The Minnesota Shootings and What Comes Next

Speaker 1: Tyson, I'd like to start this out by reading something that was put out by the Department of Homeland Security. And I'm not very good at reading, but let me give it a try. Speaker 1: At 9:05 AM, Central Time, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun seen here. And then they put a stock photo of the gun that he was carrying. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on the scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject, but was pronounced dead at the scene. The suspect also had two magazines and no ID. This looked like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. About 200 riders arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement on the scene. Crowd control measures were deployed for the safety of the public and law enforcement. The situation is evolving and more information is forthcoming. That's DHS a few minutes after Alex Pretty was shot in Minneapolis. What's your reaction? Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it's uh I guess it's I guess it's better than uh Bovino's interview on CNN where he said that uh pepper spray was a form of de-escalation. Um, Speaker 1: Is that recalled Pretty a domestic terrorist? Speaker 2: Uh, I mean so. Speaker 1: He has done that. Speaker 2: Yeah. Oh yeah, he he's he were he like hours after uh Renee Good was murdered as well. They call her a domestic terrorist. Everybody's a domestic terrorist now, apparently. That uh but it's like if you actually know what happened, you can you can see the uh kernels of truth and what they're not saying. Like when they say they that he approached them with a gun, that's a little bit spicier than them saying what actually happened, which is he approached them to film them, which is legal. He's exercising his First Amendment rights and happened to be legally carrying a firearm. And I also notice uh right at the end there when they say he had two magazines and no ID. Which once again, is supposed to that's supposed to be the body of evidence for saying that he was a potential mass shooter, right? And and again, it's like when you actually lay out the facts that he was filming them, which he's legally allowed to do. He was carrying a gun and two magazines, which he was legally licensed to do, and he didn't have ID on him, which US citizens are not legally required to carry. So, what where was the suspicion? Right? And Bovino was like he got he got pushed on CNN for this. I I don't know I don't know whose image consulted to let him on CNN, but she basically just started pushing him with just the the slightest nudge of scrutiny for any of these actions and she's like, well, he was filming you. Why is that illegal? He's like, well, he was obstructing. He's like, we've seen the video, didn't look like he was obstructing anything. It looked like he was filming you. It's like, well, he he uh he he brought a he brought a gun to kill police officers. What's your evidence of that? Well, he had a gun. It's like, okay, so now now having a gun on you that you're legally licensed to carry in the state is evidence that you're a dangerous person who's going to misuse that gun? You sure that's the stance you want to take, Republicans? Speaker 1: Somebody better not tell the open carry crazies who are walking around with four firearms, body armor and helmets when they go to the 7-Eleven. Speaker 2: Oh man. I said I said in this post I I said in a post yesterday. I was like, I I never expected Republicans in the states to care when Ice was breaking the first, fourth and fifth amendments on a regular basis. I never in my life thought I would see Republicans coming for somebody for exercising their Second Amendment rights. That was not on my 2026 bingo card. Speaker 1: Uh I'm sure you've looked at more angles of this shooting than than is good for your mental health. I know I have. But it's becoming increasingly clear that the sequence of events is they approached him, they pepper sprayed him, they swarmed him, they one agent, the guy in the gray sweatshirt, removes his firearm, the guy has both hands on the ground, and then he gets shot. And then people back up and empty their clips on him. I that's almost undeniable. It is undeniable. There's so much footage of that exact sequence happening. And yet, I'm still running into people going, oh, he drew his gun, he was going for his gun. Pretty hard to go for a gun when both of your hands are planted on the ground. Speaker 2: Yeah, and you got about what, four or five agents on top of you. I mean, it's like the the audacity with which they're posting this stuff. Like I'm seeing especially on threads. There's like the the the Russian bots are having a field day on threads because I see the exact same wording copying pasted from different accounts with different profile pictures and everything saying, uh the video is clear. He drew his gun and tried to shoot the agents and that's when they had to uh defend themselves by shooting him. We're all watching the same video. That's not what happened. Right? You're the the level of uh the level of uh effort they're even putting into gaslighting now. They're just they're they're just saying something that everybody watches the video is not seeing and yet they know that uh a a you know, a significant number of people in the United States who are just die hard anti-immigration uh Trump supporters now are going to watch it, see exactly what we saw and then pretend they didn't see it. Which is, you know, it's it's one of several scary things about this situation. But it's it's crazy to me how easily they can excuse the shooting and killing of this man. I mean, the just the resistance. Like they're saying, oh, he violently resisted. Probably because he was worried they were about to do exactly what they did. And by the way, resisting arrest doesn't mean that you're a lethal threat to those officers. He didn't have his gun anymore. He wasn't attacking them. He was trying to get away. If you are following the the bare minimum of use of force protocols, it's like, you don't shoot at a vehicle to stop it from running over you because a corpse will still run over you. Somebody who's alive can press the brakes. You don't shoot somebody to stop them from trying to get up and run away. Worst case scenario, you let the dude run away. If he's a threat to you, like if if he's if he's if he's a threat to you, then he's not trying to run away. He's trying to attack. He wasn't trying to attack. He was trying to get up, probably because he was worried they were about to do exactly what they did. That's why I I I imagine that's why Renee Good was turning the wheel to the right, trying to drive away because she was getting uh she was getting yelled at by Ice officers to do conflicting things, which is, you know, once again, is is uh indicative of the kind of training these guys are getting, where they're pointing tasers at people and say, if you move, I'll tase you. Now get out of the car. