Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe, Katty arm Strong
Speaker 1: and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yetty. But before that,
Speaker 1: we're gonna do Magda Magda make America great depression together.
Speaker 1: You know what, It'll be great. It'll be better than great.
Speaker 2: It'll be a fantastic, unbelievable depression like so which.
Speaker 1: I've never seen before. We like to say, what's so
Speaker 1: which we've never seen before?
Speaker 3: You know, this depression is gonna be so great.
Speaker 1: We'll be the ones eating the cats and the dogs.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be far Low and Srow. You gotta brazen,
Speaker 1: you know, Wow, Wow. The liberal Saturday Night Lived whatever
Speaker 1: are they?
Speaker 3: I would say, God, what percentage of mainstream news coverage
Speaker 3: thinks this is a bad idea. It's somewhere like ninety percent.
Speaker 1: It's heavy, yes.
Speaker 3: Including lots and lots and lots of Conservatives and Republicans.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The hardcore Magacrawt would answer you, well, they're the
Speaker 1: people who have been perpetrating the sucking out of the
Speaker 1: American manufacturing economy, loss of jobs, exporting, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 3: I'm not making the argument of whether it's right or not.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying it's not only lefty journalism that is
Speaker 3: making fun of this. Let's get one more short clip
Speaker 3: on that eight there, Michael.
Speaker 1: Yes, the stock.
Speaker 3: Market has crashed temporarily, but that is all part of
Speaker 3: the plan.
Speaker 1: It's simple economics. Okay. If the stock market goes down.
Speaker 3: And down and down and down and down, that means
Speaker 3: there's nowhere to go but up or perhaps further down.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think that's what we're all looking at today, right,
Speaker 3: there's no place to go but up or ups further
Speaker 3: down for a while.
Speaker 1: And we'll see what happens next hour. And I am
Speaker 1: looking forward to this a great deal. Compare and contrast
Speaker 1: a couple of terrific historians who most of us know
Speaker 1: and love, Neil Ferguson and Victor Davis Hansen, with differing
Speaker 1: opinions about the tariff thing. Really interesting. We'll give you
Speaker 1: as many facts and as much perspective as we can
Speaker 1: and help you decide what you think about it, as
Speaker 1: opposed to simply preaching to the choir, which is not
Speaker 1: what we do. If you're a new listener, welcome. First
Speaker 1: of all, glad you're listening. Give it a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's a little different than what you know you generally
Speaker 1: encounter on the dial. So well, Joe understaying Getty Show.
Speaker 3: I mean, Joe and I have worked for big companies
Speaker 3: that make short term plays because of the stock market that.
Speaker 1: Are bad long term.
Speaker 3: And every employee knows, everybody like in the office knows
Speaker 3: this is a bad idea long term, but it's good
Speaker 3: for the stock short term. A lot of the Wall
Speaker 3: Street stuff you see and commentators, they are people that
Speaker 3: live quarter to quarter and not making a quarter to
Speaker 3: quarter move right rightly or wrongly?
Speaker 1: Right, So here we go. Yeah, in principle, the idea
Speaker 1: of thinking about the long term health of the American
Speaker 1: people as opposed to just winning the next election is
Speaker 1: incredibly gratifying. Doesn't make everything right? Well, that's the deal. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, if President AOC were to make a long
Speaker 1: term decision to alter the trajectory of the United States,
Speaker 1: even if we lose the midterms, that again would be
Speaker 1: admirable in a way, but I'm certain I would be horrified.
Speaker 1: So here's an interesting question for you. What are the
Speaker 1: courts going to say about the tariff thing? And when
Speaker 1: might they say it? Probably not too long from now,
Speaker 1: is the answer to the second question. There are already
Speaker 1: some lawsuits being being filed, although interestingly enough, there are
Speaker 1: some big corporations that are extremely comfortable with this. They
Speaker 1: are have stripped naked to the waist, have knives in
Speaker 1: their teeth, and painted their faces, and are now running
Speaker 1: the halls like maniacs in their corporate headquarters. But they
Speaker 1: don't want to be the lead name in a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against the Trump administration, so they're lying in law, which
Speaker 1: is an interesting dynamic. But I'm relying here on a
Speaker 1: professor of political science, a reasonable guy, Paul Sratchik, legal analyst.
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs are a major legal question. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has set clear boundaries on unilateral executive action of this magnitude,
Speaker 1: he believes, and he thinks the Court is going to
Speaker 1: strike a lot of this down. But here are the questions.
