All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
01:00:24
🔴Is Trump About To Start A War? 2025-10-22 18:06
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It turns out I'm allergic to the fish.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
What is it, salmon?
Just salmon.
Is it a specific kind of salmon?
Oh, hey.
Oh.
Yeah.
No, because I kept getting, I eat, I was eating like sushi once a week because there's a special.
And I was like, it's good for my heart, right?
Just eat just plain salmon sushi.
And I kept getting a rash, and I noticed it was every Monday.
So then I did the, I was like, let me try it without soy sauce.
Turns out, by the way, I don't really like sushi.
I like soy sauce with sushi around it.
You like salt.
Yeah.
So I just had the salmon sushi, which is just salmon and rice, and I got that rash, those hives.
I wonder if it's all salmon or if it's just like maybe like Atlantic salmon or something.
I wonder if river salmon is still fine for you.
There's a specific protein in salmon.
It's like a very heat-stable protein that I guess is exclusive to it.
So it's not uncommon for people to be allergic to only salmon and not other fish.
Weird.
So now I know.
Anyway, that's the worst fish to be allergic to.
It's the best fish.
It's the healthiest fish.
In my opinion.
It's the best, the tastiest fish.
Yeah, yeah.
You ever had like sea bass is really good?
Sea bass is really good.
Yeah, Chilean.
I've only had the Chilean sea bass.
I don't know if there's other ones out there if they're all just Chilean sea bass.
I don't know either.
Do you think there are other, like, there's other sea, like Argentinians?
I've never heard Brazilian sea bass.
I hope there are, and I hope they're racist to each other.
Me too.
You know what?
I bet.
I bet the Brazilian sea bass has a nice Brazilian sea ass.
Yes, I bet you doesn't.
I don't think that's true at all.
In fact.
No guar.
No cua.
Have you been to underwater carnival?
I haven't.
Oh, it's very colorful.
Yeah.
That crab is very horny.
Yeah, dude.
He's all but for me.
All right.
He's a racist little.
You got to watch those claws, man.
Crabs are.
Crabs freak me out.
Crabs are quite scary.
All right, let's continue on this.
Well, look, look, the whole thing is it's not just about drugs.
This whole thing is about destabilizing the entire Western hemisphere.
No, you're right.
They're like shelled spiders.
Yes, they are.
Sorry, but you got me thinking.
I'm freaked out by them, too.
Yeah.
Have you ever seen the spider crabs?
Is it the Japanese spider crab?
They have super, like they can be, their legs can be as long as yours.
Oh, dude.
Oh, my God.
I got to show you a video, by the way.
I got a spider in my kitchen this morning.
I thought you were going to say you're going to send me a video of your crabs.
I was like, oh, no.
I got a picture of that, though.
Yeah.
What size?
Do you know what kind of spider it was?
Orange.
Which I don't like.
Fat button?
Whoa.
I don't know.
It was orange, though.
I don't like that one bit.
What?
There you go.
That's a big boy.
Oh, my God.
What is that?
A king crab?
Is it Japanese snow crab or is it a Japanese spider crab?
What is it, noodles?
No, it's not a king crab.
It's a from Reddit as of right now.
Oh, it's a from Reddit?
Oh, come on.
That might be real.
Snow crab do have the big legs, though.
Yeah, but not like that.
I should have said king.
I know what a king crab looks like.
Lasking King.
I've seen it all the time in the stores in Washington.
What is it?
Japanese spider crab.
Japanese spider crab crab.
Japanese spider crab.
And that's obviously like a proximity effect, so it looks bigger, but you can still find plenty of other pictures where it looks really good.
It's the size of a human being, Steven.
It doesn't look bigger.
It is bigger.
Do you have other pictures, noodles?
No.
I wonder if that thing's fast.
So I was going to say, my father was a scuba diving master.
I thought you were going to say your father was a spider crab.
So I used to scuba dive with him.
The scariest incident I ever had underwater was I put my finger in silt in Jonestown, Rhode Island.
It was just all silt.
I put my finger down and a big-ass king crab came climbing out and they did that like offensive pose.
The scariest thing that ever happened to me.
It's like a Hawaiian dance that they do.
It's obnoxious.
Why would you stick your finger in a strange hole in the ocean?
It wasn't a hole.
It was the bottom of the thing.
I don't blame you.
I don't blame you.
Put your fingers together.
I do.
Hey, that's fine.
Keep your fingers to yourself.
No, put your fingers where there's holes.
I had, I want to say it was like this fish that seemed kind of aggressive, and I found out that triggerfish can be very aggressive.
And they have like the way you get away from.
Have you seen these triggerfish?
The Titans.
The Titan triggerfish.
Someone bring up a video.
I'm sure they exist.
They will bite a chunk out of you.
And they have like a reverse cone.
So someone told me, Yeah, yeah, the way you get away from them is you just have to swim past it.
But the high thing, I don't know if it's a cone or a reverse cone, but the higher up you go, their territory, it's like actually shaped in a cone.
So go up and go out because they have a narrower kind of piece of their territory, depending at the depth.
And they will attack you.
They're going to remember that they're going to chase you right up to the edge and be like, all right, he's gone.
Yeah, he's gone.
They said, don't just keep swimming.
Try and swim up and out.
I don't know.
Triggerfish.
And by the way, they look like they have teeth, but it's not like sharp fish teeth.
Right.
It looks like dentures.
Like people teeth?
Yeah.
Oh, that's weird.
Like donkey teeth.
Like, shoot, what's that movie?
The shark tail.
Well, the shark tail characters.
Yeah.
Yeah, they were freaky, dude.
They had human teeth.
Or just don't go in places where we're easy prey.
Right.
I just don't have any desire to scuba dive.
Do you go scuba dive?
Ever.
Ever.
It's fun.
Yeah, it seems like it.
Yeah, there you go.
Yeah.
They're like rounded.
Is that real?
That looks like AI or something.
It's pretty real.
It's a shutter stock.
All right.
For what it's worth.
That fish needs to floss.
That's pretty young.
Yuck, dude.
Yeah.
Anyway, back to Venezuela.
You know, they're talking right now, or they're eyeing and invading Ghana, Guyana.
I always forget it because there's Ghana and Guyana.
And there are other Caribbean nations who are very, very much concerned and support strong American action.
And just to be clear, like a concern here, and I would tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence, is that Russia and China can be at play.
Why?
Because anytime there's some kind of a communist adversary, they prop them up, even according to Kremlin-backed media as it deals with Venezuela.
And I'm saying this so that you can see what the side is saying that supports Venezuela.
And they're not even saying, like, these aren't drug boats, really.
It's kind of still acknowledged.
This comes from some form of Kremlin-backed media.
The source there, it says, if the U.S. manages to establish firm control over Venezuela, America, Russia's adversary, grows stronger while China, Russia's ally, grows weaker.
