Biden's State Of The Union Speech w/ Roger Stone | PBD Podcast | Ep. 234
PBD Podcast Episode 234. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Roger Stone, Vincent Oshana and Kai Lode. Roger Jason Stone is an American conservative political consultant and lobbyist. Since the 1970s, Stone has worked on the campaigns of Republican politicians, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
0:00 - Start
6:12 - Reaction To Jill Biden Kissing Kamala Harris' Husband
10:59 - Joe Biden shocks Patrick Bet-David In State Of The Union Speech
26:52 - Reaction to Trump calling out Joe Biden in his 'Real' state of the union speech
42:24 - Reaction To The US Shooting Down Chinese Spy Balloon
52:26 - Is India Going To Be The Next China?
1:08:18 - Reaction to Sam Smith's 'Unholy' Grammy Performance
1:15:37 - CEO of the bank of America on the national debt crisis
1.19.54 - Single women own 2.6 million more homes than single men
1.26.18 - Israel's president becomes the first world leader using chatgpt in a speech
1.32.37 - Roger Stone on the Trump & DeSantis rivalry
1.43.06 - Can Dwayne Johnson be the next president?
1:46:15 - Patrick Bet-David Responds To Jason Whitlock Calling Him Out
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
To donate to the Stone Family Support Fund: https://bit.ly/3OGNpyk
Follow Kai Lode on Instagram: https://bit.ly/31LKsGB
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Why would you pet on Goliath when we got bet taved?
Value payment, giving values today.
This is world of entrepreneurs.
We can't no value to hate it.
I'd run, homie, look what I become.
I'm the one.
Okay, Eric.
So if we are live, we're going to do it.
We had a false start, so we're doing it again.
The other one that we went live was a podcast from yesterday, but we're live.
Okay.
Special podcast 234.
We're going to talk about the state of the union speech.
We have Vincent O'Shana in the house.
We have the great Roger Stone in the House.
Kai, we got a lot of things to talk about.
It was an interesting speech.
If you did get a chance to watch it, there was a legendary history-making kiss that I think will be talked about for many, many decades to come.
That deserves to be on the cover of Time magazine.
It's one of those top events of the year.
Somebody needs to write a book and put that on the cover of it.
Absolutely.
We're going to talk about how the first prime minister president, who somebody will talk about, who used ChatGPT to prepare a speech.
We'll react to that.
Elon had some thoughts and concerns about ChatGPT that's going on.
A few other statistics on what's going on with the economy.
We'll touch on that as well.
And then as well as yesterday, we went live with a, what do you call it, Roland Martin podcast we had that did very well.
We got a lot of commentary on it.
You know, it's been a lot of reactions.
A lot of other channels reacted to it.
It was great.
Really enjoyed the banter and the debates.
I think the audience won.
There's a video that Jason Whitlock, I think it's last 20 videos, reacting to an event that took place, which I will react to at the end of the podcast and give you my thoughts.
But having said that, let's get right into it.
Roger, you've seen many state of the union speeches.
I have.
You've been around.
You've seen a couple of these things.
How would you rate yesterday's?
Was it a good for them?
And if it was, in what way?
I think it was a very effective speech.
Like any president, you stress the things you think are going well or the things you can put the best possible spin on.
You try to ignore or de-emphasize those things that are not going well.
There were times during this speech where I could close my eyes and I could almost see Donald Trump rhetorically.
America first, bring back American manufacturing jobs, stand up to China, taking credit in some cases for things that Trump did.
No, it was Trump who capped the price of insulin, for example.
And while it is true that an increase of 12.8 million jobs is very impressive, it doesn't take into consideration how many jobs were lost because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
And therefore, it's still true that there are fewer people working today than were working at the end of the Trump administration.
And then, of course, the president continues to maintain, oh, I inherited a mess on inflation.
No, actually, he inherited the lowest inflation rates in decades.
And it's his number one problem.
Republicans particularly understand the correlation between spending and inflation.
I'm not sure all voters understand the correlation between spending and inflation, but that's what a presidential campaign's about.
And he acts like a man who's running.
So do you think, like, if you watch the State of the Union, do you think it gave a better optic for the audience to say, you know what, I think this guy can run again and go run for the next time for himself?
Do you think it was a good look for Democrats?
Do you think Democratic voters are sitting there saying, well, in your face, Republicans, I thought he did a good job.
How would you see specifically with optics?
Because I know a lot of politics.
There's policies, but then there's also optics.
How did he look in regards to optics?
A little too soon to say.
Okay.
Because you have the event, then you have the interpretation of the event by the media, then you have the impact of that on voters.
The number of people who think he should run has been systematically dropping.
It was 52 several months ago.
It's now down to about 37.
We'll see if it bounces or floats back up, remains to be seen.
I thought that the content overall was better than his performance.
I never think it's a good idea to yell.
I think yelling, I mean, that never happens.
We don't like that either.
Well, it's too hot.
I mean, it's too hot for a political leader.
In fact, when you want them to listen, you actually drop your voice on the more important points, something that Nixon once commented on.
So he goes back and forth between being conciliatory but yelling.
Overall, though, there has to be some consistency.
This is a president who only months ago had a very dark speech in which he basically condemned 50% of the people, calling them extremists because they don't agree with him.
So on the one hand, he wants to be conciliatory with Republicans.
And I was glad that he talked about cancer and some of these other issues where hopefully we can get some bipartisan cooperation.
But to talk about the fentanyl and not attribute it to the open borders policies of this administration is just unrealistic.
The problem at our border is not lack of money or lack of resources.
It's lack of will.
It's a bad policy.
Illegal crossings were down to a trickle at the end of the Trump administration.
Illegal crossings now are hitting records.
I think this is largely responsible for the fentanyl crisis in the country.
So you can't fight fentanyl unless you're prepared to close down the borders.
So can we do this?
Can we show the clip, Rob, if you can, of a few different things?
Because I got notes here.
I got the good, bad, ugly score.
What was a win to me for Democrats for him?
What was awkward?
What was a loss?
Different topics.
But can you show the clip of the kiss that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, if you can find that while you're doing that, go ahead, man.
Do you know who, so did you see it, Roger, when Joe Biden came down?
And I didn't realize this.
Her husband, his name is Doug Amoff.
He's the first second gentleman of our entire political.
He's Kamala's husband.
And Joe Biden came there.
And it wasn't just, like, listen, we're Middle Eastern.
So Roger, when we see other family members, you know, maybe a kiss.
Some people do three.
They literally locked eyes.
And it wasn't just, okay, accidental here.
It was a moment where even the people around them were like, are we on camera?
Right now.
And it's like, if Kamal, like, if that was somebody, like, my mom, if that was her over there, then that happened.
My mom would have jumped over.
I don't give a damn, jumped over these aisles and beat the hell out of Jill.
Like, that's just, it's just, it's ridiculous.
Like, look, he knows he's about to get there.
He knows what's coming.
He's about to give it to her.
He's the one that initiates.
He starts.
Okay, can we see it?
Who's the old lady in the middle that just stuck right there?
Do you guys know who that is?
Who is that?
Don't recognize that.
That's probably like his mom or something.
Yeah, can we play that, Rob?
I want to see that.
Oh, no sound.
Oof.
That was a good one.
Look at that.
I love more than three.
That's on the lips, right?
I mean, that's straight up on the lip.
Of course.
Look, here's my question.
Here's my question.
I think you were born.
You can run for office, right?
You're essentially born in America.
So everybody here is a natural citizen.
I'm not.
So to me, is this an American thing?
Like, is it normal for one to kiss another man's wife, let alone, is that an American?
Is that a normal thing to do?
No.
And this is just a distraction.
I mean, this is like a UK Daily Mail moment, you know?
But no, I don't think it's a coachable thing.
By the way, you can run for anything but President of the United States.
Pat could.
Yes, you.
Yeah, I'm not interested.
I understand, but just the fact that you're not natural born, whatever that means, doesn't mean you couldn't run for him.
Yeah.
So, I mean, to me, when I see something like this, I'm a little bit weirded out by it, you know, to say, hey, it's okay to do something like this.
Do you find that weird as well, or is it just me?
I found it very weird.
I was listening to this in the car this morning, and I didn't even notice it until we played it back.
And I was like, what?
That is very weird.
And the internet has definitely been sharing this more than enough.
And you guys know who that is.
That's Paul Pelosi with the hat right there.
And that's Bono on the left.
You say, thank God he didn't sing.
Yeah, that's hilarious.
That would have been hilarious.
Yeah.
What would he do?
It's just an awkward thing to do, especially when you know all the cameras are on you.
They're applauding you.
You just walked into the room.
And then that's the first, like, that's, she didn't do this with anybody else.
It was just, it was just to the second gentleman done.
So does anybody care?
Is this like even anything?
So meaning, let's just say, let's just say Trump's wife kisses Mike Pence.
It's kind of like doing that, right?
Or is that like, who would that be?
No, it would be Mike Pence as, well, that doesn't work.
It would be opposite.
No, but it's just still somebody's.
I don't know, man.
Somebody's wife or husband locking lips.
That was that right off the rip, because that was the first thing I saw.
I was like, oh my God, did that really just happen?
And then he opened.
That's why they opened with calling Chuck Schumer the minority.
What do you call him?
Right when he went on the stage, he had a gaff right off the rip.
Okay.
So anyways, to me, it's very weird.
But I have my own thoughts on this.
I'll get into it in a Kai, Vinny, rest of you guys.
I'd love to get a little bit more content on this as well.
So first of all, I think the following about what happened.
If we were to survey 100 different people, say 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats, 20 independent libertarians, and say, how well of a job do you think Biden's going to do given the State of the Union speech?
Okay.
And they put their scores.
Before.
Before, not after, before.
I think the average person is going to say, you know, four, a five, it's what they're going to expect for him to do, right?
It's like a guy you have that's on the bench who averages six points a game, and you put him in, he scored 17 points.
You're like, dude, we were not expecting 17 points from this guy.
I think that's what he did.
He went in, and I think it was a very good look for him.
The Democrats, again, my opinion on what happened.
The most awkward part was that.
Okay.
I think the part that I give credit to is the following.
I'll get into that here in a minute.
Here's some of the things he talked about.
Number one, inflation.
He blamed Putin on inflation.
We caught that.
So that blame game, you don't gain credibility there anytime you do that, but we know where that's going.
And then the last two years, 10 million jobs, 10 million Americans have applied to start a new business.
Okay, so you're kind of appealing to the small business owner.
We get that.
That's a good speech that's given.
Then the next thing was Social Security every five years.
You know how Rick Scott is negotiating for this.
I think that was a massive, massive victory for him.
Because it was off the cuff.
It was uncomfortable.
If you can play it, this is like, if you show a highlight of Michael Jordan going over Sam Perkins and switching and making the shot with his left hand, I think this was his moment.
If you want to just press play so the audience can zoom, just zoom in so they can hear it and see it.
Yeah.
Zoom it even closer, even closer.
You don't need to see the words, just the face.
There you go.
If you can click on it.
So watch this.
This is the moment.
Audio on the bottom right.
Well, it's all the oil refineries anyway.
So watch this.
Oh, this isn't the one.
This is a completely different thing.
This is the oil refinery one.
The one I'm talking about is where, what is this one here?
No, that's a different one as well.
There's a clip where the Republicans and him, they're talking about Social Security and they're talking about Medicare.
So if you go on YouTube or Twitter and type on Social Security, Medicare Biden, it'll come up.
I think that was his highlight.
And, you know, I know it's very hard for Republicans to even give credit to him.
I think that's his highlight.
Is that the one?
How many minutes is that?
Buck 37?
That should be the one.
Press play and audio.
Pay their fair share.
Some Republicans.
Okay, rewind.
Some Republicans.
Watch this.
Here's when it gets nasty.
I get it.
Unless I agree to their economic plans.
All of you at home should know what those plans are.
Watch this.
Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans.
Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security sunset.
I'm not saying it's a majority.
I'm not saying it's a majority.
Yeah, what?
One person talked to you about this?
Great setup.
Anybody who doubts it, contact my office.
Wait, watch this.
You have a copyright proposal.
That means Congress doesn't vote.
Well, I'm glad to see you.
No, I tell you, I enjoy conversion.
You know, it means if Congress doesn't keep the programs the way they are, they go away.
Other Republicans say.
I'm not saying it's a majority of you.
I don't even think it's even a significant majority.
But it's being proposed by individuals.
I'm not politely not naming them, but it's being proposed by some of you.
Look.
Watch this, folks.
The idea is that we're not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt if we don't respond.
Folks.
Watch.
