All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
30:22
🔴 Did You Vote for This: Why The Podcast Bros are Turning on Trump 2025-10-07 18:14
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
They could have potentially won having picked Shapiro.
I mean, there was a whole critical saying that that may have swung Pennsylvania, and that would have made it really hard for President Trump to win, and they won't make the obvious good decision, but they'll make the, well, I know that this will buy me some votes in a community that I want to vote for me.
It's not going to get me California.
I'm already getting that.
Certainly she's not going to be able to do that.
I mean, go back to Barack Obama.
Look, he picked Joe Biden as his NC.
They pick weak VP candidates.
And he picked Joe Biden because he was kind of racist.
That's why he picked him.
Because Joe Biden was like, you know, the first articulate young black guy is clean.
He's clean, articulate.
And Barack Obama's like, oh, that's the guy I'll pick on my ticket.
He talks to country folk like, I know there are still some racist blue dog Democrats.
They'll vote for Joe.
Picked him.
And then Joe picked Kamala Harris.
He's like, she likes to have a drink.
You remember when Obama came back to the White House and completely ignored Joe Biden.
He's like, he's like, bruh!
Bruh!
And he's just over here shaking hands with people.
He's like hitting them on the shoulder, and nobody's paying attention to the president.
It was so bad.
It was sad.
It was sad.
When people say, you know, remember when the left was trying to sell us that we're respected on the world stage again with Joe Biden?
It's like, come on.
I don't even know what's going on with Carney right now, but I guarantee you that Donald Trump's bitch-slapped him a time or two just since they've been together.
Oh, that's fun.
I didn't know that was going on this morning.
Look at his eyes.
He's not happy.
Tariffs are a big factor.
And again, we wanted to do great.
But, you know, there's a point at which we also want the same business.
We're competing for the same business.
That's the problem.
That's why I keep mentioning one way to solve that problem is a very easy way.
But we're competing for the same business.
He wants to make cars, we want to make cars.
And we're in competition.
And the advantage we have is we have this massive market.
So it's a, you know, it's quite an advantage.
Oh, I must be sad.
Wow.
I've never heard that.
Mr. President, can we talk about Portland for a second?
Are you planning to invoke the Insurrection Act?
That would be a very long-standing law that's been on the books.
Yeah, well, it's been invoked before, as you know.
If you look at Chicago, Chicago is a great city where there's a lot of crime.
And if the governor can't do the job, we'll do the job.
It's all very simple.
They probably had 50 murders in Chicago over the last five, six, seven months.
Many people were shot.
And then the governor gets up and he says, well, we can handle it.
They can't handle it.
They don't know what they're doing.
The mayor is grossly incompetent.
He's at a 4% approval rating in Chicago.
He's at a 4% lowest approval rating, lower than even de Blasio had, which is hard to believe in New York.
I thought de Blasio would always maintain that record, but the Chicago guy is even lower.
So I think that's so petty.
He is.
We want safe cities.
If you look at D.C., you would right now, Mark, you could go out, take your family out to dinner.
You could walk right down the middle of the street.
There is no crime in D.C. When I got here, this place was a raging hellhole.
People would come from Canada.
People would come from other places.
He's even in a raging hellhole this weekend.
Yes, he's being shot.
That's the difference.
The National Guard's unbelievable.
They are strong, tough guys.
You know, we won something at the Supreme Court, which is a big deal: merit.
Everything now in this country is merit-based.
I didn't think I'd ever see it again.
And we have our soldiers in merit-based, too.
And they're central casting.
And they walk through that town.
And I'll tell you what, this place is safe.
It's beautiful.
Mark, we'll send them to you.
We'll walk through your town.
I think the question was about Portland.
Yes, it was to say we don't want anything to do with this and we're removing many people in D.C. We took out 17 1700 career criminals and sent them back to the countries from which they came, mostly let out by Biden and his people that had open border and open border policy.
And you know, Canada, you suffered because of that too, because they'd come here and they'd go into Canada also.