That shift in the global balance of power would be bad for Moscow, especially since after dealing with China, the U.S. would likely try to drive oil prices down in order to slash Russian budget revenues and push Russian markets out of global markets.
And here's the thing: like Russia, China, they pretty much just back any commies who hate America and could possibly be a threat to America or destabilize allies of America.
I always find it funny.
I use Cuba as an example because Russia, China, obviously, they've been supporters of Cuba.
When people blame the United States for the poverty in Cuba, they go, well, if the United States didn't have their embargo, we just don't allow American us to trade with Cuba.
Like, why are we to blame?
Aren't the two biggest other potential trading partners on earth, Russia and China, aren't they on board with Cuba?
Why isn't it incumbent upon them to make sure that Cuba doesn't suck?
Oh, that's right.
They have allied with them, and Cuba still sucks.
Cuba should be North America's playground.
It should be, the entire island should be like Vegas.
Everyone should want to go beautiful beaches, hotels.
It is a resort developer's dream.
None of those exist in Russia, in China.
There are no oligarchs there.
Communism fails at every single chance at bat.
Yeah.
But that's not the right communism.
I'm sorry.
Just like Venezuela, that's not the right, even though that's right, Sean Penn and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth, they all praised Chavez and Sean Penn, by the way, I believe, has met with Maduro himself.
But no, that's not the now.
We'll say that's just not the right communism.
It's just the communism that I supported up until it failed.
Just like Castro in Cuba, it was the communism that we all supported up until the moment that it failed.
Just like China, it was the communism that we all supported up until it failed.
Just like Russia, it's where Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the communism they supported right up until it failed.
Okay, I'm sure you guys will get right on a successful example of it.
Yeah.
And one of the really important things here, too, it's more than just a power play with those guys.
That's part of it.
But the other part is the resources in Ghana.
Like they have, I think, something like 11 billion barrels of oil that were discovered by Exxon.
Nice.
So, yeah, it's one of those things where it's like, yeah, everybody wants to get down there because these guys have a lot of oil.
That's fantastic.
It also undercuts the Middle East.
It undercuts Russia.
It does a lot to kind of push back on our enemies.
But another thing, remember what he said those boats were going to do?
A couple of overlays previous here on the people that were fully supporting the U.S. action, if you can pull that back up.
Because look at the first sign in a move that has clearly stunned Trinidad's government has thrown its full and unequivocal support behind the U.S. military.
Didn't he say, well, they're just probably going to Trinidad.
It's right off the coast.
Okay, fine.
Trinidad loves this.
They don't want the boats.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you understand, Jon Stewart?
It takes like five seconds to look at.
That was Rand Paul.
That was Rand Paul.
No, no, no.
I'm saying Jon Stewart's point was just that they were going to, I did conflate the two.
They're both wieners.
Rand Paul said they're going to.
Sorry.
You're right.
I was like, no, no, no, what's your time?
By the way, I think that's worse than confusing January and February.
I think that's worse than being three weeks off.
He named an entirely different human.
I think it's 10 days off, actually, when the EO was signed on January 20th, February 20th, 20th.
Sorry.
So they corrected me.
I missed it by that much, but you were just a hair away from the right human being.
It could have been one day.
They weren't in office.
They couldn't do anything on the 10th.
But it's a good point.
Like, Rand Paul, it's in our interest.
Okay.
And Trinidad.
By the way, I never say Trinidad without Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago.
It's just they always go together.
It's like peanut butter and jelly.
Yeah, but I don't care about that.
But the point is, Trinidad and or Tobago don't have the military capabilities to deal with a narco-terrorist state.
So it's in our interest.
And then this government, who also has first-hand knowledge, like, hey, great, please do it because we can't.
The only person who says, no, actually, they don't know what they're talking about is me, Rand Paul.
They may say that, but not me.
I was being spit roasted by Yasser Arafat and Gaddafi before the Eiffel Tower man.
I asked him about the Geneva Convention.
Do you care about winning ever?
Yeah.
The false equivalencies that he gave, there's people in Miami off the coast.
Yeah, so people hanging out on boats coming around.
Yeah, maybe they have drugs, maybe they don't.
These guys, do you think the United States military is like, ooh, a boat?
Let's blow it up.
I don't think so.
I understand maybe you don't trust them.
Fine.
Well, yeah.
Actually, dragging these guys into the water, okay, and then go.
Well, Josh has talked about it.
They are like that.
They're like, oh, Luke, a boat, blow it up.
And then their boss is like, Jesus Christ.
You just got out of boot camp.
Okay, you got to chill out.
We got to get confirmation.
And then they do that.
Right.
But you're right.
He's making false equivalencies, talking about how this kind of stuff never happens in the States.
Oh, you can't just go and kill somebody in the United States.
That never happened.
Okay, well, did anybody get held accountable for Ruby Ridge?
Right.
Was anybody held accountable for Waco?
I can go on and on and on with the stuff that government agencies or the military have done in the United States that got away with completely scot-free.
We don't talk about it anymore, but it's a shame that a couple of fucking drug dealers.
Yeah.
Now it sounds like Mr. Speaker.
And human, and by the way, same people, human traffickers.
That's another thing where, you know, especially I used to be on Red Eye a lot and they were all libertarians and they would be like, hey, read this book.
It was about how the war on drugs is like the biggest failure of the United States.
Okay, fine.
Look, it's another failure of government bureaucracy.
But then they go to, and if we just ended it, then there would be no drug cartels.
Okay, now they're trafficking humans.
Well, sex work is real work.
Okay, now they're trafficking underage humans.
These are not just drug cartels.
They are criminal enterprises that will never make money through legal means.
They've decided that it's easier.
Their preference is to work under the table and do this scot-free.
Their preference is to be rebels.
Their preference is to be lawless rogues.
So do we just say, all right, legalize all drugs, legalize all prostitution, and lower the age of prostitution.
Legalize, well, here we should already, what weakens them is legalizing firearms, making it constitutional, carry, right?
Enshrining that, but they'll just find a way to traffic something else.
They move on to something else.
Just eliminate the police.
Yeah.
What do we need police for?
I mean, these laws are getting in the way of all the stuff I want to do.
Also, by the way, even if, let's say you legalize everything, okay?
Everything.
All drugs, prostitution, underage prostitution, all of it.
They're still going to traffic them illegally if they can do it cheaper, as seen by the increased power of marijuana distributors in California in states where it's legal.
The cartels have grown more because they can sell it cheaper under the table.
It didn't put them out of business.
You guys know that, right?
And now we have the problem of, I know some of you are going to say, this can't be a thing.
Yeah, fentanyl-laced weed, which makes no sense.
You would think because weed is the cheapest drug.
Well, fentanyl's pretty damn cheap, and it has the added benefit of being addictive.
So there's no way to put criminal enterprises completely out of business.
We live in the real world.
So we have to decide where that is.
We want that line to be before or after black tar heroin, before or after prostitution, before or after underage prostitution.
And then it comes down to, okay, how do you enforce it?
