PBD - Patrick Bet-David - Trump’s Third Term Triggers Media MELTDOWN | PBD Podcast

April 1, 2025 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

02:19:07

Trump’s Third Term Triggers Media MELTDOWN | PBD Podcast | Ep. 569

Patrick Bet-David, Tom Ellsworth, Vincent Oshana, and Adam Sosnick react to Trump’s third term tease, Elon Musk & DOGE exposing a migrant social security scandal, Lawrence O'Donnell's pay demands after Maddow’s contract leak, and Gavin Newsom calling the Democratic Party toxic. ------ 🎒 LIMITED EDITION RED LEATHER VT BACKPACK: https://bit.ly/3Ri5Gpn 👕 GET THE LATEST VT MERCH: https://bit.ly/3BZbD6l 📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/41rtEV4 📰 VTNEWS.AI: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3OExClZ 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g57zR2 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A 📱 CONNECT ON MINNECT: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4ikyEkC 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3ZjWhB7 🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BfA5Qw 📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! TIME STAMPS: 00:00 - Show intro 01:10 - Topics on the podcast. 06:22 - 🎒 LIMITED EDITION RED LEATHER VT BACKPACK: https://bit.ly/3Ri5Gpn 07:53 - Social security numbers given to illegal immigrants skyrockets. 22:30 - Lesley Stahl's weird starvation question to Hamas hostage. 34:18 - Trump's reciprocal tariffs go into affect on April 2nd. 44:17 - Liberals melt down over Trump's third term talk. 1:06:57 - CK Hutchison under pressure to drop Panama Canal sale. 1:12:46 - Lawrence O'Donnell wants a pay bump after Rachel Maddow's pay is made public. 1:24:55 - Yankees torpedo bats creates MLB controversy. 1:38:38 - Trump has productive call with Canada's Mark Carney. 2:07:49 - Gavin Newsom calls Democratic party toxic. SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @ValuetainmentComedy @theunusualsuspectspodcast @bizdocpodcast ABOUT US: 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did you ever think you were made?
	You want to hustle on something so chase sweet victory?
	No, this life miss for me.
	Adams.
	What you want?
	The future looks bright.
	My handshake is better than anything I ever saw.
	It's right here.
	You are a one-on-one.
	I don't think I've ever said this before.
	Okay, folks.
	Hope you had a good weekend.
	There's a lot of crazy things going on right now that we got to be talking about.
	Apparently, there's a bunch of social security numbers that were given away to non-citizens the last three years, four years.
	Weird.
	Which is very weird.
	Very weird.
	You got to see this chart.
	Kind of strange.
	We haven't reacted to, by the way, Vinny just ate a buck.
	That's why he's literally swallowed a bug.
	Did you Manex already or not?
	If you go to PBD podcast, Manex Circle, you will see him while he's recording it.
	The bug goes in his mouth.
	By the way, shout out to Manex Circles.
	All the people that are debating, I love.
	Oh my God, like throughout the entire day, they're going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.
	Lots of good stories on Manex Circles.
	But a few stories here.
	One, Trump holds an extremely productive call with Canadian prime minister.
	We agree on many things.
	He's talking about Carney.
	At the same time, Maxime just came out, Bernier, and he just came out and did what RFK did.
	He went behind Pierre Polyev, which we will respond to as well.
	I had a tweet I put out there with the director to Pierre Polyev that I'll read it to you here in a few minutes on why I believe what he needs to be doing.
	It's really a very directed, pointed message on what needs to be done.
	We'll talk about that as well.
	How Trump could be president until 2037.
	These talks are getting more and more popular, and a lot of people are asking about it left and right.
	Trump might let taxes rise for the rich to cover tax breaks on tips.
	That's an Axio story.
	Trump expresses anger at Putin as Ukraine talks, makes little progress.
	He says, reciprocal tariffs set to start with all countries today.
	I believe it's today if it hasn't already.
	Trump warned U.S. automakers not to raise prices in response to tariffs.
	But at the same time, he said the following.
	Trump on if auto companies raise costs due to tariffs.
	He says, I couldn't care less.
	We'll play that clip to you.
	Far-right influencers are hosting a $10,000 per person matchmaking weekend to repopulate the earth.
	Let me read that to you one more time.
	Far-right influencers are hosting a $10,000 per person matchmaking weekend to repopulate the earth.
	Come together, conservatives, make babies, marry each other, go.
	Come together, marry each other, go.
	That's for $10,000 a pop.
	Not a pop, meaning you can buy two of them.
	I'm just saying, like, that's how much it is to go per person.
	I got to make it an audience.
	I don't want you guys to think past that.
	No one wants her.
	Biden AIDS warned donors that replacing Joe with his hand-picked VP would be a disaster.
	Guys, it's so embarrassing.
	There's people on the left that are saying they don't even know if she's going to win the governorship, let alone the presidency.
	And some of them are saying we want her to come back because she could be the president.
	Absolute mayhem.
	We'll talk about that.
	C.K. Hutchinson.
	Out of all the stories we're talking about, this may be the number one story more than anything else.
	You ready?
	Panama Canal.
	C.K. Hutchinson will not sign the deal to sell strategic Panama ports next week, CNBC says.
	What happened?
	Well, that's the phone call.
	She made the phone call.
	Says you can't be doing that.
	I'm speculating.
	Maureen Le Pen banned from running for French presidency in 2027 and given four-year sentence in embezzlement trial.
	Americans are spending less as they brace for new tariffs.
	Bill Gates said the following.
	Within 10 years, AI will replace many doctors and teachers.
	Humans won't be needed for most things.
	This is from, what do you call it?
	From where we at here?
	Bill Gates?
	Bill Gates, yes.
	And then these nuclear companies are leading the race to build advanced small reactors in the U.S. Yankees' new torpedo bats create a steer emit 15 Homer weekend barrage, which is, by the way, I mean, good for the Yankees what they're doing.
	The guy's an MIT guy.
	Nothing they're doing is illegal.
	Nope.
	But they're hitting home runs left and right.
	So we'll see what happened there.
	Foul trouble.
	Couples filing out, filling out March Madness prenups as 28% argue arguments caused by watching sports.
	28% of arguments are caused by watching sports.
	Great.
	Mark Cuban claims he lost hundreds of millions of dollars owning the Dallas Mavericks.
	Musk announces Doge's next strangely wealthy target.
	Wait till you see which one this is.
	This definitely got a lot of attention.
	RFK Dares, governor of West Virginia, America's fattest state to do regular public weigh-ins.
	And you have to see this governor to see why he's targeting this person.
	California Gavin Newsome says the Democratic brand is toxic.
	Rachel Maddow's pay fuels jealousy as Lawrence O'Donnell is off air.
	Prince Andrew is accused of Virginia.
	Jaffrey has days to live after being hit by school bus.
	I'm ready to go.
	And a Daily Mail story says, internet is divided as company launches breast milk flavored ice cream.
	I don't even.
	I don't get it.
	Have you tried it yet?
	Breast milk-flavored ice cream.
	Okay.
	It's been 46.
	That's a sad story.
	All right, next.
	It's been 46 years.
	I haven't tried any breast milk.
	Next, Joe Rogan split with Trump on deportations to hell on Earth Prison.
	Somebody's in that group that Tom was a little bit concerned about.
	Leslie Stahl's viral clip from 60 Minutes.
	Interview sparks outrage.
	By the way, this has got to be the dumbest question asked in the history of journalism.
	Horrible.
	But they got to see it.
	Pam Bondi wants to give 20 years to people in prison for Colorado man, accused of firebombing Tesla dealership.
	Good.
	Elon Musk claims he's given alleged baby mama Ashley St. Clair $2.5 million, $500,000 per year, despite not knowing if the child is mine or not.
	That's what Musk said.
	And then she sold her Tesla.
	And then some good things happened with Chris Ruddy.
	Okay, so that's that.
	And then we've got a few other stories that we'll play a couple clips that we have to show that you have to go through.
	But prior to us getting into the podcast, guys, a lot of you have been asking about this.
	If you were at the Vault conference, we had these backpacks, and the backpacks went off like it was gone within minutes.
	That for the rest of the three days, everybody was asking, where are the Valutamin backpacks?
	I want them.
	This is genuine leather, red, limited edition, numbered on the side out of 100.
	Okay.
	And then it's the value tame logo on the front.
	It says value tame right here.
	Even this, this, what do you call it?
	The zipper, you know, here it's got the value taimon logo on it.
	Limited edition, red, valutamin, backpack, genuine leather.
	These will go in no time.
	There's only 100 of these.
	You won't see these again.
	Limited on the side.
	It's got it numbered, whatever number you're going to be getting, two out of 100, 58 out of 100.
	It'll be numbered.
	And typically when you see these, what ends up happening is some people buy them and they post them on eBay and they sell it for three times.
	And you see that with hats.
	Some of the hats that we have, the Future Looks Bright hat, are on eBay.
	Some guys are selling for $3,500, $3,000, $500.
	And some of them are able to sell them.
	But for you, if you're somebody that follows Valutayman very closely and you're proud of the brand and you want to support it, go get these limited edition one out of 100 red leather backpack on vtmerch.com.
	These will go in no time.
	Maybe a good gift for your husband.
	Maybe a good gift for your son.
	Maybe a good gift for somebody that would actually win.
	Maybe for your wife, somebody that would support this.
	But go to vtmerch.com to place your order.
	Okay.
	Having said that, let's get right into it.
	Rob, can you pull out the chart, pull out the charts of Elon Musk showing the number of social securities?
	So they're showing that he's given a talk.
	I believe this is in Wisconsin, if I'm not mistaken.
	They're campaigning.
	Today's a very big day for Wisconsin.
	He roared the whole cheese head, signed it, send it in the audience himself.
	But they're showing the data here.
	And I want you to pay attention to this and ask yourself, why is this happening?
	Go ahead, Rob, if you can play the clip.
	You see, 200,000 people goes all the way to 2.1 million 24.
	These are non-citizens that are getting social security numbers.
	Yeah, this is a mind-blowing chart.
	Yeah, just this literally blew us away.
	Like, we went there to find fraud, and we found this by accident.
	And this isn't political, by the way.
	My parents, immigrants.
	Yeah, this country's been great to us.
	My brother and sister are all born in Spain.
	I'm pro-legal immigration.
	This is not political.
	This is not political.
	This is about America and the future of America.
	And there are a lot of good people in the system that pointed this in this direction.
	I want to honor them right now that work in the government today who took risks to show us these numbers and tell us what's going on.
	Okay, so can you zoom in?
	So do you know what this is?
	If you're watching this, so this is new non-citizen social security numbers issued.
	The furthest one to the left is 2021.
	That's Biden's first year.
	Okay.
	Is there a way to see what that number is?
	I can read it.
	I can't zoom in because it's a video, but it's 270,425.
	That's first year 2021, Biden giving out Social Securities.
	Second year looks like 590, if I'm not mistaken, Rob.
	Third year looks like 964.
	And fourth year is over 2 million, but is it 2,095,000?
	Yeah, 2,095,247.
	And can you do me a favor and research?
	And then this year in the first few months, which means this is, is that really 960 in the first few months?
	900,649.
	That is wild to be thinking about.
	Rob, what is the year that we've given out the most social security numbers out to non-U.S. citizens?
	Can we just kind of see?
	So 2.1 million.
	That means out of 340 million people living here, 1% of Social Security cards were given away just last year in 2024.
	To people that aren't supposed to be here.
	They're not.
	These are not.
	What is the most?
	What's the most?
	What's the most, what's the most social security numbers in a year to non-citizens?
	What was that?
	Over 2 million.
	So the record is in 2024.
	Over 2 million.
	That is absolutely insane.
	So now, very basic.
	Why did this happen?
	What percentage of them do you think are going to be voting Republican?
	What percentage of them are you thinking to be voting on the left?
	Who did this?
	What was the motive?
	Tom, lots of questions.
	Your thoughts on this.
	Well, my thoughts on this is obviously, first of all, I really appreciate this guy saying, hey, I'm in favor of legal immigration and thanking the people that were working in the SSA, Social Security Administration, who cooperated with them and said, hey, you're here looking for waste and fraud.
	You need to see this.
	So that means that there are people in the Social Security Administration who are realizing what was happening.
	And what do I think about this?
	I think the administration in power at the time was the Biden administration and the support of Schumer and Pelosi were very, very liberal on this issue.
	They were issuing Social Security numbers to non-citizens.
	They were helping people who got here to stay here and work here legally.
	And by the way, Vinny, I'll give you something here.
	Let me ask you a question.
	So Every state in the nation, you have to be a citizen and you have to have a social security number to get a real estate license or an insurance license.
	And Pat would know something about that.
	He founded that vision and built one of the largest insurance distribution companies in history.
	And guess what?
	We would go to the states and say, well, all the person has is an I-10, which is a temporary number.
	Sorry, can't be an agent.
	If he had a social security number and then they lied to us about citizenship, guess what?
	State of California, state of Texas wouldn't know.
	Now you've got this.
	So they're giving social security numbers out to people, I believe, knowing full well that they're helping them hide in plain sight as illegals because you go up to get a job and they say, do you have a social security card?
	Yes, I do.
	I'll show you my social security card, my number right here.
	And you fill out a, what's it called?
	An I-9 with, is that, I think that's the form that an employee has to fill out to say that they're a citizen, an I-9.
	And so this is the previous administration giving social security numbers out so people can hide in plain sight who are actually not citizens.
	And the main goal was for what, Tom?
	To change the voting block.
	Yeah, there's America.
	I-9, you fill that out and you have to show something.
	So here's my social security number.
	Here's my driver's license.
	Yeah.
	And guess what?
	I just found it.
	I found the year with the most given, Rob.
	So more than 37 million social security numbers had been issued by the end of 1937.
	That's a total had been given.
	In the next dozen years, the number varied with the number of new entrants into covered employment.
	It reached at a peak of 7.6 million given in 1942, but dropped to 2.7 million post-war period, 46 through 50.
	Okay.
	But wasn't the first year the starting point?
	Because there's only like 90 million Americans.
	But to hear me out, this continues, then the highest number of social security numbers issued in a single year was 9.1 million in 1990.
	Here's a more detailed breakdown.
	The peak year for social numbers was not, Rob, do me a favor, type this in Google, and you'll see exactly what I'm looking at.
	Most social security numbers given in a single year.
	Most social security numbers given in a single year.
	So it should come up perfect.
	And that's exactly what I'm looking at.
	Yeah.
	So I have another one that says 9.1 million, but we'll find that as well.
	So this is we've issued 450 million social security numbers since day one, with an average of about 5.5 million numbers assigned annually.
	But how many is it to non-U.S. citizens, though?
	The peak year, I'm down to 7.6 million.
	What's it going to post for?
	2.7 million.
	I have here, it says the highest number was in 1990, was 9.1 million.
	But I wonder if that is to, yeah, if you type in, if you.
	It can't be non-citizens, right?
	Okay, it cannot be.
	Rob, can you type this in?
	What I just sent to you, just type that in Google, if you could.
	Do you see which one I texted you?
	Okay.
	So let's see what comes up with this.
	Okay, zoom in right there.
	Right.
	Is it Family Support Act 1988 and the growth in the enumeration at birth program combined to increase the number of social security numbers issued to 9.1 million people in 1990, but the figure decreased to 7.65 million in 1991.
	The number of dependents who are required to get social security numbers under the Family Support Act diminishing.
	So what is that about?
	Can you look?
	I believe, look this up.
	I believe the Family Support Act was if you were claiming dependence on your tax return, they had to have a Social Security number.
	And sometimes people wouldn't get Social Security numbers for their kids until they were 16 and going to get a job.
	So I think that 15 million in two years was so that people had to put a valid Social Security number on their tax return to identify a dependent.
	Okay.
	So then the title here is what?
	New non-citizen social security numbers issued.
	New non-citizen.
	What is the most we've done for new non-citizens?
	I'm really curious at this point.
	Most social security numbers given to non-U.S. citizens.
	Are you able to find it?
	Do you see any of it?