He corners them and then he makes all the Republicans stand up.
Watch this.
This is his highlight.
So, folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security Medicare is off the books now, right?
They're not to be strong.
All right.
Watch this.
And then, no, hang on.
You don't have any more?
Oh, the best part is missing.
You know what's the best part of what he does right after this?
He says, so can we all stand up if you agree to protect seniors?
And he makes everybody stand up that even booed him.
So, look, if you can go minute 42, go all the way to the last 10 seconds.
Yeah, that's the one.
Press play.
Don't do that.
Don't do that because it's hurting the ears.
All right.
We got unanimity.
Go back to Buck 20.
Yeah, go back to.
So, folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is also – Anyways, right afterwards, he makes everybody stand up.
You can just pause it.
He gets everybody else to stand up.
So I thought that was a defining moment for him.
That's a highlight, okay, for him to, and this is why.
Let me explain why.
You have to know this is, we don't sit here every week and talk about how amazing Joe Biden is, okay?
But to me, strategically, when you go off the script and it's all about the teleprompter and there is a 75-second moment that you can't lean on the teleprompter and that comes off the cuff to do that, I think you got to give the guy credit on being able to leverage that.
And he kind of cornered McCarthy because he took away a couple cards away to negotiate.
Now, I would love to see your thoughts because you look like you got a couple things to say.
I disagree with just about all of that.
First of all, McCarthy announced the morning before the speech that Medicaid and Social Security are off the table.
Not going to consider cuts in any ways.
Joe just lost his big bugaboo issue they always use in October.
Oh, vote against the Republicans.
They're going to cut your Social Security.
It's very clear that that's not in our plan.
I've also never seen that kind of reaction at all in a State of the Union address.
They take one senator, Rick Scott, who has a plan that, by the way, I don't think any other senator supports.
And he signals him out and tries to imply that this is more emblematic of the overall Republican Party.
So I don't think he just lost an issue that they use as a scare tactic because no one understands.
And Trump, by the way, tweeted about this prior to the event, to the Republicans, saying Social Security and Medicare have to be off the table.
The other thing here, of course, is that our politics moves so fast and our electorate is so volatile that any conclusion we reach here today or any impression that Biden makes on the voters can change within days.
I mean, as we have seen in this recent controversy regarding the Chinese surveillance balloon, an event like that can so completely suck up the oxygen on all political coverage and change things overnight.
No, I absolutely kind of agree that he did.
I was surprised by Biden, to be quite honest.
I mean, every time he goes up to speak, you just wonder what he's going to do to screw it up or how he's going to make it look worse.
But in the speech, overall, I was thoroughly impressed.
He looked presidential, and especially considering the way he was in his campaign speeches and how he was stumbling and going back and forth.
And you're like, what's going on?
It was like watching a NASCAR race and everybody watches it to watch, I want to see the big crash.
And you just saw some fender benders, but nothing really, really bad happened.
Because mind you, when I watch speeches like that, mind you, I'm embarrassed as an American citizen, as a veteran, because I'm biting my nails like, what?
Because he messed up a couple of times.
Some words, you know, he can't really articulate them.
I think he said prescription drugs once, but he was like, he's like, like a four-year-old.
But I mean, it's just like you're waiting for like mistake.
And like, who knows?
But he's right on the edge of like, even the way he walks.
I mean, I feel, I genuinely feel bad for him because I think he's at that point.
I don't think he should run.
By the way, the running conversation is a different conversation.
That's a whole different conversation we can have afterwards.
But to me, you know, right afterwards, Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave a speech and she said, you know, I'm officially the youngest governor in America at 40 years old.
And President Biden is the oldest president ever at 80 years old to give the message that he gave.
So I think America's kind of tired with, you know, the messaging.
All I'm saying is in this specific moment, I want to find that scene because I think it is a scene that we have to see.
I think I found it here where he gets everyone to have to stand up.
It's at an out.
Yeah, there it is.
It's right here.
I'll send a link to you to go to hour and one minute to share with that, but I'll keep going with the other topics that I have.
He had the parents of Tyree Nichols there, which is a good way to connect with what took place.
And a very great opportunity for connection to talk about law enforcement needs training.
Great.
Fine.
So he hit that.
If Congress suggests a national ban, I will veto it.
Great.
Fine.
Story of fentanyl, which that was a very bad look for him because you don't talk about what you're fixing when your leader who needs to go to the border, Kamala, doesn't even go to talk to the people at the border.
It's 100% hypocrisy, whether you're middle, center, left, right, it doesn't matter.
You can't talk in that topic with a lot of credibility.
I thought the baby that fought cancer.
I thought that was a great story that he gave heartfelt.
Again, he hit the heartfelt messages that took place.
Paul Pelosi standing up.
I don't know who said to have even a shout out to Paul Pelosi.
I don't think that was a good look because things are too fresh.
And, you know, you don't want a guy that's hanging out with another guy with a hammer and a beer in his hand and their underwear to kind of give an endorsement to a person like that.
That's a little awkward.
Let's wait another six or 12 months before we get to that.
It was weird, but to make that, I think that was like me like feel bad.
And don't get me wrong, I felt bad the guy was attacked.
But all the stuff leading up to it and the police video, all the questions of what they said it was.
So what you saw was like, wait a minute, they looked like they were just, somebody walked in on them.
You know what I mean?
But the one where he tripped on his own deal is the one that I just gave you.
If you can go to that, the one that you had up originally, which was the oil issue, okay?
Which was the oil issue, which I think is this one.
Yeah, but this one?
Yeah.
For a decade.
We're not going to exceed.
Replay, replay.
Beyond that.
Look at this.
Replay.
Watch this.
This is with the oil.
Yeah.
You need the audio.
You're going to need oil.
Yeah, this was it.
You're going to shut down all the oil wells and all the oil refineries anyway.
So why should we invest in them?
I said, we're going to need oil for at least another decade.
And that's going to exceed.
Look at Kamala's face.
You shouldn't have said that.
We're going to need it.
You see?
And when I talked to you, you should say, We're afraid you're going to shut down the street.
When you saw that, what did you think about this one?
So much for the new Green Deal, huh?
Exactly.
Exactly.
I mean, look, it's a reality.
You had, for the first time, you had energy independence under Trump.
Every president, Republican and Democrat, they always pledged it.
Nobody ever did it.
There's enough natural oil and natural gas under U.S. territory to fuel the country for the next hundred years.
For the first time, we don't have to go hat in hand to the Middle East or to Venezuela for oil.
We turn on the Russian pipeline that Trump shut down.
We shut down our pipeline.
This makes no sense at all.
And now Joe Biden has just essentially contradicted the dogma of his party that we need to be moving off of fossil fuels immediately.
I thought it was one of the weakest parts of the speech.
And of course, Republicans were high-fiving each other.
By the way, that was, again, so here's kind of how I see this.
There are a few people who can do without the teleprompter.
He's not one of them.
Definitely.
At all.
Okay.
If you were to even count on your hand how many people can give a talk for an hour or two or three without a teleprompter, it's not a long list of names.
Okay.
Who would you say?
You follow this sport closer than anybody else.
Trump is one of them.
Who else can go without a teleprompter?
Very few.
We make an excellent point.
Very few.
Would you put Obama on that list and Clinton on that list?
I think Obama could probably do it.
I think so.
I think he's talented.
Clinton could definitely do it.
The problem is Clinton would talk for two hours.
Yeah.
Like give him the light to get on.
He was good, though, when he would talk.
At least he wouldn't entertain him when he would do his part.
All I'm saying is to follow on.
Here's kind of how this works.
It's like, you know, you're in your floaties in the middle of the ocean.
You're okay.
You're doing fine.
Okay.
You let the floaties go.
Oh, shit.
It's risky.
I bet a lot of the people who were the speechwriters, they kept saying, President of mine, suggestion, just stick to the teleprompter.
You can pause, take your time, but just read it slowly.
We're going to be okay.
The moment he was out there without the floaties, they're probably like, oh my God, what are we going to call it?
He made one of them up, which is the Medicare and Social Security, because he got that older vote, the baby boomer vote, the way he did it.
Well, maybe he got them to listen, but then he slipped up with the oil one.
And the old one where the Democrats are like, bro, just stick to the flippin' script.
Teleprompter, what are you doing?
So that's the part with him.
So he had his flip-fly.
He had a few turnovers, but I also thought he made a few good plays.
No, absolutely.
I think, especially on the Democrat side of how they've been so against the oil, the Green New Deal, and pushing that forward.
The reality is there's no doubt that there's going to be some sort of transition to some point down the road.
But obviously they're pushing for a very heavy now, everything, abolish oil, get rid of it, this, that, and the other.
And what he just proved was that the reality is that's not the case, but that's what they're pushing for.
So he just kind of screwed up the argument on that end.
The other obvious balloon in the room.
Not the Chinese one?
Is that he has a little section there where he talks about being tough on China and saying, well, we just were tough on them.
But in fact, we let this balloon into U.S. airspace.
We let it essentially navigate all the way across the country from Montana to the Carolinas.
And then and only then do we do anything about it other than sending a strong letter to the Chinese.
I think he sustained more damage from that over the last week than anything he picked up with tough on China rhetoric in this speech.
The Chinese were paying us billions and billions and billions of dollars in tariffs.
He canceled that program.
The Chinese, clearly watching our fumbling in Afghanistan, watching what's going on in Ukraine, they've definitely got plans regarding Taiwan.
And the lesson of history is that weakness provokes aggression.
Weakness provokes war.
Yeah, but the spin doctors showed up very quickly and they said a balloon under Trump was there for a while and nothing was done about it.
And these balloons are normal balloons.
And then the average voter sitting there saying, oh, but maybe this is just a normal thing with all these balloons that they have.
I don't think that's so.
The Secretary of Defense says, nobody told me that there were Chinese balloons in U.S. airspace.
Nobody else in the national security apparatus.
So I think it's an effort to try to make it usual, no big deal.
Normalized one.
I don't think it works.
You don't think it works.
You know how I typically know when it didn't work is the following way, especially with his biggest opponent right now, who is President Trump, right?
So if President Trump talks about it, he senses it as a weakness of the opposition, his opponent, and he knows who his opponent is.
Can you play the two-minute clip of what President Trump said?
He called it the real State of the Union speech.
I love it.
So here's former President Donald Trump.
Rob, we can't hear him without audio, buddy.
Go back, go back.
Here's the real State of the Union.
Over the past two years under Biden, millions and millions of illegal aliens from 160 different countries have stormed across our southern border.
Drug cartels are now raking in billions of dollars from smuggling poison to kill our people and to kill our children.
Savage killers, rapists, and violent criminals are being released from jail to continue their crime wave.
And under Biden, the murder rate has reached the highest in the history of our country.
Biden and the radical Democrats have wasted trillions of dollars and caused the worst inflation in half a century.
Real wages are down 21 months in a row.
Gas prices have soared and are now going up much higher than even before.
And the typical American family is paying $2,200 in increased energy and food costs each year.
Joe Biden's weaponized justice department, and I'm a victim of it, is persecuting his political opponents.
His administration is waging war on free speech.
They're trying to indoctrinate and mutilate our children.
He's leading us to the brink of World War III.
And on top of all of that, He's the most corrupt president in American history, and it's not even close.
But the good news is we are going to reverse every single crisis, calamity, and disaster that Joe Biden has created.
I am running for president to end the destruction of our country and to complete the unfinished business of making America great again.
We will make our country better than ever before, and we will always put America first.
Thank you.
Okay.
So millions of immigrants in 160 different countries.
That's his campaign.
He just gave you his place.
Right there.
Yeah.
Number two.
It's a signature issue.
Beautiful.
Exactly.
Absolutely.
Savages and rapists are being released from prison.
Sanctuary cities or border.
Fine.
Great.
Three.
Real wages are down 21 months in a row.
Economy.
It's a strength.
Typical American family paying $2,200 in increased energy and food costs.
It's felt middle-American.
He's talking to low- and middle-income families.
The average family is spending Joe Biden's weaponized justice department, perfect on what is going on with that.
And now it's backfiring on Biden.
He's going to play that no problem.
He's turning us into potentially World War III, leading us into World War III.
That is a very, very, it could be a valid issue that he's bringing up.
He's the most corrupt president ever.
We don't know what's going to happen now with Kevin McCarthy and them leading the House, the investigation that you're going to see every day Hunter or somebody's out there being talked about all this stuff.
They're going to have to address that.
And then he came back and said, I'm going to come back.
We're going to put America first again.
So, you know, if you only watch the State of the Union, you're blown away by, you know, you're like, okay, this was a decent speech.