You need to have the means to enforce it, and people need to fear you enforcing your own laws.
That's the problem with libertarianism.
I understand it that you should err on the side of, and I do err on the side of individual freedom and rights, unless it negatively affects.
somebody else.
That's where your rights stop, right?
The rights of your fists stop when it meets my face, I think is the old saying.
Something like that.
Your nose, yeah.
All right, my nose.
A face.
You're going to admonish me for that too?
No, I didn't admonish anybody.
You just asked me.
10 days?
I didn't think, and I was trying to help.
10 days?
Now you're correcting me because this versus this closed fist.
It's not a mundane detail.
Do you have any idea how hard I could hit you with a palm strike?
The principle remains.
None whatsoever damage done.
Not that hard.
I've seen Indian fights.
Oh, you ever see Bob?
You ever see Boss?
I was trying to help Gerald.
You ever see Boss Rutin?
He was in Pancrace in Japan where they didn't allow closed fist strikes.
So he just developed palm strikes.
He ruptured a guy's liver with a palm strike.
He didn't slap.
He was throwing them like punches.
So not the same thing.
But you're probably right.
I probably wouldn't take the fist with a palm strike.
Thank you.
So that's where it's like, okay, libertarianism doesn't work.
Yeah.
That's where we are.
And Rand Paul, I've always said I'm not going to run.
But now I'm getting closer and closer to when I were running for office just because I want to do the opposite of the grandstanding.
If I were to ever, it would be like mayor or governor.
And I was just like, look, I'm going to do pretty much nothing.
That's my plan.
You guys good with that?
Like, my set point is no to anything new and probably eliminating stuff that already exists unless someone makes a really, really strong case.
And you're not going to hear from me a whole lot on social media because if I'm already in office, then it's my job to do largely nothing.
And my opponent's going to tell you that he's going to do something or a lot of things.
He's probably not.
Neither am I. But at least I'll tell you that I'm going to do very little.
That would be my whole campaign.
Vote Steven Crowder.
He does nothing.
For you.
But I also don't do anything for myself.
For you underneath it.
For you.
Like, are you going to fight for us?
I don't know.
Maybe.
I mean, it depends on if they throw the first bunch.
Yeah.
I was like, look, I'll enforce it.
Like, of course, we're not going to allow riots.
Yeah.
I'm going to kick out all the illegal aliens.
I'm going to try and lower some taxes.
Like, oh, there's this new product or energy technology.
Like, I don't give a shit.
You guys want to go ahead, you do it.
It's like, oh, we need your help.
Ah, now we're back to me doing nothing.
I need to show you my campaign poster.
Yeah.
Like, I wouldn't even finish the proposal in front of me.
Like, and something about installing solar pic.
Done.
Snap time.
Let me go to the new ballroom I just installed.
Can you get back to rule one?
I do nothing.
Dave Weigel, he's looking more and more like the cop you're supposed to hate in the movies.
Like that's not.
That's Dave Weigel.
No, Dave Weigel right next to her.
Let's see if they show him again.
He looks like the guy like, well, you're Harry Callahan.
You have to do this by the buck.
Yeah.
Look at him.
He's that Midwestern guy for sure.
Yeah.
Midwestern cop.
Like, people can be chubby.
He looks like he lives in fat.
Yes.
Dave Weigel.
Especially he sits and stands.
He's like, I'm very aware of how rotund I am.
I'm childish.
All right.
No, it makes sense.
You were going to say, what was something with, is it Amazon?
Well, so look, there's the headlines on this, and I think we can pull up the headlines.
They're not really accurate.
So what people are saying is that Amazon is going to essentially get rid of half a million jobs, right?
So the New York Times, Amazon plans to replace more than half a million jobs with robots.
And then you've got Fox Business.
Amazon plans to avoid hiring 600,000 workers through AI automation strategy to double sales by 2033.
So that second headline is the accurate headline.
The first headline is, hey, make sure you click here.
Amazon's not looking at their workforce of around one and a half million people right now and saying, we're going to cut that down to a million and we're going to use AI to replace it.
What they're saying is they project future hiring and they think in the future, we won't have to hire as many as 500,000 additional people because of AI automation.
Yes, I just had an iBooger that you didn't tell me about.
I couldn't see it.
While you were talking, I was like, oh, has this been here this whole time?
I don't know.
Was it yesterday that it happened or today?
It's fine if it's yesterday.
So clarify the headline is wrong.
Why?
You just, you bored me halfway through.
I did.
You're right.
So they're basically just, it's clickbait.
Okay.
A little bit of clickbait.
They're not firing a little bit.
It's not an interesting story.
Right.
Oh, but then you sort of juxtapose that with, I don't know if you guys pulled the Walmart story.
Yeah, the H-1Bs that they're going to be.
They're going to be eliminating the jobs that have been, I believe it's using H-1Bs.
And they said it was mostly in their corporate office, but can you guys bring it up?
Yep.
It's loading.
So these are jobs that didn't even need to be done in the first place.
He's still loading?
Guy?
Guy.
They halt job offers for applicants who need H-1B visas after Trump raises fees to $100.
There you go.
Oh, it's almost like they didn't need them in the first place.
It's almost like these aren't the highly skilled jobs that require a specialist from another country.
They just did a cost-benefit analysis and said, yeah, it's not worth it.
So if my choice is automation, and I know that you're saying it's clickbait, but if my choice is automation or H-1Bs, I choose automation because at least it doesn't smell.
And it'll speak the language I tell it to.
Yeah.
Don't say that in a group chat.
Yeah.
Like we're already living in the era of automation.
It's just, you know, these are just indentured servants, just to be clear.
That's really what it is.
People who come from countries where you have some staffing agency, some placement agency that takes it off the top and a degree mill.
This is a huge, huge scam along with DEI.
And now you're seeing it.
It's just okay.
$100,000 fee.
That would have zero relevance if you were hiring the best engineer or the best coder for half a million dollars a year or a couple million dollars a year.
Yeah.
It would just be the cost of doing business worth every penny.
That's not what's happening.
Why does Walmart need H-1Bs in their corporate office?
Interesting question.
Yeah.
Anybody should be able to do that job.
I mean, I understand Walmart is at the top of the world game, probably with Amazon and others in logistics.
I understand that there's a lot that they do, but it's like you're telling me there's Americans that can't do those jobs.
Yeah, the problem is we were told for the longest, who's going to pick your lettuce?
Well, it turns out who's going to work in your meat packing plants.
Well, as we saw, I believe it was in, was it Omaha, Nebraska?
Plenty of Americans lined up.
Then they were saying, well, yeah, but who's going to do the really, really high?
We just don't have enough.
We don't have enough really skilled engineers, coders, people in tech.
Okay, then it became, and by the way, we don't have enough Americans to fill these stable, upper, middle-income class jobs.
Yeah, so who's going to pick your lettuce?
Who's going to be your CEO?
