Jan 23 2024
Foundations & Frontiers: Hard Truth Behind Voting Decisions | Cloning Ethics, Political Socialization & 2024 Election Update
Welcome to "The Adams Archive," where we delve into the intricate weave of societal influences and global challenges. In our thought-provoking episode "Foundations and Frontiers," we explore the interplay between the development of political beliefs, the ethical quandaries of cloning, and the complexities of environmental activism.
Episode Summary: This episode offers a deep dive into the foundational elements that shape our political ideologies and how these perspectives intersect with contemporary issues like the ethics of cloning and the paradoxes in environmental advocacy. We take you on a journey through these interconnected realms, providing a nuanced understanding of these critical topics.
Segment on Political Socialization: We begin by unraveling the layers of political socialization. Discover how familial interactions, educational systems, and media landscapes contribute to the molding of our political identities from a young age.
Segment on Cloning Ethics: Venturing into the realm of biotechnology, we examine the ethical implications and societal impacts of cloning. This segment explores the moral dilemmas, regulatory challenges, and public perceptions surrounding this controversial scientific frontier.
Segment on Environmental Paradoxes: In our discussion on environmental issues, we confront the ironies and complexities of modern environmental movements. We analyze the actions and rhetoric of global forums and key figures, assessing how their approaches align or conflict with various political ideologies.
Call to Action: Dive deeper into these vital discussions by subscribing to "The Adams Archive" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and other platforms. Join our social media community for ongoing conversations and updates.
All the Links: Access all our content easily at https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams, your gateway to our episodes, social media, and additional resources.
----more----
Full Transcription:
Adams Archive.
Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we're going to go through some pretty wild current event topics, including the fact that the World Economic Forum in their meeting in Davos has decided that it is now bad for the environment for you to drink.
Coffee. Could you imagine that? Flying hundreds of miles across the ocean in your private jet, only to talk about how it is now bad for the environment for you to drink coffee. So we'll touch on that. After that, we'll get into a conversation surrounding how scientists in China have now successfully cloned a monkey for the first time that has survived in good health.
We'll talk about what that means, including the fact that there was 112 failed attempts, which is only, you know, pretty terrifying to think about. What the other monkeys went through to actually get there. Now, a lot of people are talking about how this is actually going to have something to do with human cloning, obviously, because that's the end result of all of this.
And there's some arguments that that's already happening. So we will talk about that. Then we will dive into a conversation about the current situations between Rhonda Santus dropping out of the presidential election, Nikki Haley getting peppered and just chirped. Constantly at all of the events that she's at, including the fact that, uh, there was a recent article that talked about how she had an affidavit come out from a recent accuser of her being an adulterer, uh, to her then active duty husband.
Uh, we will also touch on another man who starts discussing with her about how she's not going to be Trump and that she should be spending all of her hundreds of millions of dollars simply. Giving it to homeless veterans, which I guess I agree with. Uh, so we'll talk about Nikki Haley. We'll even talk about the fact that Nikki Haley said that she wasn't allowed in a beauty pageant because she was Indian because they didn't know where to place her, which is pretty comical.
All right. So that will be our current events. Then we will dive into the deep dive conversation this week, which is going to be the dark psychology behind voting. Now, that will include a conversation surrounding, uh, political socialization, which is basically the idea of how you got to vote the way that you vote.
Now, we all tend to think that we think for ourselves, but a lot of people don't understand the fact that there's a lot of circumstances that actually go into why you vote the way that you do. So, we'll talk about all that. And there's some pretty surprising things in that that I found when doing my research.
Anything from the music you listen to, to the social media apps that you use consistently, all the way down to the income class and the city that you grew up in. There's, there's so many little different things in here. And then we'll talk about some different dark arts techniques that politicians use in order to try to gain your So all of that and more stick around the longer you stick around, the deeper we get.
So go ahead and subscribe, leave a five star review, whether you're on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, you can join us on YouTube, by the way. Uh, if you go onto YouTube, type in the Adams archive, you can see all the articles, all the videos that we're discussing here, and I will see you there, but let's.
Jump into it.
The Adams archive.