	It keeps coming back to 2024 with two million.
	Yep.
	You keep seeing that.
	Me too.
	I keep seeing the same thing as well.
	Guys in the back, can you also look this up to see maybe you find something that we're not seeing.
	Adam, what are your thoughts on this?
	So the I'm doing the math here.
	That's what I'm sort of doing right now.
	So we talked about last week these gold card.
	Adam, have some water.
	I will, but no, I was doing math in the middle of it, but we talked about the gold card last week.
	People are paying $5 million to get access to America.
	$5 million.
	How many people did he say that he did this?
	Like a thousand people already?
	They're trying to raise billions of dollars, potentially a trillion dollars.
	Why would you pay?
	Just come in illegally, go through this whatever nonsensical waste, fraud, and abuse process, and just come in and get social security numbers to be part of America.
	So it just seems like the people who are doing things right are put, you know, are not prioritized.
	People who are skipping the line, not going through the door, are just skipping the line and able to cheat the system.
	So do you know what happened this weekend in the UK?
	Did you hear what they hosted?
	So this past weekend in the UK, they hosted the summit to end illegal immigration.
	It was called the Organized Immigration Crime Summit, put on by Prime Minister of the UK, Kier Starmer.
	40 countries participated.
	$33 million is what they're putting towards doing what?
	Prosecuting smugglers who are basically helping to smuggle people into the UK and into Europe.
	And it's not the countries that you would suspect to be there.
	Obviously, the U.S. was there.
	France was there, but Vietnam was there.
	Why is Vietnam there?
	Iraq was there because this illegal immigration or mass migration is not just an American thing.
	It's not just a UK thing.
	It's happening all over the world.
	Essentially, people from poor countries, authoritarian countries are like, what the hell am I doing here?
	And they're going to cross the border illegally.
	The rich people are going to be okay.
	Like we discussed the numbers about, you know, paying $5 million.
	How many people could afford $5 million?
	Like, what was the amount of net worth someone needed to have, you think, to pay $5 million for this gold card?
	$100 million.
	$100 million.
	How many people have that?
	They came out with a number, $30 million.
	I don't know what the number was.
	Rob pulled it up.
	Okay.
	But those people have options.
	Sure.
	So the point is, you know, there's so much criticism going on from the left towards Elon Musk and Doge and this waste, fraud, and abuse.
	What's wrong with criticizing, obviously, a fallible system that has massive holes in it?
	It should not be political.
	What's the one thing the guy said at the beginning?
	This is not political.
	We'll see if it becomes political.
	Well, if we're going to be real about the situation, this is, it all comes back to the Democrats and cheating, okay?
	Because they get what?
	Why give them all social security numbers and then have them register to vote?
	Because they want to change the makeup.
	They want to change the voting block because these people are obsessed with power.
	But in that, having a wide open border and having everybody come in, they give them all that, Adam.
	You know, bad things happen, meaning hundreds of thousands of Americans died because of fentanyl because of border.
	Because mind you, the border is wide open because they want these people to come in illegally and get the social security numbers.
	But we lose over 100,000 a year from fentanyl and all the drugs.
	Okay.
	We have hundreds of thousands of missing children that come to the border.
	Okay, because mind you, they want to stay in power.
	Okay.
	How many girls did we see just in the past year that were either raped or murdered by illegals?
	But the Democrats like, no, no, no, they're good people.
	So that goes back to last week's podcast when I say that they are the enemy of the people.
	Those people, that party that's willing to leave the border open for votes and we lose American lives, they are the enemy of the people.
	And Elon Musk yesterday said someone is getting arrested today because he stole 400,000 social security numbers and he was selling them.
	There was an audio of it.
	So this all boils down to what?
	The Democrats cheat.
	They have to cheat.
	They keep blaming Trump and Trump.
	That's why when Trump is like, in 2020, they cheated.
	Obviously, in 2016, they cheated, but the Russia collusion thing didn't work.
	But that is, you are trying to change the makeup of the country and ruin our livelihoods because you guys want to keep that power.
	Period.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I understand what you're saying.
	Your frustration.
	To say Democrats all cheat, that's a blanket statement to everybody.
	I don't know if it's going to be all.
	I do think there are many, like when you see a number like this, it doesn't take a dummy to sit there and say, why are you doing this?
	Why did this happen?
	Does it correlate with the number of people crossing the border?
	Yes.
	So those people that crossed the border, the record-breaking numbers, which I believe it was the most people that crossed the border illegally, was in December of 2023, if I'm not mistaken.
	It was 235 or 232, some number like that that came through.
	So, and then you see this number and it's like, no, it's not really an issue.
	It's not really taking place.
	Now the challenge becomes: what do you do with these guys?
	What do you do with the people that came here illegally?
	And AOC talked about we don't have an illegal immigration problem.
	We have a documentation problem.
	What did she call it?
	There's a word that she said.
	Oh, we have a, like, what do you call it when somebody comes here and they want to become a citizen, the process?
	An asylum, illegal asylum.
	It's a different word.
	But, you know, our immigration problem is a challenge of getting people documented to make him believe.
	Oh, yeah, they want to make it.
	They want to rush to get them documented.
	When you see numbers like this, it's a little bit weird to say 2.1 million.
	Everything I'm looking at right now, it keeps pointing back to 2024, 2024, 2024.
	But we'll see what happened here.
	Let me kind of go to a clip that's gone viral, folks, in the last couple of days.
	It's Leslie Stahl's Viral Crip from 60 Minutes interview that people are reacting to.
	It's absolutely berserk.
	Even Scott Jennings had to say some stuff about this earlier.
	This is a 60-minute interview with freed Israeli-American hostage Keith Siegel went viral after she asked the following question.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	The terrorists became very mean and very cruel and violent.
	More so.
	Much more so.
	They were beating me and starving me.
	Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food?
	No, I think they starved me and they would often eat in front of me and not offer me food.
	Go back to that question one more time, Rob.
	Here, go ahead.
	Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food?
	Can we hear that one more time, Rob?
	Just one more time.
	Yeah, one more time.
	I just want to hear.
	Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food?
	Okay, I want to everybody that's watching this, Kai.
	If you were a journalist, would you ever in a million years ask that question?
	I would actually want to know who said yes.
	Okay.
	Think about the question.
	Play it one more time, Rob.
	Play it one more time.
	Go a little bit back.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Right there.
	Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food?
	So who's she talking?
	So, hey, you're a kid.
	They interviewed a kid.
	My parents never had food to eat.
	And the kid is an anorexic, whatever, 70-pound 5'8 kid.
	Okay.
	And a reporter asked, do you think they starved you or they just didn't have any food?
	It's a bit of a weird question to ask, right?
	It's a bit of a weird question to be asking on 60 minutes.
	And another one of those reasons why they're losing credibility.
	Vinny, your thoughts when you see something like this?
	I mean, when I heard this yesterday, I didn't believe it because I was like, no, this has to be other AI or something.
	But it's one of the most dumbest, tone-deaf questions to ask a torture victim who's been captive from Hamas for over what, 480 days?
	And like, imagine being tortured, starved, and beaten down by terrorists.
	And you come back.
	And mind you, she's Jewish herself.
	How are you asking that question?
	And it's like either she's pretending to be clueless or she's making the other, the bad guys look good.
	Either way, it's just another reminder.
	I want everybody to know that's why mainstream media is on its last leg and dying because of that type of stuff.
	She's 83 years old.
	I know my dude, my mom is almost 80.
	She's running.
	She's doing good.
	But what type of question, how insensitive is that to ask someone that literally just survived?
	Probably one of the worst experiences that him or anybody else is going to deal with.
	And she asked him that question.
	Do you think she's asking a political question?
	Or maybe, let's be fair to her.
	Do you think she's asking a question that she really was thinking about?
	Like, do you think she's asking the question that she really thought maybe the terrorists were starving and so did anyone have any food to give to you?
	Because if you're a terrorist, do you think you have a hard time getting access to anything?
	You're terrorizing.
	So which means you do what?
	You're willing to do anything and everything at all costs to get food, money, shelter.
	You're a terrorist.
	You terrorize.
	But did you hear, you heard her?
	Before this, he goes, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	He goes, no, they're eating in front of me and teasing me and taunting me.
	Yeah.
	Which is, it's just, it's unbelievable.
	I did the same thing you just did.
	I rewound it a couple of times.
	I wanted to make sure I understood context because I had a real reaction at first.
	I was like, what are you thinking?
	That was what I was thinking.
	And I think this shows, in my opinion, I think this shows she has a predisposition.
	You can always tell when you interview somebody or you talk to somebody, you ask one or two questions and they give you one or two answers and you're like, okay, I can see which way this person leans.
	We've all said that in our minds.
	When we've interviewed somebody for a job or you've spoken to somebody you just met, oh, I see, I see which way this person, I see which way the wind blows with this person, all those phrases that run through our heads.
	In this, the word that came to my head, I said, wow, I wonder if Leslie Stald doesn't have a predisposition that favors the Palestinian situation and the Hamas and Gaza situation.
	And so she doesn't even realize it, but her questions are coming out showing doubt to the other side because she's got this predisposition.
	In the old West, they used to say, you walk into a court and if the judge is already frowning, forget it.
	You're guilty.
	You know what I mean?
	And that used to be the thing.
	It says, when you walked in the court, what the drugs, he was frowning.
	Okay, you're done.
	And it kind of feels like that.
	And I look at this.
	She's a career journalist.
	She's had a distinguished career, regardless of what you think of her individual politics that she's displayed.
	But it just felt to me, Pat, that she had a predisposition.
	And it's almost just off the top of her head and reflexively coming out.
	And it was disappointing because she's talking, she's not making a commentary on a new show.
	She's speaking directly to a victim of torture, imprisonment, who is just praising his personal God that he's out alive, Adam.
	So for some reason, I'm actually not that offended by her question.
	So let's give it some context.
	So she's interviewing a hostage who was released.
	And the tone of the questioning is maybe what I would find an issue with, but she's asking that question to the wrong person.
	So the question of whether Israel is having a blockade of food and goods into Gaza certainly could be had because they are.
	Now, why are they doing that?
	Why would you blockade a country from importing goods?
	Because oftentimes those goods are terrorist items, right?
	So it's like, you know, the whole conversation that we're having here in America is building a wall.
	Why do we want to build a wall?
	To maybe stop illegal things from coming in the country, whether it's people, whether it's trafficking, whether it's drugs, whether it's guns.
	We all know how powerful the cartel is in Mexico.
	You know, people in Mexico were, I think in one week, like 20 politicians were no longer running, if you know what I mean, because they were dead.
	So, you know, last week, it was something very, very, very unique that happened in Gaza.
	Do you know what that was?
	There was a protest against a government in that region from the Palestinians.
	And who do you think they were protesting against?
	Hamas.
	They were protesting against Hamas.
	So you hear this conversation and this slogan, free Palestine.
	Go ahead, play it.
	I wonder what happened to them after this, though.
	So you hear Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.
	What does that even, what does that look like?
	What does that mean?
	Free Palestine.
	Often when people tell me free Palestine, I say yes, from Hamas, right?
	Free the people of Iran from the mullahs and the Ayatollahs.
	Free Lebanon from Hezbollah.
	Free Yemen from the Houthis.
	Free Iraq from Al-Qaeda and ISIS, whatever it may be.
	It's these terrorist groups that are effectively terrorizing the people.
	And it's the armies, the democratic elected armies, whether it's Israel, whether it's the U.S., whether it's even the people of Lebanon, who are like, yeah, we just want to not have terrorism in our country.
	We had a meeting with, I won't say his name, someone pretty high up in the Middle East and Saudi.
	And they had a major problem.
	There's a sect of Islam in Saudi specifically called Wahhabism.
	And Wahhabism is a very strict, literal definition of Islam.
	To my Muslim friends out there, if I'm not getting the definition right, forgive me.
	But MBS, Crown Prince MBS, basically, when he took office, he's like, no, no, no.
	No more of this.
	I'm the king, the crown prince.
	I'm running this country.
	Because they understand the threat that Islamic extremism and jihadism brings to their own countries.
	Remember, we played a clip of, I think it might have been from the UAE, and he was giving an interview about how the West is doomed because they're coddling illegal immigration.
	And he's like, you know, I'm going to say it in English about what the West doesn't understand and Europe doesn't understand.
	And she goes, no, no, it's okay.
	We have subtitles.
	He goes, no, I'm going to say it in English so you don't get this right.
	He's like, if you don't stamp out Islamic extremism, they're going to get you and they're going to dominate you.
	And I'm Islamic.
	I'm Muslim.
	So is Israel possibly blockading things?
	Yes.
	But to this lady's point, interview a politician with that line of questioning, not a literal hostage who probably had no clue what was going on anyway.
	Right?
	Well, her predisposition that Tom was talking about, she's the one that tried to fact-check Trump.
	I know, you know where she stands.
	She's the one that was like, they didn't spun.
	Come on.
	And he was like, Leslie, what are you talking about?
	This is 60 minutes.
	Yeah.
	It's like, no, no, Leslie, you have your freaking stance, and we know who the hell you are.
	So, I mean, tone deaf and just it's unbelievable.
	She should be.
	PBD, why did you want to play this clip?
	Like, why were you so offended?
	I'm like, all right, she's a journalist.
	She's maybe a leftist.
	What was it to you that was like, nah, this is very inappropriate?
	A person just came from, you know, being held hostage, and you want to ask him a question like that.
	Like, hey, maybe they didn't have any food.
	Maybe they didn't have food to give you.
	Go back to the clip, and I'm just purely trying to pay attention to the words she used.
	Okay.
	So if you go to the clip and start it from the beginning, Rob, so we can just see it.
	Yeah.
	Play it from the beginning.
	The terrorists became very mean and very cruel.
	The terrorists.
	He didn't say the Palestinians.
	Go back again, Rob.
	So he says the terrorists.
	Okay.
	The terrorists became very mean and very cruel.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And violent.
	More so.
	Much more so.
	They were beating me and starving me.
	Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food?
	Look at his answer right now.
	They starved me and they would often eat in front of me.
	In front of me and not often.
	Okay.
	So let's play literal.
	Can you go look up the definition of terrorists or to terrorize, to terrorize?
	Okay.
	Terrorize definition.
	Someone who kills innocent people.
	Create them in a state of extreme fear and distress in filled with terror, right?
	Okay.
	So what is a terrorist willing to use to get what they want?
	What limitations do they have?
	Zero limitations.
	They don't do anything.
	Guess what?
	That means a terrorist is going to find their food, the women, anything they want.
	They're willing to do everything and anything at all costs to hold you hostage, anything.
	If that's the true definition of terrorists, what do you mean?
	Maybe they don't have food.
	They're going to get their food one way or another.
	Of course.
	They're going to get the girls one way or another because they're willing to terrorize.
	So if he was talking about, if she was talking about Palestinians holding him hostage because they're upset at him for being Jewish or idea for whatever, okay, cool.
	Yeah, maybe Palestinians don't have food because of blockade and the food is not coming in.
	But this is a terrorist she's talking about.
	A terrorist is going to get what they want.
	This is, again, my opinion I'm giving to this here.
	So I thought it was a very weird question for her to ask.
	Anyways, let's go to the next story here.
	Next one I want to get into is tariffs.
	All right.
	So the tariffs are starting, folks.
	And Trump says reciprocal tariffs set to start with all countries.
	Rob, I think you have a clip on that.
	And he's talking to Bloomberg.
	This is, I believe, yesterday that this took place.
	Do you see the clip?
	Let me just read it and I'll come to you, Rob.
	Okay, go for it.
	Play this clip if you could.
	Yeah, please.
	The size of the investment, partly because of tariffs.
	On April 2nd, the reciprocal tariffs will go into effect.
	Is it truly reciprocal?
	Are there some countries that might get a break or some sectors that might get a break?
	Well, I may give a lot of countries breaks, but it's reciprocal.
	But we might be even nicer than that.
	You know, we've been very nice to a lot of countries for a long time.
	But I call it Liberation Day.
	April 2nd is Liberation Day.