So we're like a buffer for that in terms of Canada suffered greatly by Biden and the open border, the policy of open border, totally unchecked, totally unvetted.
And these people.
Can someone bring up that clip where Carney said he was going to go and deal with Trump the way you deal with bullies, I think was something that he said.
Yeah, he's really dealing with the people.
He's talking tough enough.
He's got to come up with Canada.
And now he's just like, yeah, that's a good point, Donald Trump.
Whatever you say.
Yes, sir.
For four months, I don't even know if this is possible, but this is the figures were released.
Zero people were able to come into the United States from the southern border.
Zero.
And as you know, we've taken a very hard stand on drugs.
This is one question.
It was about Portland.
Let's talk about El Chapo.
There are no boats anymore.
Frankly, there are no fishing boats.
There's no boats out there, period.
If you want to know the truth, we're saying, does anybody go fishing anymore?
So derailed.
Canadian lives.
I like trout.
I'm more of a salmon guy, though.
And now they don't come in that way.
Now they'll come in other ways, and we're not going to allow that either.
Next question.
So we've done a great job.
I've said Portland.
But on crime, Chicago is a great city, but you can't be a great city if you have murders and if you have a lot of problems.
And they do.
And they have an incompetent policy, just like they had open border policy.
Anybody could come in.
They came in from prisons.
They came in from mental institutions, drug dealers, timer on it.
They were all over the place.
And we don't have that anymore.
This country is becoming a very, we're a very strong country.
Look, financially speaking, I would say that because of the tariffs, because of the election, because of the policy, because of the Great Big Beautiful deal, that's what I added the word great country.
Imagine trying to get off the phone with him as hard as you can.
It's the biggest deal ever passed in the history of our country.
We don't need it.
All right, goodbye.
I've got to go.
Take care of my mom.
She's in hospital.
Your mom's great.
Look, funny story about your mom.
When I was young, she baked the best sugar cookies.
I don't even like sugar cookies because all it is is just sugar.
There's no chocolate chips.
But she would do something special.
I don't know what she did.
Those cookies were special.
Your mom's a very special lady.
Okay, I got to go.
One night under the moonlight in a full cornfield, your mom and I. Look, I probably shouldn't be saying this, but we allowed our passion to get the better of us that night in Iowa.
I'll tell her you said hi, but I got to go.
It was a straw pole.
She climbed my pole like she was sucking through a straw.
Your mom was.
Wow.
You'd never get to know.
He's still going, dude.
He's still going.
The point is, I'm your father.
Isn't that right, Carney?
Okay, let's just see how he hasn't.
Let's see how long he goes.
It's got to be what?
Three minutes now?
At least.
That's a big reason why the companies are coming in.
You know, one year depreciation, one year write-off, one-year expensing.
Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
So they're coming in to have a great country to hear crime.
And we don't have crime, but we have cities where there's tremendous crime.
And Chicago is a very good person.
And you know what I think?
I think Donald Trump feels he has a license to do this because Joe Biden didn't answer questions and he would hand out the questions.
Okay, let's hear.
He's done.
A question, a question, a question for the Premier.
Mr. Garmin, are you the President of Starbucks?
I'd like to know how come the UK and the European Union succeeded to sign deals and bring the tariffs down, and Canada still hasn't been able to do the same.
Yeah, because they're not located right next to each other.
You know, it makes it, in many cases, it's a little easier.
If I may.
Let's go.
You may not.
As it stands right now.
We are the second largest trading partner at the United States.
We do a lot of trade going across the border.
We're cooperating, first thing.
Secondly, we are the largest foreign investor in the United States.
Half a trillion is going to usurp him at some point.
Yes.
$8 trillion in the next five years if we get the agreement that we expect to get.
Thirdly, there are areas, as the President just said, expecting one hand.
Conflict, maybe not so much.
Conflict, we compete.
There are areas where we compete, and it's in those areas where we have to come to an agreement that works.
But there are more areas where we are stronger together, and that's what we're focused on.