All right, let's jump into it. The very first topic that we're going to be discussing today is going to be that the world economic forum. If you don't know the world economic forum is a meeting of a bunch of. Elites or multibillionaires that think that they can control the general population. They meet once a year in Davos in Switzerland and their fearless leader is the infamous Claus Schwab.
And so they got together this year and decided that the hot topic that they were going to discuss is the fact that it is now bad for our environment for you to drink. Coffee, like I said earlier, they fly hundreds of thousands, thousands of miles to get there in their private jets, just to tell you that you shouldn't be drinking coffee all the while they're the ones who are, I don't know, profiting from your extra, uh, ability to actually do things in the morning as a result.
So we have a video here, um, this comes from, uh, let's see, the title of this article is coffee is bad for the environment claims world economic. Members, and it says the consumption of coffee is causing CO2 to populate the earth to pollute the environment and unelected bureaucrats Attending the World Economic Forum claimed speaking last Wednesday at the globalist Confab in Davos, Switzerland Swiss banker Hubert Keller said coffee drinkers should be mindful They're contributing tons of co2 pollution into the atmosphere Hmm.
Basically, the coffee that we all drink emits between 15 and 20 tons of CO2 per ton of coffee, Cowher said. So, we should all know that. This is, every time we drink coffee, we are basically putting CO2 into the environment. Could you imagine? And one of the reasons is because most of the coffee plantations and most of the coffee is produced through monoculture, and monoculture is also affected by climate change.
Now at this meeting, they are the very biggest topic this year. So you can actually go to the world economic forums website and you can look at, they do a analysis of what are the biggest threats to the world each and every year, and lo and behold, this year's was. Climate change. Hmm. Now, that's obviously the next big money grab after the end of COVID 19.
Now, that's to be determined, I guess, when you have the variant X that's coming up and all that stuff. Um, but climate change is obviously the biggest money grab. And so when we look at conversations surrounding them trying to, I don't know, condemn you for drinking coffee. Just is unbelievable to me. Um, so this is, uh, this is the video.
It comes from that Swiss banker and his name is who cares? Here we go. For the session and you raised the coffee example. I'd love just to give you the chance to
Basically, the coffee that we all drink, um, emits between 15 and 20 ton of CO2 per ton of coffee. So, we should all know that. This is every time we drink coffee, we are basically putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Um, the other, and one of the reasons is because most of the coffee plantation, or most of the coffee is produced through monoculture.
And, um, and, and monoculture is also affected by climate change. Um, the quality of these nature assets is, uh, deteriorating quite rapidly.
Now that's a conversation for another day is like, what is monoculture, uh, monoculture agriculture is, it is absolutely, uh, a completely ineffective way to, to do things and it actually poisons your food there. There's a whole bunch of our stuff that you can read up on monoculture, um, agriculture, but. Just the idea that all of these pompous assholes go meet up in some mountain somewhere to tell you that you shouldn't drink coffee is absolutely comical.
Alright, that brings us to our next article, which says that, uh, this comes from, uh, the Telegraph. And this was something that came across, I had actually like a, a, a notice on my phone about this. And I, I've talked about some of these things before, whether it be the, uh, chimeras that were coming out of China.
Whether it was the sheep that was cloned, whether it was like the baby pods that they were talking about, uh, you know, basically taking, uh, the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother and putting it in this like pod that they were going to grow a human out of. Um, and then more recently even creating children from stem cells, which is the most probably dystopian of all of this, but this is just along those lines.
And so. In China, they cloned a monkey for the first time that survived in good health after 112 failed attempts. Now it says that Chinese scientists used the same method that made Dolly the sheep in 1996, uh, but it has lived longer than any other cloned primate. Now they, they, I think that they gave this thing a name, this one, not Dolly.
I think it's called Retro. Yeah, that's the monkey's name. The cloned monkey's name is Retro. A monkey has been successfully cloned by Chinese scientists and in the world's first has so far lived for two years. Researchers have cloned primates before using the same method that created Dowie the sheep in 1996, but none have.
Ever lived for long, either dying before birth or shortly afterwards. Now that was a conversation that I brought up last time, when we're talking about the human baby pods and you know, the, the human cloning is like, how many times are you going to go through this, whether it's the stem cell research, whatever it is.