If you watch it from Trump's side, you see all the flaws.
If you watch it from Sarah Huckabee's side, you see the flaws.
If you watch it from CNN's side, they were ecstatic on how great of a job he did.
So it all depends on who's watching it, right?
So, but here's the point now, that when we're seeing this taking place with the State of the Union being given and Trump given what message he just gave, at what point do you sit there and say, okay, because Trump hasn't yet turned on the throttle on really going campaigning.
This isn't Trump campaigning yet.
With the timing of when the State of the Union is, first week of February, okay?
And in election time, we got what right now?
22 months, 21 months, whatever the timeline is.
When do you see historically where all of a sudden it's full throttle, Trump's going 100% offensive?
When does that happen?
First of all, I think his announcement of candidacy was more of a marker than it was the beginning of a campaign.
He was letting everybody in his own party and in the other party know, I'm definitely running.
You don't need to speculate about it.
Secondarily, while he is raising money, and between the time he announced and the end of the filing period, he raised $9.5 million.
Now, to me, that's a lot of money.
People say, oh, he underperformed.
Well, he has no overhead because he's not out doing rallies.
The rallies, by the way, are a half million dollars apiece.
Half a million dollars.
So, you know, he has a very lean staff.
He is doing events like he did in New Hampshire and South Carolina, which keeps his campaign expenses down because recognize those now need to be paid for by his re-election campaign.
And here's where I think he is making an error, and hopefully he will change his mind.
He's been putting out some very good issue-oriented videos.
I thought that was a very good video, but he needs to put them on Twitter.
It is a mistake to just continue to post solely at True Social.
First of all, I love Truth Social, but it is, by definition, you're talking to your base.
100%.
It is a great place to talk to people, not all of whom, but most of whom agree with you.
But in terms of talking to everybody, your supporters and your opponents and those in the middle, I don't think Twitter can be beat.
He has 87 million followers on Twitter.
He has a little over 3 million followers, I think, on True Social.
I could be a little off on that.
Let's say that a substantial number of the people following him on Twitter are bots.
Let's say it's 50%, which I don't think it is.
Well, that means he has 42 million people.
I mean, that's still an enormous number of pizza.
So I'm hopeful that he will begin posting this content, this video content particularly.
He doesn't have to use Twitter for his sniping, which he loves to do, which is just kind of part of his political persona.
But I do think he needs to occasionally, occasionally go back on Twitter.
Is he contractually binded to Truth Social?
He is not.
No, he's not.
He's not.
So do you guys think this is like a tactical move where he's just waiting, he's biding his time to actually just hit it, like Pat was saying, to go full throttle and then it all comes out?
Or he's just like, does he still have a sour taste in his mouth from the way he was treated and banned?
The most predictable thing about Donald Trump is that he's completely unpredictable.
So it's not.
I love it.
And it's not always easy to understand exactly why he's doing what he's doing, but in all cases, he's doing it with some purpose.
I do think he understands that the very first time he goes back to Twitter, that's a huge story.
That's an enormous story.
And therefore, when he goes there, he should go there to say something of substance.
These videos are really quite good, but they're not getting the kind of residence I think they could get if he posted occasionally on Twitter.
Can we do, what do you call it?
Can we put a poll and ask how many people today on this live are actually on Truth Social?
I'd be curious to know how many people are on Truth Social.
If you had to guess, what would you say, Pat?
From the people in the chat.
Less than 5% are on Truth Social.
I was going to say less than 5%.
And I think that's a high number to be on Truth Social.
I don't think that many people are on Truth Social.
But here's the question, though.
You only get to do your first tweet once, right?
First.
You're going to come back to it.
You only get to do it once.
And I believe it's going to end up being the most liked tweet in the history of Twitter and the most retweeted tweet in the history of Twitter until it's like a terrible waste of a first opportunity.
If it's like a video, if it's something that's really solid, it'll be record-breaking.
You know, 100, 200, 300 million views is what the video is going to get.
I believe that.
Do you think knowing him, he's hanging tight to make sure that the first one is not only perfectly timed to maximize the effort, to not just waste it right now because it's too early to drop Twitter.
Well, put it this way.
I agree with your analysis that the first time he does it, it will be a mega story.
That's like times five rallies, right?
In terms of reach.
And he does have a good sense of timing.
So, yeah, I think he's going to use it both when he has something very important to say and also when there is more focus.
Right now, in our party, he's the only candidate running.
The field has not been filled.
There's a lot of people who are going to be able to get away.
Nikki Harrison.
Well, did she formally announce or did she announce that she's going to announce?
I'm not sure.
But she made her intentional.
It'd be fair to count her as a candidate, I guess.
But I do think it's an asset.
that he will use at the right time.
To go back to another point you made, and I think this is an absolute key, which is $2 billion more for Ukraine in this speech.
$2 billion.
I mean, it is true that, particularly because of U.S.-based coverage of the war, most Americans support Ukraine.
Most Americans are opposed to Putin and Russia.
But at some point, we have 370,000 homeless veterans in this country.
And in the end, I think it'll be up to the Fed as to whether we have a recession or not.
It is entirely possible.
Republicans, more than all voters, recognize the correlation between massive spending and inflation.
And inflation is the number one, along with immigration, I think, the number one and number two problem for this administration.
So I believe the war, not only am I worried about us kind of stumbling into World War III, but I also think that it's very conceivable that like the Vietnam War, like the Korean War, the war could become very unpopular over time.
The longer the war goes, the more unpopular it will become because of the cost.
And also the softer our economy is, the more the resentment that we are seeming to be just running the printing presses and sending this money to Ukraine.
So I do think Trump's greatest single potential opportunity is to run as the peace candidate.
Eisenhower said, I will end the war in Korea.
Nixon said, I will end the war in Vietnam.
Given the Middle Eastern peace deal, which Trump got done, which no one thought possible, given the fact that it was Trump who turned off the Russian pipeline and Trump who gave the offensive weapons to the Ukrainians that Obama would not give them,
given Trump's diplomatic success in North Korea, where he at least got the madman to stop his nuclear weapons development testing, which is now restarted under Joe Biden, I mean, I think he has credibility as a deal maker, as a negotiator.
And I think he appealed to that anti-interventionist streak in America and particularly in the Republican Party in 2016.
And I think he will do so again.
Were you going to say something?
Yeah, so I think just to piggyback off of what Roger was saying in terms of Ukraine, I definitely think that U.S. has passed the line that Putin kind of drew in the sand to begin with of supporting Ukraine and specifically through military equipment, through the tanks that they've been sending and stuff like that.
So if Putin really wanted to, I think that he has justified reason on his end to really launch full-out further war on that end.
But my concern would definitely be more on the opposite side of China versus Russia really starting something that we'd kind of accidentally stumble into.
Roger, at the end of the day, because as a veteran too, just like Pat Suit, when we're giving all this money and we're helping and we're, you know, the act to me is everybody wear the flag in Ukraine.
We're sending all these billions.
What is the end goal?
What are we in it for?
That's an excellent question because we signed a treaty in 1994 between Ronald Reagan and leader Gorbachev, in which we agreed not to push Ukraine into NATO, which means really not to mount offensive Western finance missiles on the ground in Russia.
We do have bioweapons labs there.
The administration stumbled and admitted it, and then they tried to pull it back.
And if you say, well, we're there to support democracy, Zelensky has arrested, everybody ran against him in the last election.
He's outlawed all the other parties.
He closes down newspapers.
He closes down TV stations.
He closes down radio stations.
He arrests journalists.
He just closed down the largest church in the country.
So this is not about democracy.
And I think we have been provocative.
Now, people watch that and say, oh, there you go.
Roger Stone is a Putin apologist.
He loves Putin.
He's a Russophile.
No.
I had family members mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956.
I have no use for Putin.
He's a thug.
I have no use for their system.
But this is most certainly not about democracy.
And I really fear that we could stumble into World War III.
I agree.
And it doesn't help when we have, and my Roger, I was telling Pat earlier, I was stationed at Mountain Storm Air Force Base in Montana in regards to the Chinese, the balloon situation.
We knew it was traversing from China as of last month on the 28th.
We let it fly all the way to Great Falls, Montana over Mountain Storm Air Force, which is a nuclear missile base that I was stationed at.
No care in the world.
Apparently, they were monitoring and it wasn't looking.
And just the fact that we let it come into our airspace, there's no excuse for anything like that, unless just saying that China, we still haven't held them accountable for COVID.
So, you know, whatever.
Now there's a spy plane.
And it doesn't seem like anybody really, they don't even care.
Biggest thing I saw was that they canceled the trip to China.
And that was their response of, okay, we're going to push back on you.
We're not going to show up on your trip.
He said, I don't think the Chinese care too much about that.
Absolutely.
I don't really know.
They at all.
Not at all.
I really don't think they care.
So let me just read the balloon story and let's kind of hear some of the stuff on there.
So Chinese spy balloon over central USA will be in U.S. airspace for a few days, Pentagon says.
This is a February 3rd story.
So it's an older story.
So Defense Department spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder said Friday that the Chinese surveillance balloon hovering over the U.S. has moved into a central part of the country, but declined to get into specifics.
No problem.
The balloon is currently flying about 60,000 feet above sea level, higher than civilian aircraft.
The Biden administration has condemned the presence of a China surveillance aircraft in the U.S. airspace as a violation of U.S. sovereignty, but nothing happens.
Same day Trump says, shoot down the balloon.
President Trump on Friday called for the U.S. to shoot down the suspected China's high-altitude surveillance balloon that had been spotted flying over different states in the recent days.
Shoot down the balloon, Trump posted on his Truth Social.
Office of Naval Intelligence Veteran Human Events Senior Editor Jack Bosobik agreed with former President Assessment writing, you shoot down the balloon and launch bombers from Guam.
That's what you do when homeland is threatened.
Stephen Miller, Trump's former senior advisor for policy and White House director of speech writing, blamed current President Joe Biden's weakness for the decision to not shoot down the balloon.
Okay.
So then this continues.
U.S. military shoots down Chinese spy balloon over Atlantic Ocean.
The U.S. want to shot it down.
While the balloon was off the coast of South Carolina, the balloon was shot down by U.S. military fighter jet on Saturday afternoon.
Senior defense officials said during the Thursday afternoon briefing that the U.S. government is confident the surveillance balloon is from the People Republic of China.
Senior U.S. officials said that the government was considering a plan to shoot the balloon down while it's over the Atlantic, where it wouldn't harm any individuals on the ground.
Official added that the U.S. government could potentially recover the balloon.
And then there's even comments about the fact that China wasn't happy that we shut it down.
They got mad.
Did you see that story?
Where why would you shoot down the balloon?
Yeah, they said that they might even take action against us because we shut down their spy balloon over our seem to be able to get a straight answer about whether we in some way were able to jam their transfer of information back to China.
We don't know the answer to that.
Exactly.
Did they end up picking up the balloon?
They said they were going to try to do that when they thought the recovery effort.
I mean, I'm pretty sure they did, but what I fail to grasp and understand is they, bro, they monitor everything.
It left over an ocean.
If you wanted to knock it down, that's where you knock it down, is over that ocean, not the Pacific.
Before it's starting.
So you're basically giving people the green light, come and spy.
I don't believe the whole rhetoric of, well, we were monitoring it.
They weren't really looking at certain things that we didn't want to.
It stopped over at Great Falls, Montana, right over a nuclear missile base.
I'm not stupid.
I don't think the people are stupid, but the way that they spin it, it's trust us, nothing.
We don't want to blow up a balloon because we don't know what's going to fall out of it.
We're letting it come over.
Who knows what could have been on it?
Who knows?
It could have a bomb.
It could have had anything on it.
We have no idea.
China's pushing the envelope because they know, and you mentioned it, Roger, from the Afghanistan withdrawal.
We have no idea what we're doing.
Biden kind of invited Russia to attack Ukraine when he said, you know, a minor incursion wouldn't be, you know, we would tolerate that.
He basically gave them a green light.
And now something like this, nobody respects us when it comes to defense.
And they don't respect Joe Biden.
I think it's showing when they pull off stunts like this.
It's a test.
I think it's a test.
I mean, I don't think you can shoot down the balloon in international airspace.
But as soon as it was over U.S. sovereign territory, they had an obligation to act.
And then just the more the days stretched out and the whole country is like recording, get on their phone.
And there's more balloon memes than you could in there and ever seen.
Yeah, they took over the egg memes.
If you were to give it a, because you said it's a test, if you were to give the Biden administration a grade on how they responded to that test, what would that grade mean?
It would be an F.
It would be an F because they waited so long.
