to work. Like they had jobs, they
Speaker 1: were begging people please apply, please come to work, and
Speaker 1: the people just really didn't want to because like, why
Speaker 1: would I work when I don't have to and the
Speaker 1: government will take care of me, right, So I just
Speaker 1: I don't know. I hope that the workforce would be
Speaker 1: there and that this younger, newer generation is hungry for
Speaker 1: work and hungry to make some money. I know that
Speaker 1: home ownership is at pretty much an all time low
Speaker 1: from thirty to eighteen right now. It's really rare for
Speaker 1: somebody to buy a home. I don't I never saw
Speaker 1: that in my neck of the woods. Most of us
Speaker 1: bought homes relatively early and started families. But that's because
Speaker 1: we have jobs and we have industry, and most people
Speaker 1: in Louisiana and Texas are very capable and very willing
Speaker 1: to get out there and sweat for their dollar. So
Speaker 1: I don't see the same things that we look at
Speaker 1: when we're looking at everything on the macro for the
Speaker 1: entire country scale. That being said, COVID was a really
Speaker 1: prime example of what that does look like. And I
Speaker 1: am hoping that either a we do bring the industry
Speaker 1: back and into this country, and we could get off
Speaker 1: our asses and make it happen and be that AI
Speaker 1: and automation don't take those jobs anyway. That's the other
Speaker 1: side of this double edged sword. As much as Elon
Speaker 1: is pushing these things, and as much as the tech
Speaker 1: industry is pushing these things, automation could replace all of
Speaker 1: the actual manpower jobs that were required in the auto
Speaker 1: industry a few decades back before Detroit went downhill. So
Speaker 1: will these tariffs bring industry back to America? Perhaps? Will
Speaker 1: it bring jobs back to America? I don't honestly know. Again,
Speaker 1: I have hope, not a lot of it, but there's
Speaker 1: hope moving on here. Dartmouth College economist Douglas Irwin, allthrough
Speaker 1: of a twenty seventeen history of US tariff policy, has
Speaker 1: calculated that Tuesday's hikes will lift America's average tariff from
Speaker 1: two point four to ten point five percent, the highest
Speaker 1: level since the nineteen forties or in a new era
Speaker 1: for sure. As the trade disputes escalated, stocks racked up
Speaker 1: more losses Tuesday, one Wall Street wiping out all the
Speaker 1: gains since election day for the S and P five hundred.
Speaker 1: Markets in Europe also fell sharply. Now I have a
Speaker 1: whole or other article that we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: with the S and P five hundred in the stocks
Speaker 1: right now, it's interesting to me, and the stocks are,
Speaker 1: if nothing else, just to gamble. Right. There's nothing guaranteeing
Speaker 1: that stocks will do anything. You'll see a new election happen.
Speaker 1: They'll jump up, or they'll drop down, or whatever the
Speaker 1: case may be. I am not of the belief that
Speaker 1: these stocks are a good litmus test for a nation's economy.
Speaker 1: I know that there are those that believe that it is.
Speaker 1: I am not of that belief. What I will say is,
Speaker 1: as soon as Trump took office, things went up. Things
Speaker 1: were happy, happy, joy joy. Now with these tariffs, the
Speaker 1: S and P five hundred has it's flatlined for the week,
Speaker 1: which is not good. It's not bad, But what's the
Speaker 1: old adage, be a bowl, be a bear, but don't
Speaker 1: be a pig. At the moment, it's a pig. It's
Speaker 1: not going up or going down. It's stagnant. And that
Speaker 1: time is money that's not good for anybody as far
Speaker 1: as the business world is concerned. It may not be
Speaker 1: a loss for the investors, but it's also not a
Speaker 1: gain for the investors either, so it's it's still a
Speaker 1: net negative overall. But these tariffs shouldn't make the stock
Speaker 1: markets go down, especially not in Europe. American stock's doing
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do. Sure, they get freaked out and
Speaker 1: drop their money or put their money on things whenever
Speaker 1: they even get a whiff of some wild shit happening.
Speaker 1: Why is Europe's stock market going up or down depending
Speaker 1: on our tariffs with Canada and Mexico? Like I really
Speaker 1: must have missed that. I don't know, but I find
Speaker 1: it interesting to say the least, as much as people
Speaker 1: want to still shit on America and say that we
Speaker 1: are not the world's greatest superpower or the only superpower
Speaker 1: any of that, as much as they want to shit
Speaker 1: on us, they still look to us as a lead
Speaker 1: for everything that they do. This is another example of that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion. But with that being said, NATO and
Speaker 1: the EU is talking a lot of noise right now
Speaker 1: about what they will do in a post America. NATO
Speaker 1: not post America as in America's gone, post America, NATO
Speaker 1: as in we leave NATO, and they will be on
Speaker 1: their own to foot the bill. And I'm jumping ahead
Speaker 1: of myself. That's like five articles ahead where we're at now.
Speaker 1: But anyway, and by the way, if anybody's listening would
Speaker 1: like to chime in on anything I'm saying, please feel free.
Speaker 1: But anyway, here we go. Trump has said the tariffs, yeah, said.
Speaker 1: Markets in Europe also fell sharply. Trump said tariffs are
Speaker 1: intended to address drug trafficking and illegal immigration, but he's
Speaker 1: also said the tariffs will calm down only if the
Speaker 1: US trade deficit narrows. The American president has injected a
Speaker 1: disorienting volvalidity into the world economy, leaving it off balance
Speaker 1: as people wonder what he will do next. During his
Speaker 1: first term, Trump and post tariffs only after link the
Speaker 1: investigations into the national security implications of relying on foreign steel,
Speaker 1: for example, said Michael House. Michael House, co chair of
Speaker 1: the international trade practice at the Perkins Coal law firm.
Speaker 1: But by declaring a national emergency last month involving the
Speaker 1: flow of immigrants analysted drugs across the US border, he
Speaker 1: can modify these terrfts with a stroke of a pen,
Speaker 1: he said. It's just chaotic Democratic lawmakers. Oh, for the
Speaker 1: love of fuck, get out here, ap. Democratic lawmakers were
Speaker 1: quick to criticize tariffs. Presidents don't get to invent emergencies
Speaker 1: just to justify bad policies, said Representative Gregory Meeks, the
Speaker 1: top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: going to reread that in just a second. Hold on now.
Speaker 1: Abusing emergency powers to wage an economic war on our
Speaker 1: closest allies isn't leadership. It's dangerous, all right, real quick.
Speaker 1: This is the top Democrat at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Speaker 1: Presidents don't get to invent emergencies to justify bad policies.
Speaker 1: My brother in Christ, where was this energy last administration
Speaker 1: or the one prior to the one prior to that?
Speaker 1: For eight years Obama did literally that, where was this energy?
Speaker 1: At that time? He created emergencies all of the time
Speaker 1: to justify a record set of executive orders that were
Speaker 1: written and signed to justify dropping bombs, dropping drone strikes
Speaker 1: on weddings, y'all remember that. And then Operation Fast and Furious,
Speaker 1: a gun that was sold to cartels by America was
Speaker 1: later used to kill a cop in LA And we
Speaker 1: know that because we trace the zero numbers that was
Speaker 1: justified because of emergencies. Shall we bring up Benghazi? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: what are we even talking about here.
Speaker 2: That's the difference though, between one political party and the other.
Speaker 2: It's okay for that to happen. How Whoever, whenever the
Speaker 2: coin is reversed, doesn't happen. Say anything with the audits, right,
Speaker 2: Like when the first time he was in, they're like, audit, Hey,
Speaker 2: we want to see your taxes, show us your taxes.
Speaker 2: And then and then hit, hey let me show you,
Speaker 2: let me see your taxes.
Speaker 3: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa whoa.
Speaker 2: We can't do that, right, So you know, it's like
Speaker 2: it's as long as it's only going one direction, it's fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know. And that being said, they were super
Speaker 1: hardcore about seeing Trump's tax returns, right. That was a
Speaker 1: whole talking point to to what you're saying there, Royce.
Speaker 1: Now we have Elon that is trying to get into
Speaker 1: the irs, and everybody's like, well, why does he need
Speaker 1: to see everybody's taxes? Why? It's like, wait, I'm so confused.
Speaker 1: I heard Andrew Schultz and Charlomagne and the God. They
Speaker 1: have a podcast they do together, and he said it beautifully.
Speaker 1: If the cops come to your house with a warrant
Speaker 1: right there, they have the warrant to go into your house,
Speaker 1: and they are trying to get into your basement, and
Speaker 1: the guy's like, wait, you know, don't go in the
Speaker 1: basement right off the bat. You have something in that
Speaker 1: basement we need to see. You're obviously breaking the law
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form. The fact that we
Speaker 1: are seeing so much pushback at this moment tells us
Speaker 1: all we need to know as far as what we
Speaker 1: need to find out, Like clearly he needs to keep
Speaker 1: digging and dig harder. So you know. Anyway, anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent agree with you, Royce. When it's one
Speaker 1: side of the aisle, it's whatever. When it's the other,
Speaker 1: it's infringement, it's illegal, it's a moral. Yeah, that side
Speaker 1: wants to talk about morals and ethics. It's fucking hilarious
Speaker 1: to me. But anyway, even some Republican senators raised alarms.
Speaker 1: Maine and Canada's economy are integrated, said Senator Susan Collins,
Speaker 1: Republican from Maine, explaining that much of the state's lobsters
Speaker 1: and blueberries are processed in Canada and then sent back
Speaker 1: to the US. Hey, here's a wild idea. Why not
Speaker 1: open processing facilities in Maine and give more jobs to
Speaker 1: the people that live in Maine. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: not like an expert in the lobster in blueberry industries. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm completely speaking out of my ass on this one.
Speaker 1: I get that, but I feel like there's probably people
Speaker 1: in Maine that don't have jobs or that would like
Speaker 1: to have a job, especially one that is as American
Speaker 1: as lobster. Right, that's as main as it gets. Blueberries.
Speaker 1: I didn't know they had a really big, thriving blueberry industry.
Speaker 1: But fine, that too, Okay, why must you send them
Speaker 1: to Canada to process them to send them back to America.
Speaker 1: This is kind of the point. Open a facility, open
Speaker 1: multiple start a chain, get sponsorships, get money involved with this,
Speaker 1: make money for your state, get tax revenue off of
Speaker 1: those businesses. I know it's a wild concept, but all right, cool,
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken. That's the same one that told Trump
Speaker 1: that they were not going to listen to his and
Speaker 1: then he said, well, you're not going to get any
Speaker 1: federal funding. Well, we'll see you in court. And he
Speaker 1: was like, well, I guess you will. I think that
Speaker 1: might be the same one. I'm not sure. It sounds
Speaker 1: like a white woman from Maine saying these things. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong. I don't know. Anyway, Uh, moving on here.
Speaker 1: Truck driver Carlos Ponce fifty eight went about business as
Speaker 1: usual Tuesday morning, transporting auto parts from see you, Dad, whatever, Warrez,
Speaker 1: Mexico to El Paso, Texas, just as he's done for decades.
Speaker 1: Like many on the border, he was worried about the
Speaker 1: fallout from the tariffs. Why is a truck driver worried
Speaker 1: about the fallouts from the tariffs? Okay, anyway, things could
Speaker 1: change drastically. Ponce said. Truckers could lose their jobs or
Speaker 1: have to drive farther to coastal ports as Mexican manufacturers
Speaker 1: look for trading partners beyond the US. That is what
Speaker 1: would happen. Next agreed, it's literally what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: But see, that's the thing. Why would the president of
Speaker 1: the United States be worried about Mexican truckers. His job
Speaker 1: is to worry about American truckers. But I don't understand
Speaker 1: why we're even hearing that from this side of things.
Speaker 1: But you know whatever. Alan Russell, head of TECHMA, which
Speaker 1: helps factories set up in places like Juarez, it's skeptical
Speaker 1: that Trump's tariffs will bring manufacturing back to the United States.
Speaker 1: He says, quote, nobody's gonna move their factories until they
Speaker 1: have certainty. Just last week, he said, TECHMA helped a
Speaker 1: North Carolina manufacturer that moved to Mexico because it couldn't
Speaker 1: find enough workers in the United States. And here in
Speaker 1: lies the problem, ladies and gentlemen, I agree if we don't,
Speaker 1: if we have the manufacturing jobs but nobody's there to
Speaker 1: work them, then that's another problem. This is when automation
Speaker 1: will take over and take root and become a problem
Speaker 1: that we can't We can't put Pandora back in the
Speaker 1: box on this one. Okay. I had a friend of
Speaker 1: mine who was working in the I don't know exactly
Speaker 1: which auto manufacturer, I know it is out there towards Reno, okay,
Speaker 1: and they were on strike. Now, I am not going
Speaker 1: to go into a tear about pro union or anti union.
Speaker 1: I believe the unions have their place fine, but I
Speaker 1: also acknowledge that unions can go a bit overboard and
Speaker 1: fuck themselves out of their jobs if they don't work
Speaker 1: with the companies. You have to have a partnership. You
Speaker 1: can't have one person trying to big dick the other
Speaker 1: one out of more money or out of more raises,
Speaker 1: because they'll just hire scabs, which is what they did.
Speaker 1: And that auto manufacturer that she was working for, she
Speaker 1: was a union person. She was Every post I saw
Speaker 1: on her Facebook was just like.
Speaker 4: Oh, the scabs are taking our job. Fuck that union
Speaker 4: workers all the way. And it's like, so what is
Speaker 4: the strike about? What exactly are y'all asking for better benefits,
Speaker 4: better pay? Whatever the case was.
Speaker 1: And I'm not one hundred percent on what the rates were,
Speaker 1: but basically they wanted like a fifteen dollars an hour increase,
Speaker 1: and shocker that the car manufacturer that they were working
Speaker 1: for said, no, I'll just hire a guy for like
Speaker 1: three dollars more an hour than I'm paying you, and
Speaker 1: you can get fucked. I know, I know it's a
Speaker 1: wild concept, but this is kind of my point. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that that won't happen here and that manufacturing
Speaker 1: jobs can come back and that the unions can start
Speaker 1: working with the companies and all of these things. I
Speaker 1: worked for a union company at one point in time.
Speaker 1: The union reps and the CEO of the company were
Speaker 1: in They were great friends, both on site and off
Speaker 1: of site, and that worked well for everybody. Everybody benefited
Speaker 1: from this, and it was a true team ball mentality.
Speaker 1: The company didn't want to fuck over the union hands,
Speaker 1: and the union hands didn't want to fuck over the company.