How many research subjects, the chimeras fill in the blank. How many research subjects do you have to go through until you successfully create a clone? Right. And they say 112. I'm sure they would rather not have, have people. You know, beating down their door to shut them down. So I'm, I'm sure that number is multiples higher than what they're reporting there.
Just like I'm sure it would be if they started to clone humans, if they started these little weird baby pods, if they made these stem cell babies, chimeras, whatever it is, there's going to be a massive amount of casualties and gross scientific experimentation that goes into it. So to me. Anything and everything that revolves creating life that doesn't have to do with, you know, any scientist that's sitting there with a, you know, two beakers pouring them together or whatever the hell type of stuff they're doing here, um, is just sick.
It's, it's, it's sickening to me because the, the, the torture that they put these, you know, even the two days of the trying to clone, uh, these monkeys or the, the chimeras or whatever it is, is just the, the amount of agony and the, the torture that they must go through, uh, as a result of getting this one cloned monkey.
And, and, and for what reason, like what, what is the goal of this? Why, why, what is the problem that we have to start cloning things? What is wrong with reproduction current state? Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with that. You want to get deeper and deeper into that is, is you'll understand the idea that they don't want you and then this was something that I talked about with the baby pods.
What's the most concerning to that to me is that that's no longer your property, you, you, you know, you remove the mother and the father from, from the reproductive process. Then you remove the, the hormones that are released when that baby is born. And as a result, you, you remove the protective shelter, the, the, the hormones, the, the, uh, um, You know, the motherly instincts that come as a result of birthing a child, that come as a result of having a child that is half your DNA and half the DNA of your spouse.
Now you, I don't know, go to a government center and pay five grand or whatever, and now they get to create a baby on your behalf. Only by the way, it's not your baby. It's their property. They created it. You did not create it. And, and so that is one of the most Dystopian ideas let alone the idea that they can start to interject whatever types of CRISPR technology that they want to to make the the child the the Monkey, whatever it is more agreeable more likely to be and this will actually even lead us into our next conversation To be more agreeable to be less aggressive to have different in more More Uh, personality traits that are going to lead them to vote a certain way, that are going to lead them to act a certain way, that are going to lead them to be less or more docile and less likely to revolt, whatever it is, when you, when you take reproduction, and you give that to the government, right, you have China now cloning monkeys, for what end?
I don't think they just want to clone monkeys. That's obviously not the goal. The goal is to clone humans. But why? Why? So let's, let's finish this article. It says, however, a modified technique designed to create a stronger placenta has seen a rhesus monkey be cloned, be born and live healthily for more than two years, making it the longest lived primate clone yet.
The animal was labeled retro. Only one birth was successful from a total of 113 attempts. So, they tortured a hundred and twelve monkeys to create one. The process, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves extracting the genetic information from a standard cell and implanting it into an egg from another monkey that has had its own genetic material removed.
Now they have this cute little diagram of how they cloned this monkey, um, but who cares? To me, that's the whole conversation, right? I think that, you know, even brings up an interesting conversation about surrogacy and, uh, you know, IVF and like, there's, there's definitely more to be talked about there, but I do think to me, this is highly concerning because you see exactly where this is going.
We know what the end goal is, but why is that the end goal? Because we can, and I think that's probably the fair answer to all of these scientists, right? It's like the people who are commissioning these scientists to do these types of experiments. They have the goal in mind, right? They, they have an idea of what, what they want to do this for.
And it's going to be profitable, right? It's going to be a reason that they can make money off of it. Right? And that, that was the baby pods, right? Like imagine Epstein Island having a whole lower layer, uh, underneath his island of baby pods. Like just, just all of the horrific things. And if you haven't heard of like the.
Um, offshore, like, child trafficking stuff is just horrific, and, and they don't have social security numbers, they don't have moms, they don't have dads, nobody's looking after them, and, and, and, just, there's no reason to open up this box, there's nothing good behind it, absolutely nothing, what, what possibly could come from this that would be good, and then you get into the, the, um, Philosophical conversations.
Does, does this monkey have, or human down the road, does it have a soul? Is it, is it, uh, you know, is it from a religious perspective? Is it, is it a child of God? Is it, is it something that is going to, uh, have similar traits even? Is it going to be sociable? Like, there, there's so much that will go into this.