I mean, I think you have to move immediately on those things.
And if it turns out to be true that there were balloons over U.S. territory during the Trump presidency, and some in the military didn't tell the president or the SECDEF because they feared that he would do exactly that.
Wow.
That's a real problem.
I think also, especially if you're saying it's a test, what if they're trying to see how much they can do while still getting away from it?
So if they were to do something finally, then the boundary is already drawn so far out that they'd get a further head start in a sense before we react.
Because now it's like, oh, they can go over our airspace, they can do all this, this, this other stuff without us really giving a reaction.
So then you've kind of drawn the lines there.
Yeah, I think the biggest thing is there's two things, okay?
One is you go to a place and to measure someone's toughness and to measure someone's the other day.
I did a poll, would you rather be respected, feared, admired?
And then there was another one, loved, right?
And for whatever reason, respected was number one, 55%.
I think feared was number three or something like that to see those three again.
Respected, feared, admired, and loved, right?
Which, by the way, in a life, you know, like a regular person just living a life, they're probably wanting to be respected, right?
Which makes sense.
But if you're a world leader, you want to be feared where people don't do anything.
You're at a bar.
You're sitting with your girl.
You have a reputation.
Your girl's beautiful.
So if a guy totally fears you and respects you, doesn't even talk to your girl to come and say anything to her, right?
If a guy is trying to see maybe you're okay with it, he'll come and be friendly with your girl.
But if she comes and says to you, hey, do you mind if I dance also with your girl?
He doesn't think you care if he dances.
So now to some people, like, that's not a big deal.
Somebody has to dance also with your girl.
What China is doing right now is saying, I don't think he's going to mind.
Just put the balloon out there.
They're not going to do anything.
They're going to take their time and they're going to think about it because they don't want to make the wrong decision.
So, you know, the whole thing that indecision is more worse than actually making a decision.
So this was a sign of indecision.
We were afraid of making a decision and then seeing like the other side's going to come after us.
No, you got to call the shots.
Can you play the, can you put the Yahoo article I just sent you on top right, second one?
So Pat, Kamala Harris would be China.
I mean, Kamala Harris's husband kissing.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, exactly.
That's exactly what that would be.
That's exactly what I'm saying to you.
No, you're right.
So watch it.
It's a Yahoo story.
So go to the top so we can see it's a Yahoo story.
So this is a Yahoo story if you can just go up a little bit.
Yeah.
China is mad at the U.S. for blasting its suspected spy balloon.
But a few years ago, state TV bragged its fighter pilots could shoot one down.
Okay, so again, China's mad.
A 2020 Chinese state TV clip showed off how fighter pilots could shoot down surveillance balloons.
The video shows a pilot tracking and shooting a balloon during an apparent training exercise.
China said on Monday that the U.S. shooting down a suspected Chinese balloon was unacceptable.
China is upset at the U.S. shot down the balloons.
The video on China got it.
In the video, an alarm bell prompts a fighter pilot to prepare and board a fighter jet and peers to be the Chinese J-10, a multi-role got it.
A CCT narrative saying that loading missiles, powering up, checking the fuel, what is the word right there?
The fuselage, and other procedures were all completed quickly.
So if you can go a little lower to see who said they were upset about the fact that the supervising command organized judged high surveillance, the CCTV, the white balloon exploded and the launch of it.
So they're explaining what happened to it.
So who are these guys to say you're upset that we shot down your balloon?
What do you mean you're upset?
And who gives you the audacity to even say something like that?
You know, we're upset that you shot down the balloon.
What makes you think we care?
What makes you think we care about your opinion, whether we shot it down or not?
Who's a priority?
You know what I think it is?
Our relationship with you or protecting the safety of our citizens.
Are you out of your mind when you make a comment like this?
But the audacity to even say something like that.
Don't care.
That's why.
But I don't think they can do that under strong leadership.
Absolutely.
I don't think you can't even make a comment like that.
You know what happened within 24 hours?
Oh, really?
No problem.
25% tariffs.
That's what's going to happen.
Say that one more time to us because without us, China, when you were not even a top-10 economy in the world, just 50 years ago, when your former friend came and struck the deal with those guys back in whatever the 60s was, you wouldn't even exist on what you did.
You needed the help of a smaller nation, more powerful economy to help you realize that capitalism works to be able to compete with everybody else.
Now you want to talk to these guys like this?
America helped these guys turn into what they are today.
And now they're flipping it and saying, hey, you disrespected us.
It's an insult.
A key point that I moved to make.
At the time Richard Nixon recognized China, they had more oxen than they had cars.
They were a backwards agrarian society and they were broke.
Nixon has no way of looking 30 years in advance to see that the Clintons are going to sell the military secrets and the Bushes are going to give them most favored nation trading status.
We are the ones 30 years later who build China into a dangerous superpower.
At the time, Nixon's trying to get a strategic arms limitation agreement with the Soviets.
The Soviets are starting to go cold on him.
So he says, okay, I'll go over and see Mao.
Maybe he wants to make a deal.
And then he got his agreement.
So I think he skillfully played the Chinese off, but to say, oh, well, all of our problems with China, that all goes back to Nixon.
There's no way for Nixon to have seen those events.
Roger, let me ask you a question.
How do you view India?
The DNA, the DNA.
I'm not talking about like, I'm talking the DNA of India.
Who is India to you?
I can't even answer the question.
I don't have an impression.
I've never been there.
I don't know.
I guess what I'm asking for, like, they just, did they just pass up China and total population?
I think I just saw a report a couple weeks ago.
Either they're there or they're about to pass up China because the average age in India right now is 27.
The average age in China is 38.4 years old.
So China's getting older and India is getting younger because India doesn't have a one-child family policy.
India's like, keep making the babies, right?
And China's now realizing we made a big mistake.
We kind of need the younger generation to lead in innovation.
So India, Apple is now moving a lot of its manufacturing, chips, all of that to India gradually without offending China because China could fully disrupt Apple's business if they turn on Tim Cook.
So Tim Cook's, I believe Tim Cook is doing it very subtly.
And say, no, China, we're still going to make chips with you.
We're just moving 25% to India.
No, no, China, we're going to make chips with you.
We're just moving 50%.
If China all of a sudden thinks that they know he's going to move 100% away from China, I think China is going to make a disruptive move.
But here's where I'm going with this.
The U.S. companies are sitting there saying, where can we build the things that we need to build?
Biden's speech, he talked about how in the U.S. we used to make 40% of the chips, now we make 10%.
We saw a statistic a couple years ago during COVID that the used car prices doubled all of a sudden because China was producing 80% of the chips.
Asia was producing 80% of the chips.
I think it was China, Indonesia.
I think it was like a few countries that were doing 80%.
If you remember that statistic, right?
We've all seen that.
So now the fear is, if we go in bed with India, what is the history with India?
And, again, I'm not asking because you said I don't have a thought on it.
I wonder what – so, for example, a carrier, insurance carrier I used to do business with.
Big company, you know who they are.
Very big company.
They approached us, we signed a contract, okay?
We go to their city, they invite us down, I meet all the executives, all the C-suites, great experience.
We can do a lot of business together.
A direct competitor of mine has a meeting.
In their meeting, they tell them, if you don't drop your contract with them, we won't do business with you.
Those guys were bigger than us.
The following Monday, a big player comes to us from that company, the one that we signed a contract with.
They fly out with their lawyers.
And they said, we need to meet with you with our lawyers.
The only time insurance carriers come and meet with the CEO, with lawyers, is because they're terminating the contract.
So I say, no problem.
Let's go to my office.
So we go into my office.
I'm sitting there with my chief compliance officer, Mai, and a couple other guys.
And you see this guy says, we're here to terminate the contract.
I said, what's your cause?
We just don't think this relationship's going anywhere.
I'm like, very weird.
You have to have like placement isn't good or this isn't good.
In this case, we've had it where our placement wasn't good and we lost the contract.
In this one, we didn't have.
So I said, but I want to hear a reason.
Now I know the reason because I know the CEO of the other company gave a speech.
In that speech, a guy that was in the room came to our company and he called me and he says, hey, just so you know in a recording, in a speech, this is what this person said to you about you.
So I said, so you don't have a reason?
No, we just don't think this relationship's going anywhere.
No problem.
That guy who came and terminated the contract is no longer with the company.
The guy above him, his boss, just reached out this week.
He wants to have a meeting with me one-on-one.
We're going to have a conversation to get and sit down and talk.
I decide whether I want to do business with this guy or not.
To protect the relationship in the way we write up the contract is to make sure you can't suddenly within a week terminate my contract.
You got to give me a two-year, what do you call it, run rate before you terminate, right?
The only concern I have is if America locks onto another nation to be our number one provider for chips or technology or resources, we have to be careful to not strengthen India in such a way that years later they become the next China 2.0 and it's 2035.
Now India is bullying America and we're saying, shit, we created the next monster.
So if you go back and you think about the deal that Nixon struck with China and what U.S. has done with China the last five decades, how different approach would we take with a country like India to make sure we don't turn them into another country that bullies us because they know they own us?
Well, I think it would require having a president who says, perhaps we shouldn't be making our chips outside the United States.
Perhaps we shouldn't be making our most important pharmaceutical drugs outside the United States.
Isn't the best way to keep control of these industries and to provide economic opportunities for Americans to build these things here?
So why are we outsourcing them?
Oh, is it because the labor there is cheaper?
Yes, but the national security implications are obvious.
Add to that that countries like China, but specifically China, are systematically buying up all the natural minerals like cobalt, things that we need to build chips and to build other technology.
I think that this is where the policy of America first and returning these national security sensitive industries back to the United States is absolutely key.
And so my short answer is, I wouldn't be making the chips in China or India.
I'd be making them mirror.
Here's a challenge, though, with that.
Who brought Toyota to America?
Who brought Toyota to America?
Remember when we're like, wow, you know, competition in America is only who?
GM against Chrysler against, you know, obviously same thing versus Ford and this, this, that.
I was like, no, we should let Toyota in.
So this is when, if you remember Milton Friedman's old videos when Toyota came to America, hey, let's let him compete.
What did Toyota force Ford and other companies to do?
Make cheaper cars and improve because Toyota was producing a good car for Middle America.
So we helped Toyota blow up into what Toyota became because if U.S. sells Toyota, guess what?
Other people sell it as well.
So we allowed BMW, we allowed Mercedes, we allowed all these other guys to compete against the other car makers.
Who won?
Realistically, the U.S. citizens won because we forced Ford and a lot of other guys to compete to produce a better car.
But we didn't stop making Fords and Chevys in the United States.
Exactly.
We didn't stop making them.
But here's kind of where I'm going with that.
I agree.
Today, I have 10 engineers in my office in Dallas, but I also have 10 in India.
Okay.
The engineers I pay here, let's just kind of throw a number out there.
If they're 150 here, they're 50 in India.
So what they'll do is these technology consulting firms will come to you and they'll say, we can do the same work for you, but you have to pay $150.
With us, you only pay $100,000 a year for these guys.
So they take the split between the salary they pay them, which is a 50-50.
They keep the 50.
They have to deal with the HR and they get the project done.
So, hey, the next sprint is going to require 293 hours for this upgrade.
It's going to cost you this much.
The next sprint.
Anyways, we do the math with that.
So as long as labor is going to be cheaper in India, in other places, the capitalist is going to find a way to save money by using those resources.
Because for Apple to build an iPhone chip in India versus America, Roger, the person's going to say, oh, you want to buy an iPhone and build it in America?
No problem.
It's $2,500.
I don't want to pay.
That's crazy.
Exactly.
Because the labor is expensive here.
But the labor is cheap in India.
And then the alternative is to say what?
Well, you can't build it anyway.
It's got to be in America.
Then the average American takes a hit.
I can't afford to buy this.
So it's a very much of a tight, cyclical cycle that we're all need.
This is why China knows America needs China right now.
We can't step away from them dramatically.
All I'm saying is we're leaving China.
That resignation from China is coming.
May take five years, may take 10 years, may take 15 years.
It's coming, okay?
When it does, we have to deploy it elsewhere for 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
One of those places is going to be India.
How do we do that to make sure when we give all this business to India, they don't all of a sudden become the next enemy we're dealing with 10, 20 years from now?
That's the question.
So I think kind of to go back off of what Roger mentioned earlier, that Nixon wasn't necessarily the one that caused China to become China what it is.
I think there's a lot of mistakes along the way.
And I think the biggest thing that we've learned here is that China can take everything that we have, but we can't send what we have to China.
So as long as India doesn't just close off to itself where it says, okay, we're going to now take your Facebook and we're going to call it India Facebook.