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Uh, Speaker 1: Yeah, the Renee Good parallels are they're they're pretty significant, especially the spin that started immediately. As you recall, within a couple hours, Trump tweeted that uh the agent who had shot Renee Good had been very seriously injured and was in hospital and it was lucky to survive. Speaker 2: Yeah, lucky to survive. Speaker 1: And yet we all saw video footage of him walking away, A, not getting struck, or perhaps getting brushed laterally. And then B, walking to his car while texting on his phone. That that looks very, very he must be in shock because surely those serious injuries uh that he could that he could just maintain his texting through those very, very serious injuries. Speaker 2: It must have been an important text. Yeah. Right? It was it was the it was the last text he was ever going to send, so it must have been an important one. Speaker 1: He just got a match on Grinder. Speaker 2: Uh, jeez. Yeah, it's I mean, and and it's going to keep happening because uh and I I I don't know how much of a hot take this even is. Uh because we're just like what I what I'm watching happen over and over again. I know it's going to keep happening because I think it's the plan. I think it's the plan for this to keep happening. Because Speaker 1: What if you had to guess, what is the plan? Speaker 2: The plan, I would say, uh is to uh flood the streets of uh cities that tend to lean a little bit more toward the liberal side of things. I won't say leftist because there really aren't many actual leftists in the United States. What they what they call a radical leftist anywhere else in the world will be the conservative party. But um, you know, cities like Minneapolis that uh tend to vote Democrat, let's say, uh are being flooded with Ice officers, uh who are poorly trained, easily agitated, and uh know full well that they can act with impunity and that they will not be held accountable by anybody in the chain of command, least of all their the the uh head of Department of Homeland Security, the head of Ice or the President of the United States, who was fully comfortable. Speaker 1: Yeah, I I agree. I just checked before we started recording here. The shooter for Renee Good, there was a FBI agent who was starting an investigation into him. And that investigation was quashed and he's now been forced out of the FBI. So there's zero intent to investigate a police shooting. And or not a police shooting, but a law law enforcement in its largest sense shooting. And you know, I've been peripherally involved with a couple of people who've had to go through, you know, they they were cops, they did have to shoot somebody. There was a massive investigation. It legitimately did destroy their lives. But you have to have that. If we give cops the right to pull a trigger and end your life without a judge, without a jury, without sentencing, to unilaterally end your life, then the next step has to be a really thorough investigation. It sucks for the cop who pulls the trigger. But that has to exist. Otherwise, you end up without you end up with rampant vigilantism on the part of the best armed and best protected, you know, members of society. You it it sucks for the cop. But it has to happen. It's and now that's in that was in a pretty unambiguous hostage taking scenario that I'm thinking back to. This now is a is a lesbian mom who writes poetry with stuffed toys in her glove box trying to follow the instructions from one officer who's telling her to get out of here. Uh like that's not an unambiguous situation where somebody had to get shot. Of course, there has to be an investigation. And what do you mean there hasn't been even the start of an investigation two weeks later? That's insanity. Speaker 2: Yeah. And it's and like I say, it's the plan. It's the plan to have this happen over and over and over again because they want to be able to uh frame Democrats and Democratic voters as violent insurrectionists that uh pose a threat to the sovereignty and security of the United States and need to have their cities occupied by federal troops in order to keep the peace and maintain law and order. That's the game. Uh and it's crazy to watch this play out the way that it has because you get like you get these people who uh not just not just idolize, but fetishize the founding fathers. Fetishize the Revolutionary War. Fetishize the mythology of the United States of America and how it was founded. Yet they are cheering as a federally controlled force against the expressed intent and without the consent of the governor of the state, occupying that state and regularly, daily, violating the first and fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution. And they are conducting themselves as if they can act with impunity because they know they can because of the massive amount of power that has been concentrated in the executive of the United States, completely unchecked by the judicial branch and the legislative branch, which are the representatives actually elected by the people. This right now that we're seeing was the founding fathers' worst fears. Their worst fear was exactly what we're seeing now. There were there were founding fathers, there were anti-federalist founding fathers that didn't even think there should be an executive. Or if there was an executive, it should be a few people, not just one person because they feared exactly this. That too much power could be concentrated in the executive, unchecked by the two other branches of government, and that they would occupy a state with federal forces just like King George had done. And all the Republicans now that are cheering for this, they would have been loyalists. They love the founding fathers, they love the Revolutionary War, they would have been the loyalists. They would have been the ones telling Sam Adams, hey, why don't you just comply? This King George, he's he's just trying to maintain law and order. I don't I don't know why you just didn't comply. Speaker 1: It's also amazing how many World War II fans are supporting the current US administration. They seem to be fixated on Messerschmitt airplanes and Tiger tanks and T-34s, fight, you know, like the the I mean, it was terrible for the people, but it's kind of cool to be comparing these military technologies and completely ignoring the Nazi rise to power in the 1930s essentially. Speaker 2: Well, that's that's Speaker 1: And the parallels are just astounding. Like I was thinking about this the other day. After World War I, there were these large paramilitary organizations called the Freikorps. Basically the free corps. And those eventually got subsumed into the SA, the brown shirts. And after the Night of the Long Knives and a lot of those got subsumed into the SS. So you basically had independent militias that were well armed and well trained and, you know, young aggressive men who were extremely disillusioned. Basically the Proud Boys, basically the Oath Keepers, getting subsumed into a militia that was controlled by the government. And the SS was initially a a bodyguard for Hitler, but then it it was had tremendous amounts of money thrown at it. And now you had the SS metastasized into something gigantic. The the Proud Boy to Ice or the Proud Boy to Department of Homeland to to DHS arc is so well established at this point, it's insane. And uh Speaker 2: Well, not only that, but they have tweaked the system to make it almost impossible for for the for those people to get uh weeded out as applicants. Because uh the like this has been somewhat sensationalized. Like there was a number being thrown around like, oh, they're training's been reduced to 47 days because Donald Trump's the 47th president. Like there's there's actually not much evidence to substantiate that. What we do know is that the uh is that the uh minimum age has been lowered from 21 to 18 to join Ice. We know that the maximum age requirement of 40 has been removed. We know that the training, which used to be around 500-ish hours, which already wasn't enough, we could talk about that in a second, but uh the what used to be about 500 hours of training has been reduced to about eight weeks of training, which assuming the same rough number of uh hours per week is about 300 hours of training. And they have been uh letting people uh through the cracks to to actually enlist and and move on to the move on to the application process as far as being trained who have failed background checks, who have failed drug tests. There was one uh journalist who as an experiment tried enlisting for Ice, uh knowing full well that they had a criminal background that should be disqualifying under Department of Homeland Security's protocols, and also that the drug test would come back positive for marijuana, which is also supposed to be disqualifying. So they enlisted knowing that they should be told no, and they were told yes. So, we have people failing open book exams. We have people showing up and uh not even being able to demonstrate the barest minimum of fitness. We have people failing drug tests, we have people lying about their backgrounds. Um, Ice was trying to actively recruit people who had law enforcement experience, and there were many people who lied about having law enforcement experience and got as far as training before they admitted voluntarily that they had no law enforcement experience. Right? So, if they had said anything, then nobody ever would have known. So, we have a situation where they are not vetting applicants. Speaker 1: Not to mention any January 6th. Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Well, exactly. I mean, where else would those guys go? I mean, you you've basically uh given them a place to go where they can act out their fantasy of fighting in Donald Trump's holy race war and get uh and get a nice tidy uh government salary and uh 50k bonus, which I've heard some weird stuff about that 50k bonus about how many of them actually aren't going to get it. I haven't actually looked into that in detail, but they're advertising that you can get a $50,000 signing bonus in a country that says it can't afford health care. Right? So, this is to to somebody like me who actually uh like part of my work is is teaching de-escalation and humane subduing arrest uh techniques. Uh I've spent five years developing uh specific contextual Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu techniques for weapon retention and weapons defense and subduing arrest and all these different things that could sort of be plugged and played, and I could customize them to suit different use of force requirements and different weapon systems or uh based on the day-to-day of what they would actually be most likely to deal with, all that stuff. And while I was developing that, I was also researching the statistics on use of force and uh you know, how many officers get killed and how many officers kill people and uh based on what country they live in and what kind of use of force requirements they are. I mean, the United States uh uh the United States police officers are killing people at 33 times the rate that police officers in the UK kill people. It's 33 times the rate at which police officers kill people in the UK. And the UK, the police officers don't carry guns. And the the line we get from conservatives here is that, well, if you take away the cops' guns, then there's no deterrent and criminals are just going to do whatever they want. That's not the case. The UK also has far lower rates of violent crime than the United States does. Why? Because they have 100 required hours of de-escalation training. They have other tools other than lethal force. And they have to emphasize those. So, we have uh a situation where like I'm looking at this from the perspective of somebody who teaches this stuff and like I look at the, you know, 1,200 hours of standard training that a police officer in the United States gets, and then the 600 hours of on the job training that they're that they have to do after that to be considered to be qualified to do the job. And how often they are drawing their guns unnecessarily because they don't have the skills to handle those in between situations. And uh and how even a tiny little bit of de-escalation training can reduce use of force incidents by 28%. And I'm looking at this and I'm looking at, okay, well, police officers in the states with 1,800 hours of training have all these problems. Ice had a third of that. 500-ish hours. And the the proof is in the results. They they had far more use of force incidents per capita per incident than normal police officers on average have in the United States. And now they've reduced that and removed any standard of applicants that they may have had before. Speaker 1: I think most of the things you've said are undeniable and are well documented. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: So we've we've got a bunch of very often extremely incompetent, uh demonstrably violent people picking up the you know, being granted with a huge arsenal and essential essentially immunity from their consequences of their action. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: And it's the opposite of de-escalation. It's it's escalation. The the lack of de-escalation is not a bug, it's a feature. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: And I'm going to put it guess that the street like that this is part of the plan. Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. And this is why I think it's the plan because putting them on the street like that as unprepared as they are is escalation. Because uh I could put to the side uh the fact that, you know, you know, there's a certain percentage of these people who are like I say, they joined up for they joined Ice because they're racist. Right? Let's just let's just say that's not the case. Let's say the person is not an inherently violent person, that they are not inherently racist, that they truly believe in the stated purpose of Ice, okay? Let's say let's say that as a as a hypothetical, okay? Uh that this is a uh well-meaning person. It's still incredibly dangerous to have that person on the street right now. Why? Because we've all sort of agreed as a society that if a police officer is put in a situation where it is their life or the subject's life, that they choose their life. Right? That a police officer has the right to defend themselves using lethal force against lethal force. Right? We've all sort of agreed that that's you know, a a a tragic but necessary uh circumstance for police officers. However, when do you fear for your life? Right? Because that's a subjective thing. If somebody is in better physical condition versus worse physical condition. Somebody who is in better physical condition, it's going to be a higher bar for them to fear for their life than somebody who's in poor condition. If someone has had de-escalation training, so they have some tools to use in a person who is not necessarily attacking them yet, not necessarily violent, but is uncooperative. They have some de-escalation training, they have a tool they can use that isn't a gun in that situation. When they fear for their lives, the bar rises. If they have unarmed combat training, the ability to subdue and arrest someone without shooting them first. And they have done hours of training and preparation and pressure testing and training and and uh you know, all the things that all the things that come along with that, you know, the the confidence that you've handled this situation before and you know how to do it. The bar for when your life is feeling threatened goes up, up, up, up, up, up, up. And the opposite is true as well. So, if you are putting people on the street who are supposed to be uh arresting people, and they have been uh empowered to use lethal force if they feel their life is threatened. But they are in poor physical condition, they don't understand use of force, they don't understand procedural law, they have no training to be able to non-violently arrest or subdue or arrest somebody. There is no margin for that person between when the person is fully cooperative and just does what you tell them, and when the person does not. As soon as they get as soon as the person is uncooperative, that person fears for their life and out comes the gun. Speaker 1: Tyson, they should just comply. If they just complied, then they wouldn't get shot. It's it's uh I'm being told reliably by uh pundits on the internet that if you don't comply, then you deserve to get shot. Speaker 2: Of course. Yeah, yeah, it's why why don't you just comply? Says the people with all the don't tread on me flags in their garages. It's like all all those guys should be required to just trade in their flags for one that says tread on me harder, daddy, because that's all they're saying right now. All these all these guys have like they they basically been exposed as not caring about democracy, not caring about law and order, not caring about the rule of law, not caring about the Constitution. Like they are perfectly happy with a dictator as long as it is their preferred dictator. So, I I was like you and I