And who's going to do the job for, you know, $80,000 to $115,000 a year?
We don't have Americans who can do it.
So what jobs are left for Americans?
It's just, this is where I sound like an old hibby corporations, man.
I don't have a problem if you're doing it honestly, but you're an American company.
You can't put Americans in the position where they have to compete with third world slave labor in all income demographics.
Yeah.
So we're quickly going to, I don't know how much you care about this, but I think we develop a story on this and talk to our audience because we're quickly going to get to the place where it's not H-1Bs, it's AI and robotics taking the jobs of Americans.
That's a real big problem.
They're going to, it's, it's not some.
It's going to take so much of it that people are obviously like Jason, the guy that we had on from the all-in podcast, who was talking about universal basic income with a number of other people.
And Elon Musk knows this.
Everybody in AI kind of at the top knows this is coming and it's coming fast, like much faster than people think.
And I think that's a really interesting question.
Like, how do we, how do we deal with this?
Because it's the same, essentially, it's the same problem.
Yeah.
Replace H-1Bs with robots who can do whatever the manual labor stuff is first and then go on to other tasks.
Of course, there'll still be some jobs available, but if you cut out 50% of the jobs, you're going to have a real big problem.
You create other ones as well, just like technology always does, but at some point I understand the sort of libertarian argument about how the market corrects.
And I largely agree, for example, you have people going, well, cars are going to put those who, you know, those in the horse and buggy business out of work.
Sure, but ultimately we still had an economy that grew from it because it provided more opportunities where people could travel.
They could work jobs that they couldn't work in the past.
I mean, one of the biggest, honestly, one of the most significant impacts from any type of technological advancement in the world.
Do you know what it is?
I would guess automation at the ports.
Caffeine.
Oh, that's way up.
Before caffeine, people didn't work night shifts.
It allowed people, you had to work with your biological clock, sunwater.
Or nicotine, right?
How about that?
Yeah.
You look at a lot of early foundations.
They were like, I can do without the beer and the ale, but please don't take my coffee and my tobacco.
So that was a big change where it changed work shifts and you could stagger.
So it allowed for more productivity.
I think that we do need to, and this is where there's a gray area where people have disagreements.
Technology needs to benefit and empower the human race.
And first and foremost, the people of our country.
If you get to a point where you can quite literally look at the immediate impact and it results in millions of people out of a job, well, then you can also understand that, sure, we've automated a bunch of industries, but no one can afford the goods created or provided by these industries because no one is employed by them anymore.
It's no longer a net benefit to the cost will go down.
And it's a very interesting conversation because you have to figure out how do you do it.
It's a disruptor the likes of which we've never seen.
You can't compare it to the internet or the industrial revolution or anything like that, specifically talking about AI because AI at a certain point will actually be able to create other AIs.
And this isn't very far off at all.
Other AIs that they won't need us as a part of the equation at all anymore.
I think it's further off than you think because the last time we had this conversation, the people saying that the AI D-Day, it already should have passed.
I don't remember that.
They said like in six months, they said like in a year's time.
We talked about this three years ago.
Oh, yeah.
No, people have been talking about it for sure.
And maybe they're overplaying their hand a little bit.
And so whether it's three years, 10 years, 20 years down the road, the problem is fast approaching where they're saying, okay, well, you're going to reduce the cost of these things by 90%.
Yeah.
Right.
So things will be very, very cheap for people.
And so UBI comes in.
That's where I get off the universal, that's where I get off, sorry, the sort of libertarian idea that costs will come down because costs have already come, as far as labor, down by 30, 40%, right?
With H-1Bs, costs didn't come down.
I don't think that Walmart.
I think it goes down by 90%.
Like you didn't, you didn't.
It went down by 30%, 40% and costs went up.
So I don't think that a lot of these, if a company can continue to charge despite their costs going down, they will.
That's true.
And I always look at the price of gas.
I'm like, when gas is going down and other things aren't going down.
Yeah.
Well, that's just these other industries saying, well, we're never going back.
Right.
We can go back.
Our margins would be fine if we rolled back our prices, but why would we do that if we've already went up?
Yeah.
And this is where when the left tries to say everything is nuanced, as far as the market economy, it is much more.
For example, looking at beef.
Well, the market sort of contracted because of the hyperinflation that we saw and people buying less beef.
And so obviously this farms couldn't sustain the kind of operations they had.
And we can't just flip a switch and turn it back on, not to mention there is the, I forget the name of the worm.
That's a big problem that it's just a matter of when it will come to the United States.
So you look at the beef imports, right, where people say, why don't we just buy American beef?
Well, we can't.
So the biggest, I believe we import more beef from Australia than any other country.
I believe it's like 24%.
Canada's like 23%.
And then it's either China or Brazil are right up there.
Pretty close.
Well, can we pull some levers and, okay, while we get our industry together here and correct buy it from Argentina as opposed to Brazil?
Like that's better.
How about no beef from China?
How about less beef from Canada?
Because Argentina, I will say this, they take their beef pretty seriously.
It doesn't mean that I want us to be dependent on Argentinian beef, but right now we don't have the ability to meet the market demand entirely from the American beef industry.
And then we need to create or we need to implement some laws that encourage it, that incentivize it so that it's less of a risk for American beef farmers or cattle ranchers to do that.
But sometimes people just look at it and go, no, no, no, America, okay, I understand that.
And then sometimes libertarians go, costs will come down.
They don't always.
They don't always.
So we need to approach it with how does this benefit, how does this technology benefit the human race?
And how does it specifically benefit the American worker?
Otherwise, you end up to sort of idolatry where you're just sort of sacrificing the well-being of your citizens at the altar of technology.
For sure.
And I think that's the big conversation going on right now: that billionaires are out there, literally billionaires, working on ways to make this happen and are basically just going to get more billions.
It doesn't compute.
It's not like somebody's out there that's going to just start a company from scratch and really be able to play at this level right now.
At some point, the compute power that is required is kind of the barrier to entry.
You have to spend a lot of money to be able to do this.
So I get it.
But it is a really big problem that they're trying to grapple with.
Like, how do we, like, okay, so what if the worst case scenario is true, short of them destroying us, short of AI going, we don't need humans anymore.
Right.
What if it just puts everybody out of work or at least a large part of the population, the likes of which we've never seen before, right?
What if that happens?
How do we deal with it?
And they're trying to answer those questions now.
And it's like, you better hurry up.
Yeah.
Because people are making plans to keep going.
That's one where there needs to be some very thoughtful regulation.
Yeah.
There really does.
And Elon called for that a long time ago, or several years ago, at the very least.
And some people have been sounding the alarm on this since as early as 2015, like, hey, hey, hey.
But his solution is unlimited H-1Bs.
No, I know.
And that's my problem with Elon.
There's a world in which AI can empower the smaller business owner to compete.
In other words, automated tasks, account, bookkeeping, things like that, where you can have smaller businesses who can focus more of their energy on creative endeavors and being inventive, right?