We're going to take your this and we're going to call it this.
Then as long as you have some where there's a big open where not only is America itself a market for consumption, but also we produce and we sell things to Europe and all the other places where as where China is a they produce for themselves and then they produce for the rest of the world.
So as long as you're able to have it go both ways, then I don't think there's as much of worry of that as what we face with China, where even if you invest in China, you can't take the money out.
If you do, all the limitations are on the way out.
And that's where I'm going.
Yes.
And that's where I'm going.
Then I think the structure on how we brokered that deal needs to be in place.
Before we deploy all this business to them, let's put a deal together.
Yes.
Here's what the deal has to be.
So there's a really interesting thing, actually, that they did in Norway was when in December 23rd, 1969, I'm pretty sure, when they found oil in Norway, what they did was that American companies had gone into a lot of other countries and basically just done private, bought the land, brokered a deal, had the resources, and then funneled the money out more or less, right?
But in Norway, what they did was they set up a structure in terms of, like you're saying, a deal of who's responsible, who gets what, right?
So in this case, there was a lot of help and assistance from America, where obviously ConocoPhillips, Shell, a lot of these companies made a lot of money, Exxon, you name it.
But at the same time, they also helped educate the Norwegian engineers so that over time they'd learn how to do it.
And the deals and the licenses were set up in a way where Norway as a country also benefited vastly from the resources, as well as the private companies that came in to develop and help essentially get the oil out of the ground.
So Pat, what would you put in a contract like that?
You know about stuff like this.
What type of ironclad stipulations would you put in so something like a China doesn't come up, come about where it's not too aggressive on our side, but make sure that this doesn't happen.
I mean, here's how I look at these things.
I don't know as the number one answer because I need to see the deals.
But if I'm selling my company to his private equity firm, okay, and they're coming in, or if I'm selling 20% to him, 50% to him, 55% to him, or 100% to him, right?
You're going to have 20 different deals that you're negotiating, okay?
20 different markers you're negotiating.
Board seats.
He wants three out of five.
Hell no.
You get one out of five because if he's got three out of five, they can fire me.
Okay.
Well, I don't care about three out of five because he's buying 60% anyway.
So who are you to say, no, he can't have three out of five?
How about we make four out of seven?
I get three, you get four.
I still have those three in there.
Let's not make it five.
Let's send it to seven.
Okay, I don't care.
I'm still fully in control.
All right.
There's the price.
There's a dollar.
There's my commitment afterwards.
There's a non-compete.
How long do you want me to not compete?
If I'm selling the company to you, do I have a two-year non-compete, five-year non-compete, 10-year non-compete?
There's 20 things that you negotiate, right?
First thing I would do is I would go to the guys that have done the deals with all these other countries and say, what are the 20 points?
Let's put them all out.
And I'm going to tell me the history of the deals where we won the most.
Tell me the deals that we had where they won the most NY.
So China won 90% to the point of us winning.
They won a lot, and we gave them way too much control.
COVID exposed the hell out of how much U.S. relied on China to even make the shots, the vaccine.
All this, which is a very ridiculous thing that COVID exposed on how much China, once you get those things, then you sit there and say, hey, India, here's what we're willing to do.
If not, guess what you do?
Well, whether you do it or not, we're going to let Apple produce the stuff here.
Really?
No problem.
Anything Apple sells that's made in India, it's going to be a 25% tax on Apple.
Go ahead.
So forget about putting it on you.
We're going to put it on Apple so they can't come to India.
Oh, you can't do that.
That's our number one customer.
No shit, it's your number one customer, but they're out of America.
So let's have this kind of, okay, okay, America, I understand what you're saying.
Of course you understand what I'm saying.
Let's do a deal where long-term you understand we brought this business to you.
Wait a minute, Pat, who wrote your remarks?
Was it Donald Trump?
I was going to say, I was going to say Pat 2024.
Yeah.
No, but by the way, that's what was attractive about him doing the deals with the people that he did.
Do you know who speaks like that?
Do you know who speaks like that?
Who speaks like that?
Operators.
A person who runs a company, a person who operates a military, a person who operates a team, a person who's in it that's dirty, ugly, nasty.
Not a politician.
They don't speak like that because politicians like, I got you a deal.
I got you a deal.
Don't worry about it.
I'll see other countries.
What he always used to say is that the other countries send killers to the negotiating table.
We send social workers.
Yeah, you're right.
And this goes all the way back to 1988 where he's saying, wait a minute, I'm for free trade, but I'm also for fair trade.
Your markets have to be open to our products as well as vice versa.
And this is also why he opposed these one-size-fits-all trade agreements in favor of doing an individual deal with Germany and a different individual deal with France and an individual deal with any nation, which makes a lot more sense rather than this one size fits all TPP and so on.
So I think it's about reciprocal rights.
I mean, you would not want to put yourself in a situation vis-a-vis say India where we're moving jobs and business there, but their markets are closed to our goods and services.
Roger, I've been in the financial business for 20 years.
There's insurance companies you'll go to on their floors, all the engineers.
I'm not going to name them, but I've been to most of them.
I say, yeah, we got 300 engineers here.
Really?
Yeah, where do you recruit them from?
MIT?
Nope, IIT.
IIT?
Yeah.
What's IIT?
Where's IIT based out of?
India.
IIT is officially a better school at Purdue Engineers than MIT.
I don't know if you've ever seen this exercise they did.
It's pretty epic.
They take a battery, a wire, and all these basic things, and they go to an MIT Institute graduate and they say, Hey, here, put this together.
They're like, Oh, I don't know how to do this.
Then they go and do the same thing at an IIT Institute graduate.
He put this to say, Oh, this is easy.
We learned this in our first year, and they put it together.
And then they said, As good as MIT is, IIT is passing these guys up.
I spoke at their university in Mumbai.
I don't know what year it was, 5,000 people were in the audience, and you can see the hunger in these guys' eyes, and they're all about technology, you know, innovation, all of that.
So, I think these guys are going to be the next China.
They're a little bit more reasonable.
They're a little bit easier to deal with.
They also have a history of issues and problems.
Their enemy is Pakistan and a few other guys, neighboring people that they have.
Anytime a company, you would much rather negotiate with a company when it's worth a billion dollars than when it's worth $100 billion.
I think the U.S. has to start negotiating now before it's too late.
And they say, No, we don't want to negotiate with you.
That's all I'm saying.
This whole podcast, just so you know, Roger, if you didn't know, was really an India podcast.
This was not a state of the union podcast.
I'm glad you came very prepared.
Okay, let's go to the next topic.
Go to Vinny's favorite singer, performer, Sam Smith, if he can show that the tweet with the recent Grammys.
I know you guys were all watching it very closely.
So, Sam Smith tweets this out: okay, this is going to be special, Grammys, okay?
And he posts a picture.
And by the way, if you saw his performance, it was just like Lil Nas X, and it's something that it's very provocative.
You get a lot of eyeballs and all this other stuff.
CBS responds and says, You can say that again.
We are ready to worship.
This is not CBS sports.
No.
This is not CBS underscore Larry Jackson's account.
No.
Okay.
That's got a CBS and it's a bot.
This is the CBS account with a yellow badge next to it, not even blue, because when you're in media, they give you that little check mark right there.
How do you look at this, Kai, when you see something like this?
So, the reason why I'm asking you is the following.
How old are you, Kai?
I'm 24.
Okay, 24 years old.
The person that probably tweeted this is probably your age, right?
Which is insane.
Now, wild.
Now, to have something like that going out, number one, how bad of a look is that on CBS?
Horrible.
Okay.
So, horrible in what way?
Like, is this thing going to be like it's going to go away, you know, sweep under the rug?
I think, just like Roger said earlier, in terms of the news cycles, are so quick here that yes, this is one of those things.
It's going to be really bad for another 24 hours, and then the world's going to move on.
Nobody's going to care.
That's really where things are at at this point.
And that's how, well, so the people that do mess up, that make these big mistakes, and you know, from getting arrested to doing things like this, there's so much information, and their attention span is so short.
Like, mind you, the guy did a satanic music video live on this thing, worshiping the, he was the devil.
And then CBS is saying, yeah, we're here to worship.
They're obviously not talking about Christianity, which whatever your religious beliefs is.
But there's A, they don't care.
They're out in the open.
But like you said, this story, after today, nobody's going to talk about it.
No, until you have some other Hollywood spectacle in which they essentially raise Satanism, which will happen.
Of course.
It's the most important thing to come out of the Grammys.
I was completely and totally justified in including Harry Styles in my 14th annual international worst-dressed list.
Did you see what this guy was?
I don't even know.
Did you pull it up?
You didn't like his style?
You don't like how he dresses?
Well, here's the thing: four or five years ago, he was on the best dress.
I mean, he dressed like a pruner.
Wearing cool button-down suits.
Which one?
That one right there?
This is like a clown suit.
The thing that he's wearing.
That one.
Yeah, like that one.
You don't like that one.
Would you, would you?
I can't see you in that pass.
You know what?
It would be very weird if I wore something like that.
Imagine, you know, Roger, here's my question to all of you.
Do you guys like, is this just like that, just like that performance type situation?
The same thing with CBS.
Are they doing it for the eyeballs?
And just, because think about it, not only we're talking about it, I was at the supermarket.
Somebody else was like, did you see his people were talking about it?
And now you're looking at him.
There's eyeballs, more followers, more people.
Or is it just because yo, like you're watching a satanic performance, and then people like wearing outfits like that?
It's like, what is it just for the attention?
By the way, can you please go back 30 seconds and Eric, if you're in the back, actually play this.
Put the screen, play it.
Just let it play.
And this is the performance he's got.
You know, they're doing what they're doing.
Okay.
And then watch at the end.
Okay.
They're going to go to commercial.
They're going to cut to commercial.
Ready?
CBS Watch watch Pfizer.
I didn't even notice the timing.
By the way, we can't make this jump up.
And then yesterday, he did talk about we can't let Big Pharma pay the amount of money they pay for diabetes.
Many of you in here are taking the medication.
They can't increase it more than $35.
I'm like, listen, you're calling out Big Pharma, but you know, I don't know what percentage of CNN's money comes from Big Pharma.
I don't know what percentage of these big media companies' money comes from Big Pharma.
What do you mean you're calling those guys out?
So bash them while you're giving a speech, but behind closed doors, take their money.
Of course.
And how awesome is this?
Pfizer, and we're talking about attention spans.
The James O'Keefe, the Project Veritas thing came out where one of the directors of research or whatever was like, oh, yeah, we are in-house mutating COVID just to make people have to buy and pay for new vaccines.
And then look, and then Pfizer just shows up and people forgot about that story.
What's crazy is Pfizer pulled all of their advertising from Twitter when Elon Musk bought it back in November.
So they felt that Twitter and Elon Musk was a danger to society, but then we can have Satan worship on the Grammys.
Oh, yeah, exactly.
But what's I guess more in culture is that who was watching that performance found that entertaining?
I just don't, I mean, it's just, it's not entertaining.
It isn't.
It really isn't.
Who was who was author?
I apologize for my generation on behalf of all of us.
But I will tell you, though, who was the guy that they called him Mensch?
He wrote a book, and we were going to Super Mensch.
He wrote a book called Super Mensh.
He lives in Hawaii today.
What's Shep Gordon?
You know who Shep Gordon is?
He did the documentary on the show.
Yeah, by the way, fascinating guy, Shep Gordon is.
Do you know about his story, what he did?
So he's signed a lot of different people.
Shep is Kai.
You would enjoy studying this case.
He was around during Jimi Hendrix and all these guys.
He was all their managers and stuff.
He goes and stays at a hotel.
He's moving to LA because he wants to get into the Hollywood business.
At the hotel he's staying at.
Jimi Hendrix is staying there.
A bunch of guys are staying that are not a big name yet.
And they say, well, I need representation.
He chooses to represent them.
And he's working with one of the heavy metal guys that he finds.
And who is it, man?
Let me find him.
He looks like a crow.
Yeah, what is their name?
What is their name?
Alice Cooper Cooper.
So he gets, he represents Alice Cooper.
He says, Alice, here's what you got to do.
He says, cut the neck off this chicken and let the blood pour onto your face.
And I'm telling you, you're going to blow up.
He says, what the hell are you talking about?
He says, can you just trust me?
Here's the chicken.
Break the neck and let the blood pour.
He says, are you serious?
He says, you hired me.
Just trust me.
So anyways, obviously he listens to.
Let's put the pictures of Alice Cooper and the chicken.
Can you do Alice Cooper, chicken, and then blood?
Type in blood as well right next.