were talking before, I I really do think that there is a case for uh criminal negligence for the people who are putting these people on the street right now, knowing full well that they are unprepared to handle these situations non-violently that they are getting into as part of their job. Speaker 1: So, the the more Speaker 2: We're putting those people on the street as as unprepared as they are, itself is a violent act. Speaker 1: I don't disagree at all. Uh the offering of unconditional immunity or the promising of unconditional immunity and a million other things help stoke these flames. Another shooting is inevitable, if not a full-on Kent State style shooting, which happened I think in 1970 when the US expanded its war into Cambodia from Vietnam into Cambodia. There were massive protests and something north of 20 people got shot and four or five people got killed. But what happens then? I I say the uh Minnesota National Guard gets mobilized, which is already possibly in in motion. And now we end up with the 82nd Airborne facing off against the uh the Minnesota National and that's a that's a nightmare scenario. Speaker 2: Yeah. Last last I heard, uh Tim Walz had activated the National Guard. And like I I used to think that there was some kind of bottom for like where like how far this they would be willing to take this. And in in Trump's first term, I think there would have been. I think in Trump's first term as narcissistic and unintelligent and morally bankrupt as he is, as impulsive as he is, as emotionally driven as he is, I think in his first term, there were still some people kicking around in the administration that would have been like, sir, we we can't. We can't invoke the Insurrection Act and send 1,500 US military personnel to attack civilians in Minneapolis. We just can't. We can't do it. Right? There would have there like there were so many people in his first term that basically saw it as their duty to their country to handle Donald Trump. Like there's so many reports of people who worked in his White House where he would like say, hey, I want this done and write it down on a piece of paper and they would like basically just tell him they were going to do it and then just never do it and he would forget about it. But like if they'd actually followed his his directive, it would have been this horrific constitutional crisis. There were so many people like that in his first term around him that were at least willing to be, you know, the last branch that American democracy could grab before it hit the ground. Those people are no longer there. He has successfully in the second term surrounded himself with people who are either just as unintelligent as he is or too corrupt to tell him anything he doesn't want to hear. And I really do think that we could see this going as badly as um him uh usurping Tim Walz as governor. Having Tim Walz arrested and removed as governor. Uh based on some kind of uh based on some kind of trumped up charge, forgive the pun of like, oh, he's he's uh he's a Speaker 1: Domestic terrorist. Done. Speaker 2: Yeah, he you know, he I could see him accusing Tim Walz of sedition or treason against the United States for uh inciting riots against law enforcement officers that are just doing their jobs and arresting Tim Walz, a former vice presidential candidate. I could see that happening. Uh you know that you know that a guy like Stephen Miller is chopping at the bit to do that right now. Speaker 1: So, why? Now, now where I think we're entering conspiracy theory country. Like there there are various theories as to why this escalation is being pushed and pushed and pushed. Some uh there are theories out there saying that the it's to nullify Minnesota's vote in the midterms. There's uh accounts of Kristi Noem wanting to make Ice being withdrawn from Minnesota conditional on getting the voter rolls from Minnesota. I used to I'm a very slow convert on this. I don't think it's entirely impossible that this is about distracting from the Epstein files, which as you and I both know, were supposed to be released in full, redacted only to protect the identity of the victims on December 19th. We're now a month past that. It hasn't happened. There've been zero consequences. Is this all to protect a pedophile rapist in the White House? It it might be. Speaker 2: Well, I mean, uh you're familiar with uh Occam's Razor? Well, it's it's uh like a lot of listeners may be familiar with the term Occam's Razor and it's it's often sort of quoted as like the simplest answer is usually the the right one. It's not quite that simple. It's Occam's Razor is if there are multiple possibilities that are all ostensibly as likely, the one that is most likely is the one that requires the least assumption. So, uh if you were to look at the possibilities, uh Donald Trump claims that the that there's, you know, there's nothing about him in the Epstein files and that he's totally innocent and that the Epstein files have no mention of anything that he's ever done wrong and that it's all Democrats and that it is uh yeah, if you know, the Epstein files are a hoax and if they're not a hoax, then they're full of Democrats. Right? He's he's said both of those things before. Speaker 1: And that he would release them and that he wouldn't release them. Speaker 2: Yeah. And that and and that there are no Epstein files or that uh you know, they were on her desk, but she didn't really mean that the files were on her desk, that there was something else. Like the if you look at the possibility that requires the least assumption, it would be that the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to delay or prevent the release of the Epstein files because they don't like what's in them. Like if it's true that the Democrat that the Democrat that the that uh the files are a Democrat hoax, why did you say you'd release them? If it's true that the Epstein files are real, but that it's all Democrats, why wouldn't you release them? Why wouldn't you be posting them on every single media outlet in the universe if you really thought it wasn't going to hurt Donald Trump and it was only going to hurt Democrats? If it was only going to hurt Democrats, why did Donald Trump say that releasing the Epstein files that voting to release the Epstein files will be a violent act against his administration? Like I I I got to say, the possibility with by far the least assumptions that you have to make is that Donald Trump doesn't like what's in the Epstein files and he doesn't want people to see them. That's not making a whole lot of assumptions. I mean, they're they're going so far to try to prep for this eventual release of the files by saying things like, oh, it must have been a different Donald Trump. Him Bonnie literally said like, oh, it's it's probably just like another Donald Trump that Jeffrey Epstein was talking about, even though we know that they were best friends for like 15 years. It's like, oh, it was another Donald Trump he was talking about. It's such a common name. Speaker 1: I don't know how many MAGA supporters are listening or watching right now. But to the one who is and is yelling, what about Bill Clinton? Or what about uh Bill Gates or what about Noam Chomsky? What say you? Speaker 2: Uh, get him. I'm going to say the exact same thing that every Democrat and every real leftist I've ever spoken to has said, which is get them all. No one on the left gives a shit if Bill Clinton goes to jail. We don't. So, this is as far as I'm concerned, this is just projection. They they wouldn't care if their guy is in the Epstein files. So they think that Democrats won't care if their guy is in the Epstein files. They're trying to equivocate the idea that, oh, well, you know, nobody's talking about Bill Clinton. Who gives a shit? Every single like every time somebody says that, I say, show me one. Show me one Democrat who's complaining about and and trying to protect Bill Clinton. You can't. Show me one leftist that doesn't want the files released because there might be Democrats in it. Get them all. That's