Speaker 1: That's how it's supposed to work. But anyone, anyone, let's
Speaker 1: move on here. US businesses near the Canadian border scrambled
Speaker 1: to deal with their impact. Guthrie Lumber is a suburban
Speaker 1: Detroit reached out in suburban Detroit, excuse me? Reached out
Speaker 1: on Tuesday to Canadian suppliers about the cost of eight
Speaker 1: foot wood studs. About fifteen percent of the lumber that
Speaker 1: Guthrie's yard in Lavonia, Michigan comes from Canada. Sales manager
Speaker 1: Mike Mahoney said Canadian suppliers are already raising prices. They're
Speaker 1: putting that twenty five percent on studs. Builders will strain
Speaker 1: to stay within their budget, Okay, and I understand that
Speaker 1: as well. Do we not have lumber in America. I
Speaker 1: feel like we do. I feel like there's tree farms
Speaker 1: all over the country. I understand that, Yeah, they might
Speaker 1: have better quality or be able to do things cheaper
Speaker 1: in Canada, but we could open more wood mills. We
Speaker 1: absolutely could open more sawmills to process more trees and
Speaker 1: tree farming. Yes, I understand, they've got to save the
Speaker 1: trees and all that. I'm with you. I'm with you.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about tree farming for the sake of making
Speaker 1: lumber happen. It's a booming industry. It's all over the country,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, mostly around here. It's for
Speaker 1: like pulpwood, which is a trash industry. But I know
Speaker 1: for a fact that Washington and Oregon have a thriving
Speaker 1: lumber industry. Ravenlee, go ahead, I fixed, I don't know,
Speaker 1: can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, it's because the true lumber takes so long,
Speaker 5: Like they have more square miles of lumber that's really
Speaker 5: available than we do here because it takes so long
Speaker 5: to regenerate. That's why so like the processing places in Oregon,
Speaker 5: like they have them close to the coast. As you
Speaker 5: go to the coast, it's about like forty five minutes away.
Speaker 5: But they have like certain sections that they're allowed to
Speaker 5: harvest and then like they have to replant and they
Speaker 5: can only harvest like certain sections at a time. Because
Speaker 5: it's like a big deal to Oregonians, you know, about
Speaker 5: the about the trees. So but they have like certain
Speaker 5: areas so like they don't want to deforced too fast.
Speaker 5: So like, but in Canada they have mass amounts of
Speaker 5: land where people can't live, so like it's so cold
Speaker 5: in those areas. But like they can harvest quicker than
Speaker 5: we can.
Speaker 1: So okay, that makes more sense. That's true, because I
Speaker 1: mean their their population is really close to the American border.
Speaker 1: Most of the Great White North is uninhabited for the
Speaker 1: most part. So okay, that makes sense, I hear you.
Speaker 1: But okay, maybe concessions will be made as far as
Speaker 1: lumber is concerned, you know, I don't know. I hope
Speaker 1: that building materials don't go up twenty five percent. That
Speaker 1: would suck. We shall see how it plays out, he says.
Speaker 1: Going on here, after years of effort and thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars in investment, Tom bart, a Kentucky craft bourbon distiller,
Speaker 1: gained a foothold in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia
Speaker 1: and Alberta, and watched his sales grow north of the border.
Speaker 1: Now Kentucky Bourbon in Canada's cross is in Canada's crosshairs
Speaker 1: and in order for his Canadian distributors is on hold.
Speaker 1: God I had an issue reading that one basically orders
Speaker 1: are own hole from his Canadian buyers. That hurts. He said.
Speaker 1: At his small distillery, every single pallet that goes out
Speaker 1: the door makes a huge difference. The last thing you
Speaker 1: want is to have an empty spot where the bottles
Speaker 1: are supposed to be on the shelf. And I could
Speaker 1: agree with that one hundred percent. Bard co owns the
Speaker 1: bar distillery and with his wife Kim, in western Kentucky
Speaker 1: Mullenberg County, about one hundred and thirty five miles southwest
Speaker 1: of Louisville. Trump overwhelmingly carried Kentucky in the November election,
Speaker 1: and Mullenberg County Trump defeated Kamala Harris by more than
Speaker 1: a three to one margin. Moving on to the China's
Speaker 1: harriffs here, the China tariffs also threatened the US toy industry.
Speaker 1: I kind of was blown back when I read this
Speaker 1: one initially because I thought we were buying all of
Speaker 1: our toys from China. I was unaware that China was
Speaker 1: buying a bunch of toys from America. I feel like
Speaker 1: that was a little bit of uno verso on that one.
Speaker 1: But let's see. Greg Aarhearn, president and CEO of the
Speaker 1: Toy Association, said that the twenty percent terraffs on Chinese
Speaker 1: goods will be crippling as nearly eighty percent of toys
Speaker 1: sold in the US are made in China. Okay, fair enough.
Speaker 1: Rachel Lutz, owner of Peacock Room four women's boutique shop,
Speaker 1: Oh wait wait wait wait wait wait, hold on, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the toy industry is saying that the toys in America
Speaker 1: will go up exponentially. Okay, we shall see, we shall see.
Speaker 1: Rachel Lutz owns the Peacock Room four women's boutique shops
Speaker 1: with about fifteen employees in Detroit. She's been bracing for
Speaker 1: the terriffs but doesn't understand the logic behind them. I
Speaker 1: didn't think that boutiques got a lot of business in
Speaker 1: Mexico and Canada that are based in America. That's a
Speaker 1: new one. Or maybe talking about like materials let's see here,
Speaker 1: I'm struggling to see with the wisdom in picking a
Speaker 1: fight with our largest trading partner that we have had
Speaker 1: history wonderful relationships with. I'm struggling to really understand how
Speaker 1: they can't see that will profoundly impact our economy in
Speaker 1: ways that I think the American consumer has no not predicted.
Speaker 1: We're about to find out. So, okay, Associated Press is
Speaker 1: obviously going to be saying things about how these tariffs
Speaker 1: are a really bad thing. This terror for is just
Speaker 1: bad for business.
Speaker 5: Well, you remember a while back, I was talking about
Speaker 5: that German company that does the vaccines and like has
Speaker 5: like their hand in minerals and everything else. I was
Speaker 5: looking more into it, and I cannot, for the life
Speaker 5: for me remember their name. I was just looking at
Speaker 5: like the mineral thing apparently so like the mineral fight.
Speaker 5: That German company is like also leading the forefront of
Speaker 5: trying to get the minerals everywhere, and they have their
Speaker 5: hands and vaccines and stuff, And I was like, I
Speaker 5: wonder if that company is going to be one of
Speaker 5: the top players for the mineral grab overseas.
Speaker 1: Well. I could see a random and off topic, but no,
Speaker 1: not really, because we're absolutely going to be talking about
Speaker 1: Ukraine here in a moment, and how Zelensky just screwed
Speaker 1: himself out of some sort of a deal with America
Speaker 1: and they have a lot of minerals that they're looking
Speaker 1: to sell. Germany, being a NATO member, is absolutely going
Speaker 1: to come in and try to fill that void. So
Speaker 1: that wouldn't shock me if Germany, with that mineral company
Speaker 1: does try to make a little bit more of a
Speaker 1: play in Ukraine. I didn't know that it was a
Speaker 1: mineral slash vaccine company. It's a weird combo.
Speaker 5: But they have their hand in a lot of different things,
Speaker 5: like they'refore, They have their hand in like all different
Speaker 5: types of stuff, and they work with a lot of
Speaker 5: the other NATO countries helping develop their business models or
Speaker 5: gaining money with minerals and vaccines and all this sorts
Speaker 5: of stuff, and like diamonds. I don't know, it's weird.
Speaker 5: It's a weird company.
Speaker 1: See if you could find something out about it and
Speaker 1: post it in the comments, we'll pull it up. Hell yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: So moving on with this whole tariff situation here, the
Speaker 1: Dow drops thirteen hundred points in two days amid Trump's
Speaker 1: trade war. That that's kind of huge, Honestly. The DW
Speaker 1: Jones Industrial Average dropped thirteen hundred points of the last
Speaker 1: two days. Donald Trump moved forward with the tariffs against Mexico, Canada,
Speaker 1: and China, America's most prominent trading partner. Now, why does
Speaker 1: this matter? Global markets are bracing for the effect of
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs and retaliatory tariffs from Canada, China, and Mexico
Speaker 1: will have on the American consumers. What to know? The
Speaker 1: US on Tuesday and Posday, twenty five percent tariff on
Speaker 1: goes from Mexico and Canada and increase the ten percent
Speaker 1: tariff on China to twenty percent. Okay, so that's it.
Speaker 1: It was, they've increased it from ten to twenty. My
Speaker 1: badness misspoke earlier. Canada and China immediately retaliated, while Mexico
Speaker 1: said it would announce its response later this week. As
Speaker 1: a result of the tariffs, the Dow dropped one point
Speaker 1: five to five percent, or six hundred and seventy points,
Speaker 1: adding to a six hundred and fifty point plummet on
Speaker 1: Monday is The Nasdaq closed ato point three five percent
Speaker 1: down and its lowest was down two percent. Briefly entering
Speaker 1: correction territory, which indicates more than ten percent drop in
Speaker 1: the index from its recent peak. The S and P
Speaker 1: five one hundred dropped one point two percent and erased
Speaker 1: its post election gains. About eighty percent of stocks that
Speaker 1: make up the index were down for the day. That
Speaker 1: slip came despite a rebound in major tech stocks like
Speaker 1: Navidia and alphabet Yeat Navidia, I'm not mistaken. They're actually
Speaker 1: they're still coming up. I think they may have like
Speaker 1: plateaued and gone stagnant, but they're not losing, So call
Speaker 1: that for what it is. Retailer's Target and Best Buy
Speaker 1: saw their share prices decline after warring warning of sale
Speaker 1: pressures and higher prices for consumers. Shocker shocker. The teriffs
Speaker 1: also negatively impacted trading across different industries, including automakers, banks,
Speaker 1: and other retailers, including Ralph Lauren and Williams Sonoma. Trump,
Speaker 1: for his part, has acknowledged the Americans could feel some
Speaker 1: pain quote unquote associated with terrorists, but insisted it would
Speaker 1: quote all be worth the price that must be paid
Speaker 1: in quote what people are saying, I'm sure this is
Speaker 1: going to be positive. Canadian Prime minister, drussing Trudeau is
Speaker 1: on his way out of office. Didn't Min's words when
Speaker 1: calling out Trump over the tariffs resulting in trade war.
Speaker 1: A fight with Canada will have no winners, said Trudeau.
Speaker 1: It's not. I really wouldn't call this a fight. I
Speaker 1: understand the idea of a trade war and all of that.
Speaker 1: I don't. It's a pretty non violent fight, but whatever.
Speaker 1: He added that the trade war is very dumb. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Trudeau is going to speak on what's what's going to
Speaker 1: be dumb? Okay. Trump hit back in America's northern neighbor
Speaker 1: and alluded to his desire to annex Canada as the
Speaker 1: fifty first state. He said, quote, please explain to Governor
Speaker 1: True of Canada that when he puts on a retaliatory
Speaker 1: tariff on the US, our reciprocal tariff will immediately increase
Speaker 1: by a like amount. Okay, So we're having a little
Speaker 1: bit of a pissing contest here, boys, all right. Ontario
Speaker 1: Premier Doug Ford said his province is quote unquote ripping
Speaker 1: up a deal with Elon Musk's Starlink in retaliation for
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs. We're ripping up Ontario's contract with starlink. He said,
Speaker 1: it's done, it's gone. I don't feel like that's gonna
Speaker 1: play well for them. Getting involved in business with Elon
Speaker 1: seems to be a very smart business move. You tearing
Speaker 1: that up kind of seems like it's just gonna screw you.
Speaker 1: But I mean, you know, it's a bold strategy. You'll
Speaker 1: see if it works out for him, Cotton. What happened next?
Speaker 1: Trump on Monday announced additional tariffs on agricultural products that
Speaker 1: are set to take effect in a on April second.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a weird April Fool's Day prank. But okay,
Speaker 1: so we are seeing that there are global markets that
Speaker 1: are suffering as a result of all of these things.
Speaker 1: What are y'all's thoughts on this?
Speaker 2: So the pison contests are always very interesting between you know,
Speaker 2: I guess Trump and these are other countries.
Speaker 3: I mean, whether it's these tariffs or.
Speaker 2: Anything else, it's almost like if it evolves Trump, people wants.
Speaker 3: To completely go against it regardless. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. And it seems like
Speaker 1: the media is not exactly fond of Trump. They never
Speaker 1: have been for the record, So yeah, I thought Newsweek
Speaker 1: would be a little more gracious towards Trump, which I
Speaker 1: mean they were a little more than AP, which, to
Speaker 1: be fair, AP just to test everything that Trump even does,
Speaker 1: the fact that he's breathing makes them mad, so you know,
Speaker 1: all things considered fair enough. I stand by what I
Speaker 1: said earlier, though. I see what he's trying to do
Speaker 1: to bring me manufacturing jobs back to America, to bring
Speaker 1: industry back to America. I just hope it works out,
Speaker 1: and I hope that Americans aren't too lazy to take
Speaker 1: these jobs and do them and make money and make
Speaker 1: careers out of them. I just I don't know. I
Speaker 1: feel like he's also going out of his way to
Speaker 1: shit all over NAFTA, which if that's the case, then
Speaker 1: we're just going to tear up the free trade agreement.
Speaker 1: Then just go ahead and do that. Starting a tear
Speaker 1: war is like, that's like a Cold War version of it.
Speaker 1: Just pull the trigger and just tear it up and say, no,
Speaker 1: we don't have free trade with anybody. If that's the case,
Speaker 1: which I mean, I guess is his overarching goal here, Raven,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 5: I agree with you. I think that there is benefits
Speaker 5: to this. I mean, our industries have gone way down
Speaker 5: and a lot of jobs have gone away for American people,
Speaker 5: and more and more companies have moved overseas to get
Speaker 5: deeper product made. It comes down to are they going
Speaker 5: to make the same cheap product or are they going
Speaker 5: to actually go back to like the nineteen fifties like
Speaker 5: and actually make good quality product here that last and
Speaker 5: give like the American people benefits to stay with the
Speaker 5: company long term, or are they going to screw them
Speaker 5: over where people work for them for like forty years
Speaker 5: and then screw them over, you know. So I mean
Speaker 5: that's that's Amy Royce.
Speaker 1: We can hear.
Speaker 3: Oh, sorry, I'm excared, you get my path.