And, and just Why? Why do you want to do this? Right? But scientists want to do it because A, they're getting paid lots of money to do it, but also B, because they just want to see if they can do it, right? Scientists have a certain type of personality where they, they just want to see if they can make something happen, right?
You have a hypothesis, you put it to the test, and all of a sudden you're creating an army of Lifeless, soulless, monkey human hybrids. To me, there's just, there's nothing good behind that wall. And this is just another step towards that. Another step towards whatever it is the reason, right? There's so many different ways that you could go with that, that is completely dystopian.
And I can't think of a single good scenario that would come from Human cloning. I just can't. I, I, there's, there's zero, zero scenarios where that's a good thing for humanity. Especially in a world where they're telling us that we're overpopulating, when we're obviously not. The population's on a decline.
If, if we're overpopulating on our own and reproducing way too much, according to them, why are you trying to clone humans? What's, what's the point of that anyways. So let's segue into our next conversation. This one is more recent and about politics and what that drives us from the last conversation into, and what I mentioned earlier is they can change with CRISPR technology, how.
You might vote by changing certain personality traits. They make you a little bit less aggressive. They make you a little bit more agreeable. They make you a little bit more creative. And a little bit less, I don't know, uh, productive, whatever it is. There's so many little traits within your genes that are encoded inside of your body.
And one thing that I was wondering is what is nature and what is nurture, right? Why do we vote the way that we vote? And do we Um, and I say we just like Americans do, are we born likely to vote one way or the other? The answer is yes. Um, and we'll look at that in just a minute as to why, but before we do that, let's get a little bit of election updates because Ron DeSantis has officially dropped out of the presidential race and decided to endorse.
Donald Trump, and this comes from W. M. U. R. nine A. B. C. And it says, uh, it is clear to me that majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance. You think I, uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure he just obliterated every single person, uh, within the primary, um, in the caucus in Iowa. And so, you know, he saw the vague drop out almost almost immediately.
We saw it. Ron DeSantis drop out almost immediately. And I think the Ron DeSantis hype train was like pretty good at the beginning. I would, it would be really interesting to look at the political marketing failure that was Ron DeSantis campaign, because he had so much political steam. He had, he had so many people behind him that were so pro Ron DeSantis that loved his ideas coming out of COVID.
He was like the COVID king. You know, all the while, while Donald Trump being, you know, was getting flack, was, was being talked down upon for the way that he, you know, gave a medal to, to Fauci, the way that he, you know, boasted about lockdowns and certain things like that is, is, and so simultaneously, Ron DeSantis should have come out of this, like with a ton of steam, with a ton of, uh, you know, traction going into the election, and, and now what we see is that it, as soon as Ron DeSantis opened his mouth on a debate uh, stage, he just got obliterated.
Even when we saw Gavin Newsom against Ron DeSantis and I'm not against Ron DeSantis. I think that again, his policies, that his track record during COVID was absolutely phenomenal. He was one of the only people speaking out one of the only people trying not to close down businesses. There's a lot of reasons that a lot of people should have been very pro DeSantis.
I think he shook the hornet's nest with Donald Trump. Right? And I think, you know, the desanctimonious, uh, tagline stuck a little bit. Um, but, to me, it's like, he should have, had he came out on the debate stage the way that Vivek did, had he come out with the track record that he did and a great marketing campaign, there's no reason that he shouldn't be the only one left.
But out of all four people that were on the stage and on the ballot for the caucus, the only one that's left now besides the obvious of Donald Trump is Nikki Haley, which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. She is. 100 percent the Republican Hillary Clinton. She, everything that comes out of her mouth is just a talking point from a war lobby.
And I haven't heard a single thing from her. I think she had like one good. Exchange on the debate stage. But all I see from Nikki Haley is a a reoccurring talking point that is everything and anything that the lobbyists want. And you saw the one the one area that Donald Trump I think they said that he lost by one vote and I think that it was even changed that the fact that Um, he he actually ended up winning that area I'm not sure but there was out of a 90 or 100 99 of them were for Donald Trump and one of them was for Nikki Haley and by one vote So what you saw is the democrats in the areas that they were in where they could they actually went and voted in the GOP caucus and voted for Nikki Haley, so if The Democrats want Nikki Haley, then why would the Republicans, right?