what every single person both center right liberal, like the Democrats or actual leftists has been saying from the beginning. If there are people implicated in crimes against children in these documents, every single one of them should be prosecuted and held and held to account for that. Every single one of them. Right? It's it's very Speaker 1: There are potentially people there are potentially people that would hurt. There are potentially people that I would really not like to actually be in the Epstein files. Like Noam Chomsky's a good example. There was one allegation that he'd made the trip to Epstein Island. I don't know if it's true. But and I really like Noam Chomsky. But if he went, then investigate him. If there's evidence, then prosecute him. If there's sufficient evidence to find them guilty, then lock them up for the rest of his life and it doesn't matter how Stephen Kesting cares about him and that he Stephen Kesting would feel sad. Fuck it, lock him up. Speaker 2: Absolutely. It's there's no there uh there is there is no one on earth who is smart enough or cool enough or useful enough that I don't think they should go to crime that they don't that I don't think they should be uh held to account for harming children. I mean, it's it it this is very this is very simple for me. It's it's I wouldn't say it's easy, but it's simple. I mean, I uh I don't know if you're familiar with the the Conor McGregor uh sexual assault case. Um, but uh I used to have a yeah, I used to have a Conor McGregor uh quote up on my wall at my dojo. Uh, it was his uh precision beats power and timing beats speed. Uh, cool quote. Very true, very insightful. Uh and uh the second I heard about all this horrible stuff that he that he's uh that he's done and that what and and especially when I heard about the court case, I took it down immediately. Not because the quote's any less cool now, not because it not because he's any less talented a martial artist now, but because there are some things that you can't compartmentalize. I don't want that kind of person's name on my wall at my dojo. And all my and all my students noticed, right? And and it was a good opportunity to have some age appropriate, of course, conversations about, you know what, some people uh you you uh you you like and admire them for certain qualities or certain abilities or certain uh aspects of their personality. But then you find out that they're not who you thought they were and you have a choice. You can either compartmentalize and say, I'm still a fan of him as a martial artist, so I'm just going to keep being a fan of him. And if anybody asks, I'm just going to say, yeah, I don't like that stuff, but I still think he's cool because he's a fighter. No. I can find other martial artists to admire that aren't rapists. There's lots of them. Speaker 1: So, to drag this back to the shit show in Minnesota, if if it's not the Epstein file, then what is it? Or what is it in addition to the Epstein files? If you had to guess. And again, we're speculating here. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Is this part of um implementing Project 2025, which certainly Stephen Miller is in charge of for all intents and purposes? Speaker 2: Yeah. Um, I think it's about uh canceling the midterms. I think that they have been uh systematically um pushing boundaries to see how far they can go without upsetting uh their base of support. Uh I think that they have been pushing the limits of executive overreach. They have been pushing the limits of uh uh of uh judicial uh interference. They have been uh pushing the limits of uh like basically they've been playing chicken with every sort of uh protocol and etiquette and uh handshake agreement or jurisprudence when it comes to how the American government is supposed to work. Um, I did a I did a long post about this um after Trump's first term, which I really thought at the time was going to be his last term. Um, where I was like, you know, we have to be thankful to Donald Trump for one thing. And that is that he exposed the American system of government as a series of handshake agreements with no real enforcement mechanism. That's a problem that we should have known about and now we know about it. Right? Before Donald Trump, uh, you know, because he there was somebody who was supposed to um, who was subpoenaed by Congress to go and testify about the uh about the uh Ukraine scandal that he was impeached for. And uh he basically just told the guy don't go. And the guy didn't go and he was censured and then nothing else happened. But it's like, in the entire history of the United States, there nobody ever would have even tried that because they would have assumed, well, surely you can't just say no when Congress subpoenas you. Surely you can't. There there must be some sort of enforcement mechanism where you would get in a real trouble for that. Turns out, nope. You get somebody like Donald Trump who's just willing to die on every hill and willing to play chicken with everything with with every single situation and he never swerves. And all of a sudden, all these things are, uh, well, you know, we we could lead this guy out in handcuffs, but we've made a decision that it's better for democracy if we don't. He basically just shot it all to shit. He exposed the whole thing as just a a series of etiquette and handshake agreements and just sort of uh social uh contracts of how things are supposed to go. And he basically just uh he basically just blew it all up and said, uh if if you want me to do anything I don't want to do, you have to arrest me. You have to lead the President of the United States out of here in handcuffs. And if you're not willing to do that, nothing short of that is going to compel me to do anything. So, uh it's it's he they've just been systematically pushing these boundaries. Like, can I just say on Fox News that I'm instructing this the Supreme Court to do this? And then they do it. Nobody ever would have thought to do that, but he did it. And then it and then it happened and then there was no repercussions. So, I think the game is for them under the guise of national security to cancel the midterms. I think that they'll try to make up some I think that they're trying to incite enough um they're trying to incite enough violence that they could say, we can't have midterms because we're going to post uh federal officers outside of these uh voting stations to ensure voter uh to ensure um election security and election integrity. And we're worried that these radical leftist rioters are going to attack them or try to do something at the election booth, so we're just not going to have midterms. Like I think that's what they're going for. I think that they are going to try to uh I don't think they're going to try to let the election happen and then contest the results because that didn't work last time. I I think that they're just going to skip straight to uh trying to cancel the midterm elections completely. Uh or, you know, maybe they'll maybe they'll like let it happen, but then try to have some kind of security risk that pops up in the middle of it so that like the results aren't counted properly because voting stations have to be closed because of security threats and like I mean, they're basically playing out like the the third or fourth season of House of Cards in real time. Yeah. Like it's uh I think that's the game. I think that they're I think that they know the midterms are likely to be a brutal defeat for most Republicans. And they're trying to uh I think they're trying to lay the groundwork for saying that it's too dangerous to hold midterm elections. Speaker 1: And they're already laying the groundwork for going beyond Minnesota. Like recently in the last few days, my feed has been overrun by the right-wing people and the libertarians. Basically, right-wing people who don't want to use the term right-wing, saying things like, well, you know, the Somali Speaker 2: Common common sense centrists. Speaker 1: Yeah, common sense centrists. Speaker 2: Oh, you fucking Speaker 1: Who just happened to align with every speaking point on Fox News ever. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Are beginning to say things like, well, you know, there was this uh Somali fraud in Minnesota. But wait till we get to California. Oh my God, it's so much worse there. There's a non-zero chance that the next place that the 82nd Airborne is going to be deployed to to stall martial law after uh a DHS triggered riot goes bad is Los Angeles or San Francisco or San Diego. California's probably next if I had to guess. Speaker 2: I mean, Gavin Newsom is um Gavin Newsom seems really confident that he can handle that. Somehow because he's uh out of out of everybody uh out of out of everybody in the American political system, uh Gavin Newsom has really been the only one saying what we're all thinking. Like just like when he's when he's acting like a petulant child, call him a petulant child. When he's lying, say he's lying. Right? Uh very few other Democrats have been willing to be as uh forthright with what's happening and and who Donald Trump is and why he's so dangerous as Gavin Newsom. And I don't think he would do that if he thought it was going to result in in something terrible happening to his state. So, whether or not he actually is prepared for it, he clearly thinks he's prepared for it. So, Speaker 1: In the showdown between the US Army and on one side and Ice and DHS on one side, and the California National Guard and let's just say every police department in California. That's not a contest. That that's there's zero chance that California wins that military deployment. And if I mean Donald Trump has already proven he's basically willing to burn the world to the ground to get what he wants. Like uh the because because he because he knows he'll be because he knows he'll be dead before he actually faces any consequences for it. Speaker 2: And he's and That's that's why he that's why he's trying to build stone arches and rename buildings and shit because at this point in his life, uh he's concerned with one thing and one thing only and that's his legacy. So, he he won't be around to see the decades of fallout from this. Uh he'll be dead. And and uh and he knows that he'll be succeeded by people who will continue the proud Trump tradition of blaming everyone but Donald Trump and making sure that the history books are as friendly to him as possible. Speaker 1: What happens after Donald Trump? Let's say he drops dead from a clot uh next month. What happens? Because I obviously the Project 2025 guys, the Heritage Foundation, JD Vance, Stephen Miller, Peter Thiel, they they realize this guy's on borrowed time. Uh so they they have to have a plan. And JD Vance, say say it's him, is incredibly unpopular on both sides. But it doesn't matter if he's unpopular if you've canceled the midterms and then you cancel the elections because you've got the actual civil war, a shooting match between like I said, the 82nd Airborne and the California National Guard. Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, the the idea that it would get that far and uh the military establishment wouldn't uh have the power or willingness to put the brakes on it and say, hey, these are legal orders. Those are Americans over there. We don't have the legal grounds for this. We don't have the constitutional grounds for this. Uh we will not carry out this order. That's what should happen. I don't know if that's what's going to happen. That's why they've sent Pete Hegseth to clean out the Pentagon of every single upper of every single upper echelon military personnel that might stand up to anything Trump wants them to do. Right? That's you know, under the guise of DEI and uh de-wokeization and all the and all these uh taglines, they've Perfect form kettlebell swings. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. That's that's like that's what they sent Pete Hegseth to do. He they sent Pete Hegseth in there to uh to clear out everyone with a conscience, everyone with real qualifications, everyone with real tenure, who everyone everyone who was respectable enough that if Donald Trump said one thing and this general said another thing, the army would listen to the general. They don't want anyone like that around in the Pentagon. So, that that's what Hegseth's real job is. Uh on the surface, they're saying, oh, they were around for the first administration. Speaker 1: As you mentioned, there was somebody who talked about of nuking a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's I mean, and and who knows what else he rambled on. Like who who else knows what orders he actually gave that people just forgot on the way to the Pentagon and never told him about. Like all the all the people like we're not even joking anymore. When we say, tell him we got Greenland. Just tell him we got it. Get take a take a picture in the snow in Colorado somewhere with an American flag and say it's Greenland and just tell Trump we got it. He won't know the difference. Like there there they're talking about him and the ghost. Speaker 1: Then he'll move on to Canada. Then he'll move on to getting Canada, which which honestly, we can touch on, but we shouldn't because I'm going to get you back on another episode, hopefully with some of the other uh compatriots here on Fighting Matters to talk about this idea of the United States annexing Canada or parts of Canada and the various Alberta separation movements. I think we have to have that as a separate conversation. And so we'll do that in the in the weeks to come. But yeah, if if you tell him they got Greenland, there's a non-zero chance the motherfucker goes, oh, cool. We got Venezuela. We got Greenland. What's next? Panama? Flip a coin, Canada. Heads it's Canada. Tails it's Panama. Either way, um we're going to you know, send Delta Force to kidnap Mark Carney because he made fun of us at Davos. Speaker 2: Good Lord. I I like the the amount of uh of uh conservative backlash against Mark Carney right now for what happened in Davos. For like his his speech basically announcing the end of American Empire. Speaker 1: For the people who've not heard it, could you summarize Davos for for the people who watched it, know what happened, they're probably going to enjoy it. And the people who didn't hear it, I I honestly I would enjoy have a certain amount of perverse enjoyment of you who thinks that Mark Carney is pretty far to the right, having to talk about what Mark Carney did at Davos because I think it was actually necessary and on the whole good. Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it's like I I I think the I think the contrast between him and Trump, like the the speeches they gave is is really the most telling part because people think people on the right, both here in Canada and in the United States, think that Mark Carney was like selling out the United States and pandering to China. And they think that Donald Trump was standing up to the globalist criminals and and uh and that he was uh making some kind of stand against these radical leftists that are trying to that are trying to hand the world over to China and Russia. And basically, all Mark Carney had to do was point out what everyone already knows. That the world as it exists right now isn't the world of the 1960s, where whoever had the most nukes and the and the most willingness to use them was the person who called all the shots for international diplomacy. What matters now is soft power, right? Your ability to your ability to affect the affairs of other nations because they want to work with you and they understand, they see value in being associated with you. And also, the fact that we are in a we are so globally integrated now that if you alienate your own allies, you're not just alienating your own allies militarily. You're alienating your allies economically, and you are making the entire world a less safe place, the more dangerous you make it to be an American. And it's and like it's it's really hard to understate, like you say, how far to the right Mark Carney is. Uh he