So if Tom Westi would told the story much better than I would, just put blood.
That gothic crazy look.
Right there.
Yeah, so they take right there, chicken to the left.
You see that?
So he cuts the chicken's head off.
The blood is right there.
He breaks the neck and blood all over the place.
What happens is everybody talks about it.
Talks about it.
And everybody wanted to go to his next concert, and he becomes a sellout.
All the concerts sell out.
So there is a part of it where it's like, you know, it's a shock factor thing that you do, but it's just getting really old because, you know, I can't think of the last time I watched the Grammys.
I don't know if people tune into it like the way they did before.
Anyway, so there's Shep Gordon for you.
Let's go to the next story.
Next story is about the recession.
So will it happen?
Will it not happen?
But there is a bank that is talking about, here we go.
The CEO of America's second largest bank is preparing for a possible U.S. debt default.
This is a CNN story.
Congress is once again bickering about raising the debt ceiling, the amount of money the U.S. government can borrow to pay its bills on time.
And that means that corporate America has to be ready for the wars.
The CEO of Bank of America, America's second-largest bank, said he hopes lawmakers resolve their issues because the market and economy love stability, yet defaulting on the country's debt remains a possibility that cannot be ignored.
We have to be prepared for that, not only in the country, but in other countries around the world.
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said you hope it doesn't happen, but hope it's not a strategy, so you prepare for it.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has already warned Congress that the country could default on its financial obligations as soon as June if the debt ceiling is not raised before then.
What are the chances that the debt ceiling is not going to be raised?
Zero.
Yeah.
They do this every time.
Every time it's the same conversation.
Yeah, it's a kabuki dance.
There's no question about it.
But I still think in the end, though, it is Chairman Powell who's going to decide whether we have a recession or not.
Chairman Powell is going to decide.
Yeah, the Fed is going to decide.
And what do you think is going to happen?
Right now, Goldman Sachs just lowered the odds of a recession from what it was before to now 25% is what it is.
35%, yeah.
From 35% to 25%.
This is an insider story.
According to Goldman Sachs, the odds of U.S. economy slipping into recession has dropped from 35% to 25% over the next year.
The upgrade and forecast is due to the combination of a surge in job numbers and improvement in business sentiment.
A better than expected 517,000 payrolls were added in January, which suggests hiring is continuing despite rising inflation.
But other economists are more pessimistic.
Surveys by Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal have found the consensus view that there's a 65% chance of a sharp and severe downturn in the upcoming year.
What do you think is going to happen?
First of all, I think these things are all manipulated, of course, because I'm a conspiracy theorist.
I don't know.
You can tell from the tone of Biden's State of the Union speech that he is hoping for a soft landing.
A recession would really be problematic if, in fact, he gets to run for re-election.
I don't know what's going to happen.
I think the odds of the recession are somewhere in between.
In other words, I'm not sure they're 65%, but I'm also not sure they're 25%.
I think they're somewhere in the middle.
25%.
You don't think it's 25.
You don't think it's 65%.
So if you're a betting man, would you bet on it happening this year, where the announcement will be made, U.S. goes into recession?
Well, first of all, they never announce it.
In fact, even when you're in the recession, they deny that you're in a recession.
So it's not like they make a formal announcement, but I do think you could have a substantial slowdown in the economy, yes.
More than what we've seen.
I definitely agree on terms of that.
And obviously, unless they edit the definition for recession, well, they did what the White House did when it was two quarters of negative growth.
They're like, no, no, no, we didn't say that.
They changed the Wikipedia definition.
They're like, no, no, we didn't.
That's look it up.
It's a new thing.
Like, I'll give you an example.
Vaccination, to me, that used to mean that, well, you take this and you're protected from being infected.
You can't be infected.
So this can't be a vaccination then, can it?
Because what do I need a booster for?
I mean, if I already had the vaccination, four boosters.
Roger, you can't say you don't trust science.
Don't do that on this pilot.
You know, Dr. Fauci, we respect Dr. Fauci because he is scientifically.
It was such a great conversation the other day where this girl asks me a question.
She's trying to give me.
We talked about this on psychedelics.
She said, why don't you try psychedelics?
And she says, you trust science, don't you?
And I said, define science.
And she couldn't even answer it.
I said, because the definition of science has changed a lot the last three years.
What is science?
To me, science is debate.
If we can't no longer have a debate, then there is no such thing as science anymore.
Scientists can't sit there and debate their issues on each side.
So here's very weird data.
I wonder if you're surprised or you're not surprised.
Like, does any of this surprise you here?
Single women own 2.64 million more homes than single men in the U.S. Let me finish this article.
So let me say that one more time.
Single women own 2.64 million more homes than single men in the U.S.
Okay.
On an average, woman earns around 83 cents for every dollar they earn compared to men.
In the U.S., single women own a total of 10.76 million homes, whereas single men own 8.12 million.
There's a difference of 2.64 and the gap is growing.
In 48 out of 50 states, single women were found to own more homes.
The two exceptions were North and South Dakota, which only three people lived there.
And then Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina had the greatest share of single women homeowners.
Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina, on average across the three states, single women own 15% of all owner-occupied houses, whereas single men owned 11%.
Although men earn more than women on average, that is not always true for younger generation.
According to new Pew Research Center, younger women, women younger than 30 earn more than men in cities, including New York, D.C., and L.A. Let me read that last sentence to you again.
According to Pew Research Center, women younger than 30 earn more than men.
Women younger than 30 earn more than men in New York, Washington, D.C., and L.A. What do you think about these stats?
So the first stats surprised me a little bit, but then I kind of clicked for me where remember the video we did on single moms versus dads that had kids?
Yeah.
So the far majority go with the moms, right?
And at that point, who needs a house if you have kids to provide for versus no kids?
So if you kind of correlate or if you add the single mothers with kids that are taking care of them in the custody versus a single dad that's taking care of it in custody, then the crossover there, I can see how those numbers make sense.
But then, okay, so if your argument's going to be divorce, I just pulled up the top states, 10 states with the highest rates of divorces.
New Mexico is number one.
West Virginia is number one.
But what if you never got married?
What do you mean, what if you never got married?
In terms of kids out of wedlock or kids, you never get married.
Where a couple splits up, they've never had a legal marriage.
Then you're not divorced.
We're just parting ways.
So his house goes to her?
No, he never had a house.
She has need for a house.
Yes.
Because she has the kids.
Yeah, but she's taking care of a kid.
I'm not saying yes.
Then probably he's having a house.
And you make less money to be able to buy a house.
But you'd also need a house in that situation more so than.
I understand you need a house.
There's a difference between needing a house and affording a house.
Absolutely.
Affording.
Yes.
But who's like, again, that was what I was looking at in terms of the money.
But the more interesting thing is, what about the pay inequality?
What about that whole argument?
Yeah.
I mean, in three major cities, this is news to me.
Under 30, women are being paid more than men.
Is that also meant to be?
Can you pull up that article, by the way?
Just zoom in a little bit.
Is that maybe because women under 30, more of them are going to school and getting a higher education?
And especially if you're in one of those three states, they're very for equality in terms of pay and equal opportunity than you have younger people who are higher educated.
By the way, I want to continue to read this article.
I'm actually curious right now.
Okay, so we talked about North Dakota and South Dakota.
Okay, great.
In Florida, Maryland, and Delaware, the difference in homeownership between single men and women was the greatest.
Across the three, single women on average owned around 4.5% more homes than men.
We're talking Florida, Maryland, and Delaware.
There is no correlation between those three states.
It's interesting.
Women are paid less than men on average and earn 83.1% of what men earn, according to U.S. Department of Labor.
The figure compares the median wage of all full-time male and female workers in a country using data from 2020 and is the most comprehensive analysis of the gender wage gap.
To date, according to the data from National Association of Realtors in 2022, 19% of buyers were single women, whereas just 9% were single men.
In 2015, single women made up 16% of the buyers, where single men made only 9%.
And the gap between single men, that is very weird to look at this.
So I think if you think about who prepares more for a rainy day, that mindset, I'm going to give that victory to women.
Who thinks more long term by saying, let me at least buy a house and make some kind of an investment?
This is.
And if they're single, Pat, then they're dating, then they're not paying for drinks, popcorn at the movies.
They're not paying for dinners.
Of course they got money to buy a house.
They're not outspending.
You know what I mean?
Because those girls, they're single.
It's not that they're not dating.
Do you feel me, Rob?
Rob, Rob is, Rob's in love.
I'm a strong guy.
I've been married.
Yeah, you're married.
That's nuts.
This is everybody here spooked a little bit.
I see stuff.
Yeah.
Are you still spooked, Roger, or is this making you think a little bit?
I'm not making a lot of sense out of it.
Me too?
Because I'm trying to figure out why those three specific cities is very interesting.
States, Florida, Delaware, Maryland.
Well, but also New York.
LA.
LA, Washington, D.C.
I mean, also, you see, the government's the biggest employer.
Right.
That makes sense to me.
But I can't figure out why the other two.
But by the way, this is a story to, okay, men typically purchase homes that were $249,000 last year compared to women who purchased homes that were $230,000.
It's not a big difference.
It's not even 10%.
It's 5% difference.
And sacrifices women are generally more likely to make included cutting out non-essential spending, taking second jobs.
It's kind of like what you're talking about, canceling vacation plans.
Okay, there you go.
Very interesting article.
I'd love to see more stats and data on this here.
I'm canceling my date this weekend, Pat.
You guys, she's paying for it.
She's paying for it.
I'm looking at the houses.
You're a homeowner.
I'm not.
I don't have a house.
I live in an apartment.
Yeah, you're paying for this thing here.
Chat GBT, let's talk about what happened with Israel.
Israel's president became the first world leader to publicly use Chad GBT when he gave a speech partly written by the AI, okay?
Which, by the way, what a great story for this year.
What page is that on?
There it is.
Okay.
So Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel, became the first world leader to publicly use the technology.
Herzog recorded a video message. for the special opening remarks at Cybertech Global Tel Aviv 2023 Cybersecurity Conference.
It's not the underground plumbing one.
This is a different one.
In front of an audience of 20,000, the president then revealed that the opening section was written by Chad GP.
Wow.
At least he's being honest.
Before concluding that AI is not going to replace humans, the AI written section began.
I am truly proud to be the president of a country that is home to such a vibrant and innovative high-tech industry.
The president also used ChatGPT to end this speech with an inspirational quote.
Let us not forget that our humanity is what makes us truly special.
It's not the machines that will shape our destiny, but rather our hearts, minds, and determination to create a writer.
And the machine wrote back to the market.
And the machine wrote that.
That is so.
How do you feel about that?
How do you feel about that?
I mean, for me, I think that AI is definitely something that we've seen coming, and it doesn't surprise me.
Like, obviously, I'm sure the setting of this, with it being a tech convention and stuff like that, is very fitting, where it's kind of like a cool gimmick on that end.
But in terms of if there's a speechwriter doing something that's drawing up the initial drafts or it's an AI or a robot, I mean, at the end of the day, it's going to be edited.
A human's going to look at it, and they're going to revise it and change it and then go from there.
Maybe not.
Yeah, I just think it's Wikipedia on steroids.
I had somebody sent this to me last night where they asked Chat, what about Roger Stone?
We don't comment on conspiracy theories.
Wow, really?
I'm already banned.
Oh, that's hilarious.
I mean, right out of the box.
I mean, I've written five books, five Amazon bestsellers, two New York Times bestsellers, but my views are too far out there for AI.
And look at the flip pat.
I mean, I'm a stand-up.
I'm a comedian.
I'm not crazy well-known.
Somebody in the office was like, write me a joke in the voice of Vincent O'Shaughness, and it wrote a joke as me, and it was pretty close.
Get out of here.
I swear to God.
I don't know.
I forgot who it was, but I was like, oh, my God.
It's actually scary.
I mean, it's exciting and scary at the same time, but it's like, this is just recent.
Imagine what's going to be in like 10 years.
And the biggest danger and thing that's kind of worrisome, obviously, what Roger Stone was inclining to there as well, is that the input is we're setting the limitations of what is considered conspiracy, and they're putting that in the machine.
The machine isn't necessarily pulling from it.
It's just saying what you can or can't talk about.
The other thing was when they were asking about Trump versus Biden on the Chat GPT and how it was saying that in terms of the questions they were referring to against Biden was, or Trump was, no, we can't say that.
But then with Biden, it was something different.
So the inputs that are being put into the machine where now people are thinking that this is fact or this is the way it is, obviously skews the position.
And that's going to be a big challenge going forward in terms of what can we let slide and what can we not.