Speaker 1: Never mind the conclusion President Trump relied on the International
Speaker 1: Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. It's an
Speaker 1: expansion of his executive authority. I believe he writes oversteps
Speaker 1: the boundaries set by the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine
Speaker 1: prominent in recent judicial rulings, the doctrine holds that federal
Speaker 1: agencies and the executive branch cannot make decisions of vast
Speaker 1: economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Now, the
Speaker 1: IEEPA AJEPA was enacted in nineteen seventy seven was intended
Speaker 1: to rein in what Congress considered overuse of the Trading
Speaker 1: with the Enemies Act, And since twenty twenty two, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has been clear, the fabulous, wonderful Donald Trump
Speaker 1: appointed majority, they've been clear. When an agency or the
Speaker 1: executive claims the authority to resolve a major question, that's
Speaker 1: en quote quotes a policy issue with quote vast economic
Speaker 1: and political significance quote, it must point to clear congressional intent.
Speaker 1: Tariffs which reshade global trade, potentially cost American consumers billions trillions,
Speaker 1: and disrupt entire industries certainly qualify as major questions. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I hate the idea of just if something's major, because man,
Speaker 3: that's open to I the boulder. But regardless of that,
Speaker 3: this certainly qualifies as major. No, but nobody's wondering if
Speaker 3: this is a close.
Speaker 1: Call, right, right, And the argument you're going to hear
Speaker 1: is that Trump claimed a unilateral power to tax and
Speaker 1: regulate commerce powers Constitution vests in Congress, although Congress doesn't
Speaker 1: do a damn thing these days, but it is vested
Speaker 1: to Congress and Article one, Section eight, and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court of signal skepticism towards such executive improvisation. In West Virginia, VEPA,
Speaker 1: the Court struck down the Obama EPA's Claim Power Plan,
Speaker 1: ruling that the agency could not overhaul the energy sector
Speaker 1: without explicit congressional approval. The court and this precedent has
Speaker 1: been used over and over again to rein in out
Speaker 1: of control lefty presidents, especially in recent years. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what one thing about this show that you're
Speaker 1: either going to love or hate is we are consistent.
Speaker 1: If we call executive overreach executive overreach when there's a
Speaker 1: d in the White House, we're gonna call it on
Speaker 1: ours too, because by God, somehow or other, there will
Speaker 1: be a Democrat in the White House again and we
Speaker 1: don't want him over reaching.
Speaker 3: We'll see Elon Broke with the tariff thing over the
Speaker 3: weekend saying he's not not into it.
Speaker 1: He likes more of a free trade guy.
Speaker 3: And Ted Cruz, as I mentioned a little bit earlier,
Speaker 3: who's been pretty solid supporter of Trump, said there's gonna
Speaker 3: be a bloodbath for his party in the midterm elections
Speaker 3: if Donald Trump's tariff sent the US economy into recession, which.
Speaker 1: It's about a fifty to fifty chance.
Speaker 3: According to most of your geniuses right now, with the
Speaker 3: caveat that Trump could back off all of this at
Speaker 3: any moment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, there are a number of forces at work.
Speaker 1: There are seven Republican Senators who are signed onto a
Speaker 1: law saying this is executive overach and it has to stop.
Speaker 1: It won't become law because it won't pass the House,
Speaker 1: and even if it did, Trump would veto it with
Speaker 1: a hearty laugh. But you have that going on, and
Speaker 1: then the court stuff. The court, I promise you hates
Speaker 1: the idea of stepping in and squashing this right now,
Speaker 1: because part of the Roberts Court's identity is, Look, we're
Speaker 1: a court, we're serious, we're sober, we're not politicians, even
Speaker 1: though Barack Obama tried to turn us into them and
Speaker 1: Biden like berated us from the lectern which was terrible.
Speaker 1: We're only going to step in on huge stuff like
Speaker 1: this if we have to but they may have to.
Speaker 1: We'll see. Dang it.
Speaker 3: Oil's way down too, which the Trump people are pointing
Speaker 3: to is a good thing that came out of this
Speaker 3: somehow or whatever.
Speaker 1: I heard one super pro Trump host saying, well, the
Speaker 1: rest of the world stock markets are down way more
Speaker 1: than ours, so that proves that this is a good idea.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, wait, what.
Speaker 3: Trump tweeted out today? Oil prices are down, interest rates
Speaker 3: or down, food prices are down, there's no inflation.
Speaker 1: This is all good.
Speaker 3: David Boonson, who's one of your think tank conservative economists, said,
Speaker 3: I can show you many charts of oil prices and
Speaker 3: interest rates from every recession we've ever had that will
Speaker 3: show that this.