	But today, as you know, we did something with respect to Venezuela.
	You heard about that.
	And that will be quite important.
	We'll be announcing some additional tariffs over the next few days, having to do with automobiles, cars, and having also to do a little bit with lumber down the road, lumber and chips.
	We're going to get all those chip companies coming back.
	They're already coming back without even doing it.
	So it's been very good.
	But we'll be announcing some others.
	But for the most part, April 2nd will be a big day.
	That'll be Reciprocal Day.
	And we'll be bringing some of the money back that's been taken from us.
	Let's be nice by using the word taken.
	I don't want to use a stronger word because these guys are professional politicians and they don't like to hear those words.
	I refuse to use the word so you can pause it.
	By the way, look at Mike Johnson.
	Look at Mike Johnson.
	The Venezuela thing is a 25% he's putting on the oil sanctions.
	And he's targeting Russia's oil heavy company with ex-official Edward Fishman noting Russia's most important sector is under much more modest sanctions.
	And so Moscow has been able to earn from those exports.
	So if he's serious about trying to put pressure on Russia, it would be by targeting Russian oil.
	So that's what some of the people opposing that are saying.
	By the way, I hope it's reciprocal tariffs on everybody and no breaks given.
	I hope every reciprocal, you're tariffing me, I'm going to tariff you.
	What do you mean I'm not going to take you charging me 18%?
	I'm charging you 3%.
	I hope they do 100% of reciprocal on everybody until they lower their prices on everyone else.
	And then a question was asked, Rob, if auto companies raise costs due to tariffs, that's a, I think you have that clip as well.
	Here's another question being asked about what are you going to do if auto companies raise prices?
	Go forward, Rob.
	I couldn't care less if they raise prices because people are going to start buying American-made cars.
	And Jose, I asked the president about his desire to annex Greenland.
	Mr. Trump's saying there's a good possibility it could be done without military force, but added, I don't take anything off the table.
	All right.
	So, Adam, your thoughts on this.
	So, just like we did in the last segment, Rob, would you do me a favor and just Google or get the definition of reciprocal or reciprocity, either one?
	So, while you're pulling that up, what does it say?
	Given, felt, or done in return.
	So, it's like I do for you and you do for me.
	Yeah.
	Or you're going to charge me.
	I'm going to charge you.
	We said this joke the other day about like the two Indian guys who were fighting in the car.
	And like, it was like, you screw me.
	I screw you.
	No, screw you, Minnie.
	Yeah.
	I screw you.
	Screw you.
	Yeah.
	I screw you.
	Yeah.
	But if only one person is like, screw you, screw you, screw them.
	You're like, okay.
	Yeah.
	Then like, at what point are you going to be like, dude, what?
	Stop screwing me.
	So I think what happened, if I can kind of give sort of a macro approach, you know, they talk about the new world order or Trump is disrupting the new world order or the liberal world order.
	So after World War II, who was the king of the castle?
	It was the United States.
	It wasn't even close.
	And then shortly after that, Tom, you probably remember this is the Cold War started, right?
	60s into the 70s, right?
	And then by 1990, there was no what?
	I'm laughing at something else.
	He's laughing at something else.
	Thomas?
	Tom, you're so funny with Yankees Glove.
	Oh, got you.
	Keep going.
	We'll show it later.
	After the Cold War ended in 1991, I believe, right?
	U.S. hegemony.
	This is a term you've heard before.
	It's a great word.
	You've never heard it, but thank you.
	When we're just, we're numero uno, America first, literally, number one.
	What's it definitely?
	Leadership and dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.
	That was the United States, bro.
	But if you haven't looked at a GDP map of where U.S. is compared to China these days, it's neck and neck.
	I think we're still winning.
	I think we're, you know, after COVID, people are like, we can't trust China all that much.
	You know what GDP?
	You know she.
	You know, she, I like that.
	I tried.
	So do you know what China's GDP was when after the Cold War in 1990?
	Do you know what that was?
	Let me just give you a little context here.
	In 1990, China.
	Number one was United States.
	Number two was Japan.
	Number three was Germany.
	Number four was Russia.
	Number five was China.
	Fast forward, China is now neck and neck with the United States for number one.
	So we're talking about global domination.
	We're talking about being treated fairly.
	What's my point?
	United States has done so much for the world.
	And what have we received in return?
	I ask you.
	Nothing.
	So China was a nothing rural agrarian country 30, 40 years ago.
	And now they're an authoritarian dictatorship communist, number two GDP in the world.
	So Japan, enemy, World War II.
	Germany, enemy, World War II.
	Italy, enemy, World War II.
	They all benefit from the United States at this point.
	So here's the analogy.
	All these.
	You still have another analogy.
	You've been going this entire time.
	I'm like, I think it's a good point.
	Let's hear you right now.
	You know, all these countries were basically raised by the United States.
	We were their daddy.
	Remember when you asked Andrew Schultz to call you daddy?
	And you wouldn't do it.
	All these countries have been calling the United States daddy for 50 freaking years.
	At some point, though, you have to grow up.
	And what happens?
	Daddy says, you got to pay your own bills.
	And they're like, well, what do you mean?
	Like, you pay all our military.
	You handle everything.
	It's a complicated, complicated topic with this because, you know, they're basically freeloading off America, and Trump is trying to change it.
	But that's what's going on.
	But the part about, you're right, that Trump is trying to change it, but a part of it is on us.
	You know, a part of it is on the U.S. politicians.
	A part of it is on Nixon.
	A part of it is on Clinton.
	A part of it is on what we did in 1971.
	It was called the ping-pong something.
	Can you pull up the 1971 ping-pong ping-pong China type in ping-pong China U.S.
	Yeah, it was called the ping-pong diplomacy.
	Go to the ping-pong diplomacy.
	In 1971, U.S.'s table tennis team visit to China, known as the ping-pong diplomacy, marked a significant step toward normalizing relations between the two countries following decades of strange lies.
	Do you know 1971-72 was the first time a U.S. president visited China ever?
	That was Nixon.
	Do you know, Nixon, do you know 1971?
	When was the previous time U.S. even spoke to China?
	Do you know how long that break was?
	For 25 years, we never spoke to China at all.
	It was a communistic regime.
	There was zero conversation.
	Nixon becomes the first president on a visit, China.
	He goes there, the ping pong diplomacy.
	Then trade kind of opens up.
	Then at that time, just so you know what the minimum wage was in China per hour, at that time, minimum wage in China per hour for labor was like 8 to 20 cents per hour.
	8 to 20.
	That's a good deal for China.
	No, but that's a good deal for a lot of American workers that American business owners that were like, dude, let's build this thing over there.
	Fricking 8 cents an hour?
	Hell, we love China.
	That's what started saying, right?
	So, and then in 2001, when China was allowed to be in a world trade organization, have you seen this clip when they let him in, Rob?
	Can you find the clip?
	2001, when China was allowed to be in the World Trade Organization, and you see how they're celebrating.
	He's sitting furthest to the left.
	If there's a clip, guys can send it from the back if they have it.
	But anyways, here's what happens.
	Watch this.
	In 2001, minimum wage in China is in 2001, we're at $5.15 per hour.
	In 2001, in China, it was like 20 cents to 50 cents per hour, depending on different regions.
	Dude, so you're sitting there.
	They're sitting there.
	They're thinking, I'm going to save 25 times to send the labor.
	Do you know the moment they did this, 6 million jobs went to China like this?
	Yeah, of course.
	6 million manufacturing jobs went to China.
	So when you're looking at this part, we did this.
	Yes.
	China simply was the recipient of it.
	They were the beneficiaries of it.
	And our politicians negotiated this deal.
	Yeah.
	And also in 1971, what was the biggest significant thing that happened that year?
	Nixon took us off the gold standard.
	So all this happened is China has been elevated.
	They've been carving out our manufacturing sector.
	They've been taking all our jobs.
	And what have we benefited?
	All we have benefited is getting cheap shit.
	See, this, but this is the other.
	That's all we get.
	Yeah, but that's the other part as well.
	So, for example, let's just say, you know how the conversations is being had right now about Trump being a third term?
	You know how they're having those conversations.
	You know why some people support that?
	Why do you think some people support the idea of Trump having a third term?
	Why do you think some people support that?
	Like me, like me as just like an American, like average American citizens.
	Okay, so play this clip, Rob, and I'll give you my point here.
	Go for it.
	About a third term, about possibly wanting a third term.
	Does that mean you're not planning to leave office on June?
	I'm not looking at that, but I'll tell you, I have had more people ask me to have a third term, which is in a way it's fourth term because the other election, the 2020 election was totally rape.
	So it's actually sort of a fourth term in a certain way.
	I just don't want the credit for the second because Biden was so bad.
	He did such a bad job.
	And I think that's one of the reasons that I'm popular if you want to know the term.
	I think I'm popular because we've done a great job.
	I think we've had the best almost 100 days of any president.
	And most people are saying that it's an honor.
	We're bringing back our country.
	We're respected as a country again.
	And we're strongly respected.
	And people are amazed.
	I was with some very important people today, and they said that they've never seen a turnaround of the country as fast as this.
	Even look at our border.
	We have nobody coming in.
	And you can't come into our country, but you have to come in legally.
	But we have nobody coming in to our country.
	It's almost shut down.
	They've never seen anything like it.
	Okay, so you see that, right?
	You see that, right?
	Okay.
	So why did they want a third term?
	Rob, did you play the clip of China celebrating World Trade Organization?
	No, I haven't, though.
	Play this clip because let the audience see this on how they're celebrating this.
	When this happened, China knew how big it was.
	And the rest of the world also knew because what was being celebrated on this day was slave labor, cheap labor.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	Imperial conference so agrees.
	They know what that means.
	You got one and a half billion people that are willing to work for 20 cents because they're starving.
	Like Leslie Stahl should ask that question from the people at that time while she was still around because she's 83 years old.
	And, you know, so she's definitely been on.
	She was doing interviews with many, many years ago.
	So here's the technical part.
	Here's the technical part.
	Nixon may have negotiated that deal.
	And Tom, I want to kind of hear you.
	I want you to respond to what I'm about to say here.
	So break it down if there's any leaks in this argument.
	In my opinion, so let's just say I broke her a deal with somebody and I know who that person is that I brokered the deal with.
	I'm brokering the deal as if I'm still going to be running and negotiating this 10, 20 years from now.
	Meaning I can manage it because I brokered that deal.
	The system that we have as a democracy sometimes, like the way we have it in the U.S., is you can broker a deal today, but come four, eight, 12, 16 years from now, another person can come and pull everything out and everything you negotiate is completely gone.
	So let's just say Trump's negotiating all these deals on tariffs, the reciprocal tariffs.
	You don't think Russia, China, like literally election interference, you don't think they're sitting around saying, get this motherfucker out of here?
	You don't think they're saying that?
	They can't wait for this guy to be out, right?
	So to me, this is why maybe a third term is becoming a conversation with some folks because they trust that if Trump and his team keeps negotiating for eight years, it can be enough time to be able to lock it in and make it a norm.
	So for someone to come and destroy, it's going to take a little bit longer.
	And then that pendulum can switch.
	You're saying external forces.
	Other countries.
	But external forces using methods of bribery.
	And bribery is something that's been a lot of people are right now talking about bribery and different, but bribery is CIA is all bribery.
	MI6 is bribery.
	Mossad is bribery.
	Epstein is bribery.
	You know, what do you call it?
	This is how that works.
	Heidi Flies was bribery.
	You know the girl Heidi Flies did.
	Yeah, she had the black book.
	She had the black books, all the people that were hiring prostitutes.
	This concept of bribery, you know how easy it is to buy politicians?
	I mean, if you watch, I'm watching, what do you call it, the movie about Frank Costello, the story of Frank Costello.
	He's one of the four guys of the original Mob Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello, Meyer Lansky, and Ben Siegel, right?
	So this movie came out with De Niro.
	So me and Tico go and watch it.
	And the whole thing with him and Vito, Genevieve, everything is about bribery.
	So these guys can't be bought right now.
	They try to do the woman thing.
	I'm not embarrassed.
	You know, they try to do Bezos thing with text with women.
	They try to bribe him.
	You know what he did?
	Do you know the Bezos story with bribery?
	Do you know the blackmail story?
	Yeah, it was the National American out of Belarus.
	That's right.
	You know, and the guy that led it with the hysterically named David Pecker was attacking Jeff Bezos, saying, I've got pictures you were sending back and forth to Lauren Sanchez.
	And do you know what he does?
	Good.
	He says, show it.
	I don't give a shit.
	That's how you fight Bezos.
	I'm going to marry her anyway.
	Show it.
	Go do it.
	I don't care about it.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, we did.
	Go ahead.
	Expose me.
	Expose me.
	So, but for most politicians, you know, it's a real, so this China thing to me, it's a little bit.
	Let me say one thing before Tom does this.
	The tariff thing.
	This thing is.
	Yeah, specifically.
	So, you know, you talked about external forces or other countries reversing deals, but it also happens domestically.
	Like you saw when Trump took office, we're signing this executive order, executive order.
	We're getting out of the Paris climate accords.
	We're getting out of the Iran nuclear deal.
	Deal, deal, deal, gone, But do you know when, and then Biden did the same thing when he took over for Trump?
	But do you know the one deal that Biden kept in effect?
	The one Trump policy that Biden kept that no one really talks about?
	All the policies to trade stuff with China.
	Biden kept the heat on China.
	I mean, I don't know if Biden was awake during it, but any of the Trump trade policies, Biden kept.
	Why is that?
	So what essentially is happening now is Trump is realigning and redefining and adjusting all the deals that the United States did over the past 50, 75 years.
	What's the one thing that they say in any financial prospectus, anytime you're going to get a new asset allocation strategy?
	What is the one thing they say?
	Tom, you know this past performance does not Indicates our future results, our future performance.
	So just because it served the United States.
	I knew that.
	Just because this served the United States well maybe 50 years ago does not mean it's serving us well today.
	The world has changed so much.
	China has caught up so much.
	BRICS is now a thing now.
	USA is falling behind.
	It needs to be adjusted.
	Go for it, Tom.
	I think what's going on here is something very simple.
	People are talking about the third term.
	And by the way, I don't see any leaks in your argument, Pat.
	And I'm going to provide some nuanced color from this angle.
	People are talking about a third term for one reason.
	It takes time to lock this kind of change in.
	It takes a strong head coach to stay with a new program for a team.
	It takes a strong leader to push salespeople with a new commission plan or new products.
	It takes time.
	And leaders that go, oh, everybody's upset 10 minutes after I made a change, I'll go back.
	That is not leadership.
	That is not taking you to the future.
	So they talk about the third term because it takes time.
	You want to know?
	Let me tell you.
	Do you know Clinton?
	I once read an article that said, welcome to Reagan's fourth term of economic policy.
	Why?
	Reagan, Reagan, Bush Clinton.
	Clinton didn't go into the control room and start twisting dials on the Reagan economy.
	And people, you know, why?
	Because for eight years it was working.
	And then Bush Sr. got kind of messed up because Pro was in the election and he also raised taxes after he said, read my lips, no new taxes.
	But Clinton went in and said, over the eight years, well, guess what?
	This is working.
	I know because I was with early stage companies in Silicon Valley.
	We were worried about a lot of things.
	When Clinton claimed to power, he said, guess what?
	There's nothing to worry about.
	You know what?
	He's not moving it.
	So when people talk about the third term, they want, I'd like to see JD Vance for eight years, not because I'm a homer for the Republican Party, but because I believe what's happening here is necessary to establish stability and leadership for the United States for the next several years.
	We got to let it lock in.
	So, and by the way, and if I could jump really quick to a fast point about the automakers, you know what?
	Facts don't care about your feelings.
	Right.
	Well, you know what also facts don't care about, they don't care about your headlines sometimes.
	And this is when, you know, they've got these headlines.
	Trump warned U.S. automakers not to raise prices.
	You know what he was saying to people?
	He was saying, I don't care if major automakers raise their prices because we're going to buy American-made cars, such as the 70% of Mercedes total manufacturing that happens in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
	That is an American-made car.