And we're going to get the right deal.
Right deal for America, right deal, obviously, from my perspective for Canada.
God's going to be helping some.
Okay.
Is it just me, or is there a lot more gold in that office than there used to be?
It is.
He did.
He put a lot more gold in it.
Wait, wait, wait.
So one thing we are working very closely is the golden dome.
That's the protective mechanism, and you see how that works.
It's unbelievable.
You know, Ronald Reagan wanted to have it, and at that time they didn't have the technology even close to the technology.
But he was advanced.
And we'll be working together on a golden dome for the two countries.
And it's something that I think is going to be very important.
Especially when you look at the world, you look at what's happening.
We want to have that protection.
It's really amazing.
The technology is unbelievable.
Why do you say some federal workers should not get their back pay?
Why do you say some federal government?
Well, you're going to have to figure that out.
Okay.
Ask the Democrats that question.
Mr. President, just to follow up there, I mean, the law says that when the government is reopens, that workers will receive their back pay, so are you going to define the law there?
Or what do you hope for?
I follow the law, and what the law says is correct, and I follow the law.
Mr. President, Mr. President, will Canada be leaving empty-handed, or will Canada be leaving, or will Mr. Carney be leaving Washington with a deal on tariffs?
I think they're going to be very happy.
We have a lot of things that we're working on that people don't talk about.
They talk about, you know, competitiveness.
He's a very competitive person.
And they talk about things that we don't necessarily agree on.
But I think they're going to walk away very happy.
I think so.
You see him take a sigh of relief, Carney's like, there's been a minimum tariff that countries have got.
When the USMCA gets renegotiated, do you want a minimum tariff on goods between Canada and the U.S.?
Well, we're going to have tariffs between Canada as well.
You know, they have them with us.
I will say with our farmers, as you know, they went up to as much as 400%, 250, 300, and even one at 401.
We found one having to do with a very small product.
But it was high.
So, you know, we've always had tariffs between the U.S. Actually, Canada was charging us very high tariffs on our agricultural things, a lot of our agricultural product.
And that's one of the things that we talk about for bringing that down.
So, you know, this is a mutual thing, but we've been charged tariffs.
Look, we're the king of being screwed by tariffs, I say.
And I'm not talking about with Canada.
I'm talking about with countries all over the world.
When you look at Europe, when you look at China, when you look at all of the Almost every country charged the U.S., we didn't charge them because we were led by stupid people in many places.
Stupid people.
They took advantage of our country.
They're not taking advantage of us anymore.
You know, if you looked at European Union, they're all my friends.
I don't blame them.
I blame our presidents.
I blame our past presidents and business leaders.
But we are the king of countries that have been taken advantage of for many, many years.
That's very true.
I do really appreciate that he's drawn attention to the fact that the United States has, in the name of diplomacy, put our interests on the back burner.
Yes.
And he is less interested in going to cocktail parties, probably because he doesn't drink, with these other world leaders than he is in getting a good deal for Americans.
And the truth is, this is all, it's all a mirage.
If we want Canada, we could take Canada.
But this idea of international governing bodies and globalism, it's like, well, okay, what's better?
Let's just all hold hands and we are the world.
Okay, great.
But the truth is, if we decided to use our leverage, Canada is part of the United States.
The European Union really wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.
And we're just saying, hey, all right, if you want to be our allies and actually be our allies.
Otherwise, we can be entirely nationalistic and keep it within our borders.
Or if you want to take part, if you want to engage in trade, do it fairly.
We've allowed ourselves to be fleeced.
And the real reason for that, if you just looked at the tariffs, for example, with Canada and dairy, it would render their dairy industry irrelevant.
Yeah, exactly.
I think it's really interesting, too.
And all the people who are anti-war and anti-what America maybe has done meddling-wise around the world over the last 50, 60, 70 years, they should love this because essentially what he's doing is saying, you know, instead of using the CIA and that money to kind of influence these other countries over here, and instead of using our military to go to war in all these different places, I'm just going to use our economy.