But then you also could reach the point where it just automates all of it.
And then what do you do?
So, yeah, it's one of those.
I definitely think there's a conversation, but it needs to always take place with True North being, how does this benefit the human race and particularly the American worker right now?
If we only see a net negative, then I think, okay, we need to approach very cautiously.
And that's where there does need to be some appropriate, thoughtful form of government regulation.
Yeah.
Because we're fighting Skynet.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Except right now, ChatGBT is basically a supercomputer that pulls shit from Reddit six years ago.
Well, it's really funny because, you know, I'm doing more of a deep dive into some of the issues with AI just for fun because I thought it was an interesting topic and it scares the hell out of you for a little bit.
But my interaction with AI yesterday made me feel like we were totally fine.
I was trying to look up a local high school that I went to.
Their football schedule, it's like, oh, the 2025 season hasn't started yet.
It starts on August 29th.
And I'm like, do better.
Try again.
And it's like, no, the season started like, okay, listen, it's October 21st.
The season started on August 29th.
Can you tell me their record?
Turns out you're correct.
Here's their record.
I was like, okay, we're fine.
It's going to take a while.
Yeah.
It's definitely going to take a while.
I haven't been all that impressed, but that doesn't mean, you know, it's basically a Furby on your computer screen right now.
I mean, it's a little more than that, but maybe a little more.
Maybe a little.
We were sold a false pill of goods on Furbies.
Remember, like, he tells you when he's hungry.
I mean, I push a button underneath its fur.
It's like, oh, censor.
The tongue is a button.
I don't remember where I want him to be hungry.
Yeah.
It's funny.
It was a Kamagotchi with fur.
It's going to increase in value.
It's going to be a collectible item.
Yeah.
I got a Furby because all my friends had them.
And I was like, you weren't cool.
You weren't cool if you didn't have one.
And I had it for two days.
And I remember it was the first time I went back to my parents.
I'm like, this is a really bad use of money.
Can we please return this?
They were expensive, too.
Yeah.
They were upwards of $100 or more dollars.
Yeah, back in the late 90s, early 2000s?
It was late 90s.
Late 90s?
Yeah.
That was a lot of cooling, dude.
It sucked.
It didn't do anything.
You're like, tickle me.
And you'd like tickle it.
Like, tickle me.
Oh, you mean just push the button on your stomach?
Okay.
Steven couldn't even play along.
You know, you're like, screw this.
Feed me.
And then it like gave you some little piece of shitty food that didn't even fit into its beak to press the tongue sensor a button.
And feed me.
All right.
Okay.
Thanks, Furby.
I feel like we've created a bond.
Let's grab some chats.
All right.
First chat.
I have a puppy.
What?
I was always this miserable, even as a kid.
First word.
All right.
First chat from the Mississippi gentleman coming out swinging.
Question for Steven.
How can you call out Massey and Paul for doing nothing in Congress and then say you'd campaign on doing nothing?
Thank you for your service, Joe.
Well, they're not doing nothing.
That's not what we did.
They're not doing nothing.
That's the problem.
He's out there posing with fucking pro-sorry, pro-terrorist Palestinian people.
And Rand Paul is out there speaking out against something that, frankly, is well within the federal government's authority to do.
What I'm talking about is if I was mayor or government, I just wouldn't waste time and resources.
They don't do nothing.
They do a lot of grandstanding.
That's the problem.
I wouldn't do the grandstanding.
I'd try and answer as bluntly as possible, as matter-of-factly as possible, and I'd very likely lose.
So I'm not running for office.
I think we should do it.
No, no, no.
And we should tape it all.
Would I retire?
It'd be a much easier job than this.
What happened?
It's such a hard job.
Really?
Is it?
I've seen your vacation schedule.
They vote no on a lot of stuff.
Yeah, their job is so hard that none of them are doing it, and we could not discern the difference unless we work for the federal government.
All right, next chat.
Next chat from Dee Gadkins.
Question for the crew.
With Mamdani on his way to win NYC, hopefully not.
How will this fuel other major cities to allow for commie rule?
Should we be concerned as citizens?
I don't really know that you should be all that concerned because this is a very localized problem.
And I think the citizens of New York City should be concerned.
And I think that those who don't want to live under commie rule should leave.
I know that's easier said than done, but you do have to make some choices.
Do you want to live under a communist?
How much is whatever, your current job that pays better than if you went to the middle of America?
How much is that worth to you raising your family under that commie rule?
As far as other cities, no, if this was a, like we were seeing a trend across a state or across, you know, our, our, you know, the national, our House or Senate, sure.
No, I think it'll be just like, for example, okay, Chicago, the gun laws, Detroit, New York.
Does that affect you in Oklahoma?
Does it affect you in suburban Texas?
Does it affect, no, it doesn't.
So, yeah, the communism in New York City doesn't affect you.
And I think it'll probably serve as a valuable example for the rest of the country as it inevitably fails.
So I strongly disagree short term.
Long term, definitely agree.
I just don't think the consequences of his actions will catch up with him fast enough to prevent somebody else from going, look, see, it's working in New York.
We need the same kind of thing here.
So long term, I think, and long term, it could be five, 10 years, that will come back around.
And you're right.
It will serve as a cautionary tale, invariably, in my opinion.
I think it'll go south really quickly.
I don't know.
He's got a lot of money.
If he's just going to tax billionaires, it's easy to say, like, leave New York, but you have to build the infrastructure for the financial industry to be able to leave New York and go somewhere else and operate as efficiently as they do now, right?
And that's hard.
So that takes time.
So yes, a lot of people will hate the fact that you have to pay more money, but they'll still do it because they're making a lot of money.
I think when you're thinking macro, sure, but I think let's say that he implements government grocery stores.
I think immediately people go, oh, that's what they look like.
Or they'll go, oh, I now don't have my local grocer because of, wait, why?
Oh, oh, because of the government grocery store.
And then they go there, go, oh, I never want to go there again.
I think there will be some really acute short-term effects.
But you know what?
This is also part and parcel of living in the country that we do.
If the cities want, they want to elect someone like that.
Okay.
One thing I will say, though, about, and it rubs me the wrong way, you and I kind of discussed this.
People are talking about Cuomo and is his name Curtis Sliwa.
Is that how it's pronounced?
Sliwa?
Sleewa, S-L-I-W-A.
Yeah, the subway guardian.
I always forget the name of something guardian.
People saying he needs to drop out.
He's hurting New York because then Cuomo could win.
Well, hold on a second.
Why doesn't Cuomo drop out?
And I think there's a case to be made there because Cuomo lost the primary of his own party.
He was ousted from his party in that state.
He then tried to run for a lower office, thinking it would be a gimme, lost his party's primary, is now running in a general, at least Curtis, we have a two-party system.
He won his primary.
So if you're saying that New Yorkers need to have another option, well, shouldn't it be the guy who actually went through the process and won his primary?