	And guess what?
	BMW is at war with what marquee do they line up number one with?
	And they've been going at it for 70 years.
	BMW.
	If you take a look, they have their model line.
	You can look at everything.
	We do a case study on it.
	But BMW is getting in with tariffs and Mercedes not.
	So Mercedes sits back and says, I'm an American-made car and you're going to help me with my biggest competitor.
	Who's quietly happy about it?
	So what Trump was talking about is, listen, man, he said the American-made cars are going to win.
	I don't care if you other people raise your prices.
	But that's a genuine, like, that's the genuine fear.
	I was thinking about it this morning when I was coming to work.
	And it's like, everything that he's doing right now, everything from the border to immigration to these tariffs.
	If somebody from the other side, like these slick Gavin Newsoms, come in, Pat, you don't think they're going to try to reverse all of it?
	Everything that this guy is building, everything that they're going to reverse it.
	You know that.
	You know it, Tom.
	So when they do mention the third term, I know what the left is going to say.
	Oh, we told you he's a dictator.
	He doesn't want to leave.
	No, no, no.
	If America is kicking butt, why are we going to go backwards?
	Whoever's going to come in is literally going to reverse everything.
	Here's a challenge with that.
	Rob, what do you have here with the view?
	This is, I have some of the liberal reaction to the rumors.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	The concern about the third term is not whether it's going to be Trump.
	The concern is, remember, the person that did four terms was FDR, and the people that put a stop to were Republicans.
	To the history of it is Republicans said no to third terms because of after what happened to FDR.
	So for them to not come and do this, you're opening it up for the next person and a Democrat comes in.
	And so that's how Robinson is.
	But he also became president right after the Great Depression during World War II and he died like a month into his fourth term.
	And they're like, all right, guys, go ahead, Rob.
	No, he had an aneurysm and died, and Truman became president.
	Let's hear it.
	How insane, stupid, hair-brained, and lawless I think something he says might be.
	I have learned the lesson of taking him seriously.
	But what was interesting is this was a hot topic for all of us, and none of us picked it this morning because we're all on to him.
	He is the distractor in chief.
	So he doesn't want us to keep talking about SignalGate, which is a real threat to national security.
	And every day, more details are revealed that show us how incompetent and reckless his national security team is.
	It's a whole very weird thing that's going on with SignalGate.
	No, keep playing it, Rob.
	Keep playing it.
	He's tanking the stock market with his imbecilic tariffs.
	What he's calling Liberation Day should be called hypertension day because it's going to give us all a heart attack.
	He doesn't want us to talk about Andre, the 30-year-old gay hairdresser, Venezuelan, who without any due process, just because he had a lot of people.
	He was a mom and dad with a crown was grabbed and disappeared to the hell hole in El Salvador.
	He doesn't want us to be talking about any of those things.
	You can pause it.
	So the third term to me, it's by the way, just think about it this way.
	If you're a billionaire, okay, and you're running a big company that employs a lot of people, you want cheap labor, let's just say, right?
	Who benefited the most under Biden of 2.2 million new non-citizens getting social securities?
	Guess who?
	Billionaires did.
	Billionaire class did.
	Why?
	Cheap labor.
	So Trump's lowering cheap labor, if you really think about what's going on versus the Bidens are helping increase more cheap labor for you.
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	Like the other guys are sitting there saying, well, these guys are coming and willing to work for nothing.
	Well, a lot of Americans expect to get paid more.
	Well, send us some more, these illegal immigrants over here and let's give them social security so cheap labor can be available again.
	Of course, they're willing to do the work that Americans are not willing to do.
	That whole conversation, Biden helped billionaires out way more than Trump is helping them out so far.
	Billionaires have lost a lot of money since Trump's been president so far.
	Just so you know that it's a lot of money, billionaires are.
	Trust me, I know.
	And let me tell you, get it easy in the streets.
	Gavin Newsom doesn't want to talk about the liberal agricultural multi-multi-multi-hundred millionaires that are in California that benefit from a migration of very cheap Mexican labor without a lot of safety precautions out there with pesticides.
	And the liberals in California know it's happening.
	That is the weirdest thing.
	But let's go to the next story.
	Let's go to the next story.
	Let's go to the next story.
	No, no, we're not.
	I just want to understand if you're actually comfortable with a Trump third term.
	I'm comfortable with it.
	I'm not comfortable with the long-term, what do you call it, standard that others will use as well.
	That's my only thing.
	So if the Republican, let's spin this.
	Let's try to play the spin.
	I actually want to have this conversation because we're just throwing around third term, third term, as if it's like normal.
	No, no, but if you, the Republican side can say, well, you've had a guy with three or four terms.
	Why can't we?
	You had FDA over three or four terms.
	And you're going to say, well, the fourth term one month, he died all the time.
	But you've had that's what they created the 29th Amendment to do.
	I get that.
	I get that.
	But somebody can come out and say, like Steve Bannon says, we're working on ways to change this right now.
	We're working.
	He said it on Cuomo, right on his podcast or News Nation.
	I think this is it, Rob.
	We play this with Ron Paul.
	Go ahead and play this clip, Rob.
	I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028.
	So I've already endorsed President Trump.
	A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky.
	We've got him now.
	He's on fire.
	And I'm a huge supporter.
	I want to see him again in 2028.
	And obviously, anybody who doesn't like what you say, but judges is it a function of a lack of intelligence, doesn't know anything about you.
	I don't make that mistake.
	You're a smart guy.
	You know he's term limited.
	How do you think he gets another term?
	We're working on it.
	I think we'll have a couple of alternatives.
	Let's say that.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	We'll say what the definition of term limit is.
	Don't be mysterious.
	Okay.
	So I think people are talking about it, whether it'll happen or not.
	There's a story in here.
	I'm not comfortable with that.
	Let me read the story to you.
	So how Trump could be president until 2037 due to constitutional loopholes.
	Okay.
	On January 20, 2029, JD Vance, commonly known as, could be sworn in as a president after winning the 2020 election, Trump as his vice president, only to immediately declare, I resign, allowing Trump to assume the presidency for a third term.
	This scenario exploits a loophole in the 22nd Amendment, which states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than two times, but does not prevent a two, twice-elect president from later assuming the role through succession of Professor Bruce Peabody, co-author of a 1999 Minnesota Law Review article, the twice and future president, explained, we contend that the 22nd Amendment prescribes only the re-election of an already twice-elected president,
	making the Trump path to a third term legally feasible if voters support the plan.
	The strategic hinges, strategy hinges on Vance's loyalty and Trump's popularity, with the crowd cheering Trump, Trump, Trump, and four more years as he takes office again, potentially extending his tenure until 2037, when he'd be 90, Peabody told DailyMail.com that it would be pretty hard for Supreme Court to overturn it, especially with its conservative textualist bent noting.
	I think it's one of those surprisingly straightforward scenarios.
	Adam.
	Look, I mean, it's amazing to me that this conversation is actually taking a real life of its own.
	The people who are constitutionalists are willing to basically bypass what they believe.
	You hear the people that are like, God, country, party.
	And then they're just like, yeah, I would love to see Trump have a third term.
	It's like, do you not believe in the Constitution anymore?
	This is not something that you're just the whole concept of Trump is that he's a once-in-a-lifetime generational disruptor.
	That's great.
	Leader.
	But you're just going to throw out all your morals, your convictions, your principles, your beliefs, your belief in the Constitution because you love this one man.
	And I voted for him.
	I want him to do these things that he's doing now.
	But this is the creeping of a king, of a dictator, an authoritarian.
	I understand why the left would be freaking out.
	Now, if they're just doing this to troll the left, keep doing it.
	But if this is actually a plan that's in the works, at some point are some people going to caution themselves and say, well, guys, what are we doing here?
	Because also the Republican Party should probably grow a pair of balls and realize that you're going to need Trump 2.0 and Trump 3.0.
	Trump can't be your daddy forever.
	So even Vig was like, look, I'm America first, but America first does not begin and end with Trump.
	Someone else is going to take the mantle.
	So if you don't have enough balls and courage to say someone else will have to be that dude and become the next Trump 2.0, then all you are is a party of Trump and then good luck.
	So I'm rooting for Trump.
	I think he's doing great.
	I think the economy is a little uncertain right now, but I think that's needed.
	But to start having this conversation of like, let's elect him for a third time, it's almost like he hasn't even proven that Trump 2.0 has worked.
	What happens if the economy goes in shambles the next year or two?
	What if we're acting like he's just godfathered into the role?
	It's almost like you're spiking the football, Deshaun Jackson style, on the one-yard line before you're even the goal, before you're in the end zone.
	Finish the game, and then maybe have this conversation to float this out literally four years before an election.
	It's so premature.
	With that being said, I'm voting for Trump for a third term.
	Let's go, baby.
	Yeah, so your main argument is that it's too early to have this conversation, have the conversation on third year, not right now.
	And that's kind of what Trump was saying, by the way.
	It's just way too early.
	We're having a conversation.
	It's not even something I'm thinking about.
	He says it's not even on my mind, but a lot of people are talking about it.
	Trump said that multiple times about this.
	But the only thing I'll tell you, the only thing I'll tell you is the following.
	So we lived in Texas for a while.
	You lived there with us for about a what?
	A year, give or take?
	Whatever the time.
	10 months.
	Okay.
	And we lived there.
	But we were also there during COVID.
	It's true.
	The whole essential, non-essential.
	Okay.
	And the people that have families, that have kids, what they did to the kids and how we fell back in schooling and in grades and education of what that did to our kids, parents are having a hard time forgetting that.
	And a lot of people who lost people, whether it was due to taking a COVID vaccine or not taking a COVID vaccine, that's got people very concerned and scared for their lives.
	They don't want anybody to ever have the control to be able to do that to them.
	And people have to leave states and not be around their family.
	So all of that fear is what causes folks to be so afraid of what can happen with the opposition.
	Think about it this way.
	Think about how bad Kamala lost, that Rosie O'Donnell is in Ireland doing a TV show and says, I'm still confused.
	How did he win for the first time all seven battleground states?
	How is that even possible?
	How did he do that?
	So she's speculating that maybe something happened.
	So maybe it's because Americans were frightened of another Biden during the next four years, what that's going to look like.
	So to me, the only reason why this is even a topic of discussion right now, only reason, is because of what happened last four years.
	If the last four years wasn't COVID, I don't think this would be a topic of discussion.
	It's the main thing.
	If Trump would have had a second term and moved on, he would have been gone.
	No issues, nothing.
	But because of what happened and people are scared.
	By the way, look at our audience.
	I love this.
	Even our audience is 60-40.
	They're not sold on the idea.
	Look at that.
	5,200 votes.
	They're like, yeah, I don't know about that.
	Yeah, I don't know about that.
	6040.
	And if our audience is saying that the general American audience is 80-20.
	I know.
	That's the point.
	But by the way, the most important thing, Rob, don't change anything.
	Come on, hang on.
	Stay right there.
	I fix it every time and they correct it.
	The right way to put it is sideways.
	Tom always comes and changes it.
	Okay?
	Tom always comes and changes it because stay focused on Tom's little bobblehead on the side.
	Don't touch it.
	Don't touch it.
	Don't touch it because it's going to take a second for the audience to see it being adjusted to see the right way because whoever made that gift for Tom, we love you.
	But just so you know, Tom did not appreciate that when that took place.
	All right, it's going to take a second to get to it.
	Eventually it will.
	Anyways, all right, Rob, fast forward a little bit to see if it got to it or not.
	Did it?
	No?
	All right.
	Well, we'll fast forward.
	There it is.
	Properly.
	There you go.
	There you go, buddy.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So let's go to the next story here.
	Let's go to the next story here.
	Yeah, I read that.
	Let's go to the next story here.
	So, CK Hutchinson will not sign a deal to sell strategic Panama port next week.
	Sources say, Damn.
	Listen, that was like the deal of the century.
	CK Hutchinson will not sign the deal next week to sell its Panama Canal ports to BlackRock-led group, with two sources saying definitively documents expect by April 2nd per March 4th announcement won't be inked due to obvious reasons.
	I mean, Beijing's antitrust review to protect fair competition and safeguard public interest.
	Per China's market regulator on Friday, one source clarified the development does not mean the deal has been called off.
	And April 2nd is not a hard deadline as talks persist for the $19 billion plus sale of 43 ports across 23 countries.
	Beijing's pressure looms large with pro-China outlet Ta Kong Pu Pao slamming the deal as betrayal of China and perfect cooperation with U.S. containment reposted by China's Hong Kong Macau Affairs Office while Trump cheered at saying he wanted he wants to take control of the strategic waterway.
	Tom, thoughts, yeah.
	So if anyone wants to look at the Panama Canal progress of statements, negotiations, and everything else, and Trump said this was really important to trade for the West, specifically the U.S., as ships come from the Pacific Ocean into the Gulf of America and then come into key ports.
	He said that.
	And he said China was putting too much influence in Panama.
	They're building bridges over the top of it.
	They're building infrastructure there.
	They're going to control this.
	This is not good.
	And who raises and throws the flag on the field on the deal?
	China.
	China does.
	So what do I think here?
	Trump is right, ladies and gentlemen.
	And we're seeing the response from China.
	And this has got to be a diplomatic standoff.
	The key guy here who has already been down there twice is Marco Rubio.
	Our Secretary of State, on behalf of Trump, is going to be right in the middle of this.
	Well, I think he is in the middle of it.
	I don't think he's left to make it happen because this is really important strategically and economically for the United States.
	And it's no surprise that the pressure came from, what was it, the pro-China outlet, Kung Pao Cheken, whatever?
	Ta Kung Pao.
	There it is.
	Was slamming the deal as a betrayal of China and perfect cooperation with U.S. containment.
	Really?
	That's what they want.
	They want U.S. containment.
	That's exactly what they want.
	And so if you don't think this is important, you're not paying attention.
	And this deal needs to get done one way or another.
	Adam.
	Vinny, go ahead.
	Let me go to some stuff.
	I'm good.
	Okay.
	I just go on to the next story.
	I was looking at so funny.
	Adam's going to be like, well, listen, the Long Beach port that they have this.
	Let me just say my thoughts.
	We'll move.
	This is not going to be a long story.
	So to me, there are a lot of pieces, assets that you want to own.
	Sometimes you don't reveal them publicly.
	Sometimes you have to when you're the president.
	This is one asset that's very, very important for the sake of national security, for the sake of the next pandemic that could happen, for the sake of the next war that's going to happen, for the sake of if this trade war gets really nasty and China wants to destroy American lives by going and putting a chokehold in the Panama Canal with the two ports that they have and delaying everything.
	And there's there you want, whether you're leftist or rightist or right or center or libertarian, could care less about politics, you want U.S. to have control of these two ports.
	It's important for you to want these two ports to be yours.
	I hope they're able to close this off.
	Typically, if it was a negotiation, it'd be private.
	There wouldn't be any announcements being made, but this is public.
	Everyone at this point knows about it.
	So we'll see what will take place here.
	But I hope the deal does get done and we get these properties.
	Okay.
	Is he officially not signing the deal?
	They're just saying it's not.
	It says it doesn't mean it's not going to get done, but something tells me behind the closed, behind closed doors, the G and others are meddling in this deal not getting done.
	Of course.
	What kind of shady backdoor deals do you think are happening with this thing?
	By the way, let me tell you what would probably happen.
	Let me tell you what probably would happen.
	You know who this helps?
	Let's just kind of go logic.
	The guy that's selling it, C.K. Hutchinson, the guy that had a bad relationship with G because back in the days in 1994, he prevented him from getting a real estate deal, and he doesn't forget that.
	Okay, the owner of CK Hutchinson.
	You're pulling him up, bro.
	Yeah.
	C.K. Hutchinson is a company, not a person, right?
	No, but the guy who owns it, Rob, the guy who is making the decisions is a guy who is rivals.
	He is rivals with G.
	They don't have a good relationship together.
	Yeah.
	But here's the part.