Yeah.
And I'm going to end all the foreign war stuff that I can.
We're going to go after cartels because they're hurting American citizens.
We're going to close our border, take care of American citizens, and we're going to make sure that American businesses are not getting screwed and consumers not getting screwed by people overseas.
I'm like, that is much preferable to the wars that Dave Smith rails about and also the CIA involvement in just about every corner of the globe.
Oh, I agree.
Let's grab a few chats and then I'm going to go throw up.
Yes.
If you want it, they did send in that Carney clip.
Oh, of him talking about, let's see if it's reflected right here.
So this is him now, but let's go back to then how Carney said he would deal with President Trump.
President Trump.
President Trump thinks Canada will cave in.
We will never, ever bow down to a bully.
Unless it's our own king.
Canadians.
Canadians will always stick together.
Except Alberta.
I would just love right now.
You kissed the ring.
What are you talking about?
So, Mark, do you still think I'm a bully?
Yeah.
Do you feel like you're caving in, Mark?
Do you feel in control?
This guy's a rube.
All right, let's grab a couple of chats.
All right.
First chat from Newcastle, 777.
Question for crew.
Do you think the elevated expectations of some Americans have tarnished their view of Trump because he hasn't delivered on those excessively heightened expectations?
I do think this.
I think that a lot, again, of the Johnny come lately is because they haven't paid attention and they haven't thought of the world at all.
What?
That's possible.
Wow.
Since people like the Andrew Trump, people like the Andrew Schultz, people like the Theobaans, people like a lot of these shows.
And to some degree, Joe Broken, they haven't really thought of the world through the lens of, okay, what's right?
What is our history?
What is patriotism?
Where does America stand in the world?
What makes us different?
And they haven't paid attention to elections.
I think this is the first time they sort of tossed their hat in the ring.
And it's kind of a teenager's point of view where it's like, well, I didn't get every single thing that was on the wish list.
So, oh, undelivered promises.
Whereas if you compare it to even Barack Obama to the left, if you compare it to George W. Bush to the right, if you compare it to Joe Biden to the left, like he's delivered in a way that no other modern president has.
So I think, yeah, it's a little of that, but I also think that the people you're hearing from with these platforms are people who decided to kind of get in on a trend that was worth quite a few clicks during the election, and they don't really know how these things work.
And that's not to let someone off the hook if they deliver nothing but empty promises, but I would say that that is least descriptive of the Trump administration in comparison to any other administration in my recent memory.
It is funny to see some people, you know, give the criticisms of he hasn't promised on everything because Russia-Ukraine is still happening and Israel-Gaza is still happening.
And it's like, yeah, he did promise that within 100 days or whatever it was.
And we all kind of thought that was unrealistic.
If he had done it, wow, what an amazing thing.
But unrealistic expectations.
It's still in its first year, and they're taking these couple things and making it a big deal, which is funny to me because in their mind, they're saying he is capable of it.
Right.
He could have done it, but he didn't do it.
Right.
Because you had to sit there in the same chair and admit that all these other conflicts had been solved or ceasefired or whatever peace deals made.
What do they know?
He's capable of it.
And again, what's the alternative?
Of course, would have continued Ukraine, Russia.
I don't know about Israel.
It probably would have been the same thing.
They just would have been delivering a little bit different rhetoric.
And you would have a record number of illegal immigrants still pouring into this nation.
You would still have Coca-Cola on snap, and you would still have USAID, and you would still have NGOs, and you would still have Antifa, and you would still have mass illegal immigrants causing chaos in these sanctuary cities.
So again, you have to compare it to the alternative and go, okay, are these results better?
Yes.
And then you have to compare the delivery on his promises in comparison to other administrations.
I don't even think it's close.
Would we have boots on the ground?
If there's another administration, would we have boots on the ground in Ukraine?
Right.
Would we be sending money and weapons to either India or Pakistan?
Right.
Would we be involved in some kind of Cambodian conflict?
Right.
How many of these other conflicts would we be involved in?