And if the war lobby wants Nikki Haley, then why would the Republicans? And if every big money machine from, you know, I I'm, I'm just surprised she doesn't have a Pfizer tattoo on her arm, uh, that she's showing off to everybody, but you already see her pandering to the left. So to me, it's, it's a little sad that the only two that we have left, because I do think that both Ron DeSantis and as much shit that I've talked about Vivek and, and all of the questions that I have about his history, whether it be about the Soros Foundation funding his, uh, his, his time at Yale, whether it be about his two years that he was on the world economic forums, young global leaders list only to, uh, tell them that, Hey, I didn't want that.
Take that down. The only one that was inconvenient from him and he wasn't using it to, uh, get, it. seed round funding for his pharmaceutical startups. Um, so as much as, as much as I've talked bad about Vivek, Vivek or DeSantis are just absolutely a million times better up potential candidates than Nikki Haley.
So what that tells me, especially if you understand that her husband. Is, isn't some tech mogul, right? He doesn't have billions of dollars. I'm not sure what her previous employment was, but I just doubt she has hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on one. I think it's New Hampshire, whatever.
We're going to see a video where some guy goes and calls her out and says, Hey, you're going to spend a hundred million dollars campaigning against Donald Trump. And we already know you're going to lose. Why are you doing that? Why wouldn't you just go spend that money to help homeless veterans? Well, the answer is that the political lobby is the one that's propping her up.
That's where she's getting all of her money. The only reason that Nikki Haley is even relevant, the only reason she's standing on any of the stages she's standing on, is because she's literally has the, the war machine's hand and the pharmaceutical industry's hand up her ass telling her exactly what to say in every one of these exchanges.
And so it's, it's, It'll be interesting to see how long she sticks around. How long will they prop her up? Because I, there's absolutely zero chance. Like I bet you, if you go look at the, uh, betting books and you look at the odds of Nikki Haley winning the 2024 election is just. Zero, you know, and if, and if there was any sort of reason, and I think this is something that Vivek said at one time or another that I talked about when he dropped out is the fact that, oh, well, they would never let Donald Trump actually, you know, get on the ballot.
Something's going to happen. And, and. I'm not saying something's not going to happen, this always could be that fact, and especially when you understand that Donald Trump is like one of the most, uh, contentious and hated people in the world to the most powerful people in the world, it's an absolute possibility that something not, not good happens, you know, he's been indicted for like the 115th time, um, but the idea that Nikki Haley would be the one left in the running, and maybe that's their hope, I don't know, why would you spend a billion dollars to If there's a 1 percent chance, I don't know, maybe if you have hundreds of trillions of dollars like Raytheon, and uh, you know, Pfizer does, so, I don't know, it's very interesting.
So there was a few conversations that came up about Nikki Haley. One of the ones that came up as a result was Nikki Haley made a comment. about her history growing up in the deep south, being brown. Now, I don't know about you, and maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but to me, Nikki Haley does not look brown.
She looks like a white Suburban mother. That's what she looks like. Now, she did grow up in a Indian family. I saw a picture of her family the other day, and her dad was in some traditional type Indian garb. And, um, you know, but she, you know, if white privilege was a real thing, Nikki Haley would have it.
Not saying that it's a real thing. But. Here, here it is. Here comes Nikki Haley saying that she was, she was teased every day for being brown while in the deep south and that she has black friends. Here we go.
We were the only Indian family in our small southern town. I was teased every day for being brown. So anyone that wants to question it can go back and look at what I've said on how hard it was to grow up in the deep south. As a brown girl, anybody can look at my record and see when Walter Scott was shot down by a dirty cop, how I made sure that the Walter Scott family didn't suffer because we put the first body camera bill in the country in place.
Anybody can look at the fact that when we had nine amazing souls die in Mother Emanuel Church, I did something that no Republican or Democrat ever wanted to touch, which was call for the Confederate flag to come down because it would take two thirds of the House and Senate and was an impossible feat.
I don't know what you're implying with that, but what I will tell you is, saying that I had black friends is a source of pride. Saying that I had white friends is a source of pride. If you want to know what it was like growing up, I was disqualified from a beauty pageant because I wasn't white or black.
Because they didn't know where to put me. So look, I know.