	You know what he should do?
	Use it as leverage and have a bidding.
	He can do that.
	And he can raise that $19 billion to $25 billion if he wanted to get $6 more billion dollars.
	Isn't that interesting?
	If he really wanted to, it is.
	Unless if he already signed off on the amount he agreed to.
	You see, China doesn't want to sell this thing if they paid him $300 billion.
	If I'm China, pay me a trillion.
	We're not selling it.
	A trillion is nothing compared to the amount of control you can have with those two ports.
	And it's 43 ports they're selling for the $18.9 billion.
	Now, all the money in the world is not as important as the two ports that's in Panama right now.
	Not at all.
	I'm going to get to next stories here.
	All right.
	So next stories we're going to get to is Rachel Maddow, Rob.
	Rachel Maddow pay fuels jealousy of Lawrence O'Donnell.
	I want this thing to be a three to five minute clip.
	I don't want it to be long.
	I just have one thing to say about this.
	So Lawrence O'Donnell is pissed.
	Just about two weeks ago, Rob, you played a clip of him saying this is day 51, and I'm not quite sure I can go another whatever many days.
	I don't know what it was, but you played this clip here.
	Okay.
	So is this the one?
	Go ahead, Rob.
	So that's Lauren.
	That's Lawrence O'Donnell, right?
	Yep.
	Okay, play the clip.
	Well, here's the thing: this is day 52.
	I thought it was day 92.
	It turns out it's day 52, Rachel.
	And I'm exhausted at day 52.
	And so I'm going to take next week off.
	And I'm telling you that now because I know you don't like it when I just drift away and I don't just taking next week off.
	Then I come back.
	Okay.
	So Lauren.
	He says this.
	Yeah, that's a bad picture, right?
	Good job, bro.
	So Rachel Maddow, a veteran MSNBC host, 2008 Rachel Maddow show, reportedly earning $25 million yearly, has sparked envy at the networks.
	But an insider telling the sun Lawrence has been trying to renegotiate his contract and he wants his internal everyone calling the Rachel Maddow did the scrap that's working one day a week and recording a podcast, which will never happen again.
	Mattow's top-rated show in February and her pledge to host daily during Trump's first hundred days contrast with Lawrence O'Donnell's absent from the last word, fueling rumors of his push for a similar golden parachute as MSNBC faces spin-off from NBC, Lawrence O'Donnell, another MSNBC mainstay, announced a break on air, telling Mattow this is day 52.
	I'm not going to take it for you.
	I'm going to take a week off.
	So, Rob, can you do me a favor?
	Let's look at data.
	Can you go on YouTube and type in Rachel Maddow?
	Type in Rachel Maddow and go to filters if you could and just go to views and then go to this month.
	Go to views and just go to this month.
	This month.
	Go right there.
	Okay, so can you go to the left?
	So first one is not her.
	It's Lawrence O'Donnell's show.
	Second one is her, 4.8 million views.
	Third one is not her, it's Lawrence.
	Fourth one, I don't know who that is.
	Okay.
	Go to fifth one.
	It's another person.
	Go to sixth one.
	Another person.
	So they're just tacking Rachel with Mattow in the title.
	Golalore.
	Golalore, Golalore, Golalore.
	Okay.
	So why don't we do this?
	Go to the search, Rob, and go to 12 months.
	Go to this year.
	Same thing.
	Go all the way to the top of the filters.
	Go all the way to the top filter will show up.
	Now instead of this week, put this month.
	This year.
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	So he's in the top three.
	It's all him.
	So 10 million views.
	That's a month ago.
	8.5 million views.
	That's a month ago.
	Can you type on it to make sure it's the real thing?
	Let's see how many comments and likes it gets because that's the way to measure if it's real.
	Click on it.
	31,000 comments.
	It's real.
	175,000 likes.
	So he got that many views.
	Go back.
	So 6.2 million views.
	It's short.
	So this is still Rachel Maddow's name we're using.
	So the biggest Rachel Maddow clip that's her is a short 6.2 million views.
	That means nothing.
	Go lower.
	So go lower.
	So that's her.
	And how many views is that?
	4.8.
	So the biggest clip that she's had the last 12 months is a 4.8 million view clip.
	Now go up there and just remember this when we're negotiating.
	If you're an agent representing Lawrence O'Donnell, type in Lawrence O'Donnell.
	Type in Lawrence O'Donnell and Lawrence O'Donnell, boom.
	And go to filters, do the same exact thing and go to views.
	And then let's go to the other filter, put this year.
	No, this year, yep, to compare the two.
	Look at this.
	10 million views, 8.5 million views, 8.5 million views, 7.3 million views.
	Go to the 4.7 million views, 4.1 million views.
	He's the face.
	So guess what?
	Pay the man his money.
	Nope.
	Okay.
	Pay the man his money.
	I'm going to tell you this, though.
	Hang on.
	Let me finish my thought with this year.
	The other part I would tell you is the following.
	Think about this following thing on what I'm about to say.
	How many people, when is the last time you saw us reacting to a Lawrence O'Donnell clip?
	I don't remember.
	No.
	I don't remember.
	Well, one of them we have, which is who?
	Rachel Maddow.
	When he's like, it's day 51, Rob, or whatever, whatever.
	Yeah, we just saw it.
	Tell me how many clips we responded to with Lawrence O'Donnell last 12 months.
	Besides that one?
	I don't know if we've done anything.
	I don't even think so.
	Rob, can you look at your history and see how many Lawrence O'Donnell clips you got?
	I have two.
	The one, I have a clip of him talking about Stormy Daniels.
	So this has to be sometime in early 2024.
	And then the only other clip I have in our archive in our archive goes back to the beginning of January 2024 till now.
	There's two clips.
	The one we just played of day 52 and then one of him talking about Stormy Daniels from May 9th of 2024.
	Okay, can you search Joy Reed to see if Joy Reid got more eyeballs than can you type in Joy Reid?
	How many more you see?
	I mean, we have a ton.
	Go to the view, type in the view and see how many of the view comes up.
	It's not loading.
	Normally, when I do the view clips, I label it with the host name rather than the.
	Maybe you do Bill Maher.
	Go to Bill Maher.
	Go all the way down, see how many Bill Maher it is.
	A lot.
	Yeah, so we, so unfortunately, Lawrence doesn't make news for people to react to it.
	Bill Maher, what do they pay Bill Maher every year?
	For HBO?
	I think it's $7 million.
	No, no, it's more than that.
	I think what's Bill Maher's salary per year?
	$10 million a year.
	So Bill Maher is getting $10 million a year.
	What do they pay Mattow?
	$25 million a year for her.
	That is not, guys, she's at best worth $3 to $5 million.
	If that.
	At best, three to five million.
	Adam, thoughts.
	Well, look, Lawrence O'Donnell, who we're talking about, congratulations, versus Rachel Maddow.
	This is the definition of DEI versus MEI.
	You just showed the views on YouTube.
	That's one component.
	I think on cable, she does infinitely better.
	But here's a guy, a straight white male, I think.
	Boston Harvard grad, liberal guy, who's been a newsman, news reporter, journalist for 50 years, who completely is out of touch with the current state of affairs of the Democratic Party.
	Unless you're female, gay, trans, some sort of DEI type situation, Democratic Party ain't for you, dude.
	So it doesn't surprise me that someone who has literally earned this stature, this guy's been on MSNBC forever, is no longer going to be, I guess, treated as fairly as he should be.
	So Rachel Maddow, a lesbian, DEI, however you want to call it, that sort of amalgamation, of course she's going to be the face of the brand.
	There's no way in hell MSNBC is going to take a straight white man and be like, that's our guy.
	And I know this is simplistic, and I know this is just a basically elementary view of what's going on, but we all see what's been happening.
	We've seen what's happened to the country.
	So I'm not shocked what's going on here.
	By the way, there were other straight white men over the last few years who were the faces of MSNBC.
	Where the hell are they now?
	Brian Williams, gone.
	Chris Matthews, gone.
	You know, Joy Reed had to basically submarine the entire network for them to be like, all right, we got to let this shit go because, I mean, she's just bad.
	And then they just went and replaced her with Simone Sanders, who's just like somewhat better.
	So, you know, CN, yeah, CNN's digging their own grave.
	MSNBC is digging their own grave.
	And Fox is basically eating their lunch every day.
	Yeah.
	She's not getting the views.
	What would make a network pay someone 25 million and then go, okay, we kind of got to drop it to five to make it look good?
	What in the world?
	Like, I don't get it.
	I just don't understand.
	She's the face of the brand.
	Of all of MSNBC, you think about it.
	What do they call MSNBC?
	MSDNC?
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, Vinnie, but that's a lot.
	Do the math.
	You have to pay her that much money.
	Like, question, though, if they right now said, listen, we're sorry, we're going down.
	The ship is sinking.
	It's almost done.
	Who's the young girl that CNN signed?
	Is that Kristen?
	Is that Caitlin?
	That's CNN.
	What are they paying Caitlin Collins?
	3 million.
	By the way, let me ask you a question.
	Let me ask you a question.
	Very honest question.
	Would you rather pay $3 million a year to Caitlin Collins or $3 million a year to Rachel Meadow?
	$3 million to Rachel Madow.
	Caitlin Collins.
	You'd rather pay to Rachel Meadow?
	She's more of a name and a face.
	She can carry a brand, apparently.
	If I just had $3 million to pay a year.
	What do you think, Tom?
	What do I think?
	I would pay Caitlin Collins the $3 million a year because I think she's got more upside.
	I think she's malleable.
	Previously, she demonstrated a little bit of a conservative bent.
	She was dating somebody.
	Now she's living in a liberal chair.
	People say that may not be the real her, but she's got upside.
	She worked on the Tucker showfill, no mistake.
	Correct.
	Many, many years ago.
	So I have two things to say really quick.
	Never, never, you know, underestimate the power of the echo chamber, Vinny, in corporate boardrooms.
	Never underestimate the power of that echo chamber to make decisions.
	And second, never assume, you know, malice if it can be adequately explained by stupidity.
	And I just think these bad owners make bad decisions.
	In baseball, there was the Bobby Bonilla contract.
	There was the Chan Ho Park contract by the drunk, I won't say drunk, the Texas Rangers.
	Everyone wanted to know what happened at this dinner when they came and they gave Chan Ho Park this unbelievable contract, which later was traded around the league as everyone was trying to get rid of it because he was never a pitcher that was going to pitch up to that level.
	But it was a frenzy and free agent.
	They thought they needed another arm.
	They freaked out.
	They went to the echo chamber and they signed it.
	And all of baseball was like, what?
	Well, guess what?
	Every other owner in baseball was just one moment away from their own Chan Ho Park or Bobby Bonilla thing.
	And guess what?
	MSNBC talked themselves in believing into the echo chamber that woke was the future, that progressive was the future, and they talked themselves into believing that this is what they need to do for Rachel Maddow.
	I think it's that simple.
	I'm not picking on anybody.
	I'm not calling anybody names.
	And when I say, you know, that can be adequately explained by stupidity, I'm quoting a maxim: never assume malice is at fault if you can just say, man, maybe they were just dumb that day.
	Maximum man.
	You know how I look at it.
	I look at it the following way.
	Say you're putting an NBA team together.
	All right.
	So you're kind of like, well, I'm going to go get a 38-year-old, what do you call it?
	I'm going to get a 38-year-old center that is known more, and I'm going to pay him more than I'm going to pay a guy that's coming out in the NBA that's a second-year center that's doing a good job.
	I would easily pay the $3 million to Caitlin Collins over a Rachel Maddow any day of the week, and I would be moving on, save the money, know the fact that the market is about to change in case RFK does what he does.
	And that alone is going to be big enough of a story to see what will take place there.
	But that's my opinion.
	I would rather pay her than to pay him.
	All right, let's go to the next story here.
	Next story here.
	Next story here.
	Papa.
	I got two stories I want to go through.
	Which one do I pick?
	Let's go with this one, Rob.
	Let's go with this one.
	I think Tom's going to like this story here.
	Yankees new torpedo bats create a steer amid 15 Homer weekend barrage, which, by the way, this whole thing with the Yankees baseball bat, Tom and Kim have been so furious, okay?
	Have been so furious.
	Kim, you know, you've been furious.
	You've been so mad.
	It's going to be furious.
	It's not as if the Dodgers haven't already won 162 games.
	I don't know what their record is already.
	I think they're already 164.
	6-0, thank you.
	Yeah, 6-0.
	So Yankees do torpedo bats, create a steer amid 15.
	Okay.
	Yankees shortstop Anthony Volpe showcased the torpedo bat, which fueled a record-tying 15 home runs.
	Rob, can you show the baseball bats that they have?
	And we'll go to Dave Portnoy here, including nine on Saturday alone.
	They hit nine on Saturday.
	And again, the concept makes so much sense.
	I know I'm bought in as its barrel sits closer to the hands.
	Major League Baseball confirmed legality under Rule 3.02, which players like Jazz Chisholm, Cody Bellinger, Paul Goldschmidt, and Austin Wells using it, inspired by ex-Yankees analyst Aaron Linhart.
	Now with the Marlins, the bats sparked buzz after Yes Network, Yankees Entertainment, and announced Michael Kay noted Volpe's analytics driven switch to Victus torpedo models.
	With Bellinger explaining the benefit for me is I like the weight distribution.
	Personally, the weight is closer to my hands.
	And so I feel as if it's lighter in a way.
	Manager Aaron Boone downplayed their impact saying I say to you guys all the time, we're trying to win on the margins.
	While Captain Aaron Judge, who hit three homers on Saturday without one, said, What I've done the past couple of seasons speaks for itself.
	So they're not trying.
	Tom, I'm going to go to you.
	Matter of fact, yeah, let me go to Tom.
	No, go to Dave Portnoy first, and then we'll go to Tom because I think Tom's going to tee this thing off.
	I'm sure he's going to have a lot of fun with this.
	Here's Dave Portnoy with the Red Sox hat given as a breakdown.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	All right, real quick update here.
	I got to talk about these torpedo bats that have taken Major League Baseball by storm.
	This is, of course, the Yankees hired an MIT physicist to basically take wood from the other part of the bats.
	Like, you know, they handle the label and put it in the sweet spot, making the sweep spot bigger.
	They did this because Anthony Volpe sucks and he kept getting jammed and saw it off.
	And we're like, how do we make him not suck?
	Let's just make this bat called a torpedo bat, where basically you swing and you make contact on the handle, get sawed off.
	It's a home run.
	So the Yankees have hit like, I think, 13 arm runs.
	Jazz Chisholm or whatever that guy, he's using, he's got like 13 arm runs.
	Aaron Judge is hitting home runs.
	He's saying he's not using the torpedo bat.
	He is.
	Take a look.
	I mean, all the teams are going to use it.
	Should it be legal?
	No.
	Is it cheating?
	Yeah, it is.
	I mean, listen, this is coming from a guy who won the Triple Crown of High School, just mashed everywhere he went.
	Joy it to the belt, the one-two pitch.
	Hit high in the air, deep to right field.
	Avalo going way back.
	It's out of here.
	A home run for David Portnoy.
	He got a lot of money.
	I saw it all.
	You hit a ball at the label.
	That means you're not getting your hands through quick enough and you stink.
	Just taking the bat and making the thing like a cork bat with this hump, this torpedo hump.
	So all you got to do is make contact and it's a home run, which the Yankees are doing right now.
	That defeats the whole, like, that's just making somebody who stinks better.
	If you get jammed and it's a home run, that doesn't mean you suddenly got better.
	That's just some geek from MIT, some physicist, ruining 100 years of baseball or 200 years of baseball.
	So listen, your thoughts on this.
	Not illegal, but what are your thoughts?
	As a die-hard Dodger fans that celebrated the Yankees losing game five last year in the suite to the Dodgers, how do you feel about this?
	Well, I've never felt that last year's championship was legitimate because I feel like the Yankees gave it to us.
	So, you know, just the errors, the humiliation of a proud franchise, it was so hard to be there and watch 50,000 people be let down in such spectacular trash.