Israel would be there.
We have boots on the ground there?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I can't think of any president who is more anti-people dying in foreign affairs than Donald Trump, honestly.
You have to give him that.
Whether he can wave a magic wand and end all conflicts, no one has ever been able to do that.
But I've been really pretty happy with what we've gotten, and I expect a lot more to come in the next three years.
Next chat.
All right.
Next chat from Lou's Cannon.
I'm pretty anti-government on most things.
How would you square being anti-government, but also supporting the feds with all the attacks from the left towards ICE and reporters slash MAGA?
What do you mean supporting the feds?
ICE.
Like supporting ICE.
They're getting attacked in Chicago, and they tell them not to go help when they tell the police not to go help them.
Let me read that again.
You're saying being anti-government but supporting the feds with all.
You're saying I should support ICE?
No, I think he's saying support the left attacking ICE?
I think you're saying how do you grapple with being anti-government and then being pro-ICE?
Well, I think this is also, this is kind of a misconception.
Conservatives, and this is the difference between us and libertarians, we are not anti-government.
We are not anarchists.
We believe in a legitimate purview of government that is limited.
And I've said this going back to 2008, 2009, I've used the analogy of a hockey referee.
And I use it just because, you know, okay, Canadian, but it's also the only sport where this is the case.
A hockey referee, their job is to keep the pace, the flow of the game, make sure that the players are safe, meaning us as citizens.
And outside of that, keep their whistle in their pocket.
So national defense, safety, right, borders would fall under the legitimate purview of government.
That's one of the few legitimate roles of government.
A military, some kind of enforcement arm to make sure that the lawless don't basically exploit the lawful.
And in that case, when you're dealing with sanctuary cities and having dealt with Antifa and these people and these left-wing radical groups, and I don't even mean radical in their viewpoint, I mean radical in their execution because they're simply mirroring the viewpoints of the mainstream left.
They're just more violent than those who would get up on a dais.
They're also funded in a lot of ways.
They're also funded by NGOs.
They're also funded by a lot of government wings.
So at that point, what do you want?
Do you want the lawless and the people who advocate for open borders?
You want them to have them to enjoy an open season on people who are here to enforce the law so they protect you?
I don't think there's anything that's inconsistent with conservatism in supporting ICE deporting people who shouldn't be here to begin with.
They already broke the law.
They have no business being here.
That is a legitimate role of government to deport people who have no business being here.
Exactly.
I understand where they're coming from and the sentiment against federal agencies like the FBI and the CIA and stuff like that.
But the difference between them and ICE is that ICE is not targeting American citizens.
They are targeting people that are not supposed to be here and getting them out.
That's a completely different purview from what the other three-letter agencies are doing and the criticism that we give to them.
Now, the left understands that completely.
And that's why the left will go out and say, a Maryland man or a father from Illinois or an innocent student from Georgia.
They'll try to pull at that hard.
They're not doing that for themselves and for their people on the left.
They're doing that for us.
They're doing that for you because they know that you have this distrust in your institutions and the three-letter agencies.
And they think that's going to bleed into the immigration sector because they're saying, oh, they're coming after Americans or they're coming after innocent people.
And that's not what they're doing.
So yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but it's a different agency, different.
Yeah, I also think about it.
The IRS under Barack Obama was used to target conservative Americans simply, right, as a political tool.
Let's target conservative Americans.
Let's look at, for example, the FBI using the ADL.
They were too busy investigating Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA to deal with actual domestic terror groups.
ICE is pretty clear in their purview and what they're supposed to deal with as far as immigration.
But I also would like to see our other government wings like the FBI, like the CIA, actually return to whatever intended purpose they have.
I do think it should be very limited.
But I think there's a very big difference between targeting American citizens of a political persuasion and targeting terrorists or illegal aliens.
Next gen. All right.
Next chat from Damon Knight.
Question for the crew.
If the left continues to ruin their reputation slash image, do you see the U.S. effectively becoming single party?
Or are there enough radical leftists to keep them on life support?