Speaker 5: Oh, I was just saying that. I think that there's
Speaker 5: a benefits to it, I think, But the problem is is,
Speaker 5: like you said, do people actually want to work, But
Speaker 5: then you have a whole bunch of people that are
Speaker 5: willing to work, like you know at McDonald's, Which there's
Speaker 5: nothing wrong with that if that's what you can do
Speaker 5: and afford and have time for, but like if they
Speaker 5: have incentives to stay with the company to or work
Speaker 5: for these companies, but then you have AI coming in
Speaker 5: and taking over everything. Anyways, So that's going to be
Speaker 5: an uphill battle in fighting the cost of how much
Speaker 5: it's going to cost for each person. Are they going
Speaker 5: to be at the minimum wage of seven twenty five?
Speaker 5: Are they going to be at like organ wage at
Speaker 5: fifteen dollars an hour?
Speaker 1: Like what?
Speaker 5: Where it's going to be the happy balance where we
Speaker 5: can actually afford the product that they're making versus them
Speaker 5: paying two dollars and ten cents to somebody who oversees Yeah, not.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent agree. And yeah, like you said, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with somebody, regardless of whatever age, working at
Speaker 1: fast food or at what most would consider a dead
Speaker 1: end job, if that's all they have the ability to work,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 1: I believe that people should be able to move, you know,
Speaker 1: and go to places where there is industry in order
Speaker 1: to get the jobs that they want and make the
Speaker 1: careers and the lives that they want for themselves. I
Speaker 1: understand that that is not always an option for every
Speaker 1: single person out there. I get it. But if more
Speaker 1: industries come back to US soil in theory, that means
Speaker 1: more jobs should come back to American soil. But as
Speaker 1: AI and automation are taking over, I just I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't trust AI. I've said that many, many,
Speaker 1: many times, and there's a whole slew of reasons why
Speaker 1: I do not, especially with the innovations that they're making
Speaker 1: in that regard. This is actually from the Jerusalem Post.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize that it was going to be from
Speaker 1: that publication whenever I clicked on the link. But then
Speaker 1: I saw I was like, oh, okay, sure, why not
Speaker 1: As we're talking about AI and all of these things.
Speaker 1: We talked about quantum computers that Elon Musk was making,
Speaker 1: and now Microsoft has announced a tiny processor that will
Speaker 1: change the world. The major Aana major Ana, I don't
Speaker 1: know how to pronounce the word one an advanced processor
Speaker 1: capable of performing complex calculations at incredible speeds. Now this
Speaker 1: is to be used alongside the Topographal quantum processor. It's
Speaker 1: it's insane what these people are doing. Tech giant Microsoft
Speaker 1: announced today Wednesday. I think this might be from the
Speaker 1: last week actually, oh March fourth, twenty twenty five, ibydan
Speaker 1: that it has successfully developed a new quantum processor called
Speaker 1: Majorana one, which, according to the company, will help reduce
Speaker 1: the time required to build powerful quantum computers from decades
Speaker 1: to just a few years. This breakthrough could come could
Speaker 1: bring closer the momentum when quantum computing can tackle complex
Speaker 1: problems on an industrial scale, a challenge that technology companies
Speaker 1: have been struggling with for years. For seventeen years, Microsoft
Speaker 1: has invested in research and development of a new material
Speaker 1: and a revolutionary architecture for quantum computing. The result its
Speaker 1: first quantum processor, based on a particle called major onum Majorana.
Speaker 1: Don't know, We'll continue. First ascribed to nineteen thirty seven
Speaker 1: by theoretical physicists, it tore Majorana. I'm probably going to
Speaker 1: butcher that the entire time. We continue this. By the way,
Speaker 1: unlike the traditional approach of using electrons for computation, Microsoft
Speaker 1: has found a way to control and harness this unique
Speaker 1: particle to create more reliable quibbits, the core of the
Speaker 1: quantum revolution. Quibbits are the quantum equivalent of the regular
Speaker 1: bits we know from today's computers, but they suffer from
Speaker 1: high sensitivity and external noise, making it difficult to build
Speaker 1: stable quantum computers. Microsoft claims its new technology allows the
Speaker 1: integration of a million quibbots on a single chip with
Speaker 1: a size not far from the conventional computer processors we
Speaker 1: are familiar with. We did an episode on this as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact on the Cult a couple weeks ago, shit,
Speaker 1: probably over a month ago. And essentially for the quantum
Speaker 1: computers to work, they have to be at just above
Speaker 1: absolute zero, if not absolute zero, I say just above.
Speaker 1: I think it's like, is it negative point two kelvin
Speaker 1: that they can operate at and be okay. But any
Speaker 1: kind of external heat throws off the computations. Any type
Speaker 1: of excess electrical noise throws off the computation, external light
Speaker 1: throws it off. External everything can throw off this computation.
Speaker 1: So now they have even better and more efficient ways
Speaker 1: of getting it through. Here it says this breakthrough. I'm sorry, good.
Speaker 6: Oh, I just have one thing to say. For absolute
Speaker 6: zero's negative two hundred and seventy three celsius, and that
Speaker 6: would be zero calvin zero kelvin.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're good, So it's zero kelvin. I saw somewhere
Speaker 1: that it was either they can be it to the
Speaker 1: positive side point two kelvin or to kelvin and it
Speaker 1: would still work. But it's basically right at or around
Speaker 1: absolute zero where they can make this happen continuing. It
Speaker 1: says this breakthrough was made possible by the creation of
Speaker 1: a topo conductor, a new material developed in collaboration with
Speaker 1: scientists composed of indium, our indium arsenide, and aluminum. This
Speaker 1: material not only enables the observation of MAJORANA particles, but
Speaker 1: also allows for control over them in a way that
Speaker 1: leads to the creation of more stable quibots. The findings
Speaker 1: were published in a scientific paper in the prestigious journal Nature,
Speaker 1: providing a solid foundation for further development of a practically
Speaker 1: scalable quantum computer. According to Zolfi Alam, God the I'm
Speaker 1: butchering names the president of Microsoft and leader of the
Speaker 1: whope whope I hate when articles do that. A new
Speaker 1: ad pops up and throws the entire page off here
Speaker 1: Okay Zolfi Alam, the company's leader of the company's quantum
Speaker 1: computing division. This achievement is the result of years of
Speaker 1: thorough research. After seventeen years, we are presenting results that
Speaker 1: are not only amazing, they are real. They will completely
Speaker 1: change the way quantum journey progresses Okay Alam, who was
Speaker 1: previously involved in the HoloLens project, helped lead Microsoft's efforts
Speaker 1: in developing innovative manufacturing methods that led to this accomplishment.
Speaker 1: This breakthrough earned Microsoft selection by DARPA, the US Department
Speaker 1: of Defense's Advanced Research Agency, as one of two companies
Speaker 1: advancing to the final stages of the US two QC program.
Speaker 1: An innovative initiative. Excuse me to build a large scale
Speaker 1: quantum computer. Now the company will work on producing a
Speaker 1: prototype of an error resistant quantum computer with not with decades,
Speaker 1: but with just a few years. That is pretty insane.
Speaker 1: This is not just a milestone, it's a gateway to
Speaker 1: a new world of problem solving, says Chattan Nayak, technical
Speaker 1: fellow at Microsoft. Our path to practical quantum computing is clear,
Speaker 1: the foundational technology has proven, and our architecture is scalable.
Speaker 1: The new agreement with DARPAP proves we are on the
Speaker 1: right track to develop a machine that can lead to
Speaker 1: scientific breakthroughs and solve truly significant problems. So again, as
Speaker 1: we were talking about what jobs may or may not
Speaker 1: make their way back right to American soil, as far
Speaker 1: as manufacturing and things go, I find it interesting that
Speaker 1: they're also advancing the AI and the computations that very
Speaker 1: well may take those jobs from Americans, even if they
Speaker 1: were willing to work them. Royce, where's your thoughts on it?
Speaker 7: So obviously, on one hand, AI is good because of
Speaker 7: all of the computing that it's able to do and
Speaker 7: all the innovations that could feataily be Obviously it's also
Speaker 7: it could also be bad because, as you said, it
Speaker 7: can be taking.
Speaker 3: A lot of jobs away from Americans.
Speaker 2: However, at this moment, at least where AI is and
Speaker 2: where at least the robots even are currently, at least
Speaker 2: they're are some jobs that it won't be able to
Speaker 2: take away.
Speaker 3: Right, So, welding is it like.
Speaker 8: You know, being out in the fields, because going to
Speaker 8: require a real person that's you're not really going to
Speaker 8: have a robot that's going to be able to you know,
Speaker 8: be on the pipeline for sixteen.
Speaker 2: Hours a day or you know, in water rain whatever.
Speaker 2: So I mean, at least there are some jobs that
Speaker 2: will be less affected. I mean, there are plenty of
Speaker 2: welding jobs that use AI or that will use robots
Speaker 2: because obviously you can have a robots quote unquote hand
Speaker 2: will never will be much more steady than a normal person's.
Speaker 2: But there are still things that the human is able
Speaker 2: to do whether it's computing, angle, speed, et cetera, that
Speaker 2: at least as of this moment, it can't do.
Speaker 1: You haven't seen robotic welders yet, have you?
Speaker 3: No? I have not.
Speaker 1: They are it's about scale, right, so like most auto
Speaker 1: manufacturers are using robotic welders, right, And I'm with you.
Speaker 1: It depends on the type of welding being used and
Speaker 1: all of that. I saw a it was a CGI.
Speaker 1: It fucking may have been AI video as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, that showed a pipeline welder. And when I
Speaker 1: say pipeline, I mean like the oil pipeline, like that
Speaker 1: type of welding being done by a massive robot, and
Speaker 1: that was something that they were trying to bring to
Speaker 1: the main surface here soon. It's what they're able to
Speaker 1: make technology do when programmed the right way, is scary. Now.
Speaker 1: I agree with you that at this exact moment in time,
Speaker 1: we're still secure in a lot of these jobs. But
Speaker 1: how far away is that? Really? One year, three five
Speaker 1: before these things take over more jobs and it's more
Speaker 1: of like a fab shop type of situation where maybe
Speaker 1: that's the case, right, Maybe only in fabrication would they
Speaker 1: use robots to do this work and not for like
Speaker 1: field work. I could see that as well, but then
Speaker 1: you're taking away jobs from the fab shop. It's yeah,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Raven. What you got.
Speaker 5: There is that's the thing you're talking about. Like the neuralink,
Speaker 5: Like they have multiple robots they've developed that, Like you
Speaker 5: can be sitting in your room and like you're neuralink
Speaker 5: to it and it's out doing the work for you
Speaker 5: in a separate area. You're controlling it via your brain power.
Speaker 5: So like, realistically, it's the more that they come up
Speaker 5: with stuff, like they have the new one that has
Speaker 5: more dexterity and it's stronger and everything else, and it's
Speaker 5: like able to do all sorts of stuff like why
Speaker 5: would you have a human that has air when you
Speaker 5: have a computer that has zero air on pipe line,
Speaker 5: Like it can compute faster than we can even compute,
Speaker 5: and then it has a zero percent you know, rate
Speaker 5: of not getting it wrong. So I mean, I think
Speaker 5: right now we're safe, but like as it continues to develop,
Speaker 5: like they are developing all over the world for all
Speaker 5: different things. They had the they have that whole hospital
Speaker 5: in China that they are testing with just the AI robots,
Speaker 5: and then they have their testing it on the kids
Speaker 5: to be their teachers, and they're they had that one
Speaker 5: that just attacked that lady in the crowd and they
Speaker 5: had to like pull it back. I don't know if
Speaker 5: you saw that video.
Speaker 1: I have not where.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so it went rogue and they pulled it back
Speaker 5: and they were like, oh ha ha ha, it was
Speaker 5: just playing and I was like, okay, that was like
Speaker 5: it really did try to attack the lady. It like
Speaker 5: malfunctioned quote unquote. But the one that's scary is the
Speaker 5: new one. It has all like the muscles and stuff.
Speaker 5: It's like really creepy looking that one is. But they
Speaker 5: have all the ones that they want to introduce into
Speaker 5: the houses, like the I think the new models are
Speaker 5: coming out this year to be able to be purchased
Speaker 5: by like normal people. And I mean seeing they're going
Speaker 5: to try to replace everyone in everything to where we're
Speaker 5: just existing with AI.
Speaker 1: So in my limited experience with dealing with automation and
Speaker 1: jobs being taken and stuff like that, so the place
Speaker 1: I used to work at, to load a palette full
Speaker 1: of fifty pound bags of sugar throwing it out, you
Speaker 1: used to have people that would load these palettes by
Speaker 1: hand right, that's bag breaking labor, and that sucks. It's
Speaker 1: dumb grunt work, like one hundred percent. Now we got
Speaker 1: robots and automated equipment and palatizers to do the work
Speaker 1: for us, and we got a stretch trap machine to
Speaker 1: stretch trap it all down whenever the time came, and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and the people that worked there were
Speaker 1: not in fear of losing their job because you still
Speaker 1: needed people to work the machine. And when the machine
Speaker 1: would screw things up because it inevit inevitably does. We
Speaker 1: are in an imperfect world, and all that you needed
Speaker 1: people to be able to operate it and get it
Speaker 1: back up to snow. Okay, great, that's excellent. But with
Speaker 1: more innovation coming, like you said, it's gonna become more
Speaker 1: perfect and less likely to have fuck ups. And then
Speaker 1: we're gonna get to a point to where we have
Speaker 1: maintenance robots to fix the manufacturing robots. It's like the
Speaker 1: future is now. Honestly, again, I don't see this going
Speaker 1: more than only a few years. It's about scalability. Could
Speaker 1: we have a good decade left of manpower in the workforce? Possibly?
Speaker 1: Is that likely? Time will tell, So what's the end goal?
Speaker 3: So what's the end goal?
Speaker 2: So let's just say, so, let's just think for a second,
Speaker 2: hypothetically twenty years in the future.
Speaker 3: So then are they trying to be where where do
Speaker 3: we fit in in general? I mean, like as far
Speaker 3: as far as as far as workforce, you know, just
Speaker 3: like like uh, I think Wally right the movie where.
Speaker 2: Right, like they people just kind of got fat and
Speaker 2: lazy because they just don't wan I'm doing anything in
Speaker 2: the and the robots just you know, trying to take over.
Speaker 8: That seems like human innovation would be nil as that moment,
Speaker 8: and that just that doesn't seem.
Speaker 3: Like it would be a good place, Like how are
Speaker 3: how are we supposed to make money as of that moment?
Speaker 3: It's everything is supposed to be going back to socialism
Speaker 3: and communism to.
Speaker 2: Where every everybody gets equal to are you know whatever
Speaker 2: the AI says, like what's the end goal?