Speaker 1: They often go hand in hand. So there you go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: some of the messaging seems a little suspect to me. Anyway,
Speaker 1: more to come after a word from our friends at
Speaker 1: simply Save Home Security. I'll tell you what, speaking of policies,
Speaker 1: we don't like decriminalizing crime. Scumbags and junkies and burglars
Speaker 1: on the streets, and you know, it's a shame you
Speaker 1: have to have a security system. But simply safe is
Speaker 1: the one to choose.
Speaker 3: Yeah, with the active guard outdoor protection can prevent break
Speaker 3: ins before they happen. I mean AI powered cameras. Why
Speaker 3: monitoring agents all working together to try to catch people
Speaker 3: before they get into your house. You'd think that'd be
Speaker 3: super expensive because it's so good, But nope, about a
Speaker 3: dollar a day. No long term contracts or cancelation fees either.
Speaker 1: Why if, like my sweet bride and I, you had
Speaker 1: an old timey security system with a subscription and all,
Speaker 1: and we're getting paid multiples of this for worse technology.
Speaker 1: You're thinking, is this for real?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: It is, It absolutely is. Visit simply safe dot com
Speaker 1: slash armstrong. Claim fifty percent off a new system with
Speaker 1: a professional monitoring plan, cats first month free. That's simplysafe
Speaker 1: dot com slash armstrong, and again, monitoring plans start affordably
Speaker 1: at around a buck a day. Simply safe dot com
Speaker 1: slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe. It's interesting.
Speaker 3: So a number of people were predicting a black Monday,
Speaker 3: like a historic drop in the stock market today, which
Speaker 3: it's down, but it's not like make the history books down.
Speaker 3: Charles CW. Cook of the National Review. His take of
Speaker 3: that is this suggests to me that the markets think
Speaker 3: Trump is going to back off the fact that it's
Speaker 3: not the just complete. I hate to use the term bloodbath.
Speaker 3: It's amazing that bloodbath became an acceptable term for financial downtterms.
Speaker 3: I mean, because a bloodbath is pretty disgusting. It is gruesome, Yes, yes, gruesome,
Speaker 3: but you know, a big historic drop so the market.
Speaker 3: So the Wall Street crowd thinks hee, he's not gonna
Speaker 3: stick with this like long term.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, as I was saying earlier, I wish I
Speaker 1: had a little more cash on hand, I'd be investing,
Speaker 1: because there's still no better place on earth to have
Speaker 1: your money than the United States unless this keeps going,
Speaker 1: and then you're gonna have to get hip to investing
Speaker 1: in foreign markets again if the trade structure changes.
Speaker 3: You know I'm wearing I didn't notice until I put
Speaker 3: it on today. I'm wearing a sock, one sock with
Speaker 3: a big hole in the heel, And I thought, you
Speaker 3: know what, I'm just gonna go ahead, where as low
Speaker 3: rent as it is, prepare myself for the financial downturn
Speaker 3: if it sticks around, because this might be my new lifestyle,
Speaker 3: wearing socks with holes in them. And my question is,
Speaker 3: when you took the sock off the last time and
Speaker 3: elected to keep it and launder it.
Speaker 1: We must not have noticed the hole.
Speaker 3: Surely I didn't keep around a sock with a hole
Speaker 3: in the hill, because I mean, that's just at this
Speaker 3: point in my life.
Speaker 1: What have I worked every day for to wear holy socks?
Speaker 1: I know? Is it like a Saint Francis of a
Speaker 1: CC thing if you put a rock in your shoe
Speaker 1: or remind you of the suffering of others. I'd be
Speaker 1: horrified if I sent my kids off to school with
Speaker 1: holes in their socks. Here I am at work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, has AI ruined sports betting? Like maybe it's over?
Speaker 3: I don't know. Stay tuned for that, among other things.
Speaker 3: Stay with it.
Speaker 4: The Men's Final four in San Antonio, after the Houston
Speaker 4: Cougars completed a stunning comeback against Dude, they'll be in
Speaker 4: a fierce fight with the Florida Gators.
Speaker 1: So there you go. You got that your and versus
Speaker 1: Gator caa final. Do it what you gotta like the
Speaker 1: Gators in that battle because they've got like scales and
Speaker 1: the cougar could jump on him and bite him as
Speaker 1: much as he wanted. But unless you flip it and
Speaker 1: can get at the soft underbelly. So if they gotta
Speaker 1: like a gator, especially drags that cougar in the water,
Speaker 1: it's over.
Speaker 3: If the actual animals fought as opposed to the college
Speaker 3: basketball team.