No, it's going to follow a cycle of whitewashing.
And that's what I think you're starting to see with, like I said, some of these Johnny come lately.
They're going to go back to, oh, actually, yeah, but I don't really like Donald Trump and conservatives are dumb and redneck.
You'll see that again.
And they'll try and make it seem like the left is the party of intelligentsia.
And they'll go back to the kind of George W. Bush mode of attack where, oh, they're stupid.
So it oscillates back and forth.
I do think that the left has a problem, a demographic problem, which is good.
She's on the other foot for the first time with Gen Z men.
And that swung really hard and really fast.
I don't know how principled it is, so it remains to be seen.
But yeah, I think it'll kind of go back and forth.
I think the left will kind of course correct and they'll present themselves as more moderate, which is what they've done in the past, too.
That's my opinion.
Agree.
Next gen. All right.
Next chat from Remublican Jake.
Oh, nice.
Yeah, nice.
With the increased BS from Portland creating an order for locals to not allow ICE to use city property, when do issues like the mayor meet legal distinction for insurrection?
Josh, thank you for your service.
Now, answer this about Chicago.
Yeah.
Look, Chicago was a great city.
This is real life.
It's no family matters.
There's no Earth.
Not even Stefan.
He was very cool.
Stefan took a pill, became really cool.
I think that in some of these cases it does meet the criteria for insurrection.
Yes.
I mean, honestly, when people try and say January 6th was an insurrection, okay, if you're going to use that standard, how about an entire city?
Why wasn't that used for CHOP?
For Chaz.
That was the actual definition of an insurrection, not allowing local police force, let alone some kind of National Guard to go in, not allow and basically subjecting citizens who did not elect these people in Chaz, CHOP, Seattle, to the rule of their self-created mob.
Yeah, I think a lot of these would meet the criteria for it.
I think so too.
And I think specifically there's a difference between not going in for chop or chaz if you do the calculation and say, okay, we need to like, we need to handle this a different way because if we go in, now they have somebody to fight and it's going to make the situation even worse, even though I probably would have said go in.
When it's a city doing it, when it's a state doing it, no, I'm sorry.
All bets are off, man.
You don't get to do that.
And I'm all for states' rights.
States don't have the right to do this, though.
No.
They can't do that to the citizens of the United States.
That's the reason that the government can say, listen, we have these rules federally.
Again, the person earlier, you're not anti-government because anti-government, if you take that to the extreme, there is no government and somebody else just kind of steps up and rules and whatever, it happens anyway.
Fiefdoms occur.
You're anti-big government.
This is not one of those things.
This is one of those things that every American should say, listen, we can't have sanctuary cities.
We can't do that.
This is one of the problems.
We can't do it.
And that's the problem, too, when you go so far, like the libertarian right, where people would say it's so far right, that's that horseshoe effect.
They don't believe in borders at all.
A lot of libertarians.
They can't defend borders.
If you're a libertarian, Dave Smith got caught flat-footed on this.
You cannot defend having a border.
Right.
If you're truly a libertarian.
And that's why you need to have some nationalism.
You need to have some nationalism.
Hey, our nation is different.
We want our nation set apart from other nations.
And how do we, well, the first step in doing that is making sure that we have borders where we know who is in our nation, who subscribes to the beliefs of this nation.
And that doesn't mean that we have to all follow lockstep.
But yeah, no, we have a nation.
We have borders.
You have that everywhere else in a functioning society.
You have borders in your house by having a house.
You have borders with cities.
You have borders with states.
You used to have borders with countries.
In this case, the only exception should be the wealthiest country in the world who's create, by the way, created the wealthiest country in the world where more people want to come than anywhere else on planet Earth and we're not supposed to protect it.
The only reason we wouldn't protect it is because we're being browbeaten into it by some other international governing body because they want to get in on that action.
No, we created this shining city on a hill and it's our job to protect it and certainly to preserve it for the American citizens who helped build it into what it is.
It's that simple.