Speaker 3: I think that we don't work for a living.
Speaker 1: I think you pretty much just said what the end
Speaker 1: goal is, honestly, is that they eventually want to antiquate humans.
Speaker 1: I'm not I don't believe that they are trying to
Speaker 1: get all of us to upload our subconscious minds into robots.
Speaker 1: And have that happen, Although there are people that are
Speaker 1: definitely trying to go that way into the full on
Speaker 1: transhumanism movement. And I don't mean trans is in the
Speaker 1: sexual orientation. I mean trans is in like bionics and
Speaker 1: robots that are operating with what some would call a
Speaker 1: human soul. There are those that believe that I am
Speaker 1: not one of them. I am of the belief that
Speaker 1: they are absolutely trying to get us back to where
Speaker 1: we rely on the government and the system quote unquote
Speaker 1: whether you know, name whatever system you want to go
Speaker 1: off of here, that humanity will be forced to rely
Speaker 1: on the system for everything, and at that point, what
Speaker 1: are we but slaves and meat bags? A raven go ahead.
Speaker 5: I actually think that they're going to push for space
Speaker 5: exploration and using the human workforce as going to Mars,
Speaker 5: establishing colonies there, because they've already been pushing hard for
Speaker 5: people to be going to Mars soon. I think that
Speaker 5: if the world is being ran by AI, that means
Speaker 5: that it gives them the opportunity to take us there
Speaker 5: and like to push us further out, because that's been
Speaker 5: the whole talk is, you know, how far can we go?
Speaker 5: Can we establish a colony or colonies, how far can
Speaker 5: we go into space? Like, I don't think that's out
Speaker 5: of the realm of question. I mean, maybe they'll use
Speaker 5: the AI to go that way, or they.
Speaker 1: Why not send the robots to Mars. They're way more
Speaker 1: adept to operating in an atmosphere with no air, you know.
Speaker 5: Maybe they use them instead of us. Maybe they're trying
Speaker 5: to just get them to work better down here and
Speaker 5: then use them. I don't know, but I think I
Speaker 5: think expanding what humans can do and can't do, I
Speaker 5: think is the angle of that. Either way, I think
Speaker 5: we're going to be used as cannon fodder and just
Speaker 5: you know, we're just here existing in the elite world.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I'm with you. I don't really know
Speaker 1: what the overarching end goal is to the elite's royce.
Speaker 1: To answer your question, I have a bunch of theories,
Speaker 1: and so does pretty much everybody else on the internet. Right,
Speaker 1: but it seems to be going in that direction, and
Speaker 1: regardless of what exactly that end goal looks like, it
Speaker 1: looks bad for humans as a whole. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I would also I'm very curious to see as far
Speaker 1: as the war fighting front goes what robotics will look
Speaker 1: like in that regard. Not to go terminator here, but
Speaker 1: as we have more and more battlegrounds opening up and
Speaker 1: springing up all over the world right now, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about robots being used in the house for household
Speaker 1: items and doing these type to things, It's like, how
Speaker 1: far away are we from the movie I Robot? You know?
Speaker 1: And then once we're at that point, does America need
Speaker 1: a military or what? We just have battalions of robots
Speaker 1: straight up clone war type shit. I mean, I don't know,
Speaker 1: because at that point, what would be the point of
Speaker 1: having our sons and daughters go to the front line
Speaker 1: when we can send these robotics of lights and clockwork
Speaker 1: that are ran by AI that never miss a shot.
Speaker 1: I mean, in theory that sounds badass. On the other
Speaker 1: side of that, what's to stop one of them from
Speaker 1: going on the fritz and declaring war on everything around them,
Speaker 1: including us? I don't know. I don't know what the
Speaker 1: end goal is, but I know that it is not
Speaker 1: positive for humanity. Speaking of things that are not necessarily
Speaker 1: positive for humanity, here is from Al Jazeera which I
Speaker 1: need to make a mention of this. I tried pulling
Speaker 1: up an Al Jazeera article on what was it? There
Speaker 1: was a there's another talking point I wanted to bring
Speaker 1: up here in just a second. Uh oh yeah, if NATO,
Speaker 1: we'll be able to defeat Russia without the United States.
Speaker 1: There was a brilliant Al Jazeera article on it, and
Speaker 1: they wouldn't let me open it up on this server.
Speaker 1: Google would not let me open it. Duck duck Go
Speaker 1: would allow me to open on my phone. When I
Speaker 1: tried to airdrop it to my computer, it would not
Speaker 1: let me open it, but it will let me open
Speaker 1: an Al Jazeera article on the Israeli conflict. Found that
Speaker 1: to be very interesting. But we already know that the
Speaker 1: Internet is absolutely shadow banning things and you know, saying
Speaker 1: what we can and cannot see. So here we have
Speaker 1: here updates on the Israeli demands for demilitarization of Gaza.
Speaker 1: Arab blah blah blah. Jesus, I can't speak. Arab leaders
Speaker 1: adopt a plan. So here's what's happening today. Arab countries
Speaker 1: have unanimously agreed on a scheme for Gaza's reconstruction in
Speaker 1: an emergency summit in Cairo. Hamas has welcomed the gathering
Speaker 1: and the adoption of the Egyptian proposed plan for reconstruction.
Speaker 1: Israel claims that the results of the summit fails to
Speaker 1: address the realities of the situation following the October seventh attacks.
Speaker 1: The UN chief Guierrez Gutierrez whatever says that commitments must
Speaker 1: be upheild and implemented in full regarding the Gaza cease
Speaker 1: fire deal, and also the Palestinian Civil Defense says it
Speaker 1: recovered forty eight bodies in an ad hoc mass grave
Speaker 1: near Camal Adwin Hospital in northern Gaza. So as already
Speaker 1: discussed and known about, the situation is messi It's messy
Speaker 1: as hell, but you know, let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: Israeli forces tear down This was three hours ago. Israeli
Speaker 1: forces tear down a raid. A town near tul Karim
Speaker 1: occupied on the west bank Alba shak Aksaraki's shar Kiyas
Speaker 1: Yeah has been stormed by Israeli troops. The Waffa News
Speaker 1: agency reports. Local sources told the agency that soldiers deployed
Speaker 1: in the streets, specifically in that neighborhood and searched vehicles
Speaker 1: without any arrest being reported. Drones were heard flying at
Speaker 1: low altituits over the community. Next. This was three hours ago.
Speaker 1: Hesbela struggles with the new relationship to state In post
Speaker 1: war Lebanon, Hesbela railed thousands of its supporters for the
Speaker 1: funeral of its longtime leader Hassan Nasraala, who was killed
Speaker 1: in an Israeli airstrike in September, because yeah, he was
Speaker 1: and that's a good thing. However, analysts told Al Jazeera,
Speaker 1: the show of strength does not make up for the
Speaker 1: impact of Israel's war against Hesbela, which saw much of
Speaker 1: the group's top leadership killed and a significant portion of
Speaker 1: its military arsenal reportedly destroyed. Again, this will be a
Speaker 1: good thing. They are an internationally recognized terrorist organization in Israel.
Speaker 1: Just crippled them, So yeah, that's a good thing. And
Speaker 1: Hassan Israela was also a massive piece of shit. Here
Speaker 1: we have four hours ago. Of course, Hamas praises attempted
Speaker 1: attack on Israeli troops, no doubt. A statement by the
Speaker 1: group comes after a man was shot dead in Israeli
Speaker 1: forces near the illegal Israeli settlement of Homesh in the
Speaker 1: Occupied West Bank yesterday. The group called Ahmad muffed al
Speaker 1: Khalani Jesus, I cannot pronounce these names whatsoever. A heroic martyr.
Speaker 1: He was eighteen, by the way, saying that the attempted
Speaker 1: attack confirmed that resistance will not stop until we achieve
Speaker 1: our goals. The Palestinian Health Ministry said Al Kalani was
Speaker 1: killed near the Homesh checkpoint between the cities of Nabilis
Speaker 1: and Janine. What are their goals? You might ask, Camas
Speaker 1: is not going to stop until they get their goals
Speaker 1: met and all these things. Look, this is an uncomfortable
Speaker 1: thing to say. An insurgency can only be defeated in
Speaker 1: one way, and that's not pretty. There's nothing heroic or
Speaker 1: pretty about what it takes. A war with belligerents can
Speaker 1: be ended with paperwork and with agreements made and with
Speaker 1: deals being struck to defeat an insurgency. There's no nice
Speaker 1: way for me to say this eradication. That is the
Speaker 1: only way to get rid of it. You could look
Speaker 1: at the IRA, for instance, who I'm not necessarily saying
Speaker 1: I do or don't support, but just throwing it out.
Speaker 1: When the IRA signed the peace deals, that should have
Speaker 1: been the end of it. Yet somehow we still have
Speaker 1: bombings and shootings going on and Belfast why Because an
Speaker 1: insurgency is ideas and the only way you're gonna kill
Speaker 1: an idea is to eradicate those that are spouting it. Now.
Speaker 1: I am not in favor of genocide by any means,
Speaker 1: but Hamas is not gonna stop. They may go more underground.
Speaker 1: They you know, they may pull the victim card, as
Speaker 1: they did. They started this shit allegedly. I know people
Speaker 1: are gonna say, well, no, they did in Israel started
Speaker 1: look look look the attack on October seventh, Green led
Speaker 1: them to get wrecked. Then they got so wrecked that
Speaker 1: they started going to social media and playing the victim card.
Speaker 1: This hard to where now people have sympathy for Hamas.
Speaker 1: The terrorists sell this, this will be like having sympathy
Speaker 1: for al Qaeda. It's it blows my mind, But the
Speaker 1: world population listens more to social media than they due
Speaker 1: to the people on the ground that were actually fighting it.
Speaker 1: On the call to conspiracy, we have a guy that
Speaker 1: actually was on the front lines. He came on our
Speaker 1: show as a guest. He's an Israeli guy. He told
Speaker 1: us exactly what was going on, and it didn't sound fun.
Speaker 1: It sounded like they fully saw this as a fight
Speaker 1: for Israel's future. If they don't take out all Hamas now,
Speaker 1: they'll just regrow themselves and be back in action here soon.
Speaker 1: With that in mind, Hamas also grew ten thousand strong
Speaker 1: in the last month. How and why, you might ask,
Speaker 1: because they took their foot off of their necks and
Speaker 1: allowed them to repopulate and refill their ranks. I'm war
Speaker 1: as hell, y'all, war's absolute hell. Let's see. Civil Defense
Speaker 1: recovers forty eight bodies in Gaza. The group says in
Speaker 1: a statement on telegram that the bodies were discovered in
Speaker 1: an ad hoc mask grave near Kamal Adwan Hospital in
Speaker 1: northern Gaza. The grouping includes twenty two unknown bodies, the
Speaker 1: rescue organization said, adding that all will be buried in
Speaker 1: the Salt solateen Cemetery in bait Leahea. Additionally, our teams
Speaker 1: have recovered the remains of a martyr from beneath the
Speaker 1: rubble of a house belonging to the Katib family near
Speaker 1: the Islamic University in western Gaza City. The statement added.
Speaker 1: You notice they didn't mention that they were women and children.
Speaker 1: If they were, they would have made a mention of that,
Speaker 1: because they love pulling on the heartstrings whenever they're trying
Speaker 1: to make Israel the bad guys, right, Instead, they just
Speaker 1: said it was twenty two unknown bodies and an unmarked grave.
Speaker 1: This was probably twenty two enemy combatants that got got
Speaker 1: and yeah, they just kind of threw them in a
Speaker 1: mask pit and moved on with their day. Now. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's somebody that's going to be spewing about how
Speaker 1: this is an infringement on the Geneva Convention or something
Speaker 1: like that. But again, you you know, would Hamas give
Speaker 1: the Israelis time to properly bury their dead. I'm stowing
Speaker 1: it out here. A white elephant in the room at
Speaker 1: the Arab League summit, Al Jazeera senior political analyst Marwan
Speaker 1: Bashira has highlighted that the core issue in the Middle
Speaker 1: East is not a Palestine problem, it's an Israel problem,
Speaker 1: and here we go. Bajar suggested that the real elephant
Speaker 1: in the room is a white elephant, a concept referring
Speaker 1: to a losing investment. Watched his comments below. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna play that. That's just ridiculous. Israeli forces attack football
Speaker 1: fans and occupy West Bank's Ni Lynn report. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. As expected here, this is all going
Speaker 1: to be very anti Israel, but I did want to
Speaker 1: read this one. In particular, US welcomes Arab summit on Gaza.
Speaker 1: The White House says it welcomes input from the Arab nations,
Speaker 1: but that Hamas cannot remain in power in the Strip.
Speaker 1: President Trump has been clear that Hamas cannot continue to
Speaker 1: governing Gaza. White House National Secretary Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said,
Speaker 1: while the President stands by his bold vision for a
Speaker 1: post war Gaza, he welcomes input from our Arab partners
Speaker 1: in the region. It's clear his proposals have driven the
Speaker 1: region to come to the table rather than allow this
Speaker 1: issue to develop into further crisis. Trump's proposal, which has
Speaker 1: been roundly rejected by the international community, call for Palestinians
Speaker 1: to be permanently removed from Gaza and for the development
Speaker 1: of the territory into a riviera resort. Okay, So this
Speaker 1: whole situation in Israel, Yeah, it seems like there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a ceasefire happening. People go back on the ceasefire,
Speaker 1: then they say that deals are going to be made.
Speaker 1: The deals aren't exactly made. Now they're trying to call
Speaker 1: and help from their Arab neighbors, when in reality, Trump
Speaker 1: is saying the same thing. He wants the Arab neighbors
Speaker 1: to take them so that they could rebuild the area.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the whole Riviera thing is actually
Speaker 1: gonna happen or not. I know Trump says a lot
Speaker 1: of things that again, the people that are listening that
Speaker 1: hate him are gonna hate everything he says no matter
Speaker 1: what he says. I think rebuilding it into some sort
Speaker 1: of a resort spot would be cool. I don't know
Speaker 1: with what funding and what way he plans on doing that,
Speaker 1: But okay, that's a flex. But that's not gonna happen
Speaker 1: as long as AMAS remains in power and while Hamas
Speaker 1: is still operating. Long story short, Yeah, I just I
Speaker 1: don't see it being a pretty conclusion of this situation.
Speaker 1: I also am really happy that nobody is talking about
Speaker 1: getting US troops involved in it. That makes me very
Speaker 1: very happy, very much the same way that I don't
Speaker 1: want US troops to get involved in Ukraine. The US
Speaker 1: needs to worry about us things right now. I think
Speaker 1: we can give, you know, thoughts and prayers and support
Speaker 1: and try our best to try to make deals happen.