Speaker 1: That's how I make sports predictions. Gotcha coming up? If
Speaker 1: your favorite brothel asked you to fill out a ten
Speaker 1: page application with all of your personal information, would you
Speaker 1: do it? That's right, we're talking about a house of hoary.
Speaker 1: That very thing happened in Boston. Crazy story, we'll tell
Speaker 1: you about it. So a couple of AI stories for you.
Speaker 3: First one that centers around the NCAA Championship game tonight.
Speaker 3: March Madness bet AI versus pro gamblers one million dollar
Speaker 3: March Madness bet. So a professional gambler took on AI,
Speaker 3: and this article was from Saturday. I don't know where
Speaker 3: they are after the two games that happened on Saturday,
Speaker 3: but the one million dollar March Madness wager between a
Speaker 3: pro gambler and an artificial intelligence site came down to
Speaker 3: the AI platform four C predictions. The guy had missed
Speaker 3: thirteen games out of the first sixty, AI only missed ten.
Speaker 3: The point of this article and the discussion was and
Speaker 3: that became a thing online over the weekend. Is if
Speaker 3: AI is as good as or better than your top
Speaker 3: five percent of sports gamblers, which it seems it is, well,
Speaker 3: then where where does that leave sports gambling at all?
Speaker 1: And will it continue to exist in the form that
Speaker 1: it has?
Speaker 3: Wow. One of the big betting houses said that they
Speaker 3: have been concerned about this and knew it might be coming,
Speaker 3: that didn't would be here yet, and they feel that
Speaker 3: perhaps the decision is here earlier than they had expected.
Speaker 3: It's gone beyond even what we had expected at the
Speaker 3: start of AI.
Speaker 1: Well, the house always wins on average, That's why casinos
Speaker 1: exist and supports betting sites exist too. Individuals will win
Speaker 1: against the house semi regularly. That's why you keep going
Speaker 1: back If AI, well, the question is will AI win enough? Well?
Speaker 1: Sad profit turns into a loss because if it's a
Speaker 1: thinner margin, they'll just restructure what they do a little bit.
Speaker 3: Well, I would think that, and I don't know a
Speaker 3: lot about this, but I would think that your big
Speaker 3: betting houses, they get a lot of people betting that
Speaker 3: you know, most of them aren't professionals, and most of
Speaker 3: them aren't that good.
Speaker 1: They lose a lot.
Speaker 3: So if AI's better than the top five percent and
Speaker 3: every other dufus now can just use AI. Then all
Speaker 3: of the betters are like the top five percent. That's
Speaker 3: got to be a different profit margin. Oh yeah, for
Speaker 3: the bedding houses than what they've had in the past. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I know, their profit margins are very, very large. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's that's a great question.
Speaker 1: I could easily believe that it would cut the profit
Speaker 1: down to this is not worth it. It's going to
Speaker 1: be even turned it into a loss.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's going to be a complete restructure of what
Speaker 3: they've had in the past because they are counting on
Speaker 3: dufuses like me that get all excited for their you know,
Speaker 3: their home team when they make a run and that
Speaker 3: sort of thing. Not the professional gamblers. They might even
Speaker 3: expect to lose on the professional gamblers. But if everybody
Speaker 3: is professional gambler level, that's something AnyWho. One of the
Speaker 3: many repercussions of AI. Here's a guy who used an
Speaker 3: AI avatar in a legal appeal. The judge didn't dig it.
Speaker 3: Let's listen to this audio and then I'll fill in
Speaker 3: any of the blanks.
Speaker 1: Twelve.
Speaker 2: Michael, the appellant has submitted a video.
Speaker 1: We will hear that video. Now, may it please the court?
Speaker 3: I come here today a humble proceeds were a panel
Speaker 3: of five distinguished justices?
Speaker 1: Is this hold on? Is that counsel for the case.
Speaker 3: I generated that that is not a real person.
Speaker 2: You did not tell me that, sir, And you have
Speaker 2: appeared before this court and been able to testify verbally.
Speaker 2: You are not going to use this courtroom as a
Speaker 2: launch for your business.
Speaker 1: So if you are.
Speaker 2: Able to shut that off, hold you have five minutes.
Speaker 3: Wow, that judge was not happy with that. So the
Speaker 3: guy tried to use an AI lawyer. Yeah, she clearly
Speaker 3: thinks there. I say, I'm reading this New York Times article,
Speaker 3: but I didn't read the whole thing. She clearly thinks
Speaker 3: it's some attempt to like advertise his AI lawyer business.