So let me get this straight. Nikki Haley was disqualified from a beauty pageant because they didn't know whether she was white or she was black. Now, I don't know If my math's off, just like my eyes are off, apparently, because I don't see a brown woman in the deep south, I see a white privilege card holding, uh, you know, suburban mom, but Nikki Haley was born in like 1972, I think.
And Nikki Haley would have been in a beauty pageant, let's say 16 years later, almost in 1990. Right, let's say she was 15, would have been 90, 72, 87, right? Like, was there segregated beauty pageants in 1987? Cuz I think I'm missing something here and and even if there was You think they're gonna have a white and a black category and then you're gonna be like, hey guys I would like to participate and then they would say, uh White black are you white?
Are you? Uh, you're disqualified, like, do you think how that that's really how that conversation went? Or do you think that Nikki Haley is a liar? Because I think Nikki Haley is just a liar. And we see that further shown by her actions, which we will see here in just a second, against her husband, which allegedly.
And I say allegedly because it's just a signed affidavit, just a signed affidavit, which, you know, means that if the person was lying, they would potentially go to jail, but just a signed affidavit stating that she cheated on her husband while he was, I believe, while he was active duty. If not mistaken, potentially even like deployed.
I don't know if that's correct, but I know he was active duty at the time. Um, so we'll go ahead and read that article. And that to me, like if, if you are cheating on your spouse, right? Like your spouse is you're like, if you have everybody in your whole world, and there's one person that you are going to give.
All of your trust to one person that you are going to be the most loyal to one person that you're going to Absolutely not do anything to hurt. It is your spouse, right? Like when you get into a Marriage you're doing it because well for a lot of reasons But you're doing it because you want to be with that person for the rest of your life Now if I'm your best friend and we've been best friends for 10 years 15 years and you cheat on your wife I know that if you're not loyal to her, you're not gonna be loyal to me If I'm your business partner and I find out that you cheated on your wife, I know that the first opportunity that you get to make a little bit of money that screws me and my business over, you're going to do it.
So I'm not going to be your business partner and I'm not going to be your best friend. I know that if you find yourself in this situation and you are also running for office, how can I trust you as a candidate? Right? So to me, that like, that goes back to the idea that if If somebody, Nikki Haley is absolutely bought and paid for, she's going to do the thing that is aligned with what is in her, her, not even her family's, not even her, her, her immediate family, but her best interest, Nikki Haley's best interest.
So let's go ahead and read this. This comes from the Postmillennial, and it says Nikki Haley allegedly cheated on her husband with lobbyist and communications consultant prior to South Carolina governorship. Yikes. Uh, court documents have revealed that Nikki Haley did in fact cheat on her husband before becoming governor, and that one of her lovers was a married South Carolina lobbyist.
She was Having an affair with a lobbyist. So not only are you taking their money, but you're also, you know, Haley repeatedly denied that she'd been unfaithful to her husband, Michael. When allegations first broke in 2010, they've been married for 28 years. And have two children together. According to the Daily Mail, the aforementioned lobbyist, Larry Marchant, Jr.
And Haley's communications consultant, Will Foulkes admitted in signed affidavits that they both, they had both on separate occasions had affairs with the then future government. So not one. But two people, both signed affidavits. In his affidavit, Marchant said that he and Haley had sexual intercourse during a conference in Salt Lake City in June of 20, or 2008.
I came forward publicly on this matter only after being contacted by the press and after hearing Rep Haley claim that she had been 100 percent faithful to her husband in response to the folks allegations, when I knew her statements were absolutely false.
Yikes. Um, so that to me says a lot, right? And that's not to say that somebody can't change and somebody can't, you know, go through a, a, a transformation and become loyal again. And, you know, I get it. Like, but that sounds pretty shady. stuff to me, right? And like I said, if you are going into that situation and you have your one person in life that is like, that's my guy, that's, that is my girl.
That is, that is going to be the, the mother of my children, the father of my children, uh, whatever that is, if you can't find it within yourself. To conduct yourself in a manner that would align yourself with that trust that would align yourself It's just how are you gonna run for office and and let alone just even talk about the optics of this That how easy is this for them to bring this up?
Now that's not to say that every single person that's been on one of these debate stages Doesn't have a ton of skeletons in their closet, which they do But this is one of them Right? And especially with like a lobbyist. It wasn't even like her personal trainer or something. I don't know. All right. Um, now I did have one last thing that I wanted to touch on and this is about Donald Trump.