Speaker 1: I don't want us to get involved in the military
Speaker 1: place whatsoever this time, but y'all feel free to chime
Speaker 1: in on this. I know, I know, Royce, you've got
Speaker 1: a particular standpoint on this one, and I get that.
Speaker 1: But you know.
Speaker 3: For sure, Yeah, what are your.
Speaker 1: Thoughts on the whole Gaza Riviera thing.
Speaker 3: I mean, so I saw the clip or the AI clip.
Speaker 3: I thought it was cute, although, like you know, the
Speaker 3: internet is kind of blowing up with with how ridiculous
Speaker 3: it was it was.
Speaker 2: If you can take some place and make it better,
Speaker 2: I support that.
Speaker 3: If you can. If there's any way to eliminate the
Speaker 3: terrorism that's going on there, that would be cool. I mean,
Speaker 3: having a US presence there, which I guess, or which
Speaker 3: might be a quote unicote neutral party maybe. I don't know,
Speaker 3: as you said, unfortunately, unless the terrorist organizations are rooted
Speaker 3: out and annihilated, which is extremely difficult to do, then
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's possible. Unfortunately. Yeah, that's the
Speaker 3: biggest that's the biggest part.
Speaker 2: You know, as you said, how many peace deals, how
Speaker 2: many cease fires, how many et cetera have been betrayed
Speaker 2: because that's a part of their culture to say, all right,
Speaker 2: well you're allowed to lie to the you know, the infidels,
Speaker 2: Christians use, et cetera. So when you already are trefacing
Speaker 2: everything with hey, well we're going to tell you one thing,
Speaker 2: but we're going to do another, like.
Speaker 1: Come on, yeah. I remember finding that section in the
Speaker 1: Qur'an once upon a time because I had heard that
Speaker 1: and I didn't believe it. But essentially, if a Islamic
Speaker 1: person slash group, slash country signs a deal with an Infidel,
Speaker 1: they feel like they are righteous in going back on
Speaker 1: that deal because they don't have to tell the truth
Speaker 1: to infidels and they don't have to back their word
Speaker 1: to them, and that's just that's a part of their religion.
Speaker 1: Apparently I thought that was a lie. No, that is
Speaker 1: black and white within the Qur'an. So yeah, yeah, and
Speaker 1: again we're not talking about your average Muslim that's just
Speaker 1: out there trying to live their life. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the extremists and that, ma'am. And that's the thing. Let's
Speaker 1: say that you were to eradicate Hamas. Let's just hypothetically speaking,
Speaker 1: with no civilian casualties you were to drop?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: Were those like the the flying bayonets, the Samurai sword
Speaker 1: Jadam that they made right? And it was strategically targeted
Speaker 1: to where it was only bad guys getting killed, and
Speaker 1: you were to take out the entirety of Hamas tonight. Okay, cool.
Speaker 1: All it's going to do is leave a power vacuum
Speaker 1: in that volatile state. And I mean, what's to say
Speaker 1: that Hezbollah would not come in there, What's to say
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't step up. What's to say that
Speaker 1: some other unknown terrorist organization would step up to fill
Speaker 1: that void? You can't. You can't get rid of an ideology.
Speaker 1: And I'm not gonna support genocide, even if it is
Speaker 1: on people that would genocide us. It's it's just it's
Speaker 1: a messy situation and I would like to see a
Speaker 1: two state solution happen. They keep playing this game the
Speaker 1: way they're doing, and that's just gonna get eradicated off
Speaker 1: the table, which is no comment right right?
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: The whole thing. I don't think is is gonna work.
Speaker 1: Not whenever you have people with this type of conviction
Speaker 1: at making it not work and that and that's that's
Speaker 1: just what it's gonna be.
Speaker 3: But there's also a conviction on both sides for sure, obviously,
Speaker 3: so you have the general Jewish belief that in its
Speaker 3: entirety belongs to them us whatever. Obviously, I think that Israel,
Speaker 3: at least to the Israeli government, has tried to capitulate
Speaker 3: and tried to make make deals. But I mean, at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, if it's.
Speaker 2: Not going to work, have them leave, which is what
Speaker 2: I do agree that, or I understand that is not a.
Speaker 3: Popular opinion that I would be talking three minority for
Speaker 3: having some very strong religious opinions about that, and I'll
Speaker 3: take that hit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get that.
Speaker 6: I got a question, why does Israel want Gaza because
Speaker 6: I've seen some ancient maps of Israel and it doesn't
Speaker 6: include Gaza at least in about seven hundred BC. Did
Speaker 6: that ever change at any point seven hundred BC? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Did they?
Speaker 6: I will have Gaza.
Speaker 3: So I need to look at them at to tell you,
Speaker 3: to tell you the truth.
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to I'm going to try not
Speaker 2: to spout things that I don't know, so I will
Speaker 2: have to look at a map and see exactly where
Speaker 2: Gaza is as far as what the borders of what
Speaker 2: the Torah.
Speaker 3: Says, So I don't know off off the top, okay.
Speaker 6: I'm also aware that there is a lot of dispute
Speaker 6: about this whole subject within Judaism as to where the
Speaker 6: borders of greater Israel should be at some point in
Speaker 6: the future, near or distant future. And some of the
Speaker 6: larger concepts of this include definitely Gaza and the Sign
Speaker 6: and I all the way down to the Nile River
Speaker 6: and all the way east to the Euphrates River. I
Speaker 6: think that's kind of crazy, and I think it's not
Speaker 6: a majority opinion. It's more of a fringe opinion. So
Speaker 6: there's definitely people who want it now over there within
Speaker 6: in Israel. But the most ancient maps that I've seen,
Speaker 6: and you know, many pro Israel people post these maps
Speaker 6: because they show the entire west bank Judea, Samaria and
Speaker 6: even a great big chunk of the eastern bank of
Speaker 6: the Jordan River belonging to ancient Israel. But they don't
Speaker 6: show Gaza or Ashdad or Ashkalan in Israel. I don't
Speaker 6: know who would own them at the time, nor Ali
Speaker 6: way down in the South. So yeah, this country, the
Speaker 6: borders move around a lot. Anyway, I'm sort of in
Speaker 6: favor of Trump's full proposal to develop it, even if
Speaker 6: it means kicking people out, and I'm not actually totally
Speaker 6: in favor of it, but to the extent that it's
Speaker 6: forcing all the other Arab countries over there right now
Speaker 6: to say no, no, no, no, no, we want to do
Speaker 6: something else. I think getting as many ideas on the
Speaker 6: table as possible is a good thing. So I guess
Speaker 6: I'm in favor of Trump's proposal a little bit on
Speaker 6: that front. But yeah, that's all I gotta say. It's
Speaker 6: it's a formal situation, and I guess I'll just keep quiet.
Speaker 1: I know I agree with you. It is a horrible situation.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering because again, Trump, being the guy who
Speaker 1: wrote the art of the deal, I'm wondering if that
Speaker 1: was the whole point, if he actually had no intentions
Speaker 1: of Americans coming in there and rebuilding Gaza. But he
Speaker 1: is going to beat that drum until other countries around
Speaker 1: the area are like, wait, no, no, we don't want
Speaker 1: more America over here. We'll we'll do it, We'll step in,
Speaker 1: we'll put we'll foot the bill, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Maybe that's the whole point. Maybe he's maybe he's like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he's tricking him a little bit, give him
Speaker 1: that old tricky dick like that, a little ropodope. I
Speaker 1: am hoping that that's what he's actually doing, because I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not not in favor of America become
Speaker 1: and taking that and making it more like a resort
Speaker 1: town for Americans. But that's just because I like the
Speaker 1: sound of that. For a geopolitical and economic standpoint, that
Speaker 1: makes less than zero percent sense to me. But it
Speaker 1: is making Saudi Arabia step up, It is making the
Speaker 1: Jordanian king step up, it is making Egypt step up,
Speaker 1: and they're all saying now that they want to come
Speaker 1: up with a plan of what to do now, which
Speaker 1: they were not doing last year. So I'm taking it
Speaker 1: to be a net positive. Even though it's Trump kind
Speaker 1: of being a little extra with some of it, I'm
Speaker 1: not too terribly mad about it at the same time,
Speaker 1: So I'm with you on that front as well, Tony.
Speaker 1: All right now, as we are talking about foreign things
Speaker 1: and warfronts and ugly bad situations, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: talk now. ABC News has to chime in. UK Prime
Speaker 1: minister announces framework for peace plan after summit with it's Zelenski.
Speaker 1: So Zelensky basically decided to have a little NATO summit
Speaker 1: that America was not invited to because he's still mad
Speaker 1: about Trump and jd Vance having a little tet to
Speaker 1: tet with him and kicking him out of the White House. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and read about it now. In London,
Speaker 1: European leaders gathered in London on Sunday to meet with
Speaker 1: Ukrainian President Voladimir Zelensky following a tempentious, tempestuous whatever they
Speaker 1: got mad as hell at each other White House meeting
Speaker 1: that thrust the United States Ukrainian relations further into crisis.
Speaker 1: During a news conference following the summit, British Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Keir Starmer said, we have to learn from the mistakes
Speaker 1: of the past and we can't accept a weak deal
Speaker 1: that Russia can break. All European countries must contribute to
Speaker 1: making a strong deal and quote set up their own
Speaker 1: share of the burden or step up their own share
Speaker 1: of the burden and quote, Sturmer said. Starmer outlined a
Speaker 1: plan to support Ukraine, including continue doing the flow of
Speaker 1: aid to Ukraine and keeping up economic pressure on Russia.
Speaker 1: He said, any lasting peace agreement must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty,
Speaker 1: sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at all the
Speaker 1: negotiating table in the event of a deal. Starmer said
Speaker 1: Europe will continue to help Ukraine militarily to delete any
Speaker 1: future military action by Russia. He also said there will
Speaker 1: be a coalition of the willing to help defend Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Says a picture of them, all these European nations, that
Speaker 1: and Canada, and Canada to meet up with Zelenski. It
Speaker 1: doesn't look like he even changed his clothes from when
Speaker 1: he was in the White House. I'm just saying. Starmer
Speaker 1: said the United Kingdom is ready to back the plan
Speaker 1: with boots on the ground and planes in the air.
Speaker 1: He said he also recognizes that not all countries will
Speaker 1: be able to make this kind of commitment boots on
Speaker 1: the ground and planes in the air. Starmer said that
Speaker 1: for a deal to work, it will need strong US backing.
Speaker 1: We are working on a durable peace, Starmer said. When
Speaker 1: asked by a reporter about whether President Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: support the plan's framework, Starmer said he spoke with Trump
Speaker 1: last night and that he wouldn't be going down this
Speaker 1: road if I didn't think it had a chance. Okay.
Speaker 1: Starmar also included a two point two billion pound loan
Speaker 1: about two point seven billion US dollars for Ukraine backed
Speaker 1: by profits from Russian assets, that his government announced on Saturday.
Speaker 1: Zelenski also met with King Charles the Third on Sunday
Speaker 1: at sangrig Sangrigam House, Buckingham Palace. Said real quick, I
Speaker 1: just want to make sure we understood that because Zelensky
Speaker 1: in the Oval Office said that those were not loans,
Speaker 1: that those were gifts from America. The one hundred and
Speaker 1: forty one hundred and fifty billion dollars. Apparently he didn't
Speaker 1: see those as loans. He saw those as gifts and
Speaker 1: government grants. Starmar is saying that he's going to give
Speaker 1: him a two point seven billion dollar loan. I wonder
Speaker 1: if Zelensky understands that that's a loon or is he
Speaker 1: going to try to play that game with the British
Speaker 1: as well. I don't know, but all right, I know
Speaker 1: that was at least one of the sources of contention
Speaker 1: when they had their little meeting in the Oval Office.
Speaker 1: In a statement release Sunday evening, Zelenski thanked the European
Speaker 1: leaders for the London summit, saying we are discussing with
Speaker 1: our partner security guarantees and the conditions for a just
Speaker 1: piece for Ukraine. Zelensky said a series of important meetings
Speaker 1: are being prepared for the near future. In a special
Speaker 1: European Council meeting a scheduled for Thursday to discuss Ukraine,
Speaker 1: to which Kelensky has been invited, I should think so.
Speaker 1: We feel strong support for Ukraine, for our people, both
Speaker 1: soldiers and civilians, and our independent Zelensky said, Together we
Speaker 1: are working in Europe to establish a solid foundation for
Speaker 1: cooperation with the United States in pursuit of true peace
Speaker 1: and guaranteed security. Okay, before I read anymore, I have
Speaker 1: tried to scrounge up any bit of backstory that I
Speaker 1: can to what's going on here, because the over under
Speaker 1: of it, the grand scheme of shit, says that America
Speaker 1: wants to make a mineral deal with Ukraine. And they're
Speaker 1: not talking about a military mineral deal. They're saying we're
Speaker 1: gonna set up American corporations in Ukraine. Basically new age imperialism,
Speaker 1: corporatocracy the like, which that's what America does. We like money,
Speaker 1: We really like making money. That's like our whole shit
Speaker 1: that in war, right, We're trying to not go the
Speaker 1: war route this time. If hypothetically America was to set
Speaker 1: up mining companies and drilling operations and all these things
Speaker 1: around Ukraine, around that area Whererussia's currently pushing, Russia would
Speaker 1: stop pushing because they wouldn't dare fuck up an American
Speaker 1: company in Ukraine because that would be considered an active war.
Speaker 1: And Putin and Trump don't want to get into it
Speaker 1: with each other. They don't They're not like beefing like that.
Speaker 1: They're cool. So that could potentially force a peace and
Speaker 1: then into this war in a non military way. Zelensky
Speaker 1: is saying, You're not going to set up mining operations
Speaker 1: until I have some sort of a security guarantee. And
Speaker 1: I understand his reasons for this. Essentially he is saying that, like, okay, cool,
Speaker 1: You're only in office for the next four years. The
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Okay, so you're saying for the next four
Speaker 1: years things will be chill. I can understand that, But
Speaker 1: what's to say that the next administration won't come in
Speaker 1: and be weak, and then Russia will just go back
Speaker 1: on their ceasefire like they've done multiple times. So they
Speaker 1: want a guarantee that no matter who's in the Oval office,
Speaker 1: this won't happen. Trump can't make that promise because he's
Speaker 1: only going to be in office for another few years.