I think that Cuomo is actually the spoiler here.
And that prick and his nipple barbell should pull out.
I don't think it'll make a difference, though.
Maybe it won't, but I just don't think it's fair.
Maybe not.
I just don't know why people are going this, you know, Curtis Sleewa, he should pull out.
People are acting like this guy is a spoiler.
He did it the right way.
Cuomo.
That's fair.
I think that's fair.
I think the logic is that if Sleewell pulls out, those voters are not going to vote for Momdamni, and maybe they'll vote for Cuomo and be enough to push him over the top.
Like, okay, we don't like Cuomo, but he's better than this socialist guy.
If Cuomo drops out, I don't think you're going to get a lot of those voters going to a Republican.
I think it would be the same.
I don't.
I think it would be comparable.
And at that point, you got it.
Look.
It's hard to call, but I think there are a lot of people that are Democrat voters that don't want to be socialist voters.
I think so, too, but I think there are a lot of people who just simply don't, after COVID, do not want to vote for Como.
So think how many.
How many Democrats do you think exist who are like, no, I don't want Cuomo because I went through it?
I think there's a higher percentage of them who would vote for Curtis than you think.
And that in combination with the fact that one of them won their party's primary.
Cuomo didn't.
He keeps trying, even though people don't want a bunch of money is dumped in.
Yeah.
I just wish there was a better candidate.
Nothing against Sleeva.
I've heard he's done a lot of great things, but I don't know everything about the guy.
I just know that it doesn't seem like we put the very best candidate forward to be able to win.
And this was an opportunity to potentially be able to win.
I mean, you got a guy that nobody likes in Cuomo, right?
You've got a guy who's an avowed socialist.
A lot of people are like, okay, give me door number three.
And door number three is a Republican.
They're like, yeah, what's this guy's call it?
He was also pretty anti-Trump quite a bit, Curtis Sleewa.
Yeah, I still think if I'm going to call on someone to pull out, it would be the guy who lost his own party's primary, not the guy who won it.
And I understand that people may not agree, but that's...
This is going to sound silly, and I don't know.
And I know it's not an opinion of mine, but a lot of people will just vote based on the picture.
There are people out there who do that.
Yeah, that's true.
So maybe just put on a suit, ditch the beret.
I mean, that'll help.
Just like one day.
I mean, I know it's a very special beret and it means a lot to you and it's about the subways or your friends or whatever, but maybe just for the picture, maybe just one time you just ditch the beret.
Maybe you'll catch another couple extra dumb votes.
They should just trot out a spoiler and be like, hey, new to this race, Bernie Goetz.
I'd take it.
All right, next chat.
Next chat from River Leaves.
So will all the no kings people agree that agree with us now that government needs to be limited in power and likely not.
Of course not.
There you go.
Limited question.
Yeah.
No.
These were the people saying, give unto us a king.
Yes.
And now they're saying no kings about the person who was voted in.
So yeah, it's all theater.
It's all political theater.
Anytime the left says, hey, well, the Constitution, you know they're lying.
Anytime they try and go, well, this is fiscally irresponsible.
You know they're lying.
Anytime they say, well, the government shouldn't have this much authority, you know they're lying.
Or can I add one to that?
I can't believe what those people said.
You know they're lying.
They could care less what happens in a group chat or anything like that.
And with the kind of filth and crap that we see coming out of their mouths and not condemning it from leadership, not just random leftist trolls on the internet.
I'm like, I just don't care anymore because of that.
Of course I care.
We police each other some of the stuff that we say, but I'm not going out there going, I got Jeff Pearl clutching a name.
I can't believe they said that.
Right.
No, stop it.
No, I agree.
All right.
Next chat.
Next chat from Mads for Days.
Question for the crew.
I agree with the taxpayers only being able to vote, but how do we respond to the no taxation without representation argument?
They aren't paying taxes.
There you go.
Winner done.
You have to net pay into this country.
What was it like 45, 47% back when Romney was running?
I think that's what he got in trouble for.
Yeah, I think he said 47%.
And then the last number, we said it was like 43 or 44%.
It's always over 40% of people who don't pay any federal.
Well, here's the deal.
And I would even split it.
Maybe you don't, but on federal elections, you don't get to vote in federal elections.
If you pay local and state taxes, of course, you get to vote on the laws and stuff that are passed locally and in your state.
There you go.
Fine.
But in federal elections, I think the rules may be a little different.
But at the very least, just have the conversation.
Yeah.
It wasn't always like it is today.
So let's look at why it was like it was before.
See what's good about that and what's bad about that.
Yeah.
I mean, you can't have, I think I've sort of presented this analogy on air.
It's like as a family, you don't have your kids vote on everything because they only take.
They're not providing the resources for the house.
Hey, what do we want to eat for dinner?
Imagine if your kids voted every single night.
That's all SNAP EBT is.
Your kids were the ones who were the deciding vote every single night on what you had for dinner.
And it didn't matter if you said, well, we don't have the budget for that.
What do we want?
We want, I don't know, we want Ponderosa Steakhouse.
I think they're still around.
Nope.
For the 15th time, we already have $100,000 in credit card debt.
Well, we voted.
We want it.
You couldn't manage a household like that.
No.
It's a very, very new concept, and it really does defy reason that people who contribute nothing get to vote on those who contribute.
It's silly.
And I don't apologize for saying absolutely not.
Well, it'll disproportionately affect a minority.
Fine.
I think one vote per household.
That's my view.
Next chat.
I think there's a good case for it.
Really quickly before next chat, Slua, I think yesterday posted this.
Cuomo and Mamdani are one in the same.
Changed my mind.
Hey.
Yeah.
All right.
Good for you.
Hey, there you go.
I appreciate it.
Yeah.
I got a lot of mileage out of that thing.
Final chat.
All right.
Let's see if I can find a good one here.
Don't hurt yourself.
I just want to make sure it's a good one here.
All right.
Well, here we go.
Say, say, B asks, question for all.
My mom is actively trying to get us divorced.
Not her and her mom, but her and her husband.
But expects my husband to want to come to all family gatherings.
What would you do or say?
I stand up for him.
She calls me prayer.
Okay, hold on a second.
Let me keep this up.
My mom is actually trying to get us divorced, but expects my husband.
So you're saying your mother is trying to get you and your husband divorced.
I feel like we need more details.
This is a great life advice question.
Should we say, could you send one more follow-up, like follow-up chat to give me some context?
And then we're going to roast you.
No, I'm not going to roast.
This person seems like they're doing the right thing.
I will roast your mom.
Yes.
I will tell you this.
And especially if you have great parents and they're present, that's very important.
And having a support structure to help with the grandkids.
Yes, you're never going to see eye to eye and everything.
And I know that Pops Crowder's watching.
But like the other night, he was there putting the grandma and grandpa were putting the kids to bed.
And my dad started wrestling with them.
And they got all wound up.
So they didn't want to go to bed.
Oh, boy.