Donald Trump sent out a statement on truth and it said a president of the United States must have full immunity. Without which it would be impossible for him or her to properly function. Now I found this to be an interesting statement. The reason that I think this is an interesting statement is I kind of wanted to talk this through with you guys and see if I agree.
And I don't think that I do. I don't think a president should have full immunity. I think that what, what is the, like, I believe that there are certain things that a president has to do. I think that the presidential role is inherently a criminal job. You have to. Murder people you have to you know engage with shady foreign entities You have to run the CIA and the FBI which just in and of itself is going to come with illegal illicit activities as they've shown a track record for for you know, however long since the you know, 47 when the FBI was or the CIA was created But to me, it's like how could I absolutely disagree with this?
I don't think a president should have immunity I think that yes, the job would be hard If you didn't have immunity, that's the job. You have to do it within the guidelines of legality, because if there's no, if a president can get into office and immediately become unhinged and have absolute full immunity for every action that they've ever taken, then, then, then what's, what.
What are we doing here? Like, you just get to murder people, you get with no repercussions, you have no barriers and guidelines to the way that you have to dictate your actions, you don't have to follow the Geneva Convention, like, what would make you think that the president should have full immunity? So, I'll continue his statement, give you the full context, but it says, Without much, it would be impossible for him or her to properly function.
Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term's end. I, I think in today's political landscape, that is true. That's what we're seeing here is that Donald Trump has absolutely been a political witch hunt. Uh, you know, how, how many indictments does he have now?
Like 30 or something. Um, how many states has he been indicted under? How many, how much of it is stuck? And really it's more about, to me, the precedence that this is going to set moving forward because then whoever gets out of office next time, same thing. Right. And so I understand the point. I understand the premise, but I just don't see how inaction that's an effective way to run a country.
Is there any country that operates that way? Maybe Russia. Maybe Putin has like absolute immunity in North Korea and China. But like, is that really what we're shooting for? Is North Korea, China, and China. Right. You know, Russia's type of, uh, you know, totalitarian regimes. I don't think so. Um, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party.
Even events that cross the line, quote unquote, must fall under total immunity, or it would be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad. There must be certainty. Example, you can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime, Trump said, prevention because you want to guard against the occasional rogue cop or bad apple.
You can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention. Uh, sometimes you just have to live with the great, but slightly imperfect. All presidents must have complete and total presidential immunity or the authority and decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped and gone forever.
Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court.
And this says, if anything, presidents and politicians should be held to a higher legal standard, not a lower legal standard. And I think that his, his example of police, uh, just kind of defeats his entire argument there. I just don't see how that holds true because if you give police absolute immunity.
Then they're just gonna, like, I think that cops, people who sign up to be police are inherently good people. I do. I wholeheartedly believe that. I believe they generally have good intentions. But I also believe if you take a big enough sample size of people that there's going to be, as he quotes in here, bad apples.
And that doesn't allow you to Just randomly walk down the street and, you know, not follow the, the force escalation protocols that are called for being in the police force. You still have guidelines and those guidelines that police have are far more stringent. And, and they get indicted or they, they get perceived or prosecuted probably at a far higher rate than, than any political person ever as a result.
They literally have body cameras in the middle of their body that, that follows the every move. Right? Like, so, to me, the argument falls apart, and I think it's a little self serving. Um, again, I don't think Trump is going to be found guilty of anything, and I don't believe that he should be. But I also just don't think that the precedent of setting the example that the president just can absolutely do no wrong is a good one.
I just think it's a false premise, and that it will cause something horrific to happen, just like if you gave police absolute immunity. Um, the people who hold the positions of power, You know, with great power comes great responsibility, right? Spider Man. It's like you, you have to inherently have a microscope on you.
And the law has to be in place because without it, you could just turn it into a complete totalitarian regime. You could do whatever you wanted when you get, you could, and especially when you're determining, you know, the, you're the, the head of the entire largest, strongest military in all of history. So to me.
I just don't agree. Um, so now that we've properly set the stage of what is going on in our current political landscape, this is going to bring us to our deep dive of the week and the deep dive of