Speaker 1: So it's like both sides want the same thing, but
Speaker 1: it's about timing and who can trust who At this point,
Speaker 1: I think that's about the overarching theme here, Tony. I
Speaker 1: know you're you're pretty invested in this conversation, so please
Speaker 1: chime in.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I wish I knew more about the minerals angle,
Speaker 6: but I did hear a story recently from a couple
Speaker 6: places that the UK has already made some deal with
Speaker 6: the Zelensky government to take advantage of a lot of
Speaker 6: the mineral resources in Ukraine, and that means that the
Speaker 6: US can get those minerals either. So that's another part
Speaker 6: of the reason why Zelenski can't give him to Trump,
Speaker 6: or he doesn't want to. I had not heard the
Speaker 6: whole theory that if you get a bunch of US
Speaker 6: companies there, that would be a deterrent to for their
Speaker 6: Russian incursions, But that makes sense. I hadn't considered that angle.
Speaker 6: It's kind of like I don't know, though, because when
Speaker 6: it comes to oil, there's joint ventures all over the world,
Speaker 6: and sometimes the US or a US company has some
Speaker 6: limited footprint in it, but it's always a co owner,
Speaker 6: a co owner with some other national oil company like
Speaker 6: Petro Ecuador for example. Chevron did a bunch down there.
Speaker 6: I know this is a bit far afield.
Speaker 1: No, No, we're speaking the same language. You're a big down.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but I'm with Scott Horton. Just screw the minerals
Speaker 6: and get a peace agreement. And I don't know why
Speaker 6: Trump is so focused on this mineral deal. I guess
Speaker 6: I just don't know enough about it. Maybe Trump has
Speaker 6: friends telling them that you need to get this mineral deal.
Speaker 6: We need the the amrisium or something that's not even
Speaker 6: a naturally occurring element, I don't think, but he's telling it.
Speaker 6: He's getting told we need this, And yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 6: I'm more along the lines of just just make peace
Speaker 6: and let the chips fall where they may. As far
Speaker 6: as Zelenski goes, I don't think he's really in charge
Speaker 6: of that country. I think he's actually being threatened by
Speaker 6: all kinds of other people there, including the far Western nationalists.
Speaker 6: I read early on that they were the ones who
Speaker 6: wanted this war a lot more than he did, and
Speaker 6: they threatened to actually assassinate him if he didn't prosecute
Speaker 6: a serious war with Russia. Right, because these Western Ukrainian nationalists,
Speaker 6: in my opinion, are just insane, and they have just
Speaker 6: as exaggerated a view of their own abilities as the
Speaker 6: most pro Russian propaganda at the beginning of the war
Speaker 6: that it would be over in two weeks or three
Speaker 6: days or whatever it was. Everyone gets into these wars
Speaker 6: too optimistically, or you know, all sides have a lot
Speaker 6: of optimism, because there has to be a belief that
Speaker 6: you're gonna win. And that's why even in World War
Speaker 6: One one hundred years ago, everyone thought, or everyone said,
Speaker 6: that we'll all be home by Christmas, and obviously my
Speaker 6: side's gonna win, and nobody won for four years.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, so.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah. Anything else specifically going on over there, I
Speaker 6: can't remember anything more recently than the big White House
Speaker 6: argument from.
Speaker 1: To kind of break down the mineral conversation. It's this
Speaker 1: is gonna get We're going to the macro here and
Speaker 1: then circling back to the micro. So the conflict minerals
Speaker 1: in question, America does not want to have to go
Speaker 1: to China to buy them, right, so most of them
Speaker 1: we go to Africa for. And the Congo is like
Speaker 1: our primary suspect in that regard. The Congo has got
Speaker 1: some shit going on there right now, a full ethnic
Speaker 1: cleansing as a matter of fact, I know it's in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not just the Congo.
Speaker 3: I get right.
Speaker 6: The DRC is the big one, and the Republic of
Speaker 6: Congo is like a third the size to its northwest right.
Speaker 1: But aside from the conflict that's going on in all
Speaker 1: of that section of the continent right now. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, Rwanda's got shit going on. South Africa
Speaker 1: has i was I was. I said this before and
Speaker 1: people got mad at me for saying that the racial
Speaker 1: relations in South Africa aren't what they are they are.
Speaker 1: They're full on trying to genocidally get rid of the
Speaker 1: white Africanas in South Africa right now. It's not to
Speaker 1: genocide scale right now, but the attacks on the white
Speaker 1: farmers have not slowed down. They have gone up exponentially,
Speaker 1: but neither here nor there that section of Africa, aside
Speaker 1: from the conflicts, their mineral reserves and those minds are
Speaker 1: starting to get tapped. I'm not saying they're completely out.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that they only have a few more years
Speaker 1: before they will only be allowing so much to leave
Speaker 1: their country. Therefore, we will be stuck going to China
Speaker 1: for these mineral reserves and things like that, or other
Speaker 1: countries that are not exactly our homies. That being said,
Speaker 1: if hypothetically we were to set up a mining operation
Speaker 1: in Ukraine for a lot of the minerals that we
Speaker 1: would go to China for, that gives us a better
Speaker 1: playing field, that gives us better leverage. And to your
Speaker 1: point about having like a co op situation, one hundred
Speaker 1: percent the same way as Chevron in the Congo. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it was fifty one percent owned
Speaker 1: by the Congolese forty nine percent owned by America. Even
Speaker 1: though America was the American company, I should say Chevron
Speaker 1: was the one footing the bill and putting in the
Speaker 1: infrastructure all of that, But like fifty one percent of
Speaker 1: the jobs had to be done by the Congolese. Even
Speaker 1: if they were just show up jobs, and in their opinion,
Speaker 1: you had made it. If you had a job where
Speaker 1: you were inside with air conditioning, where you could go
Speaker 1: online shop on Amazon all day. Didn't matter if you
Speaker 1: did your job or not, as long as you had
Speaker 1: a job with internet. Oh bro, you were somebody in
Speaker 1: that area. I remember my buddy in the oil field,
Speaker 1: tell me all about it. That being said, if it
Speaker 1: was a Ukrainian co op and Ukraine owned fifty one
Speaker 1: percent of the mind sixty percent of the mines whatever,
Speaker 1: and America owned forty of it, and we still got
Speaker 1: cut rate prices on the minerals, that is still a
Speaker 1: really good strategic foothold. That being said, Ukraine doesn't have
Speaker 1: endless amounts of these mineral reserves, and they're already striking
Speaker 1: deals with all these other countries who are probably making
Speaker 1: the same type of deal that we're talking about right now,
Speaker 1: Britain being one of them. That being said, if and
Speaker 1: I don't think the same thing with the Chevron and Congo,
Speaker 1: an enemy state wouldn't attack those oil fields in the
Speaker 1: Congo if they're owned by an American company, because now
Speaker 1: you're going to start corporate war, which will bleed into
Speaker 1: political war because corporatetocracy and is they're connected, they are intertwined.
Speaker 1: That's just how it works. That would be at least
Speaker 1: a hope, right. I wouldn't say that would work one
Speaker 1: hundred percent, but it would be a hope that American
Speaker 1: minds in Ukraine wouldn't be attacked and perhaps the Russian
Speaker 1: forces would steer away from them, or maybe just stop altogether.
Speaker 1: Maybe America could strike a deal with Russia and you know,
Speaker 1: maybe sell some of those minerals, because Ukraine and Russia
Speaker 1: will never have good relations again. But bab Bab, I
Speaker 1: get it, fine. But it's the same way that everybody
Speaker 1: thought the Russian and myself included for the record, thought
Speaker 1: that the Russian economy was like three steps away from
Speaker 1: collapsing at every conceivable step of this conflict. No, they
Speaker 1: just sold to people that had no dog in that fight.
Speaker 1: India and China have been propping up their country this
Speaker 1: whole time, and those Russian ships with full of oil that, oh,
Speaker 1: we can't buy Russian oil here. They just painted over
Speaker 1: the side of the boat that said Russian numbers. That
Speaker 1: was it. And then they still soul to countries who
Speaker 1: weren't allowed to do deals with Russia. They still bought
Speaker 1: Russian oil, they just claimed it wasn't Russian oil. It
Speaker 1: was like freelance oil at that point, or through some
Speaker 1: sort of a third party or some shit like that.
Speaker 1: So we could hypothetically make this a win win for everybody.
Speaker 1: Ukraine gets more mining infrastructure paid for by America, we
Speaker 1: get the minerals. Russia gets to pay for the minerals
Speaker 1: not you know, maybe not at the same cut rate deal.
Speaker 1: But if we're trying to make things amicable, perhaps we
Speaker 1: could cut them on a deal. Like I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: it's it is a wise business move, but Zelensky is
Speaker 1: not interested in the business side of it. He is
Speaker 1: being pushed by, like you said, the Western extremists. I
Speaker 1: just recently heard a story of how corrupt Ukraine is. Okay,
Speaker 1: and this is I'm not gonna be able to remember
Speaker 1: the guy's names or anything like that, but bear with me.
Speaker 1: This was twenty fifteen or twenty sixteen. I forget this
Speaker 1: American guy. He's mayor to a woman who was from Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Cool cool, and he decided he wanted to help out
Speaker 1: his brother in law, who was living in Ukraine at
Speaker 1: the time with a business venture. They were going to
Speaker 1: open up the first gas station car wash combination type
Speaker 1: of thing in Ukraine or whatever the case. Maybe it
Speaker 1: was in They're oblast, I don't know, whatever it was.
Speaker 1: It was like the first thing that like that to
Speaker 1: happen in that area. Cool things. So he fronted some money.
Speaker 1: They had built it, they bought the land, built the
Speaker 1: building and all this stuff. A Ukrainian guy sued them
Speaker 1: for basically he said, no, you didn't buy that land,
Speaker 1: that's my land. I'm gonna sue you for it. And
Speaker 1: he bribed the local judge to rule in his favor,
Speaker 1: which is totally a thing that happens there. So the
Speaker 1: American calls up his lawyer and is like, Okay, what
Speaker 1: do I have to do. He's like, dude, it's so
Speaker 1: corrupt here, here's what you have to do. You're gonna
Speaker 1: have to go one step up and bribe a judge
Speaker 1: to overrule that ruling. So he did. It wasn't like
Speaker 1: the local, you know, city judge. He went to like, uh,
Speaker 1: I guess the equivocal ble of our like state judge.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they call their states, oblo, I
Speaker 1: think I don't know Oblasti. Anyway, he bribed that judge
Speaker 1: twenty five k and he did he ruled it in favor.
Speaker 1: The guy who sued them for the land then goes
Speaker 1: to the Ukrainian Supreme Court and bribed one of their
Speaker 1: judges to ruin his favor. The next step would have
Speaker 1: been for this guy to find a Ukrainian Supreme Court
Speaker 1: judge with more stroke to countersue that and win. Instead,
Speaker 1: he just washed his hands of it and said, fine,
Speaker 1: fuck it, he won. I'm not doing this to the
Speaker 1: end of time here. That is how business gets done
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. That being said, Zelenski has those types of
Speaker 1: people that are on his ass to continue this war
Speaker 1: because so many people have gotten rich off of this war,
Speaker 1: literal blood money. But business doesn't care about that. Business
Speaker 1: is business, so it would make more business sense for
Speaker 1: Zelensky to take the deal that America is offering them.
Speaker 1: And instead he basically is throwing up middle fingers and
Speaker 1: he is expecting NATO countries to come to his aid
Speaker 1: and come to his defense and back him and try
Speaker 1: to win this war, which is mathematically at this time unwinnable.
Speaker 1: I don't even see an option where Russia wins this
Speaker 1: aside from them taking over the entirety of Ukraine, maybe
Speaker 1: that would be considered quote unquote a win. But again,
Speaker 1: at that point, it's more like a pyrrhic victory.
Speaker 6: Right, And the Russians definitely wouldn't want to do that.
Speaker 6: It would be very unwelcome in most of Ukraine, except
Speaker 6: for the four disputed oblasty that they've mostly taken so far.
Speaker 6: But I was just thinking a lot on the lines
Speaker 6: of what you were just saying, Why does a war
Speaker 6: like this happen when there's so many losers? But the
Speaker 6: reason it happens is that there's some winners, and there's
Speaker 6: different business interests and media interests and political interests that
Speaker 6: will try to come out ahead in a crisis like this.
Speaker 6: This is a large part of why World War One happened,
Speaker 6: and it's the large part of I think in our lifetimes.
Speaker 6: The biggest analog would have been the COVID panic. Why
Speaker 6: would we want to shut down our economy for one
Speaker 6: hundred for trillion dollars a month in the early months, Well,
Speaker 6: a lot of people did benefit from it. There were
Speaker 6: concentrated benefits.
Speaker 1: To More billionaires were created during the twenty twenty than
Speaker 1: ever before in human history, when economies were collapsing somehow
Speaker 1: there were billionaires being created.
Speaker 6: It was insane, and everyone felt like they had to
Speaker 6: go along with it, because you're a good person if
Speaker 6: you go along with it, and you're a bad person
Speaker 6: if you don't. And there's the same kind of moralizing
Speaker 6: about wars, in particular the First World War or the
Speaker 6: Ukraine War. Yeah, that's how you regiment to everybody to
Speaker 6: go along with a bad idea.
Speaker 1: And I don't believe that Trump is trying to continue
Speaker 1: the bad ideas. I think he's trying to find some
Speaker 1: sort of a there's no win win scenario here, but
Speaker 1: this is about as close as they're gonna get, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I could be wrong. I could
Speaker 1: be so wrong here.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's been so much better than I expected, though,
Speaker 6: honestly so.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing. Because it's Trump doing it, and
Speaker 1: because he's a dick, everything he says sounds like he's
Speaker 1: being an asshole. There's like five d chess being played,
Speaker 1: but people are going off of the initial thing he's saying,
Speaker 1: rather than looking at what the not necessarily the blowback
Speaker 1: will be on that, but how these dominoes will fall
Speaker 1: you know, the same way. So I'm abolishing the IRS.
Speaker 1: I am currently of the that he's not actually gonna
Speaker 1: abolish the IRS. He's going to threaten it to the
Speaker 1: point to where they will pass new legislation to lessen
Speaker 1: the tax burden on the people, which is what we
Speaker 1: initially wanted anyway. Right Like on pawn Stars, you'll see Rick,
Speaker 1: they'll bring in some sort of an artifact and they'll
Speaker 1: be like, oh, I'm asking ten thousand dollars. They'll be like, oh,
Speaker 1: the best I could do is three, and then they'll
Speaker 1: meet somewhere in the middle at about like five or six,
Speaker 1: which is what should have been paid in the first place.
Speaker 1: But they've got a dicker about it. They got to
Speaker 1: play that game. Trump is an expert at playing this game.