Whoever's operating if they're biased, just like, you know, the Department of Justice, we're fucked, basically.
Sorry for my language.
Or just like Wikipedia.
Look, you go to my Wikipedia page.
There's so many mistakes and there's some things that are just factually wrong.
Sure, I could hire somebody to go ahead and change them.
You know what happens?
They just go back and change them.
Of course.
So if you want to know about me, don't bother looking at my Wikipedia page because almost all of it's incorrect.
You're right.
Yeah, I mean, you have to trust the internet because if you Google my height, type Patrick B. David Height, which is a good idea.
I think I've got a wealth guess.
I think a wealth guess.
Are you five age?
No, no, no.
Wait, did you quote Abraham Lincoln?
Yeah, I did.
I did quote Abraham Lincoln.
Go to, look at this.
Rob was doing his homework right there, if you guys call it.
Height, height, you go.
How tall is Patrick B. David?
You know, how tall is Patrick with David?
Which is people always say, Pat, go lower one of them says 5'7.
You're 5'7.
Wow.
You got a growth.
By the way, not only that, I'm 154 pounds.
Oh, wow.
That's okay if you look up my net worth.
It says I'm worth $24 million.
Oh, really?
Typhon Rogers net four.
Please put Rogers and then put mine, Rob, when you're done with this, please.
$20 million for Ronald Stone.
Rob, what would you say mine is?
What would you say?
Mind you, I have $30.
I'm actually, I'm curious to see what Vincent LaShana's net worth would be.
Watch this, Pat.
$3 to $5 million.
Yeah.
Is that really what it says?
I definitely don't have to.
Why are you keeping all this money away from?
Why you hope not?
Because I'm trying to catch up to the girls that are buying houses.
They're paying for lunch.
I got you.
Okay, so let's talk about this next, sir.
I think you may have some things to say on this one.
Page 12.
Okay, Trump reacts to Haley, DeSantis, and other presidential 2024 rivals.
This is an epoch time story.
Former President Donald Trump commented on the possibility of former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley and other Republicans challenging for the GOP 2024 nominations in an interview with radio host T Hewitt.
He stated that Haley called him and asked about it, and he told her to follow her heart.
Haley has previously stated that she would never run if Trump runs.
However, he says she is ambitious and he told her she could run if she wants.
The South Carolina senator Tim Scott is also said to be considering a bit.
When asked if he would support the Republican candidate in 2024, even if it's not him, Trump said it would depend.
He also claimed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis owed his election to him.
He also stated that Jared Kushner, the husband of his daughter, Ivanka, won't be involved in his efforts to secure his presidency.
So what part of it do you want me to respond to?
Well, I'll ask the specific question.
I think it's the only one that today we're having a conversation at school, and we're talking to our friend Rob that I was telling you about this morning on the podcast.
So if it comes down to these guys going up, you know politics, you've been around, you know the fun side, the clean side, the ugly side.
There isn't any sides of it you don't know about over the last however many decades you've been a part of it.
Trump against DeSantis, okay?
Trump has already poked a couple times.
DeSantis has came up and said, look, I'm going to let my record do the talking for me.
He won by 34,000.
I won by $1.5 million.
We're winning Miami Day and all this other stuff.
Trying to say that a lot of people are talking about me every morning.
I wake up.
How do you view this yourself from Trump against DeSantis?
Trump is okay with Nikki Haley running because she may make a good vice president candidate one day, possibly.
But there seems to be a little bit of a discomfort with DeSantis.
How do you process that?
Well, first of all, what Trump said is true.
Ron DeSantis does owe his rise in American politics to Donald Trump.
67 of 67 Republican County chairmen in this state endorsed Adam Putnam for governor, the agriculture commissioner.
Every single Republican in the state legislature, including the Senate president and the House Speaker, endorsed Adam Putnam.
Every member of the congressional delegation, with the exception of Matt Gates.
And Putnam was far ahead in both money and the polls.
It is only the tweeted endorsement of Donald Trump that turbocharges the candidacy of Ron DeSantis.
So I think the president feels that DeSantis now challenging him, particularly after Trump had to come here in the 2018 election and essentially drag DeSantis over the finish line, won by 30,000 votes.
He does see it as a personal act of treachery, as an act of disloyalty, and he's unhappy about it.
Donald Trump's never shy about telling you how he feels about things.
The other point people miss is sure DeSantis did win, but Donald Trump got 1.2 million more voters in Florida in 2020 than DeSantis got in the most recent election.
So I do think there's going to be a contest, but I think the reason that Trump seems to be propping Nikki Haley up is Trump is probably sitting at a base in the party, which is very intense, of somewhere around 45, 48% of the vote.
There's another 20% that he could get, but his hard base is somewhere between 40 and 50.
And in a multi-candidate field, he's in much stronger shape.
In a one-on-one race, you know, DeSantis, in all honesty, is untested as a presidential candidate.
How big of a difference is that?
So, for example, for somebody to be a very, very good candidate as a governor who during COVID, he did very well.
And you remember when the feedback that I think Obama got from Emmanuel, where he says, look, you're not going to get a lot of chances to be as on fire as you are today.
You got to run.
Even though everybody was telling Obama not to run after the DNC speech, he was on fire.
He says, you're not going to get this again.
You've got to run.
I am sure the similar type of Rahm Emmanuels of the right who are more DeSantis are saying, you're not going to be hotter than you are today.
Between now and four years from now, a lot could change.
You have to run.
How do you address that?
That he is the most hottest governor, yet the difference between being a governor and a president, what's the big difference?
I see why he's doing what he's doing.
I'm not defending it because I think he could afford to wait.
But I also must tell you that he's untested at this level.
I mean, he does very well in Florida, but that's where you control the microphone.
He doesn't do well in a wide-ranging, uncontrolled atmosphere, particularly when it comes to interviews.
You very rarely see him smile.
He does not seem to like people.
He seems to me to be an introvert in an extrovert's business, potentially.
And how he's going to wear as a candidate, mixing with the pig farmers in Iowa or the guys who grow maple syrup in New Hampshire, that remains to be seen.
I also think that it's kind of early.
I mean, I think he's at his high watermark right now.
It's very early to peak this election, as you pointed out earlier, 22 months ago, 22 months from now.
And also, people are going to be going to want to go back and look at the record.
So he said, for example, he would ban the teaching of CRT in the schools in Florida.
Well, right here in Broward County, they have just adopted a curriculum from the ADL, which includes the teaching of CRT.
And there's 13 other counties.
So he's got a lot of pledges that were very popular in MAGA World that he made at the end of the last election, and he's going to be held to those.
And I think, so therefore, it's not necessarily clear sailing.
He is going to run.
We talked about it here last time I was here, as a matter of fact.
He is going to run.
But you're getting in a cage match with a very tough guy.
And I still think at the end of the day, Trump would defeat him.
Did you see what Megan Kelly said?
Did you hear what Megan Kelly said?
Megan Kelly said, there is no way DeSantis can beat Trump.
He says Trump's only going to need 30% and his MAGA crowd alone, that 30% is a lock.
She said it's not even a good opportunity for DeSantis to run.
I'm paraphrasing what she said about this.
And I said, but okay, let's just say you do run, DeSantis, and let's say you do beat Trump.
Actually go there, that you do beat Trump.
What is Trump going to do?
Is Trump going to say, okay, MAGA crowd, go and vote for DeSantis?
That's the point she made.
And then the second thing she said, which is a very valid point as well as the final one.
What is the likelihood of Trump say he loses?
Let's say 10% chance, 20% chance, whatever the number everybody is saying, he loses to DeSantis.
Okay.
And now DeSantis is the Republican nominee.
What is the likelihood that DeSantis, Trump in a situation like that says, oh, really?
That's what you guys want to do?
No problem.
I'm going to run as a third party.
Yeah.
Oh, I think that I think he would do it.
What's the likelihood of him doing that?
Very, very, very unlikely.
Unlikely.
Unlikely.
Because of the enormous legal barriers. to getting on the ballot in 50 states, legal and financial barriers.
Remember, we're not talking about a third-party candidate.
So you're not the party of the Libertarian, you're not the candidate of the Libertarian Party or the Green Party.
So it's an extremely expensive, legally, extraordinarily complicated and difficult thing to just get on the ballot.
And if you have participated in the Republican nominating process, and let's just say hypothetically, you're not successful.
Well, the deadlines have passed for you to also compete as an independent because they pretty much, by and large, have the same deadlines.
Remember this.
Ballot access, all election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats working together against any kind of competition, both extra-party and intra-party.
So Trump could bluff, I guess, and he's done it in the past.
But why would he leave the Republican Party?
He has transformed the party into the party of working class people.
I think Megan Kelly understates the level of his support, but what she doesn't understate is the intensity of his support.
Trump supporters are not voting for anyone else.
But the other thing about Trump, though, as a candidate, is he makes a lot of people go out and vote against him.
Just like he has the devotion of the people that are part of his crowd.
He's also very good at basically having people vote against him.
He's very polarizing.
Yes.
Just like, say, oh, I don't know, Joe Biden.
Yeah, big time.
Okay, so let's do this.
And you had final thoughts before we wrap up.
I just have one thought here before we finish up.
Okay.
I'll read it.
I was just going to say one thing, Pen.
I'm sorry.
I was going to say, though, but if, like you said, for some reason, whatever percentage he does lose, that is going to hurt the Republican Party greatly because that whole MAGA voting crowd will not vote for Santis.
I want to know your point.
And then so that gives the Democrats such an advantage at that point, especially if he has that hardcore die-hard fans.
They're not going to just go, okay, we'll just take DeSantis.
Trump has a proven ability to get votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, who didn't vote for John McCain, didn't vote for Mitt Romney.
These are not country club Republicans.
And I think Trump's appeal to those people is unique.
I expect Trump to be the Republican nominee.
I still think he's in very strong position.
Were he not to be the nominee, whoever was a nominee would urgently need his support.
But I don't expect that's going to happen.
I think Trump is well positioned to be renominated.
And last thing, who do you think, because from what we're looking, Biden's going to run?
Who do you think is going to go against Biden if you have to pick right?
I know it's early.
I still don't know that Biden finishes out his term.
I mean, we don't know how the Hunter Biden investigations.
There's no way to keep this toothpaste in the tube anymore.
So we're going to get a full, we're going to get a full exposure to all of that.
Most of my friends who are professional Democrats, and I do have a few, they really doubt Biden's ability to win another election.
They also have the same doubts about Kamala Harris.
And I've said it here, I think.
I still believe at the end of the day, were Biden to either resign for reasons of health or reasons of political health, or be removed by his own people under the 25th Amendment because he appears to be too dysfunctional to do the job and Kamala Harris would become president,
the only way you could remove a woman of color would be with another woman of color, which is why I still believe that Michelle Obama is potentially the Democrats' strongest possible candidate.
Wow.
Wow.
You still believe that?
I still believe that.
Yes, she does.
Yes, I do.
So even though she's the strongest, do you think she'd be willing to go with it or do it?
Well, I think it remains to be seen.
The more she says she's not, that's a good reason to believe that she is, of course.
The more she says she's not.
Well, I mean, Barack Obama is without any question the most influential figure in the modern Democratic Party.
He's very popular and he's very influential.
And we know that Joe Biden was his last choice.
I mean, they tried to inflate the candidacy of Corey Booker.
They tried to inflate the candidacy of Kamala Harris.
They tried to inflate the candidacy of Pete Buttigieg.
It didn't work.
And I think they recognize that both their president and their vice president are weak potential candidates.
But look, it's all conjecture.
Right now, Joe Biden says he's running for re-election.
Last question.
Crazy question here.
So you know how we had a celebrity run for office, Ronald Reagan.
Hey, you will not believe back to the future.
You know the actor Ronald Reagan?
Yeah, he's going to be the president of the United States.
What are you talking about, right?
So celebrity becomes a now, he was a governor two terms, and he was a staffer.
You know, he was a president of a, you know, but at the same time, he became a president.
You know, Trump became a president.
Do you see anybody that's a celebrity type name to become a president, like a rock or any of those guys?
Well, as we have now learned, one of the greatest single qualifications is to be well-known.
So until Trump, all of your presidents had either been a governor, a U.S. senator, or a general.
For some, you've had a business person, but not just any business person, a business person who assiduously fed and burnished their public image for 40 years.
So yes, somebody could emerge from the world of sports or from entertainment, but I do think Reagan's different.
Reagan was a successful two-year, two-term governor of the largest state in the country.
So he didn't just jump from Death Valley Days to the White House.
I think people are looking for that.