Final chat because I'm going to go purge.
All right.
Final chat from DP Coast.
Why is Trump all in on AI dev when he knows a vast majority of Americans will lose their jobs?
Isn't that counterproductive?
Stephen and crew, be safe and God bless.
I don't know this one.
This might not be the best chat, but I have my issues with that.
I have a quick answer for it because listen, I understand that a lot of Americans will lose their job through technological shifts that have occurred historically.
It's happened before in very similar ways.
Obviously, AI seems to be one of those ways that could drastically change versus some of the other ways that may be like, all right, horse and buggy cars.
That changes things a little bit, right?
Tellers instead of ATMs.
I get it.
There's a lot of stuff that is going to change the market.
If we don't try to lead in this market, or at least as much as we possibly can, somebody else will.
So the outcome will not be changed by our participation or not.
That's a good point.
It is a bit.
It's us leading in it or somebody else leading in it.
And I would rather have us leading in it than somebody else because everybody's going to try.
Look at the money that's being spent right now in AI development and the engineers and the best and brightest.
It is insane.
We've never seen anything like this before.
And I go to any of the other technological advancements.
Nothing is like this.
Well, and I think that I think it needs to be married with some very, very strong regulations.
And again, this goes to being a conservative, not a libertarian.
Technology, what's its purpose?
Its purpose is to better the lives of the citizens of this country.
And so the regulations should exist to enhance the power of a tool like this that could, it could either greatly enhance the quality of life for a lot of Americans or it could be incredibly detrimental.
I don't know.
I'm not an AI expert.
I know that people have been saying that there's going to be the AI apocalypse for many, many years now.
At some point.
So I think it needs to be married with very strong regulations if we're talking about being the leaders of the world, because China won't care about it.
And if we're the leaders, we can set those kinds of regulations globally, whereas China will never care about it.
They'll just do whatever they have to do.
Yeah.
That being said, I always hear this about AI, and AI can help with a lot of things, but AI is often, in my experience, more often wrong than not when I ask it a question.
And that's often because of the programming, right?
It's only as good as its input.
And right now, I mean, you can go and ask Rock something, and you're like, well, that's a verifiably wrong answer.
So people have been saying this for a long time.
We're not quite there yet.
I agree with Gerald.
We don't want to be left behind.
But I also think that if we want to be the leaders of this, if we want to be spearheading this, then we need to definitely think, we need to recenter our focus and go, okay, everything that comes in that we're looking at as far as some form of economic development or technological development.
How does this benefit the citizens of this country?
How does this benefit this country?
The only country left where people are actually free.
And I know that that can be up for debate.
Okay.
But it's the freest country on earth, certainly compared to Europe.
How does it benefit us?
How does it improve our lives?
And the regulations should be married to it accordingly.
I don't think, and I do think when people say there's been rampant capitalism that's left unfettered, there have been problems with that.
The solution is not socialism.
The solution is to go, okay, how does this serve the best interests of the American people?
And I also think individually we need to marry these improvements and we need to marry these freedoms with our duties and responsibilities.
Because I think something that's really kind of presented a lot of problems is people going, hey, I'm free.
Okay, great.
But a free society can really only work for a just and moral people.
We know that from the founding fathers.
And I think considering the godlessness, not only that we have now, but how touched we are by the godlessness of the world in comparison through social media and being able to communicate with anyone in the world at any given time, we need to recenter ourselves a little bit and go, okay, what is it that we're looking to achieve?
And who are we as a nation?
And that'll determine how we chart a course forward.
I don't have all of the answers on AI because frankly, I don't understand it.
And it's usually wrong and it just pisses me off.
So I do things old school.
But we do need to marry our freedom here with responsibilities and with duties.
And as far as culturally, I hope to see a little bit more of that messaging coming forward because otherwise you just end up with a bunch of people who have an extra couple of Lambos and servants going, hey, I made it.
Go get yours.
And that doesn't benefit anyone.
I don't know if any of that made sense, but I have a fever right now.
▲
Export Selection