Speaker 1: I think that that is kind of what's going on
Speaker 1: here on a grand scale in all of these regards.
Speaker 1: But because the media hates Trump and he is doing
Speaker 1: that thing where he's right now offering three, the media
Speaker 1: is losing their minds on him right now. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. We'll see how it all plays out.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go ahead and share the screen again. Because
Speaker 1: there was a couple more articles. I wanted to get
Speaker 1: to here. Uh So, as I was looking at this,
Speaker 1: Oh God, Zelensky, he's under the impression and like Britain
Speaker 1: just told him boots on the grounds and planes in
Speaker 1: the sky. He's talk about sending British sons and daughters
Speaker 1: to the Ukrainian warfront. Will that actually happen? Maybe? Maybe not,
Speaker 1: We shall see. But it got me thinking here, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about this in a second, but could
Speaker 1: NATO actually do something of note, not just in this conflict,
Speaker 1: but in any conflict without America. Looking at the numbers
Speaker 1: of it, it does not look promising. We'll get to
Speaker 1: it in a moment. For now, I wanted to read
Speaker 1: this one the Guardian, Zelensky, Europe cannot guarantee Ukraine's security
Speaker 1: without America. Okay, uh. If Donald Trump withdraws the US
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine, Europe all alone, excuse me alone, will
Speaker 1: be unable to fill the gap. Vladimir Zelensky has warned
Speaker 1: on the eve of what could be his most consequential
Speaker 1: diplomatic trip since Russia's full scale invasion three years ago.
Speaker 1: There are voices which say Europe could offer security guarantees
Speaker 1: without the Americans. I always say no, he said the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian president during an hour long interview with The Guardian
Speaker 1: at the Presidential Administration in Kiev. Security guarantees without America
Speaker 1: are not real security guarantees, he added. Trump said that
Speaker 1: he wants to end the war in Ukraine, but skeptics
Speaker 1: feared that a US broker deal could involve forcing Ukraine
Speaker 1: to capitulate to Vladimir Putin maximalist demands. Zelenski said he
Speaker 1: was ready to negotiate, but wanted Ukraine to do so
Speaker 1: from a position of strength, and said he would offer
Speaker 1: American companies lucrative reconstruction contracts and investment concessions to try
Speaker 1: to get Trump on side. Okay, so he's trying to
Speaker 1: get himself in a position of strength and then screwed
Speaker 1: himself by pissing off Trump JD and biting the hand
Speaker 1: that was offering to feed him. I find that to
Speaker 1: be interesting. This article was published. Let me see if
Speaker 1: I can find a date on it here. Of course,
Speaker 1: whenever I'm trying to look for someone I can't find it.
Speaker 1: That'd be the way it goes. Sometimes. No, damn, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken. This was posted last week. I feel
Speaker 1: like I saw that when I found the article initially,
Speaker 1: but we'll see. He's basically saying, though, that if America's
Speaker 1: not at the negotiating table, then the deals might as
Speaker 1: well just be written on toilet paper, because whether people
Speaker 1: want to acknowledge it or not, America is still the
Speaker 1: world's only superpower and that has a lot more stroke
Speaker 1: than what other countries and the liberals really want to
Speaker 1: give it credit for anyway. Zelenski will traveled to Munich
Speaker 1: Security Conference later this week, where he expects to meet
Speaker 1: the US Vice President JD. Vance, one of the most
Speaker 1: hostile towards Ukraine among Trump's inner circle. At last year's conference, Vance,
Speaker 1: then a senator, refused to meet Zelensky, and he has
Speaker 1: previously said that he does not really care what happens
Speaker 1: to Ukraine one way or another. Yeah, I was a
Speaker 1: I forgot that JD. Vance and Zelensky had beef, like
Speaker 1: actually like standing beef between them. JD. Vance is not
Speaker 1: a fan of Zelenski even before the conversation in the
Speaker 1: Oval office took place, but that is also why Zolensky
Speaker 1: started taking a tone with him once JD chimed in
Speaker 1: and then yeah that that kind of just went to
Speaker 1: shit whenever he said what he said, and then Trump
Speaker 1: basically told him get the fuck out of my house.
Speaker 1: That was That was great, But you know, again, he's
Speaker 1: trying to show a position of strength and has done
Speaker 1: everything in his power to do the opposite of that.
Speaker 1: But okay, we'll see. Zelensky also plans to meet other
Speaker 1: members of Trump's team, as well as influential senators in Unich,
Speaker 1: but there is not yet a date to meet Trump himself,
Speaker 1: he said, although his team is working on fixing one.
Speaker 1: Trump said over the weekend that he would probably meet
Speaker 1: Zelensky this week, and it is possible that the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: president could fly to Washington from Munich. And I do
Speaker 1: believe that happened, and that is when the situation in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office happened. But now talking about this, could
Speaker 1: NATO actually do something of note without America? This is
Speaker 1: a breakdown from Armedforces dot EU. I don't believe a
Speaker 1: lot of these numbers, but the ones that are provided
Speaker 1: are pretty interesting. USA versus NATO without USA. Okay, so
Speaker 1: long story short, we understand the American military might Okay,
Speaker 1: no need to kind of go into drastic speeches about that.
Speaker 1: We understand that we are, in fact the biggest dick
Speaker 1: in the locker room. And that's not even a source
Speaker 1: of contention. That's an understood fact. The military budget for
Speaker 1: the United States as of was it twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: that this was talking about, Oh, I think this actually
Speaker 1: might be twenty twenty four? Excuse me? Is nine hundred
Speaker 1: and sixteen billion dollars just America NATO collectively four hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty two point seven billion, less than half of
Speaker 1: America's entire spending. And that's what all of the NATO
Speaker 1: powers bring to the table. Uh, that is three point
Speaker 1: four percent of our GDP. The other ones, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a lot. That's why they didn't give
Speaker 1: an estimated percentage of all of their GDPs because some
Speaker 1: of them don't put in any some of them put
Speaker 1: in more. So they kind of left that one open
Speaker 1: active personnel. America has one point three million active personnel.
Speaker 1: All of NATO has one point nine million. Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: they have more numbers active and in the reserves. We
Speaker 1: have just under eight hundred thousand. The rest of NATO
Speaker 1: has one point nine million in reserve. Okay, fine, fair manpower.
Speaker 1: But then we talk about force multipliers. Actually, I want
Speaker 1: to say this one as well, available for military I
Speaker 1: feel like this number is also a bit skewed because
Speaker 1: when you look at the average fighting age of the
Speaker 1: guys on the Ukrainian front line, the median age is
Speaker 1: between forty and fifty five. That's not what America will
Speaker 1: consider available for military service if and when the time
Speaker 1: ever came. So I don't know what all of these
Speaker 1: European countries classify as ready for service or fit for service,
Speaker 1: big big air quotes on that, but I know what
Speaker 1: America considers fit for service, and it's saying that we
Speaker 1: have seventy three point two million available for service, and
Speaker 1: it's saying that the NATO countries have one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty eight point three million. Okay, maybe again it's about
Speaker 1: quality not quantity at that point, but I digress landforces.
Speaker 1: They only have a little over twelve hundred more tanks
Speaker 1: than we do. Collectively as a nation, we have six
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty two tanks. All of NATO has sixty
Speaker 1: eight hundred coming up on sixty nine hundred. That's a
Speaker 1: lot of countries to come up with a number that's
Speaker 1: not much bigger than ours. Armored fighting vehicles. We have
Speaker 1: thirty eight thousand. They have forty seven thousand. Again, a
Speaker 1: lot of other countries are contributing to that pot, and
Speaker 1: we still are pretty comparable to them in the grand
Speaker 1: scheme of things. Total artillery, it makes sense to me
Speaker 1: that they have three times the amount that we do.
Speaker 1: NATO has ninety nine hundred artillery pieces. America has thirty
Speaker 1: one hundred. And I'm generalizing some of these numbers to
Speaker 1: all the good people listening right now. These aren't exact figures,
Speaker 1: these are roundabouts. Makes sense to me because America doesn't
Speaker 1: need to worry about artillery for the most part, because
Speaker 1: we are protected by oceans and neighbors to the north
Speaker 1: and south that would never dare to fuck with us
Speaker 1: in that regard. Europe, on the other hand, has fought
Speaker 1: wars on their home soil before, so investing in artillery
Speaker 1: pieces makes sense for a lot of them because their
Speaker 1: militaries are more defensively structured instead of offensively structured. Not all,
Speaker 1: but most, I would say most. So Again, it makes
Speaker 1: sense self propelled artillery they have three thousand across all
Speaker 1: of NATO. America has fifteen hundred rocket artillery. They have
Speaker 1: eleven hundred, coming up on twelve hundred. America has seven hundred. Again,
Speaker 1: that's not that far off as far as compared to
Speaker 1: one nation compared to like twelve. Throwing this out total aircraft,
Speaker 1: and this is when America absolutely pulls away from the pack.
Speaker 1: Total aircraft, we have thirteen seen thousand. All of NATO
Speaker 1: has eight thousand fighters. We have three hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: seven fighter aircraft. All of NATO has a five hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty seven multi role. Multi role is a very
Speaker 1: broad term for what these could be. Some of these
Speaker 1: have offensive weapons, some of these are ricon whatever, all
Speaker 1: over the place. America has twenty four almost twenty five hundred.
Speaker 1: All of NATO has just under fourteen hundred. Attack planes.
Speaker 1: We have five hundred and thirty one. All of NATO
Speaker 1: has one hundred and eleven helicopters. America has forty nine hundred,
Speaker 1: NATO has three thousand. Understand that we have more helicopters
Speaker 1: than all of NATO has attack jets and multi roll
Speaker 1: craft and fighter jets. We have more choppers than that.
Speaker 1: Just throwing it out here combat drones. Again, this is
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily agree with these numbers. Because we've seen
Speaker 1: what drone warfare has become in the Ukrainian conflict and
Speaker 1: then Israel for instance. But at least what they are
Speaker 1: reporting anyway, combat drones. America has four hundred and forty
Speaker 1: four and all of NATO has five hundred and fourteen,
Speaker 1: so they're ahead of us by sixty seventy. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: my numbers are off here. Navy total naval assets, America
Speaker 1: has four hundred and sixty six, all of NATO has
Speaker 1: nineteen hundred. Okay, that's nothing to look down on. They
Speaker 1: have some naval assets. Aircraft carriers America has twenty. All
Speaker 1: of NATO has ten destroyers. America has ninety nine destroyers.
Speaker 1: All of NATO has twenty three. Now I will say
Speaker 1: that NATO has one hundred and twenty frigates and America
Speaker 1: has none, but that's because we did away with our
Speaker 1: frigate fleets a good while ago. Corvettes we have twenty six.
Speaker 1: All of has thirty eight. Submarines, we have seventy. All
Speaker 1: of NATO has eighty. So basically, if my numbers be
Speaker 1: numbering here, and somebody correct me if I'm incorrect on this,
Speaker 1: America is alone just as capable if not more capable
Speaker 1: in some regards than all of NATO combined. Just looking
Speaker 1: at the numbers, did I miss anything?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I believe. I believe those numbers, but they left
Speaker 6: out one big one nuclear warheads. But NATO does have
Speaker 6: a bunch because the French and the British developed them
Speaker 6: before the Non Proliferation Treaty came out, So you're true
Speaker 6: they do have them. But I mean, there's a pretty
Speaker 6: good chance that something like this could go nuclear. And
Speaker 6: to quote Scott Horton, this all this other talk about
Speaker 6: fighting at the folded gap or something is just like
Speaker 6: a junior tank commanders fantasy. But why would why would
Speaker 6: the great powers fight that way when they have the
Speaker 6: trump card of nukes, you know, and maybe in the West,
Speaker 6: in Western Europe, they tell themselves that as long as
Speaker 6: we're not fighting beyond Russia's border, within Russia, they're not
Speaker 6: going to feel threatened enough to use nukes, So then
Speaker 6: we're just all going to be using conventional warfare. But
Speaker 6: I still think that they're just insane to be doing this.
Speaker 6: And Cara Kalis and Anelena Baerbach and Ursula funder Lie
Speaker 6: and they talk about how we need a unified Europe
Speaker 6: to fight against Russia, and some of the alt right
Speaker 6: accounts I followed say, yeah, well you had that once
Speaker 6: in nineteen forty one, but you don't want to be
Speaker 6: those people, right, But that was that was the chance,
Speaker 6: And you know, I don't think I believe that that
Speaker 6: was a good fight either. I mean, Russia, Russia's formidable,
Speaker 6: and you know, we should just live in peace.
Speaker 1: I would be preferred, one hundred percent agree with you.
Speaker 1: That would be preferred. But as far as the other
Speaker 1: NATO countries coming to Ukraine's aid in some sort of
Speaker 1: an equal way to what America could do, that is, uh,
Speaker 1: that is a bit of a bold statement. I have
Speaker 1: a hard time believing. I'm not saying it's impossible by
Speaker 1: any means. I have a hard time believing because Germany
Speaker 1: has now made promises, Britain is making promises, and if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, didn't France also make some promises of
Speaker 1: sending not just aid and equipment, but troops to Ukraine.
Speaker 6: France did probably a year ago. They beat the English
Speaker 6: to it, and the Germans. They've sent tanks and stuff,
Speaker 6: and those tanks have been destroyed, some of them. Anyway,
Speaker 6: I don't know what the exact number is, but I've
Speaker 6: seen destroyed Leopard tanks on telegram.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like I was. I had hopes for
Speaker 1: Germany's tanks because they had just come out with a
Speaker 1: couple of new not entirely new models, but some new
Speaker 1: defensive capabilities for their tanks, and I think and that's
Speaker 1: the thing, I don't know if those Leopards were the
Speaker 1: antiquated ones or if it was some of their latest
Speaker 1: and greatest technology that they were kind of letting go
Speaker 1: to the warfront to see how they do. They didn't
Speaker 1: do that great. They did some work. They made the
Speaker 1: Russians hurt a little bit, but they also got got
Speaker 1: so I don't know. And then when France, I figured
Speaker 1: they would send maybe some foreign legion you know, some
Speaker 1: legionnaires in that regard. I haven't seen or heard of
Speaker 1: any French troops. There was more of a promise made
Speaker 1: and kind of waiting to see what happens next. Did
Speaker 1: France actually end up sending.