And I was like, you know what?
I was like, that's kind of the perk of being in a grandparent.
You get to get in and rustle him up and like, all right, you take them.
So you're never going to see, because, you know, he loves, he doesn't get to see them and he loves spending time with them.
So you're never going to, so you have to like, do they love your family?
Okay, great.
You're never going to see eye to eye on everything.
And it's important that you keep that family close.
They love their grandparents and I love my parents and they love the kids.
But if they are trying to tear down your family to which you have a duty as a wife and a husband, kind of like I was saying, hey, you know, technology needs to exist to serve the human race, the American worker.
Same thing with the grandparents.
If they are an act of threat against your family unit, against your covenant, the interactions with them need to be as limited as possible.
This doesn't go well.
And I will also say this because you are, because you're a woman and because there's kind of this sort of enclave of the sisterhood, she'll chip away, chip away, chip away, maybe catch you on a bad day where you're actually mad with your husband or he did something.
God forbid, he made a mistake.
That seed can be planted and I've seen it be incredibly corrosive.
Like divorce is different among women than men.
And I don't have the studies in front of me, but there's been quite a bit of research where it's almost like a contagion, where if a woman has a friend or two or more friends who get divorced, they are much more likely to get divorced themselves.
As to why we don't have that answer, I can take a guess.
It's because it desensitizes you a little bit.
And typically, if a woman gets a divorce and regrets it, they're not going to tell you.
We have a society where when women get divorced, they're empowered and you slay queen.
And if a man decides to get divorced when he has children in the house, he's a piece of shit who abandoned his family.
I think both should be treated that way.
The initiator of divorce.
And just to be clear, because people throw this against the church and go like, well, oh, yeah, well, there's a difference between someone who was abandoned by someone else because we have a legal system that enables that and someone who chose to divorce when they had made a promise and they have children in the house.
I know the exceptions, okay?
Physical abuse, got it.
Infidelity, understood.
I get all of it.
Outside of that, it doesn't matter how shitty it is, how difficult it is.
It is incumbent upon both of you to make it work.
And unfortunately, only one side is really kind of pressured into that.
And men tend to stay at a much, much higher rate, regardless of their personal happiness.
So your mom, if she's doing that, and I would love to see, I don't know if there's a follow-up with details.
Okay, let me see the follow-up to you.
There's not a ton of details, but it does shed a little light.
She said, I was divorced before at 21, and my mom really instigated it.
I feel like I'm living through it all over again.
Oh, you probably are.
Yeah, you probably are.
You absolutely are.
You need to cut her out as much as you can.
Because you have kids.
I'm guessing that's why the mother wants your husband to come to want.
First of all, what a woman thing to say.
I don't want you just to come.
I want you to want to come.
Yeah.
And then I'm going to tell you, by the way, you can't come.
Right.
Yeah.
But I really want you to be at the kid's birthday, but yeah.
I got this new guy, Rick.
He doesn't like you.
Yeah.
Because he heard about how you used to make me scream.
Just another quick point.
She just said in chat, mom has been married three times as well.
Why is your mom, because I want you to, but can you answer this?
Why is your mom trying to get you and your husband divorced?
Is he beating it?
What is her reason?
And it's still very likely wrong, but I would like to know it because that might determine my answer.
Yeah, Josh.
I'm sure you have kids, right?
Because that's the whole thing about the family gatherings thing.
There's probably kids involved.
There's no way you want the best for those grandkids.
Now, if you're encouraging the father to be out of the home.
Well, here's the thing, too.
If she can't manipulate you, you know, who's a lot easier to kids.
Oh, kids.
Oh, isn't daddy, isn't daddy mean?
Yeah.
When he tells you to clean your room?
Isn't daddy, he made you eat the broccoli.
Do you remember that?
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
If he wasn't around, mommy would just let you do whatever you want.
Do it like the gremlins did.
Put her in a chair.
Yeah.
Did she respond with the details as to why she wants them to get divorced?
Not yet.
I've only seen one kid with each of the two husbands.
So two kids.
Okay.
Got it.
Got it.
Yeah.
Maybe mom has a crush on the husband.
Could be.
Misery loves company, but I will say this.
It's far more, again, and this is because this is not necessarily female nature.
And I think it's important to note because, you know, I'm not in the red pill community and even our friend Andrew Wilson is not at all.
He doesn't say go out and sleep with a bunch of women.
He speaks from a position of authority where he has a wonderful wife and he has a pretty happy, healthy marriage.
And people try and say, oh, she was married before.
Sure, you can say that he's a hypocrite because he married someone who was married before, but guess what?
They're making it work and they love each other and he advocates for monogamy.
But culturally, women sometimes are actually encouraged to go against their nature.
For example, being hyperly promiscuous.
That's not something that women tend to want to do, but they've been told that it's empowering.
And in this case, you also get women that are conditioned to take pride in leaving their man.
Why?
Because there's a badge of honor of independence.
Of course, that goes out the window when you actually get the stats on child support and alimony.
But even if a woman is miserable, right?
Because women don't typically want to be alone.
And men don't either.
But women typically want to be part of a partnership to be a teammate.
But they, unlike many men who I have encountered, even if they're miserable in their divorce, they know it.
They know it's a mistake.
They'll tell the next woman that it's the best decision they've ever made.
I mean, I'll tell you this: it's a horrible thing.
I'm as anti-divorce as I've ever been.
And my eyes have been opened to some pitfalls and some things that are outside of your control.
And I want to help other people avoid divorce as best as they possibly can.
And I will tell you this: almost every man who I've discussed this with who has gone through a divorce would say the same thing.
I'll tell you, like, it was worse than a death in the family.
That's not always the answer.
More often than not, you'll get a woman go, it's the best decision I ever made.
Finally free.
Yeah, finally free.
Finally, it could be me.
Spread my wings.
Insert cliché here.
I bet, put it this way: your mom, between divorce, you know, husband one and two, or two and three, probably would be saying it was the best decision they ever made.
And I bet you would probably be saying, because then I never would have met X, husband number two.
And after husband number two, the best decision I ever made, leaving husband number two.
They can't identify the difference between happiness and fulfillment and purpose.
I guarantee you that if you were to take a poll of married men who are currently banging an NFL professional cheerleader, they'd tell you that they feel really happy in that moment.
They're happy because they're banging a cheerleader.
There's a difference between happiness and fulfillment and meaning.
And society has conflated for women because it's a false form of empowerment, happiness, which can be very selfish, and true fulfillment, true joy, which can only really be attained through hardship and through discipline and through those times when you've pushed through being unhappy to find true happiness.
But you can't say that because that would require a judgment and that would require accountability.
It would require the conversation of, do you really think it was right to leave the man who didn't cheat on you and didn't abuse you when you had kids with him?
The woman would have to answer, no, it was wrong.
And I did wrong by my children.
They very often don't want to.
Your mom is miserable.
Your mom's made some bad decisions.