	Out of this building by a team where they had spent millions and millions of dollars on the bank.
	Look how happy tickets.
	I was just about the bats.
	By the way, look at the picture to the right.
	Look at the picture to the right.
	Look at that one.
	Oh, Norman Rockwell.
	So guess what?
	The Yankees are first with the next benefit in baseball.
	And they hired a guy to work within the rules and got them a benefit.
	You know what?
	There you go.
	And that's the way it works.
	We see rules change.
	You know what?
	This is perfectly legal.
	It's going to get around the league, and then the league's got to decide what we're going to do.
	A couple years ago, all of the teams, every team, and you can look this up if you could look up Rob Spider Tack, like T-A-C-K, Spider-Tack.
	Every team had a chemist that was working on, say, Spider-Tac, and it was sold to pitchers so that in cold weather and other things, they could, you know, grip the ball better.
	It was legal for a while, right up to the point that the spin rate on the slider was off the charts and batting averages dropped.
	And they're like, okay, we can't, we're not going to deal with a three-to-one ball game.
	We're just not going to do that.
	And there's all the memes about what Spider-Tac was.
	So baseball changed the rules.
	It says, look, you can't use Spider-Tech.
	Well, guess what?
	The NFL changed the rules.
	They took away hard pass interference.
	They wanted more scoring.
	And they also didn't want wide receivers to be a defenseless receiver rule was put in.
	You can't take out a defensive receiver if you're off the ground.
	You know, you go into the air to catch it and your arms are up.
	You can't just, as they used to say, cut him in half by putting your shoulder right on his ribs while he's in midair.
	Football changed the rules because they said, let's protect the receivers.
	Then everyone in football got upset because they claim that they turn the quarterbacks into women.
	Just give them a skirt.
	You're not allowed to hit a quarterback.
	Just give them a skirt.
	They were making those kind of insensitive jokes.
	So rules come back and forth in sports all the time.
	The Yankees, hats off to them.
	They are playing within the rules and have designed a bat, which is exactly inside the rules.
	Now the question is: like Spider-Tech, which was in the rules at some point, you know, you could have Rosin, you could do things.
	And then they were like, no, This is going beyond the Rosin permission and things like that.
	So now the question is: what does the league do about the bats when the bats circulate around everybody and maybe we see the result?
	Vinny.
	Well, there's a bunch of people.
	So the Reds are using it.
	My friend Mike just messaged me.
	Baltimore Orioles are using them.
	Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, Minnesota Twins, Tampa Bay Rays.
	A lot of people are using them.
	Have they ordered them?
	Are they using them?
	No, I think they're using them.
	Well, there's one guy.
	Hold on one second.
	This guy yesterday used it.
	I'm sorry.
	He went 4 for 5, Tommy, this weekend.
	De La Cruz, Ellie De La Cruz from the Cincinnati Reds used the bat for the first time in the 14-3 win over Texas Rangers on Monday.
	He went 4-4-5 with two home runs and seven RBIs in the blowout.
	So that was yesterday.
	So, yeah, they got his hands on a bat, and yesterday it worked.
	Yeah, and it worked.
	And again, it's not illegal.
	It's not illegal.
	Okay, so I'm, and listen, I get it.
	Dave Portnoy, he's a Boston fan.
	If your team is in last place and has been doing abysmal for the past few years, you're going to talk trash.
	It's not illegal.
	If it was illegal, like, listen, like with the Houston Astros, cheat, like, literally got caught cheating.
	What happened to all the players?
	Any of them get banned or anything crazy happened?
	No, nothing happened.
	Nobody was stripped.
	They didn't, do they even?
	I don't know.
	I know one guy they came down on, Jeffrey Lunau, they came down on him hard, but nobody else.
	Yeah, but which is ridiculous.
	Because you remember that home run?
	Do you remember the home run by Al Tuve?
	He's rounding the bases and they're about to rip his clothes off.
	Don't touch my jersey.
	He's like, no, I wonder what he had under there.
	We'll never know.
	He was wearing the buzzer.
	Yeah, they know Max Muncie ordered a baseball bat, the torpedo bat.
	I believe everyone's going to order.
	And by the way, Max is a lefty at Dodger Stadium.
	If it works for him, that's going to be.
	But that's false.
	That was not.
	Dave Portnoy said that Aaron Judge is using it.
	No, he's not.
	That's fake news.
	Aaron Judge is using the same bat that he always uses and he just crushes the ball.
	Aaron Judge doesn't need to adjust.
	He hit the flip.
	Last year he didn't use it.
	Who was number one with home runs?
	That's right.
	Aaron Judge is not using a torpedo.
	He's not using it.
	And who broke the record last year for Rocko Zamaris?
	Yeah, he freaking a killer.
	Had him your father.
	Neither is Shohei Otani.
	Exactly.
	They don't need to change.
	Rainy, and they were both the reigning MVPs.
	Exactly.
	American and National.
	Well, we'll see if Shohei can stay full.
	Go ahead, Adam.
	Well, you know, there's a term called inside baseball.
	Yeah.
	That was sort of this conversation.
	We were getting really in the nitty-gritty.
	I'm sure our audience loves all the inside cork talk we're talking about over there.
	But I have a challenge for baseball because, with the exception of going with PBD to Yankees games, I live in Miami and the Marlins suck.
	And the chances of me getting watched.
	What's that?
	They need new ownership.
	They need a new everything.
	The Marlins need to sell.
	All right, guys.
	Note to sell him.
	This is a lasting market.
	New ownership and a stadium.
	You will watch what happens in South Florida baseball.
	You have no idea.
	Okay, Tombi and Venito Amiyami.
	Miyamigo.
	So baseball.
	It's pretty bad.
	He went after you.
	He went after the, okay.
	Baseball, I'm going to say it, guys.
	I'm sorry.
	I know you love baseball.
	He called me a taco.
	Such a boring sport to watch on TV.
	If you can get to a game, like a Yankees game, amazing.
	It was actually amazing.
	The January Junkies.
	But I fully advocate baseball bringing back steroids.
	Use these corked bats, these torpedo bats.
	You know, in hockey, you can have fights.
	Bro, I want to see baseball fights.
	I want dugouts to clear.
	I want, you know, how like the umpires, the coach, the coaches will bump the umpire, punch the umpire.
	Like, let's get this sports.
	That guy with that yellow outfit.
	There have been three of them this year.
	I think let's go.
	We want more of them.
	The season hasn't even started yet.
	We want cheerleaders.
	Take a note from the NFL.
	You know, why do you think the NFL has cheerleaders?
	Because not all.
	It just makes the game better.
	Straight up.
	So stop bumping chess.
	Let's start punching each other.
	Let's make baseball great again.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we will see.
	We will see what's going to happen.
	The problem they're going to have is the following.
	If the Dodgers can keep their players from staying focused with Shohei Otani now dating Lindsey Lohan, that's going to be a problem for them.
	What?
	That's going to be a problem.
	Lookani's dating Lindsey Lohan.
	Two weeks.
	For two weeks, him and Lindsey Lohan have been going out.
	And I don't know how much the credibility.
	No, there's him and Lindsey Lohan have been dating for two weeks, apparently.
	They met in LA.
	It's a thing.
	That's not good.
	You know what that's going to do to his batting?
	And oh my God.
	It is what it is.
	I mean, listen, you're in LA.
	Like Devin Booker was dating a Kardashian.
	You know, you got Dennis Rodman was with Madonna and Carmen Electra.
	Shohei Otani is dating Lindsey Lohan.
	That doesn't help that whole gambling thing.
	A part of it that could be.
	He has a drug problem.
	She used to have a drug problem.
	She's better now.
	No, she used to have it, but he's his boy that's doing the gambling thing.
	Did you hear the new thing that's going to be coming out?
	I was like, something new is going to come out.
	By the way, can you imagine the story?
	I'm just visualizing.
	You're going through a game.
	He's with Lindsay.
	And if she has had a change.
	And you know that Britney Spears actually messaged and was like, hey, stay away from him.
	Well, look, if you're a celebrity like he is not dating, as they say, Rinsey Rohan.
	No, no, no.
	Two weeks.
	There was a rumor, Tom.
	I mean, Rob, you're right.
	Two weeks.
	Tom's racism.
	By the way, because somebody messaged Pat.
	It's not like it's in the news.
	I did see the picture, though.
	I did see the picture of Lindsey Lohan.
	Can you put up Rob?
	I'm like, what the hell is going on?
	Tom, it's April Fool's time.
	Tom looked at me like.
	He is not dating Lindsey Lohan.
	He's looking at his phone.
	He's like, he wakes never Lindsey Lohan.
	No, but by Tom, what if he was dating Lindsey Lohan?
	What's wrong with that?
	What's wrong with that?
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	He's a focused guy.
	They would go to casinos together.
	There would be no issues.
	No issues.
	In the annals of sports history, there have been athletes that had ill-advised relationships with celebrities.
	What's wrong with that?
	Don't worry about it.
	And by the way, by the way, Matt Kemp had his worst year after he was lost the MVP to, I believe, Ryan Braun, who had actually juiced and influenced a FedEx career.
	Anyway, it was a big controversy.
	And the next year, Matt was completely distracted because he was making the party circuit in LA and he was dating Rihanna.
	True story.
	So Matt Kemp, who could have been MVP, should have been MVP the next year, was dating Rihanna.
	And he was completely distracted, completely everything.
	I think he'll get it together.
	I think Shohei can handle it.
	I think Shohei with Lindsay is going to be fine.
	And they'll eventually figure things out.
	Who knows how long it's going to last?
	I mean, Taylor Swift.
	But, anyways, let's go to the next story here.
	So, Canada, Trump holds an extremely productive call with Canadian Prime Minister.
	We agree on many things.
	Okay.
	We agree on many things.
	Trump announced on Truth Social an extremely productive call with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney writing, I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada.
	It was an extremely productive call.
	We agree on many things, and we'll be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming election to work on elements of politics, business, and all the other factors.
	This will end up being great for both the U.S. and Canada.
	This marked their first conversation following Carney's rise to liberal leadership with 86% of the vote after Justin Trudeau stepped down.
	Trump, known for his hardline trade stance, signaled collaboration despite tension over tariffs and dairy disputes.
	Mark Carney, 60 Canada's new prime minister has declared on Thursday in Ottawa, the old relationship we had with the U.S. based on deepening integration of our economics and tight securing and military cooperation is over.
	After meeting provincial premiers speaking to reporters, he added, the time will come for a broad renegotiation of our security and trade relationship, signaling a shift from the past U.S.-Canada tie.
	So watch this.
	Trump is being complimentary about Carney.
	Okay?
	Trump is being complimentary about Kearney.
	And what did he say about Pierre a couple weeks ago, Rob?
	You have the clip.
	If you can pull up the clip of what Trump said about Pierre, Trump, Pierre, and do you have it, Rob, or not?
	I can find it.
	Yeah, if you type in Trump Pierre, he was being asked about it.
	And this was Trump's, Pierre's opportunity to get Trump to go on there.
	Anyways, oh, right there, 24-second one.
	I think that's the one.
	Bottom left.
	Bottom left, right there.
	I think this is the one.
	Is this the one, Rob?
	Before I got involved and totally changed the election, which I don't care about.
	Probably it's to our advantage, actually.
	But the Conservative was leading against, I call him Governor Trudeau.
	The Conservative was leading by 35 points.
	Time up here.
	So I don't know about that.
	I think Canada is a place like a lot of other places.
	I'm going to go to Tom.
	And Tom, Rob, you look for it if you can, but he was not complimentary about Pierre because Pierre wasn't complimentary about Trump.
	And that created a rift.
	Tom, what are your thoughts on this?
	What he said about Carney?
	Well, two things.
	There's the art of the deal going on here.
	And you can see President Trump does it all the time.
	Push really hard on a position, pin, pin them, but then back off and give them an opportunity to move to a spot you want them to move.
	And that's what he just did here.
	The other side now, and he's also hedging, he's hedging the bet because this side has been in a statistical tie over the last couple of weeks and now is slightly ahead in the polling.
	The conservatives are slightly behind because Pierre Poliver has been really kind of fumbling the lead and opportunity he had to the point that he got one of the fellow conservatives kind of to do an RFK move to join him.
	So what Trump is doing here, I think he's pushing hard, but then he's giving a compliment and giving them an opportunity to move, to move to a spot they want.
	And also, Pat, take a look at what the prime minister said.
	What was the first word and the second word of what he said, Pat?
	The time will come for a broad renegotiation of our first word, security relationship, and second word, trade relationship, which is what Pat has been talking about.
	Mexico and Canada for a long time.
	They only spend this much of their GDP because they know we are the real protection power and what we spend on GDP protects them.
	Do you think interesting, isn't it?
	I agree.
	Do you think a negotiation was done there?
	Do you think Trump said, if you do this, if you do that, if you do this, I'll be complimentary?
	And do you think Carney asked indirectly?
	Tom, if you read Trump's truth social, if you go back to it, that's an endorsement.
	This is an endorsement.
	Let me explain to you why.
	The key words in this truth social to making an endorsement is what?
	Watch what it says.
	And we will be meeting immediately after what?
	Canada's upcoming election.
	The snap election.
	That's an endorsement.
	Meaning, he's going to win.
	Trump is saying Carney's going to win.
	Wow.
	That's correct.
	So Trump is helping a liberal in Canada over a peer because of Pierre's arrogance.
	Wow.
	That's correct.
	Think about that.
	By the way, do you remember when I had somebody on the podcast sitting over here when I said, why did you not visit Mar-a-Lago to just have a conversation with the president?
	I don't need to have that conversation.
	Why would I go to him?
	He helped you become a governor.
	Why don't you have a conversation with him?
	I don't need to have the conversation with him.
	All Pierre had to do was come to Mar-a-Lago, go to the White House, have a conversation with the guy.
	Now, listen, Canada would have said if he would have been seen with Trump, they hate him and Trump.
	They hate him all this other stuff, right?
	Look at this here.
	Canadian conservatives, here's some unsolicited advice to you.
	Stop being so easy on your candidates.
	Pierre Polivier, Polyev.
	Stop assuming they're automatically going to win.
	Stop being so overcautious and scared of what liberal media in Canada will do to your candidates.
	That's the old COVID-era mindset.
	Rob, go a little lower if you could.
	I can't read the rest.
	Stop walking on excellence trying to run a campaign in the old school consultant-driven wear this tie, get this haircut, wear that shirt, BS.
	Grow some balls.
	Trump worked his ass off.
	He didn't have all conservative libertarians or independents till the last 90 days, but he went and earned every single one of their votes.
	He went on 20-plus podcast appearances, not including a ton of campaign and media stops.
	He did this at the age of 78.
	Pierre is 45 years old, campaigning like he's Biden's age.
	He's a great speaker.
	He's very talented, but damn, he comes across lazy, pompous, and entitled.
	I initially wanted to help him, but at this point, my concern is more about the people whom I love in Canada to get a candidate that will fight for them.
	I had Max on, but for whatever reason, Canada is treating him the way U.S. did with RFK.
	I respect the hell out of his willingness to talk.
	Max said something about them dropping to go be part of Pierre, whether that is an April full stunt or not.
	I don't know.
	We'll see as the day goes out.
	I don't know if I like that joke either because it undermines his campaign.
	If it's a joke, I'm not a fan of it.
	This may be your last chance at strengthening the relationship with U.S. or ship or the ship may sail.
	Here's a list of people I would beg for your candidate to go on.
	Tucker Alex, Ryan Morgan, Cuomo, Theo, Folson, Candace, Glumbeck, Breakfast Club, Ben Shapiro, Kirk, Walsh, Rubin, Brand, Outkick, Phil, Schultz, and, of course, Joe Rogan.
	Beg if you must.
	Maybe even ask if Musk would consider doing a Twitter space with him.
	Long shot, but you must ask.
	Most of the names above won't be interested because they're all busy with a ton of guests who want to get on.
	But hold Pierre's foot to the fire.
	Stop being so easy on him.
	Tag him and his entire campaign team on this thread.