Speaker 6: Troops definitely, not any official ones in any official capacity,
Speaker 6: But there've been mercy from all over the place going
Speaker 6: to Ukraine to fight against Russia, including from the United States,
Speaker 6: from Scandinavia. From Colombia, there's I've seen quite a number
Speaker 6: from Columbia for some reason, and I'm sure there's been
Speaker 6: a few French and others. These are the kind of
Speaker 6: guys who just lived to fight, and if there's a
Speaker 6: war going on somewhere, they'll go volunteer for it. If
Speaker 6: you've ever heard of a guy named Eron Steunger, he
Speaker 6: fought for France in the French Foreign Legion in nineteen
Speaker 6: thirteen before World One War one started, but then he
Speaker 6: joined Germany's military and he wrote a famous book called
Speaker 6: The Storm of Steel. But he was My only point
Speaker 6: here is he's just one of these guys who loved
Speaker 6: the idea of fighting and would have fought for anyone
Speaker 6: in any war that happened to be going on if
Speaker 6: there wasn't one involving his own country. And there are
Speaker 6: people like that in all times and places. So these
Speaker 6: North Koreans, for example, who are fighting in Russia, I'm
Speaker 6: pretty sure that they're also the type of people who
Speaker 6: really love to fight, although they are there in an
Speaker 6: official capacity, unlike most of the Western mercenaries going to
Speaker 6: Ukraine and.
Speaker 1: Make sense, they needed to get their soldiers to stretch
Speaker 1: their legs and get some combat experience. That makes perfect sense.
Speaker 1: While Kim Jung would send some dudes in that regard.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Well, one of the reasons I would not want
Speaker 6: to be a volunteer like this is that if you
Speaker 6: are a regular soldier and you're there in an official capacity,
Speaker 6: you get Geneva rights, Geneva Convention rights. They can't just
Speaker 6: execute you. But if you're a mercenary, the Russians will
Speaker 6: just execute you. Probably some telegram videos of that. And
Speaker 6: you know, why would you put yourself there unless you
Speaker 6: just really love the idea of fighting and getting experience.
Speaker 1: There's a YouTuber that I follow. I haven't seen a
Speaker 1: video from in a in a good little bit here.
Speaker 1: So long story short. He was a marine grunt. He fought,
Speaker 1: he loves warfare. He gets out and he decides to
Speaker 1: go fight for the is it the yek Uh the
Speaker 1: Erga Kurdish fighters, Yeah, that's them, that's it, WHITEPG And
Speaker 1: he loved it, He absolutely loved it. Then he spent
Speaker 1: a little time in Africa, you know, fucking around and
Speaker 1: helping some some warfare going on there. Then he went
Speaker 1: and enlisted in the Ukrainian National Guard, and last I
Speaker 1: heard he had done two cycles in Ukraine and come
Speaker 1: home for some rest or to heal up or something.
Speaker 1: He was planning on going back. And he's one of
Speaker 1: these guys. There are still people out there modern I
Speaker 1: want to call it tourists, uh warfare tourism by any means,
Speaker 1: but dudes that are obsessed with the fight. They're they're
Speaker 1: that level of adrenaline junkies, and that you know, They've
Speaker 1: always had the types of people, you know, there's always
Speaker 1: been mercenaries that do this type of shit. He goes
Speaker 1: and joins these groups in an official capacity rather than
Speaker 1: joins mercenaries because he doesn't like blending money with fighting.
Speaker 1: He sees that as dirty And okay, I get that
Speaker 1: your bank account would disagree, my boy, But you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: whatever do you all of these people that are talking
Speaker 1: all this shit about how much they support Ukraine and
Speaker 1: all these things to the level of like we need
Speaker 1: to send US troops, and you understand that you could
Speaker 1: all just join the Ukrainian National Guard. There's nothing stopping
Speaker 1: you from doing that if you feel that strongly about it.
Speaker 1: Yet none of them sign up. There have been a
Speaker 1: few of them. There have been a few. I've seen
Speaker 1: a couple of guys from Mexico. I've seen a couple
Speaker 1: of guys from America, if I'm not mistaken. There was
Speaker 1: an American that just recently died in the Ukrainian conflict,
Speaker 1: and I, if I remember correct, that he was like
Speaker 1: in his early twenties. I don't know if he ever
Speaker 1: served in America or if he just felt the call
Speaker 1: and joined up over there to help in some way.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I do remember seeing an American
Speaker 1: flag draped over a call from there. So this is
Speaker 1: a thing. Wild shit.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I wouldn't do it, but and I don't even
Speaker 6: understand guys who would. But I think I understand why
Speaker 6: some guys might be attracted to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get why, just because, Yeah.
Speaker 6: In terms of reputation and something like that.
Speaker 1: I understand why. But it's also these are typically guys
Speaker 1: that have nothing to lose, right like if and I
Speaker 1: mean I myself, whenever I joined I was seventeen. You know,
Speaker 1: I didn't have a wife for kids or any of
Speaker 1: these things. I was joining because of my own reasons,
Speaker 1: which were justified and fine and good in all these things.
Speaker 1: But it's not like you see a group of gentlemen
Speaker 1: that are leaving their wife and kids at home to
Speaker 1: go fight in Zelenski and Putin's war from America. Like,
Speaker 1: it's typically these young guys that I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's necessarily they have something to prove. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that's the case. It might be because they truly feel
Speaker 1: like this is a moral war which shocks people. But okay,
Speaker 1: you know, do you baboo? Maybe it is just the
Speaker 1: adrenaline junkie of it. You know, maybe they see this
Speaker 1: as their generation's great war and they want to be
Speaker 1: a part of it. You know, there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: reasons why people do what they do. I'm with you,
Speaker 1: though I personally will not be going. I have no
Speaker 1: intentions of going. I would very much like to stay
Speaker 1: out of a World War three if possible.
Speaker 6: I have another item of speculation for why this is
Speaker 6: if you go back into the deepest prehistory of mankind,
Speaker 6: before monogamy and stuff like that, scientists estimate that something like,
Speaker 6: you know, eighty percent of women managed to pass on
Speaker 6: their genes, but eighty percent of men do not. It's
Speaker 6: only twenty percent. Yeah, But the way you get women
Speaker 6: in an ancient, prehistoric context is by being a warrior,
Speaker 6: if you're a man, yep, that really, I mean, it's
Speaker 6: high risk, very good chance you're gonna die. But if
Speaker 6: you don't, you're gonna at least have a woman, if
Speaker 6: not from your own tribe, then from some conquered tribe
Speaker 6: that you've you know, been a part of the war against.
Speaker 1: There's a backstory to that as well. Man Russia lost
Speaker 1: twenty percent of their male population in World War Two. Okay,
Speaker 1: it was not uncommon for a man to have like
Speaker 1: twelve women and not be seen as a whore for
Speaker 1: that whatsoever. It was more like, look, we have to repopulate.
Speaker 1: It was fine, have as many as you want. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if you can afford them. And if you
Speaker 1: have a job and you have a dick that works,
Speaker 1: you are like the guy. Also kind of led to
Speaker 1: a sexual revolution in another regard, because it was no
Speaker 1: longer the men trying to impress the women to you know,
Speaker 1: woo a woman to become their wife. It became women
Speaker 1: fighting for which guy was theirs. And this kind of
Speaker 1: flipped the script in a lot of ways. But that's
Speaker 1: also Russians, by and large, I think they require less
Speaker 1: to be happy. And I'm not saying like because they
Speaker 1: don't know what good is or anything like that. It's
Speaker 1: that they they kind of already understand that they're going
Speaker 1: to get screwed eventually by the government, by their own people,
Speaker 1: by some war, by whatever. They require a lot less
Speaker 1: to be happy than Americans require, I would say, as
Speaker 1: a standard rule.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know, I had a Russian friend in high
Speaker 6: school who said I was too much of a cheap skate,
Speaker 6: and he said, you got money today, but you just
Speaker 6: never know if you're going to have it tomorrow or
Speaker 6: tomorrow is going to be horrible, So enjoy your life
Speaker 6: now a little more. And he wasn't a heat in
Speaker 6: this or anything. He's like, just enjoy yourself now while
Speaker 6: you can if you can. But the pullar opposite of
Speaker 6: what you're describing about Russia with too many women not
Speaker 6: enough men, would be China today with so many men
Speaker 6: not enough women, And we can talk about how that
Speaker 6: may drive them to war someday. But culturally, I would
Speaker 6: say this has had a really negative impact on them
Speaker 6: because women have a little bit too much market value
Speaker 6: over there, and this has led to divorce rates of
Speaker 6: up to seventy percent in Tanjan, which is just south
Speaker 6: of Beijing.
Speaker 1: And about women divorcing the men, right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's mostly women driven. And I do, unfortunately have
Speaker 6: some family connection with this, but I don't want to,
Speaker 6: you know, spill too many Beans or docs people. But
Speaker 6: Chinese women I'm not very, not extremely fond of, especially Mainlanders.
Speaker 1: Which is crazy because culturally women were seen as second
Speaker 1: class citizens in Chinese culture up until now. It's wild.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And I grew up in Coopertino, California, if anyone knows
Speaker 6: where that is, and it's something like fifty percent Chinese.
Speaker 6: And it was even in the nineties. And when I
Speaker 6: was looking around all my Chinese friends parents were married,
Speaker 6: the divorce was extremely uncommon. Yeah, and I thought that, oh, yeah,
Speaker 6: divorce must be uncommon in China. But then other things
Speaker 6: happened in my in my uh, in my family, and
Speaker 6: then I learned that, oh wait a second, No, Chinese
Speaker 6: women seem to view divorces extremely acceptable.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of modern occurrence, though I would say
Speaker 1: only in the last thirty years, give or take.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, I totally agree, but yeah, it's uh, it's
Speaker 6: the opposite of what I guess Russia had.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 6: Maybe I think Russia has high divorce and abortion rates too, unfortunately.
Speaker 6: But you know, the post World War II period would
Speaker 6: have definitely seemed not enough men to go around.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and they did. They got to fucking and they
Speaker 1: got their numbers back to some sort of equilibrium, which
Speaker 1: is where we're at now. I don't know how much
Speaker 1: of the Russian population has been deceased or kia or
Speaker 1: whatever because of this war. I know it is not
Speaker 1: nearly as much as post World War two, and I
Speaker 1: don't think we'll ever actually see that type of number again.
Speaker 1: In warfare Russia. Stalin had a whole different kind of
Speaker 1: mindset when it came to war. I didn't know this.
Speaker 1: He arrested his daughter in law because his son was captured,
Speaker 1: and the going standard rule was if you are captured
Speaker 1: by the enemy and you didn't die for your country,
Speaker 1: you allowed yourself to be captured, your whole family's going
Speaker 1: to jail. That included his own son. That is wild
Speaker 1: that he was that die hard, and it also makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense why his final days he was
Speaker 1: in agonizing pain and slowly died and like no one
Speaker 1: helped him.
Speaker 6: They just yeah, I think his son died in captivity
Speaker 6: in Germany during the war too. But yeah, I've heard
Speaker 6: different numbers as to how many Russians died, and definitely
Speaker 6: the men the Germans, I guess just let him start
Speaker 6: to death or something. It sounds terrible, but yeah, I've
Speaker 6: heard numbers between nine and twenty million Russians died in
Speaker 6: World War two. The modern Ukraine Russia conflict. I hear
Speaker 6: wild estimates that very by an order of magnitude on
Speaker 6: both sides, But I believe probably three hundred thousand Ukrainian
Speaker 6: soldiers have died and about one hundred thousand Russians have,
Speaker 6: so nowhere near as bad as World War Two, but
Speaker 6: still pretty damn bad for any you know, compared to
Speaker 6: any other modern war has been a part.
Speaker 1: Of very true, and like you said, the numbers drastically different.
Speaker 1: I've heard four hundred thousand Ukrainians and six hundred thousand
Speaker 1: Russians have died. But then it's like, are we talking
Speaker 1: kia or are we talking about like they got hurt
Speaker 1: and they're no longer on the front line, so it's
Speaker 1: like a casualty but not a death, and so it's
Speaker 1: it really depends on the social reading really killed.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so in Ukraine, it's also been largely depopulated by
Speaker 6: men and women moving away, and the injuries are probably
Speaker 6: double the death count. Yea, So probably something like close
Speaker 6: to a million total casualties in Ukraine, I believe, two
Speaker 6: thirds of them being injured.
Speaker 1: I mean, and that's not even to talk about the
Speaker 1: civilian casualties on both sides. Honestly, it's it's that's messing.
Speaker 6: I think that this war has actually managed to avoid
Speaker 6: civilian casualties better than most wars. But you know, I'm
Speaker 6: open to other sources of information on that.
Speaker 1: I'm yes and no. I mean, most of the people
Speaker 1: living in the villages when the Russians moved in, if
Speaker 1: they didn't want to be there, they left, But there
Speaker 1: were still some stragglers that stayed behind, some buildings that
Speaker 1: got bombed out, that had a non combatant inside of it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's a part of warfare. You know.
Speaker 1: I agree with you that the number of civilian casualties
Speaker 1: is probably a lot less per capita in this go
Speaker 1: round than we've seen in previous large scale conflicts before that.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we're comparing it against what you know,
Speaker 1: what I mean, like, well, by what.
Speaker 6: Means for example, that's the one I see it compared
Speaker 6: to the most.
Speaker 1: That's fair. That's that's fair, guys. I had a lot
Speaker 1: of civilian casualties. But then again depends on the sorcier
Speaker 1: reading because some of them are saying that it was
Speaker 1: Hamas that slaughtered a bunch of civilians and made it
Speaker 1: seem like it was the IDF that did it. Then
Speaker 1: there's other sources that's saying that the IDF just gunned
Speaker 1: down a whole school full of women and children and
Speaker 1: blamed it on Hamas. And it's like, wait, wait, bro,
Speaker 1: what like that? We're missing the point that there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of women and children dead right now. But okay, sure,
Speaker 1: let's the sources are always going to spin the story
Speaker 1: one way or another. So yeah, yeah, it is a
Speaker 1: wild and messy time to be involved in the geopolitics
Speaker 1: and in the war games. I am happy that we
Speaker 1: have the person at the helm that we do right now.
Speaker 1: I am hoping that he is trying to rope a
Speaker 1: dope on some of these cases and not actually trying
Speaker 1: to implement, uh, some of the wilder things that he
Speaker 1: has said. But time will tell. All right, everybody, Well,
Speaker 1: we are gonna wrap up this episode of The Cage tonight.
Speaker 1: I want to thank everybody for coming out and participating
Speaker 1: in this talk To any of the listeners that are
Speaker 1: listening on this Thursday, that's when this will be released.
Speaker 1: Please let me know in the comments what you thought
Speaker 1: about this or other topics that you would like to
Speaker 1: see us bring up into the future. And I appreciate everybody.
Speaker 1: Y'all take care and God bless