like for this is one of the most frustrating things being if you're an American or a Canadian that understands anything about leftist politics or leftist ideology, you know that there are no leftist there are no leftist parties that have ever been in power at the federal level in the United States or Canada. And that's a fact. Like the liberal the Liberal Party of Canada is center right. And the conservatives in Canada are are on the right. The Democrats in the states are in center right at best. They'd be the conservative party in any other country on earth. And the Republicans have just lost their minds. They're they're sliding so far to the right so fast that uh you know, not even that just acknowledging that we shouldn't be that we shouldn't have federal officers murdering people in the street as cold blood is cold blood is like a a communist ideology now. It's like for the listeners, just just to just to give you a really clear indication of what a leftist is. If you think somebody's a leftist, ask yourself this question. Does this person think that there are any circumstances under which it's acceptable for someone to be a billionaire? If this person believes there are any circumstances under which it's acceptable for one human being to have a billion dollars, they're not a leftist. And considering how many billionaires support the Liberal Party of Canada, and how many billionaires support the Democratic Party in the United States, that should give you a very clear indication of where they sit politically. But it's it's just it's so frustrating watching conservatives here in Canada say, oh, we're we're selling out the United States. Like this is this is what you this is what you do when you get pressured from your ally and main training partner. It's like, oh, okay. I that's a weird way to describe pressure, you know, uh threatening to annex us, um imposing tariffs on his own people that cripple entire industries on both sides of the border because of a fake fentanyl crisis. Like it's it's it's it's so frustrating. Speaker 1: Well, let me let me know the at last uh at last news cycle, there was a 100% tariff coming against Canada because of Canada's trade deal with China. Okay, cool. Uh the presidential right to impose tariffs is for emergencies. In emergencies. Okay, cool. So I'd like to know if this is from the fentanyl emergency, which is like what, 40 pounds of fentanyl a year? Or if this is because of the immigrant uh emergency. You know, the I don't know, the few hundred we're being invaded. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Immigrants coming from, you know, please, let us know which emergency this is. But the reality is and it's I mean, this is the same government that Speaker 2: No. Speaker 1: He's a president. He can just do whatever the fuck he wants. Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Well, I mean, that's I mean, that's a great that's a great uh example of what I was talking about before, where they just been systematically pushing boundaries to see what they can get away with and the answers are terrifying because Congress is the only entity of the American government that is given the power by the Constitution to impose tariffs. And through through sort of sort of uh jurisprudence over over the decades, the president Congress has loaned the powers of imposing tariffs to the president under certain circumstances. Immediate threats to the sovereignty and security of the United States. And uh every single time Donald Trump even threatens to place a tariff on uh a sovereign nation as a punitive measure for something he didn't like. I mean, he threatened Brazil with tariffs because they were uh because of Bolsonaro's court case. Because they were because Brazil, a sovereign nation, their judicial system was holding someone accountable who had been accused and who had been accused of very serious crimes. Donald Trump says, I don't like that you're doing that. I think Bolsonaro's innocent. I don't think that you're treating him fairly. I'm going to put tariffs on your country. There is no legal ground for that whatsoever. And that should have been the kind of thing where Congress would step in and reassert that the Constitution gives us, not you, the power to impose tariffs and you are abusing that power. So we are going to reassert our exclusive constitutional power to impose tariffs and from now on any tariff has to go through Congress. That would have been the opportunity for them to do that, but they didn't. And they probably won't. I mean, this is a president who uh you know, basically removed the president of a of a of a sovereign nation without even uh without uh Congress even knowing. I mean, Congress found out the same way we all did on the news the next day. And uh and uh there and there and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it's I mean, it's it's it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily ever after. Well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The Soviet Union, reportedly, had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And that was in the and that was in the 1960s. Right? That was before Britain became a nuclear power and France became a nuclear power. And I want to say India is a nuclear power. Um, like there's like that was uh that was uh that was in the 60s that we already had enough nuclear weapons. And there's all kinds of reasons why they claim to need that many. Basically, it's like our our countermeasure strategy is to fire everything we have because we we need to fire enough nukes, you know, if Russia fires nukes, then we need to fire enough nukes that even if Russia uh shoots down 80% of them, Russia's still wiped off the face of the earth. Right? That that's why they that's why they claim they need that many. But yeah, you're right. It only takes one. And and that's but that this is one of those things that makes Trump so dangerous. Uh and the Republicans will pass this off as a good thing. They they like the idea, like it's it's it's Dwight Eisenhower's uh brinkmanship policy on steroids. Right? It's it's uh it's it's make sure you're always the craziest guy in the fight, right? Make make sure that everyone who you come up against knows that you're willing to go further than they are. That that's essentially what they sort of pitch as the uh they pitch as the uh as like a a a benefit of Trump, not a flaw. Right? But that that impulsiveness, that sense uh that that complete lack of foresight or self-awareness or willingness to uh hear anything he doesn't want to hear from anybody he doesn't like. Like I say, he he's the guy who will never swerve in a game of chicken and he'll make every situation, regardless of the stakes, a game of chicken. So, if if you've got if you've got something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happening, and you've got a you've got a Soviet sub headed towards that blockade of of US ships. And they're and their play is to say, you know, if you if you come any closer, then uh then we're then we're going to board you for inspection, knowing it knowing for a fact that, you know, the Soviet sub is never going to let that happen because even if they even if they did, they'd be they'd be executed for allowing it. Right? You know that they're not going to allow you to board the vessel. You know that their orders are to return fire with nuclear weapons if they're fired upon. If you have that sub going towards that blockade, and you've got Trump in charge of the US Navy instead of JFK, what happens? The world ends in the 1960s. Yeah. I really do think so because at least at least if the world does end, the white Christian nationalists who've been masturbating about the idea of revelations coming true, will finally have their their day. They'll finally have their day. They'll finally have what they want. I mean, it's it's and I'm skittering off topic. I apologize, but it's it's important to recognize what a large percentage of Trump's base is actually hoping for World War III. They're hoping for World War III, ideally starting in the Middle East as the Book of Revelations says it will, but they'll take it. They'll take uh any kind of World War III because then Jesus comes back and the righteous get promoted and the the the evil get thrown into a pit of burning fire for what is it? 100,000 years or something like that. And uh yeah, then then we'll all be happily well, then all the elect will be happy ever after. So, they'll finally have what they've been hoping for. Yeah. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it is uh it is uh it is uh it's the elephant in the room. It is it like the fact that uh the fact that everyone knows that uh that that Trump is uh Trump's not going to be around much longer, but it's not just about Trump. It hasn't been for a long time because now the rest of the world knows that not only do they have to deal with Trump, they have to deal with the American electorate. They can't trust the rest of the world can't trust the American electorate anymore because why would you like even if uh a Democrat uh wins the next election, you know, a center right sort of small C conservative Joe Biden figure who's refreshingly boring, right? Like Joe Biden was, right? Even even if uh even if a Democrat wins next, why would anyone on earth want to make a deal with that president? Knowing that in the next election, the American electorate could bring another Trump in there, somebody just as bad or even worse than Donald Trump, who's going to tear it all up. So, like I I don't think there's anything Trump wouldn't do. And I don't I don't think there's anything he wouldn't do because I don't think there's anything that uh I don't think that he's smart enough to realize the actual potential ramifications of his actions. And even if he does, he's not a good person. He's not going to actually care about those things. It's a perfect storm right now. And what I think is going to be really interesting is in the next few years, especially if they manage to uh mess with the midterms because no president has ever been able to actually stop an election from happening in the United States just because they didn't want it to happen. No president has ever really even tried to do that, let alone succeeded. So, I think that will be a major tipping point for the international community to start treating the United States the way they treat other global threats to other threats to global security, right? Because if it's Israel, if it's Russia, if it's China, I mean, you can argue that you can argue that the international community isn't taking nearly as much action as they should be on those countries, but they take action on them. They they they publicly and unequivocally denounce them. They cut diplomatic ties with them. They close their embassies. They sanction them economically. They uh they they uh don't allow people from those countries to travel. They cancel their visas so they can't go to certain countries. That's what I think is going to start happening to the United States because it's really not happening now. Everybody's still kind of tiptoeing around the United States. And I think all that needs to happen is for them to be insulated against the explosion that will occur from Donald Trump as soon as it actually happens. As soon as the rest of the world starts saying, you know what? You are just as much of a you are just as much of a threat to our economic and military security as Russia. So we're going to start treating you like Russia. We're going to start sanctioning the United States. We're going to close our embassies in the United States. We're going to uh we're going to uh decouple the US bonds. Speaker 1: Sell US bonds. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to decouple the US dollar from from the uh global from global securities. And uh and like once that starts happening, that's when shit's really going to jump off. But I think everybody on earth is just kind of been uh trying trying just not to trying to like tiptoe around it and kind of maintain their moral positions by not throwing themselves in completely with what Trump is doing. And they'll criticize like things he says specifically and be like, well, that wasn't a very presidential thing to say that, oh, you know, like I mean, what he said recently about the the soldiers in Afghanistan? He said that, oh, we've we've never needed NATO. We've never needed NATO. They've never done anything for us. Uh the only country that's ever uh invoked chapter uh article five or seven. Speaker 1: That's that's an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, all the other NATO members should come with us to Afghanistan. Speaker 2: Yeah. And uh and uh you know, and and so Donald Trump saying that, like that really pissed off a lot of people in Britain and Canada to the point where they were actually willing to say something specifically about that statement that, hey, you shouldn't be saying things like that because we had a lot of people who died in Afghanistan fighting far from the front lines as you called it. And by the way, the fact that he doesn't even know that America that Canadians and British uh soldiers died in Afghanistan, the fact that he has demonstrated that little of understanding about the Afghanistan operation should put to bed any doubt about that any doubt that anyone had that the withdrawal would have gone better with Trump in in charge. Uh because he doesn't even seem to know what happened in Afghanistan. Speaker 1: He's just a 4D chess playing genius. Speaker 2: And of course, and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So, like I I think that's really the next big question is I think everyone in the international community recognizes the United States as the biggest threat to global security right now. But they're not treating the United States like they treat other countries that are threats to global security. They're not willing to sanction the United States or or uh you know, file you know, you know, the international criminal court isn't putting arrest warrants out for Stephen Miller for crimes against humanity, right? That hasn't started happening yet. But I think at a certain point it could have happened if the Greenland thing had gone somewhat differently. If if Trump in a late night all fueled uh truth social haze had ordered in a you know, an occupation of the capital of Greenland by US uh paratroopers dropping out of the sky after sonic booming uh the uh the capital and uh and uh taking it over militarily. That could have like, oh dude, the US could just kick the ass of any other country. Motherfucker. Do you understand that you don't need that many nuclear weapons to basically end the world? Yeah, so you've the US has got, I don't know. I'm going to make up a number. 10 times as many nukes. 100 times as many nukes as France and the UK. Cool. The UK number of nukes and the UK France number of nukes is more than sufficient to to completely and utterly change life on this planet and maybe even wipe out human civilization if the modeling for the things like nuclear winter proved to be true, which is untested so far, long may it remain. I mean, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: to the love of unintended consequences is is would go berserk there. Okay. Troops land in troops land in Nuke. Great. The UK sales a destroyer out. The the uh US Navy blockades Greenland. A destroyer the British destroyer refuses to back down. The US aircraft carrier sinks the British destroyer. And now we're off to the races. From from one late night phone call over uh basically this penis size augmenting device known as taking over Greenland to to the Third World War. It's no different from Archduke Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo by one tiny little bullet. Yeah. That that's all it needed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: For for context, in 1960, I want to say it was it was 1960, something. I think it was 1960. In 1960, the United States already had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over. Every country on earth. The