	It drives me crazy seeing all the ass kissing as if he's already won.
	Push him, challenge him.
	The future of Canada is predicated on you holding him accountable.
	I hear some Canadians say, why should Pierre go on podcasts in the U.S.?
	They say it's a waste of time.
	What they don't understand is that these podcasts cut clips that will be shared on all social media platforms, X, TikTok, Insta, Facebook, YouTube.
	That's how Trump dominated the news and social media cycle.
	Time is running out.
	You know what they're going to do about it?
	Nothing.
	Zero.
	And Carney's going to win.
	And to answer your question, I do believe a deal is in the background.
	Because remember, Trump wants an economic and trade deal.
	He doesn't want a public policy deal.
	Let Canada handle their own public policy if they want to vote liberal, conservative.
	But Trump wants his economic trade deal.
	And I believe the answer to what you asked me, Pat, is yes.
	A framework of a deal was put in place.
	Okay, good.
	We're good here.
	I'll tell you what.
	I'm going to go say something.
	As long as I have your word, I'm going to go say something.
	And that's it.
	Canada.
	You know, I was out at dinner last night.
	This guy came up to me and he goes, Hey, man, you're Adam from the PBD podcast, right?
	I go, Yeah, he goes, He goes, I freaking hate you.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	He goes, I really love what you guys are doing, especially with the Canada stuff.
	I said, Oh, yeah, why is that?
	He goes, Because there's a lot of us in Canada that support you.
	Like on Manek, Vinny, how many Canadians reach out?
	They're like, Dude, how can I get out of here?
	Yeah, no, just yesterday.
	I had a phone call with somebody yesterday.
	Here's the problem, though.
	Canada is incredibly progressive.
	I think they're like a top five, at least top 10 super progressive country in the world.
	I think the most progressive countries in the world, progressive, are sort of the Scandinavian places, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, that kind of a thing.
	And then you have Canada.
	And then, you know, in America, we're seeing the rise of wokeness and DEI and the progressives.
	If you look at like the World Index, USA is like top 25 as far as like progressive.
	Canada is ridiculously progressive.
	Think about how bad Justin Trudeau had to be for them to be like, please leave.
	They wanted this guy.
	They wanted this male feminist in power.
	So for a conservative to win in Canada, it's so hard to do.
	Pierre Polyev, I think two months ago, was at 95%.
	That's how bad Trudeau was.
	Soon as they replaced Trudeau, look at the crisscross of likelihood of who will become the next prime minister of Canada.
	You talked about this with Maxime, right?
	But Canada is going to get what they pay for.
	And they're going lefter and lefter and lefter.
	And at this point, we might have to build a wall between Canada and the United States because once these leftists take over, it gets going to get real.
	By the way, though, I mean, this has shown what?
	This has shown Pierre was at 93% on January 1st.
	Now he's at 35% and going lower.
	It's not like he's making any kind of progress.
	And Carney's going higher.
	FYI, to the conservatives, independents and libertarians that are upset when, you know, I talk about what I say with Pierre.
	You know, we talk about the stuff with Canada.
	Guess what?
	This is on your candidate.
	Don't be upset at Americans.
	He did this.
	He had the biggest lead.
	He should have been it, not anybody else.
	Stop putting your frustration on, you know, I can't believe you're saying this.
	By the way, can you go back to that tweet I posted and go to the comment section?
	Can you go to the comment section about Canada?
	Yeah, if you can go right there.
	Just go lower and see how people are reacting.
	Cat Canada, stop meddling.
	You have no idea how Canada works.
	I responded, get off X if it bothers you or hold your candidates fired to the feet.
	You're capable of doing that.
	The next person says, Americans don't understand Canada.
	Pierre would still be far ahead if Trump hadn't played his tariff game.
	The fools we have crawled back into the abuse of government out of fear Pierre will be like Trump because the media here hold them.
	Unfortunately, now most Rob Kenny Plus on Showmore, now more Canadians have a negative opinion about the U.S. If Pierre won on an American right-wing podcast, I guarantee it will not help.
	Carney hasn't even gone on popular liberal shows in America since he's won the leadership.
	I thought you would be smart enough to put this together.
	Keep repeating this nonsense narrative.
	How has it worked for you for the last few years?
	Fearing the leftist mainstream media.
	They've accomplished their mission by scaring the hell out of you and your candidates to not speak to conservatives.
	Go a little lower.
	See what people are saying here.
	People back and forth, back this other one.
	I agree completely by why he ain't coming on yours.
	His campaign was extremely.
	Rob, what did Tony tell us about how his campaign was with us?
	Non-responsive.
	The first two times, one time a lady hung up on him.
	And he called back, right?
	And he called back up on me.
	And they're not picking up.
	And it's like, oh, it was a, yeah, we were busy.
	Why did you hang up on our booker?
	His campaign team immediately extended Dick Starr to Brooklyn.
	And it happened on two separate occasions.
	The other two celebrities have carried themselves in the same way that he did.
	Everybody else would deal with it as easy.
	It all comes from the top.
	This has to change for him to have a fighting chance.
	Arrogant, pompous, lazy doesn't work no matter where you go.
	Certain principles are evergreen, no matter where you live, whether it's U.S., Canada, Russia.
	It doesn't matter where you live.
	You have to go earn that vote.
	And unfortunately, this is going to be the biggest, most humiliating loss a politician had with a massively.
	This is worse than the Patriots against the Falcons.
	This is worse than the Red Sox against the Yankees come back 2000 and what year was that, Tom?
	The Yankees 04.
	Red Sox, 04.
	This is, if Pierre loses, this is the worst loss of our generation a famous politician has had.
	Maybe the most embarrassing because the man simply doesn't want to work and go earn the vote.
	And he's doing it the same old-fashioned way.
	The guy's been in politics since he was 25 years old and seems like a good guy, seems like a nice guy, but oh my God, diplomacy is not something of his strength for him to be able to have the relationship and walk through it and be able to keep that momentum going.
	Unfortunately, he helped conservatives have Mark Carney here very soon.
	Also, Trump.
	And when is it coming up, by the way?
	When is the election for Canada?
	Are they doing a snap in May?
	No, I think it's the 29th of April.
	I may be wrong.
	It's a snap election.
	It was permitted April 28th.
	April 28th.
	And you know who's the campaign manager of Mark Carney?
	You know who's the number one campaign manager of Mark Carney?
	Pierre Polyev.
	Oh, no.
	Wow.
	Also, Pierre Polyev.
	Well, Trump has turned him into sort of a martyr and a hero because their whole party, not that I'm the expert on Canadian politics, you saw the numbers.
	This party was going nowhere.
	I mean, they were the party of Justin Trudeau.
	His approval ratings were in the basement.
	And then Trump started doing a trade war with Canada.
	And like, you know how you almost went to Boston because they'll be like, oh, what's up?
	You want to go?
	Like, you want to have a people get fired up and they use Trump as a symbol for what's going to happen.
	And I'll just repeat: Canada is super, super progressive.
	So if they have an enemy and that enemy is Trump, it rallies the troops.
	But what's your point, though?
	Your point is what?
	That what?
	The Trump motivated Canadians.
	Let me ask you a question.
	What is a more socialist country?
	Canada or Argentina?
	Socialist is different than progressive, in my opinion.
	So socialist, probably Argentina.
	Progressive, Canada.
	What is harder to flip?
	What is harder to flip?
	Well, one is more economic, I feel.
	Right.
	And then one is more ideal.
	What is harder to flip?
	Culture.
	Think about what is harder to flip.
	And think about to be able to live in Argentina and you're a socialist country and you're able to flip that and have a good relationship with Trump.
	Think about Bukele.
	You're living in a country where crime is where it's at with MS-13 and you're going straight against them and you flip that.
	What is harder to do?
	Think about you're in Canada, which you're a conservative.
	You could have easily been able to make a lot of noise and gone out there and campaigned.
	You were served on a silver platter.
	Canada, the last five years, how ugly was Canada with progressive policies that they came out?
	My guest is ugly in your opinion.
	Canada actually loves that stuff.
	Yeah, not everybody, though.
	Not everybody.
	Of course, not everybody, because there's two sides to the coin.
	But a lot of people voted for that nonsense.
	Yeah, that's why they're progressive.
	But a lot of people also voted for Biden for that nonsense.
	Canada may be more progressive.
	No, not maybe.
	They definitely are.
	Canada may be more progressive than Canada.
	You want to say maybe?
	I'm going to say definitely.
	Canada may be more progressive than the U.S. is.
	Maybe.
	I mean, look at the rankings.
	I'm not going to make it for the third time.
	Canada may be more progressive than U.S. may be.
	That may be correct.
	However, why are so many people here when we're going to different places?
	You say, I'm here from Canada.
	What happened?
	I left.
	Why'd you leave?
	Because of Trudeau.
	What happened under Trudeau?
	This.
	What happened with the truckers?
	What happened with all these people that were protesting?
	What happened with all these people around the country?
	You don't think everybody was paying attention?
	Why is, if you're saying the progressives are against it, why was Trudeau's approval rating the lowest ever?
	Who did that?
	Progressives?
	You don't think a lot of that would progress?
	I think he was.
	But you don't think progressives, because you just said progressives.
	You could just find the rankings, Rob, if you just.
	Adam, if you let me finish, progressives, if progressives are that supportive of progressive policies, had Canada ever had somebody that was more progressive than Trudeau?
	You just said Canada's more progressive.
	Maybe his father.
	But you just said he was more progressive.
	So if he's- You think I know- No, but what's off the top of my head?
	It's ChatGPT ranking progressively.
	That's not what I'm asking you.
	Rob, you have ChatGPT, buddy.
	If you're saying that Canada is more progressive, Justin is a very progressive candidate.
	Why was his approval rating so low?
	Because he was a very bad candidate.
	Very bad.
	But he's very progressive.
	Do you think some progressives flipped on him just like they flipped on Biden and Kamala and some of the guys are like, I'm out?
	Do you think some progressives...
	Pat, what's your point?
	Because are you saying that it's all Pierre Polyev?
	No, that's not what I'm saying.
	You're not hearing what I'm saying.
	Here's the rankings from the most progressive countries.
	Like I said, the Scandinavian countries.
	Where's Canada?
	10.
	Okay.
	You can scroll down, Rob.
	Thanks, buddy.
	Now, put the top 50.
	This is the United States is like number 30.
	But let me make the point.
	They're way more progressive.
	If you're going to say somebody is very progressive, if you're going to say that, that Canada is more progressive and you have a very progressive candidate.
	Why are you not happy about him?
	Who?
	Progressives.
	So if progressives are not happy about him.
	Because they were sick of the guy.
	He was like an old beer.
	Just like, get this guy out of here.
	They were done.
	Change.
	It's either change or hope in an election.
	They wanted Trudeau out of it.
	Between Carney and Trudeau, who's more progressive?
	I don't know.
	I think they're both equally progressive.
	What I'm saying to you is the fact that Justin Trudeau cries on camera, he calls himself a male feminist.
	I'm going to lean in that guy's direction.
	He's going to make the argument that he is more progressive.
	They had a more progressive candidate.
	Why do they not like us?
	They're sick of him.
	Why was, why was, no, no, go, go to the polymarket, Rob.
	Go to.
	Because don't take this off the conservatives.
	Don't take this responsibility off conservatives.
	Why is the polymarket have Pierre at 93% in January?
	Why?
	Because that was before Trump took office, and then Trump came to office, started going a literal trade war with Canada.
	It galvanized the people of Canada.
	They inserted who's this new candidate.
	And they're like, let's rally.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute.
	Because we're going against Trump.
	Because people are more willing to rally against an enemy like Trump than a vanilla candidate like now you're at a place.
	Now you're at a place.
	Is Trump going to do Trump all the time?
	Is Trump going to be Trump all the time?
	Yes.
	Is Trump going to do what Trump does all the time?
	Yes.
	So is this more a credit to Carney's diplomacy on knowing how to handle Trump and a shot at Pierre for not knowing how to handle Trump?
	Does the credit go to the candidate that knew how to handle Trump better than the other?
	Do you give credit to Carney for learning how to deal with Trump versus Pierre not knowing how to deal with Trump?
	Sure, I'll give you a little bit of a trial.
	Okay, that's the argument.
	So the argument here is not on the fact that Canada is more progressive or not.
	The argument is on the fact that Pierre mishandled Trump.
	The same way DeSantis mishandled Trump.
	It's a mishandling of Trump.
	If Trump is number one in the world, and that's who he is today, if Obama was number one in the world when he was a leader of the free world, you have to learn how to deal with him.
	You have to learn how to manage and deal with him.
	Pierre didn't know how to deal with Trump.
	He didn't understand the power dynamic, something a lot of people don't understand.
	Something a lot of people like James Wardy comes to the Lakers.
	He thinks he's a better player than Magic Johnson.
	Magic's like, you either can go to a different team or you have to realize this is my team.
	And if you don't understand it, you can go anywhere else.
	Magic was very clear about it.
	It's Trump's world right now.
	And Pierre didn't know how to coexist in Trump's world.
	And that is his error.
	And Carney gets credit for being able to play the politics better.
	And by the way, his policies are not necessarily better for Canada, but he did a better job on how to deal with Trump.
	And who loses?
	Conservatives of Canada.
	Welcome.
	Your guy Polyev didn't know how to handle Trump.
	So it's very easy for people to say, you know, well, no, it's really this.
	It's all Trump's fault.
	It's all Carney's fault.
	It's all the liberals' fault.
	It's all the mainstream media's fault.
	I am very simple.
	It comes back to the way you handled it.
	The way you mishandled this opportunity, you went from 93 to 35.
	Wow.
	Who was the quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons?
	Who's the quarterback of the Atlanta?
	Matt Ryan?
	Matt Ryan.
	Did Tom Brady win that Super Bowl or did Matt Ryan lose that Super Bowl?
	A little bit of both.
	I think Ryan lost.
	There is no way it's a little bit of both.
	It for sure is Matt Ryan lost it.
	You're winning 28 to 3.
	Correct.
	And you lose?
	It's not on the defense.
	You're not giving Tom credit?
	You didn't score a single touchdown second half.
	No, I'm giving Tom credit.
	Of course, Tom is the GOAT.
	But what I'm trying to say is, was it more Matt Ryan losing it or was it more Tom Brady winning it?
	Of course, it's more Matt Ryan losing it.
	How do you lose that?
	You're going into the fourth quarter with a 20, 23, what is it?
	Third quarter with three minutes left.
	28 to 9.
	Yeah, and you lose that?
	This is embarrassing what Pierre did here.
	And his voters, his base should be on his side.
	In 2020, when we're talking podcast and Trump loses, what did I talk about in 2020 when I talked about Trump?
	Do you remember?
	Because you were there.
	What did I talk about with Trump when he lost in 2020?
	Remind me, because there was a lot of things going on.
	No, but what was it that he stopped doing that I said, go back to what worked in 2016?
	Selling the dream?
	Selling the dream.
	Well, what was he constantly doing?
	The nightmare?
	The unfair.
	It's unfair.
	It's unfair.
	Yeah, and so guess what?
	Yeah, of course they play the game.
	Of course they manipulated.
	Of course they did what they did.
	Of course it was election interference.
	But at the same time, it's more on how you handle it.
	Nobody in the right sense knew how to handle COVID.
	That was a very weird situation for us to go through.
	But here, Pierre was handed this to him.
	Go for it.
	Handed.
	Hey, you're going to be the PM.
	And he started thinking he's bigger than Trump.
	Eating an output.
	And you destroy, you try to embarrass Trump publicly?
	No problem.
	Here you go.
	And why does Carney know how to do this?
	Because Carney was a what before?
	He was in the investment banking for 19 years.
	What do you learn when you're a businessman?
	Negotiations.
	And learning how to broker deals.
	What do you not learn in politics?
	It's power.
	It's like, well, you know, go give a speech in front of everybody.
	No, in business, deals are done behind closed doors.
	And Pierre didn't know how to make the one phone call.
	I'd like to speak with the president.