She might even tell you that she's happy now if he's currently married.
That's bound to change.
Why would you take any advice from her?
Sounds like you know you shouldn't take advice from her.
Did we get the answer as to why?
I had to piece things together.
Shock of shock because I didn't get a very straight answer, but it seems like they asked mom to like wash her hands when they had the new baby.
She kind of refused.
So they limited her babysitting privileges.
And it seems like part of it might have stemmed from that.
Like maybe she blames the husband for not allowing her near the kids.
Oh, yeah, that makes sense.
That definitely makes sense.
The husband's like, hey, you're not my mom.
Shut the fuck up.
This is my baby.
This is my house.
You can get out.
Yeah.
And she went, oh, well, this guy's got to go.
Yeah.
You mean like an entirely reasonable request?
Like, hey, wash your hands before interacting with a newborn as actually directed by a doctor.
So this woman's very self-absorbed.
I won't use the term narcissist because women will use that with every single guy they date who they have a problem with.
And it's less than 1% of population earth who are actually pathological narcissists.
But this is a very selfish, self-absorbed woman.
If three marriages weren't indicative enough, and I'm willing to bet that she probably initiated most of them, if not all, turning a very reasonable request, whether you agree or not, whether he asked the right way or not, a request of, could you wash your hands before playing with the baby, turning that into a reason for divorce.
This is a bad person.
This is a person I would say, let me, before saying bad, maybe they have good qualities.
It's a personality type, for sure.
The kind of person, it's very selfish.
Yes.
I can't, I can't just do this little thing for you because you're making me do it.
Right.
It's a very, it's so selfish.
I don't want to say narcissistic because that, you know, the term is used way too much, but it's, you know, it's in the area.
Yeah.
It's definitely a selfish, personal, I don't know what the, what, a better word than selfish to use.
It's someone who's entirely self-focused.
Let's look at that.
Okay.
Look at the people involved.
A wife, right?
You.
A husband, okay.
A child.
And over here, a mother.
In his case, mother-in-law.
All right.
Who is affected by the action of washing their hands or not washing their hands, whether you agree with it or not?
The child, obviously, and doctors tell you to obviously be very careful with newborns because their immune system isn't developed yet.
Wash your hands.
Okay.
The mother, the father are affected because they are tasked with the duty, the well-being of that child, right?
And if there are complications, God forbid, they have to deal with it.
And to a very, very small degree, the mother because she has to go through, my God, the anguish of washing her hands.
Oh, my God.
And throughout all of this, I don't care on tone and whether it was asked the right way and whether it was tactful.
She has completely discounted the people who are most affected by it and made it all about her, the lady who is the least affected by it.
And this problem could be solved by 30 seconds of washing the hand.
And instead, she's trying to destroy your marriage.
One simple act of service can be fixed with one simple act of service to your child, your child-in-law, and your grandchild.
Right.
That's it.
Washing your hands?
Yeah.
You can't do that.
Right.
I'll tell you, it's like it's this simple.
Like with my missus or the grandparents, I had a conversation one time.
I'm like, oh, well, I gave her this, my daughter.
Some people are like, yeah, well, just like, just in the future, don't give them that because I know it's kind of healthy.
It's on the line, but we don't give treats until after they finish their food.
And it was like, oh, okay.
Course corrected.
Right?
Mistakes are made and grandparents are going to spoil your kids.
Or you might not be on the same page where you think, well, technically it's a muffin.
You're like, that's just a fucking cupcake that's labeled chocolate muffin.
So they can't have that until they eat their steak and rice.
Whatever it is.
Right?
Okay, great.
Because people go, oh, we want what's best for the family.
This mom, your mom, doesn't want what is best for the family.
And she doesn't even want what's best for herself.
She wants to be right.
She wants to be right at the cost of your family and even the cost of her well-being because she doesn't care.
She can't be wrong.
And if she's a, whether she's a bad person or not, I don't know.
I will tell you this.
I bet my life on this.
That is a woman incapable, incapable.
It's not possible that she could dispense good advice.
It will be bad advice.
At best, sometimes maybe neutral.
She will often give bad advice.
She's made it clear she has a vested interest in tearing down your family.
And if she can't break into your mind, and by the way, you may be mentally strong.
She probably can find those cracks because she's maxed out her character's experience points on the manipulation bar.
If she can't do it on you, she'll do it on the kids.
And you'd like to think that people don't, but far more people do than you realize.
For proof, see children used as wedges, as leverage in custody battles across this country.
It really is a pretty important frontier as far as rights.
People often don't know they're doing it too.
The people who just manipulate all day, that's all they do.
Yeah.
They'll only admit they do it.
Right.
Because they don't know they're doing it.
Yeah.
They just live their life the way that they see fit, which is for me, about me, all the time, me.
Yeah.
And they don't realize what they're doing.
They think, well, you would accuse me of manipulating that child because I convinced him to get daddy to leave.
Right.
The advice I'll give you here, yeah, is the same advice I would give in every single scenario.
Take everything else out of it.
Let me try and really, really simplify this.
Take out how you feel about your mom, how close you are.
It doesn't matter.
Take out how you feel about your husband.
It doesn't matter how in love with him you are.
It doesn't matter.
Take out whether you love him at all.
It doesn't matter.
And just think of it through duty and responsibility.
Do you have a duty?
Did you make a covenant with your husband?
Do you sign a contract?
Okay.
What are your responsibilities?
Is your duty to your mom?
Is your duty to your husband, even before the kids, and then your children, just as his duty is to you.
But I don't even want you to worry about other people's duties.
Worry about yours.
That's it.
Let's simplify it.
Let's narrow this down to approach all of these familial problems to your duty.
To whom do you have a duty?
That's a really simple answer.
Your husband, then your kids.
God, your husband, your kids.
I don't know how it works without Judeo-Christian principles.
I really don't.
I don't know why anyone who's secular would get married.
I can't make a case for it.
And of course, it's a necessity if you are a Christian.
All right?
Just what is your duty?
It's to your husband.
What interferes with that duty?
Whoever it is, whether it's your mom, whether it's your dad, whether it's the state, whether it's a teacher, cast it as far as the eye can see and fulfill your duty.
And the good news is, if you do that, and he does that, that's actually going to foster a whole lot more love.
And even if it doesn't foster the warm, fuzzy feeling of love, it's going to be better for your kids.
Your kids are not better off with that cackling witch determining their welfare in the future.
Nope.
You, your husband, your duty.
Worry about your duty, your responsibility, and the answers become really clear.
I'm sorry that you have to go through this.
And I hope that you guys can still have some kind of relationship.
But my God, your duty demands that you limit that relationship until the lady trying to tear down your covenant before God, until she figures her shit out.
And I mean it.
It's tough.
Start doing that now and make it really clear and go tell your husband you love him.
And if you think that that guy needs some sexual release, make that happen.
Not war, not war.
Not war, not war.
You're a strange gentleman.
▲
Export Selection