Now, the difference is in a business person, whether it's Ross Perot, whether it's Donald Trump.
If you build a billion-dollar company, then people think you're qualified to run the federal government.
Yeah.
Somebody just did a super chat saying Republicans are so soft.
They let the November 2020 contest slide and did absolutely nothing about it.
What's the point of Second Amendment?
If you're too scared to execute, don't celebrate 4th of July.
Constitution was written for this, et cetera, et cetera.
This is Ivan, whoever it is.
I can't say the last part of the name.
Anyways, I mean, listen, I think it's a very unpredictable time.
We have no idea what's going to happen, but I think for in regards to politics, eyeballs, sports, like if it was a sport, I think this is a phenomenal season.
I can't wait.
The next 22 months, I think, is going to be phenomenal.
I think it's going to be like what we saw with the World Cup and how much intensity there was in it.
It's going to be similar to that.
Anyways, let me comment on something that happened this week.
So on Monday, we had, who was it?
We had Roland Martin in the house.
We did a podcast phenomenal.
I had a really good time with him.
Debate, all of it was great.
But certain things happened.
Yesterday, Jason Whitlock reacted to a video that he made talking about what we do at Value Tame and calling me names, a lot of different things.
And he said the fact that he was invited on Monday, it was a setup to him because we were trying to get him, et cetera, et cetera.
Let me kind of read you a story, tell you the story of what happened here with Jason Whitlock.
So the first time, Rob, we invited Jason Whitlock was when?
I believe the first time, August of 2022.
And you have the email of this.
If he can zoom in so we can show the first email that went in.
And we blanked out his email address.
We just didn't want it.
So this is the first email that goes and it says, hey, we would like to have you on to discuss your story, et cetera, et cetera.
Patrick's admiration for Jason Whitlock.
I've liked this content for a long time.
I think he does a good job, whether it's sports.
He's got a show called Fearless with Jason Whitlock.
So perfect.
You send him a message.
Nothing happens.
You send him another message.
I think December of 14th, you send him another email to have him on the podcast.
Correct.
That's when we confirmed that he was interested in coming in.
And then from there, we decided we would figure out a good date.
And this is the email that he showed in the video yesterday saying the fact that they didn't tell me anything.
Now, I'm going to show you these emails so everybody knows because he showed the emails himself as well.
Thanks for getting back to me.
The interview would cover Jason's career at ESPN Deblaze, his show Fearless, da-da-da-da-da.
Great.
This is the email he showed yesterday, which the date on this is December 14th, right?
Then after this, we schedule a time for him to be on the podcast on February 16th.
Correct.
Then you get back to him because February 16th, I'm either speaking in Vegas or Orlando next week.
I have traveled.
So we asked to see if we can do it on another date.
Simultaneously, when we're going back and forth, the Tyrene Nichols tragic event takes place.
So I say, I'd love to have somebody come in to have a show.
And preferably, let's have a panel to be a debate from both sides of the aisle.
Somebody that says, hey, even though the five cops were black, you know, it's still a systemic racism.
Somebody that says, no, it's not.
So we can have good banter there.
You reach out to a list of names, one of them being Roland Martin.
Roland Martin confirms with you when?
February, I believe, 6th.
Yeah, he said he was going to be in town February 6th.
Which is this Monday, this past Monday.
Okay.
So you do that.
Then you go back to Jason Whitlock and you ask him if he can do it on February 6th as well.
Well, we've initially offered him a few dates to see if he could come at a different time because you were not going to be here for the 16th.
He didn't respond back.
So then I sent a follow-up email and said, hey, we have limited dates because the other dates were booked with other guests.
Could you do this date?
Which happened to be Monday, February 6th.
And from there, he agreed.
And I sent the next email if you want me to show up.
So before you show the other email, this is the criticism that he gave to us that I want to kind of explain to the audience what happened.
So both show up here on the podcast.
We have Roland, who's running late, a few minutes.
So our driver that was driving up, Rob, if you want to talk about the driver that was driving Jason, you tell him, hey, since other guests is late, you don't have to worry about, if you're running late, it's fine.
You're going to be okay.
Bring him in here.
There was no rush.
I can't hear your audio.
There was no.
How about now?
There was no rush to be here at nine o'clock on the dot because our other guest was running late.
So we're not going to be able to start at nine.
So take your time getting here.
Right.
So then he gets here.
So Jason's downstairs.
Roland is upstairs.
I walk up to talk to Jason to say, hey, Jason, excited to have you here.
Jason says, hey, beautiful building.
I couldn't, you know, you guys got a big operation here.
I said, thank you.
I said, the panel that we're going to do the podcast with is Roland Martin.
How do you feel about Roland Martin?
His entire physiology completely changed.
I saw him being very uncomfortable and I didn't like that.
Now, to be fair, the email that Jason didn't show his audience when he criticized us is the email he got Friday, three days before the day of the podcast, which I don't think Jason read.
So let's show the email on Friday that you sent in and zoom in a little bit on this email.
This email was sent to both him and it was sent to Roland Martin.
Can you show the date?
February 3rd.
Okay.
Here's the interview, et cetera, et cetera.
Monday, February 6th, we'll be at the address, et cetera, et cetera.
And then topics.
Look at the topic, zoom in a little bit.
Panel discussion on police reform, the 2024 presidential election, the U.S. economy, and a mix of current events and trending topics.
Keyword there is what?
Panel discussion on police reform.
That's what this show is about.
This was on Friday.
He could have said, who is the panel?
Did he ever ask you who's part of the panel?
No, he did not.
Not once did you get a question from who's part of the panel.
No, I did not.
Did Roland ask you a question who's part of the panel?
He did not as well.
So neither one of them asked you who's part of the panel.
No problem.
So here's the thing.
Dan Bongino invites me on the show to be on Fox.
No problem.
I go on the show to be on Fox.
They say, hey, Patrick, we want Patrick to be on Fox to debate Bitcoin.
First thing I tell Karina and Sam, I'm like, I'm not a Bitcoin guy.
He says, well, Dan wants you to go out there and debate.
You know, I said, who's the debate?
We don't know yet.
Perfect.
I go on it.
All of a sudden, I get an email.
The person you're debating, because we ask who is the person I'm debating, it's going to be Peter Schiff.
We did the show.
It got very good views, a lot of good feedback.
It was great TV.
Everybody loved it.
There was strong banter.
Dan Bongino won because he got eyeballs because our audience showed up.
We won because we were able to get Dan Bongino's eyeballs of his audience and they saw us.
So both, it's a win-win.
This is kind of what you call media.
But Jason goes on and he says, they didn't tell me what it was about.
They didn't tell me it was going to be showed.
This was all a setup.
So again, up until this point, this is what's not been shown to everybody in his audience.
I go to Jason.
Jason says, there's no way I'm going to sit with this guy.
He says a couple of different words.
He says he's stalking me on Twitter all the time, et cetera, et cetera.
So I said, okay, no problem.
I don't want to make this guy feel bad because I like him a lot.
I like his content.
I think Jason's very necessary.
I said, Jason, how about we do this?
Let's just do a podcast, you and I, and then I'll do Roland's in an hour, but let's do podcast you and I.
He says, no problem.
Sits in there.
I come in here.
I tell you guys to prepare to adjust.
The moment we're about to walk out, Jason walks out.
When he walks out, Mario follows him.
Everybody follows him.
What's going on?
They want to make this thing good.
Hey, Pat, he's not talking to us.
I walk out.
I don't have any problem having a conversation.
I said, Jason, what's going on?
He said, hey, Jason, what is going on?
Let's just do a podcast here together.
Do you realize how much the Blaze pays me?
I said, how much does the Blaze pay you?
They pay me a lot of money and I took a day from my schedule on Blaze to be here.
I didn't like that because I hate it when people waste my time.
I don't like wasting his time.
I said, what's your daily rate?
I'll compensate you if that's how you feel.
But there is no motive here.
We said it's a panel.
How do you not see that it's a panel?
You're not happy to face off Roland Martin.
Anyways, he's walking, walking.
By the way, he crosses the street.
Red light to stop.
I said, bro, just relax.
Pump the brakes.
Traffic is coming.
Crosses the street.
I said, can I offer anything to you?
No.
Can I send you a driver?
No.
I don't trust this.
I don't trust that.
He leaves.
No problem.
He takes off.
Roland comes down.
We do a podcast.
Fiery podcast.
We do a very good job.
Jason talks about the fact that he needed me to go against a guy like Roland Martin because he needed somebody that can go and handle somebody like Roland Martin.
First of all, neither Roland or Jason Whitlock are in the top 100 most intimidating people I've ever sat with in my life.
I've sat with Samuel Bulgarvani.
I've sat with a lot of intimidating people, very big names.
I just like both Roland Martin because he likes to get dirty and fight.
And I also like Jason Whitlock because he's got a completely different perspective.
I probably agree with Jason more than I agree with Roland Martin on many of the policies.
If you watch the podcast, it was pretty obvious for you to see it.
So then he used a race card and he said, well, this is, he would never do this with Jordan Peterson.
He's using a race card.
You know, what he's trying to do is, you know, he's doing this because I'm black.
This is the part that's very confusing.
He's a guy that paints himself as a conservative Republican who doesn't like when the left uses their race to act as a victim.
But that's exactly what you just did, Jason.
And my idea was, because I got two suggestions here to final the finish this thought off, what we learned from this experience, and as well as feedback to you, Jason, to wrap this whole thing up, because I'm not going to comment on this again.
Number one, what we learned from this, we will never waste our resources without telling you who's going to be part of the panel.
So when Rob and I had a meeting and others, we said, let's make sure everybody knows before we buy the tickets because it is a waste of our money as well.
We also lost money.
So number one, we learned from our lessons, made a mistake.
Next time, anytime we invite with a panel, we're going to say, here's who it's going to be before we spend the money on the flight.
But I got a recommendation for you, Jason Whitlock.
Your show is called Fearless.
If you really want to have a show called Fearless, you either become Fearless and face off with anybody to have a debate with, or you change your show's name to Fearful.
But you can't say you're fearless and come to a place and then say, we have feminine energy, and the person that has the feminine energy is the person that walked out.
And we're right here waiting for you.
So you go ahead and figure that part out the way you want.
Having said that, I respect the work you've done.
I think you're a super necessary voice.
I had a very good time with Roland Martin.
I think we would have had blasts if it was the three of us, but it didn't work yet.
So best of luck to Jason.
This is what happened to the story that he didn't cover with you guys when he went on a three-hour, two-hour live talking about this while I'm trying to pull my kids down.
Everyone's calling me.
Let me tell you what you said.
I'm like, dude, I'm putting my kids down right now.
I'm spending time with Brooklyn yesterday and I'm having a very good conversation, my oldest son, because of what we're working on with his grades.
Rob, did I miss anything else from what I covered here?
The only thing I would say is that in this email chain, I asked, and it's not on this email here, but in a subsequent email, I asked for plugs to mention, social media handles to mention.
And Jason responded to that.
So he was reading the email.
There's no way you could skip this portion and then answer the portion below and provide your social media handles or projects.
So he did see that email because he responded to it.
Correct.
I did not know that.
And then we had subsequent emails after that.
His flight was delayed, but I mean, it was all in the same email.
So it was there for him to see.
If he had asked us, we would have absolutely said, hey, here's the other panelists that we're working on lining up.
Fantastic.
Anyways, the podcast with Roland Martin, there was so many other YouTube channels reacted to.
The media reacted to it.
I think total views were 5 or 10 million views, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter.
Those were fiery conversation.
And I respect Roland Martin for sitting here.
Funny story.
Roland retweeted and said, if I knew I was going to be sitting down with Jason Whitlock, I would have never sat down with him.
I destroyed this man a long time ago.
So that's like a ho, ho.
Roland just jumped in there to take advantage of the opportunity.
Anyways, okay, there you have it.
Roger, thanks for coming out.
Thank you.
This was great.
Remind me not to get in a fight with you.
This was great.
I had a great time with you.
Again, Kai, it's good to have you back.
Apparently, word on the street was you were fired.
So somehow you're back here.
It's great to see you.
We had a good negotiation.
By the way, a lot of people are thinking Adam left or he's fired.
It is true.
Fortunately, it is partly true.
We will tell you the full story on next week's podcast.
Have a great weekend.
We may do on Friday.
We may do a podcast on Friday.
Possibly.
Can't tell you yet.
I have a travel schedule tomorrow.
I'm going to, I don't know where I'm going to tomorrow.
I'm going to Orlando tomorrow.
Come back if I make it back.
We'll do a podcast on Friday.
If we don't have a great weekend, everybody, take care.