	Well, it's certainly on, I guess, here's my point.
	It's certainly on Pierre Polyev.
	But I guess what I'm also saying is don't discount how much Canadians dislike Trump.
	So once this trade war started and Mark Carney was catapulted to the forefront of the election and the people were galvanized by being against Trump.
	I think we're saying the same thing.
	I'm just saying it's not binary.
	It's not all on Pierre Polyev or not.
	I know, but what I'm saying, like, for example, if we want something for who wants something from who?
	Who wants, does Canada want and need more stuff from U.S. or does U.S. need and want more stuff from Canada?
	Who needs who more?
	Canada.
	Does Pierre need Trump or does Trump need Pierre?
	Pierre needs Trump.
	Yeah, Trump doesn't need Pierre.
	We do import a lot of things from Canada, though.
	It's not like they're, I mean, yes, we're bigger, we're better, we're stronger, we're doper, we're the best.
	But like, they got a lot going on.
	Canada?
	Not that they got some stuff.
	But whatever Canada does, we can get elsewhere.
	Dude, this is just a political miscalculation by Pierre of a freaking Olympic level.
	He gets the gold medal for political miscalculations, right?
	I'm not picking on him as a human being.
	I'm saying is this was a terrible miscalculation, and now he's in this corner.
	And by the way, there are a lot of people put comments on this that say we get Canada right and wrong and things like this.
	But I'll tell you, Ontario, where Toronto is, Quebec, where Montreal is, that's like New York and California.
	That's where the weight, that's where the weight of the populace is.
	But you go to Yukon, Northwest Territory, Alberta.
	Alberta is the Texas of Canada, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
	And you find people that are annoyed with what's happened with the Trump tariffs.
	But these are conservative people that are looking around, shaking their heads, saying, what just happened?
	They see this stuff too.
	And by the way, Polymarket's only one poll.
	It's a little closer than that.
	But Pauli Van never should have squandered this lead, never should have gone this.
	And it's because, guess what?
	One guy came from the Bank of England.
	One guy came from a business, was making decisions, and the other guy was making speeches.
	And the guy making speeches make terrible miscalculations.
	Pat is absolutely correct on this, how it shakes out.
	And I think you need to look a little deeper at the people of Canada because there's some conservatives in Western Canada that are pretty pissed off right now.
	They're annoyed with Trump, yes, but they're pissed off that their conservative leader.
	How did we blow this thing?
	All we had to do was survive to the election, and we're going to take care of Justin Trudeau.
	And we're finally going to be out under that 10-year problem.
	And then this happens.
	Do you know?
	How do they feel?
	Yeah, mind you, not to cut you off, Adam.
	Mark Carney went up and Rob, I sent you that clip of what he said.
	What he's going to do, you know, not threatened like we're going to go to war, but he was like, state political, economic, military relationship between the U.S. is over.
	It's over.
	This is the clip right here.
	It's like 18 seconds.
	We will need to ensure that Canada can succeed in a drastically different world.
	The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperations is over.
	That's what?
	Because of Pierre?
	Now you got that guy, a WEF guy.
	That's the guy that you guys are going to get.
	Congratulations.
	I just.
	Why?
	Why are we fighting with Canada?
	We should be fighting with China.
	China who's been taking advantage of us for the past 40 years.
	Well, they're the ones booing up.
	Canada.
	They want the smoke.
	They want the smoke until they can get it.
	And I don't get the fighting with Canada.
	Me neither.
	It's them.
	Okay.
	I don't get it.
	And like, Canada is like the California of countries.
	That's like, of course, there's going to be a third of Californians who are like, F Gavin Newsome, F. Garen Bass is ridiculous.
	But then you're going to have the vast majority being like, yes, I want all of that.
	And then so that's Canada.
	So they're going to make their bed.
	They're going to have to line it with their maple syrup and their maple leaves.
	That's it.
	We're going to see what's going to happen here.
	But the reality of it is, it's either Trump wants him in because he wants the trade war to continue.
	It's either Trump wants him in because he's agreed to terms with Trump to speak.
	And Trump told him, if you turn on me, I'm going to turn on you like never before.
	So whatever commitments he made to him on the phone call, he has to keep.
	Or Trump is so offended by Pierre's disrespect and lack of diplomacy that he says, F that guy.
	I'm moving on.
	He has no clue what he's doing.
	He's too arrogant.
	He's too entitled.
	It could be as simple as Trump invited Pierre to come to the White House and come to Mar-a-Lago and he declined it.
	It could be that simple.
	Any of those things is a screw-up because you think American conservatives would rather have Carney or would rather have Pierre.
	What do you think?
	Pierre.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	But it's your mishandling.
	Trump is not going to help you become a president.
	You got to go earn it.
	And the way he's playing it is it doesn't make any sense to him.
	I'm not a Canadian.
	I don't live there.
	But, you know, seeing the way this was handled, extremely embarrassing.
	All right, let's go to the next story here.
	Let's go to the next story here.
	Gavin Newsome, Rob, pull this clip up.
	Gavin Newsom says, Newsom says, Democratic brand is toxic.
	Okay.
	Is this what Bill Maher robbed?
	Yep.
	Okay, go for it.
	Play this clip.
	These guys are crushing us.
	The Democratic brand is toxic right now.
	We had a high watermark two weeks ago, and that was a CNN poll at 29% favorability.
	It's dropped when the NBC pulled down to 27%.
	It's one thing to make noise, but you also have to make sense.
	And I think with this podcast and having the opportunity to dialogue with people I disagree with, it's an opportunity to try to find common ground and not take cheap shots.
	I'm not looking to put a spoke in the wheel of their, or at least a crowbar in the spokes of their wheel to trip them up to your point.
	And I think it's important.
	Democrats, we tend to be a little more judgmental than we should.
	This notion of cancel culture, you've been living it.
	You've been on the receiving end of it for years and years and years.
	That's real.
	And Democrats need to own up to that.
	Tom.
	So I think there's something really dangerous about Gavin Newsom.
	Gavin Newsom is running right now.
	And you'll see if you watch this interview with Bill Maher, Bill Maher asked him, why don't you run?
	You're capable.
	You can do it.
	And he won't answer the question.
	He won't answer the question and say that he's running, but he is running.
	And that's what's going on here.
	And what's interesting, what's very, very interesting, he said, we own the failed governance in California, but I said there's a new day last year and that we own the response of reform.
	You hear that response of reform, Vinny?
	Yep.
	We own the response of reform.
	That is the wolf in sheep's clothing.
	That is what's coming.
	This is a political posturing.
	You know, it's not like when Bill Clinton ran to the middle and governed from the middle, because if you look at Arkansas, I actually think he kind of was a bit of a centrist.
	He was always a liberal, but he kind of governed from the center.
	It was not controversial.
	It didn't create a lot of problems.
	And he got a lot of stuff done.
	And Newsom is not that.
	This is, I believe, what Newsom is showing.
	And I'd love to sit down and talk with him and challenge him on this, saying, how do you keep tweaking your positions like this?
	Don't you see what this looks like?
	Is this really the way you feel?
	If this is the way you feel, why didn't you say this last year?
	I'd love to hear him kind of unpack that and who he is and then ask him, say, why didn't you answer Bill Maher?
	Are you running or are you not, big dog?
	Vinny.
	That was a, listen.
	Did you guys see the entire interview with him?
	Bill Maher was like, Rob, did I send you the one clip?
	Yeah, like, like, are you ready for this?
	Bill Maher is playing this game where he's like, he's pushing him, but then he's having fun.
	He's not really holding his foot to the fire because it's like a joke.
	I'll let Rob play this and I'll let you know.
	Rob, how long is it?
	113.
	Okay, yeah.
	Go ahead and play, and then I'm going to say my piece.
	Let's talk about what's important.
	My roof.
	Your roof.
	My roof.
	Is this the solar?
	Is this going back to the solar?
	After the fire, it's always about the solar.
	It's funny.
	After the fire, new roof.
	They suggested, you know, get the stuff that's not, okay.
	Two inspections I needed to have.
	Why?
	It's my roof.
	If it falls on my head, that's my problem.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	That's just a statement.
	No, that's my question.
	Why do I need two inspections, which I have to pay for?
	Yeah.
	You were here last time.
	We talked about regulations.
	You said, oh, it's a completely new day.
	Well, no, wait, wait, wait.
	Because a hand gesture.
	Seneori.
	Completely new day.
	You said you were working on it.
	By the way, and last week you had Ezra Klein on, which was incredibly important.
	He wrote a book called Abundance, which really amazes a very condemning picture of liberal governance in this country and the fact that we are process focused and not outcome focused.
	And you're a demonstrable example of that as it relates to what you've tried to do with your damn roof for the last 15 years.
	Having a good time.
	It's our job to eliminate as many of those tickets as well.
	How's that going?
	How's it going?
	Again, this is Bill Maher.
	He loves Gavin Newsom, his words, okay?
	For Gavin Newsom to call the Democratic Party toxic, it's all hypocrisy.
	He's been poisoning California for years.
	I don't want anybody out there to forget it, okay?
	The taxes, the regulations, the policies, the billions of dollars wasted on homelessness.
	And what did it do?
	It produced more homeless people.
	Okay.
	The wildfire is raging.
	Everybody's blaming everybody.
	It all falls on him.
	He's the governor.
	All the business is fleeing.
	They lost me.
	They lost you.
	They lost you.
	We're here now.
	The streets are overrun.
	Homeless encampments.
	It's just, it's horrible.
	California is falling.
	And then he's flip-flopping on transgender issues.
	He pushes for policies that will have minors have the freaking surgeries without the parents knowing.
	And now he's blaming the blame game, Tom.
	No, no, it's the party.
	This is what all these guys, have you noticed or is it just me?
	All of these people, all the Cuomos, all the Steven, everybody that was left that voted for Kamala now is like, man, this party got out of control.
	No, no, you are out of control.
	You guys are all the fault for everything that's happened for the past four years.
	You all supported it.
	And now everybody's jumping ship.
	Now it's like he's the savior.
	Oh, no, no, I'm going to change.
	I'm going to change.
	No, no.
	And that's the problem I think with giving people this platform because if a conservative talks with them and sits with them, when it comes voting time in four years, they're going to go like this.
	Yeah, remember that interview, Tom?
	Gavin seemed like a really nice, reasonable guy.
	Do not be fooled.
	He's a Trojan horse, and he's going to be the frontrunner.
	Mark my words.
	And this snake, my opinion, is going to be the frontrunner and people are going to vote for his ass, period.
	Seem, feel, think.
	It's feelings and perceptions and sentiment.
	And that's where you run for most voters in America because most people are not locking in unless the economy or immigration really hits them hard and then they're reacting.
	But in a neutral economy world, he's got a chance to present himself.
	And Bill Maher, I'll say this about Bill Maher.
	Bill Maher is looking for a guy to get behind on his side.
	Of course.
	Bill Maher is a liberal.
	And he's looking, who are the draft picks I have?
	Who do I have?
	And he's trying to pick somebody that he thinks is electable.
	I don't have any quarrel with Bill Maher for that.
	I think that's what Bill Maher's doing.
	And he likes this guy.
	He's, you know, he's personable.
	We know that he's a little bit slick.
	A little bit slick.
	But Tom, look at the state.
	Sorry.
	A little bit slick?
	Look at the state of California.
	If this is a resume.
	Your report card is not good.
	Yeah, if you're if your resume, if you show, Tom, if I showed up to your office, I was like, hi, I'm Gavin Newsome.
	I want to run your company.
	This is how I ran my company, California.
	Are you even look at the first page?
	You're not going to talk to this guy.
	He's not good at that.
	I think he knows that.
	And I think that's why he's out here saying, we're trying to have a dialogue, trying to understand this.
	He's trying to move off of that because he knows that's the record.
	He knows that's a report card.
	He's got to do what he can in the political stage to move off that.
	And I think that's what we're saying.
	But that's the fear for me, Tom, is this four years.
	And I think the trolling of Trump for the new another term, the third term, it's just trolling people like the View, which I love it.
	It's trolling people like Rosey Odonal because the TDS, he loves doing that to people.
	But if the fear that I have is in the four years, these type of people are going to be in the conversation to run the country.
	And you want to talk about reversing everything?
	That's what they're going to do.
	Well, let them worry about the third term.
	Maybe it helps Trump get other things done.
	I hope so.
	Adam.
	Well, let me tell you something about this guy, Gavin Newsom.
	He is such a good politician.
	This guy, he's a hypocrite.
	He's a flip-flopper.
	He's two-faced.
	He's disingenuous.
	He's slick.
	He's insincere.
	And that is why he is such a good politician.
	He walks out the door and just politician style, puts his finger to the wind.
	Which way is public opinion leaning?
	All right, that's what I'm going with today, guys.
	It's absolutely unbelievable.
	He stands for nothing.
	And at this rate, this is what makes him such a good politician.
	Which way are we going on this?
	How many things has he flip-flopped on?
	We remember during COVID, he was the U-Haul salesman of the year.
	That whole incident, French laundry, do as you're told, don't do as I do, that whole thing.
	The COVID lockdowns, the mask mandates, the kids in school.
	He was for Latinx, then he didn't know what Latinx was, for trans.
	And then we're getting a little too carried away with the trans here, guys.
	The budgets, the fires, it's all falling apart.
	And now he has the balls, if they still have those things in California, to go on Bill Maher and be like, listen, guys, the Democratic brand is toxic.
	You're the poster child of why they're toxic.
	Yeah.
	Period.
	You're the governor of California.
	Like, you're the poster child of why they're toxic.
	And you're being like, listen, guys, we...
	They.
	No, they.
	They.
	Yeah.
	These guys over here is such a unique skill as a politician to be able to do that, to look in the camera, know that you don't give a shit about anybody, about any policy, about any conviction, and be like, and that's why you should vote for me.
	Unbelievable.
	What an incredible politician.
	And there's one thing I know about him.
	He ain't scared to show up.
	Nope.
	We were at the RNC debate.
	He was there.
	He's having Charlie Kirk show up.
	Newsome.
	I mean, he was saying with DeSantis.
	Unbelievable.
	Well, Hang on.
	There was a song.
	Hold on.
	He was in California where he was outside at a pop-up news tent.
	It wasn't like he traveled to the middle of freaking Texas to do this.
	You don't think he would?
	This guy.
	So the event you're referencing.
	Let's talk about what he did.
	Okay.
	Yes, you're right.
	But you think this guy, he just had Charlie Kirk on.
	Did he have Steve Bannon on?
	Who the hell did this guy have on?
	Yeah.
	So you're giving one example of, yeah, because the RNC was in California.
	I would think you would go to other places.
	This guy, there was a song from Tom, you would know this.
	You're a big hip-hop fan by Bone Crusher and Killer Mike.
	And it would say things like, we ain't never scared.
	We ain't never scared.
	This guy must have listened to that song on repeat, put on his American psycho outfit and be like, let's get him and take America down because we ain't never scared.
	This guy is so skilled and is so ready for the battle.
	We'll see how long it lasts.
	But this guy's running in 2028.
	There you go.
	Mark that.
	All right.
	So, by the way, somebody just placed an order of four of these.
	This thing's about to be gone.
	One of us just ordered four of these things here for himself and apparently gifts.
	And who knows?
	Maybe one on eBay.
	But if you haven't placed the order yet, go to VTMerch.com, place the limited edition order, guys.
	There's a few remaining before this thing goes.
	Probably within the hour, it's going to be sold out.
	The new leather, genuine leather backpack that we have.
	Anyways, Gank, it's been great being with you.
	For those of you that want to continue this discussion after we're done, the heated debates, it's all on PBD Podcast Circle that we have.
	Go on PBD Podcast Circle, join the Manex Circle throughout the day.
	Everybody is sharing stories.
	We put behind the scenes.
	You'll see Vinny today choking while he's making the video, mosquito goes in his mouth.
	Did you post that or not?
	Yeah, I posted it and I ate it.
	Anyways, Gang, take care, everybody.
	We'll do the skin on Thursday.
	God bless.

▲