Speaker 3: But at least in the first couple of pages of
Speaker 3: this article that I read, it is just a guy
Speaker 3: who didn't have any representation and felt like he was
Speaker 3: in a bad position and so used AI, which you've
Speaker 3: heard about, you know, around the country, various people using
Speaker 3: AI lawyers.
Speaker 1: Huh, where is that going to go?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: You just got to hire a flesh and blood human
Speaker 1: to read what the AI told him to say, right, yes, fine,
Speaker 1: that doesn't make any sense obviously. Hmm. We got a
Speaker 1: lot on the way.
Speaker 3: I hope you can stay here if you missed a second,
Speaker 3: and get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong.
Speaker 1: And Getty Pain in the Market.
Speaker 4: At some point, you're unwilling to tolerate this idea of
Speaker 4: a Trump put they're a threshold.
Speaker 1: I think your question is so stupid.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's a I don't want anything
Speaker 3: to go down, but sometimes you have to take beticon
Speaker 3: to fix something. As questions are stupid. I suppose they
Speaker 3: got to ask him. It's just what the what?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 3: So the whole point is to scare a bunch of
Speaker 3: these country Yeah, these countries into thinking, wow, we better,
Speaker 3: we better adjust here because he's serious long term, and
Speaker 3: and he's gonna tell a reporter asked not I'm not
Speaker 3: serious long term. This is just to scare them, and
Speaker 3: so I'm going to back off of them just as
Speaker 3: soon as I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but what conclusion? Is he looking for a rebalancing
Speaker 1: of tariffs to a truly reciprocal relationship, or is he
Speaker 1: trying to permanently restructure trade around the world by putting
Speaker 1: up high tariffs against imports for the US for good
Speaker 1: good question. That's why nobody knows quite what to think,
Speaker 1: and the explanations out of the White House are a
Speaker 1: little difficult to follow at times. More on that next hour,
Speaker 1: including two great conservative historians taking different views of the
Speaker 1: tariffs and where they might be going. Also, this is
Speaker 1: an unnecessarily snarky headline, but it made me giggle. Great
Speaker 1: news for humanity. Depressed liberals are increasingly suicidal due to
Speaker 1: climate anxiety, according to a new study, and those that
Speaker 1: remain to stick around aren't having children. So might progressives
Speaker 1: be self depopulating? Be fine with me, Yeah.
Speaker 3: The suicide part is troubling, but not having children's that's
Speaker 3: that's absolutely happening.
Speaker 1: Although I've got to admit it, and I believe it
Speaker 1: or not a fairly compassionate fellow. But if you're committing
Speaker 1: suicide over climate anxiety, you have profound mental problems. Anyway,
Speaker 1: More on that to come. Here's a question for you.
Speaker 1: We've all, you know, applied for colleges or jobs or
Speaker 1: loans or whatever, and you sit down, you fill out
Speaker 1: a long detailed application with your financial information, your employment information,
Speaker 1: your past addresses that sort of thing. Would you do
Speaker 1: that for a horror house? No, not just no, but
Speaker 1: hell no. Story out of the Boston area, there's this
Speaker 1: high end brothel operating out of a luxury apartment complex,
Speaker 1: charged up to six hundred dollars an hour for sexual encounters,
Speaker 1: an elite club near Harvard University. And you had biotech execs, doctors, lawyers, politicians,
Speaker 1: filled out applications and handed over IDs, work badges, personal references.
Speaker 1: This cant what kind of a reference. Joe was a
Speaker 1: fine and upstanding young man. He coached my son in baseball.
Speaker 1: I know, I don't think that was part of the reference,
Speaker 1: although you make an excellent point. So this this Cambridge
Speaker 1: brothel they're calling it. The gal who ran it was
Speaker 1: a former sex worker in Vietnam, an immigrant to the
Speaker 1: country forty two years old. They wanted to attract rich
Speaker 1: and powerful men and with very good security, high standards,
Speaker 1: no danger to anybody involved in the process, so to
Speaker 1: being arrested, I issome well, well, right, yeah, until it happened,
Speaker 1: so that there were no you know, junkies or scumbags
Speaker 1: or violent people or whatever. And so the young women
Speaker 1: involved and it's all women as far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: had much less risk on their end, and the guys
Speaker 1: had the Johns had much less risk on their end.
Speaker 1: And as an amateur economist, the dismal science, indeed, I'm
Speaker 1: interested that though they mentioned the up to six hundred
Speaker 1: dollars an hour, it was frequently less expensive than that,
Speaker 1: and I think that's because they had figured out a
Speaker 1: way to mitigate risk. I mean, you hear about your
Speaker 1: your Las Vegas call girls or whatever or whatever. It's
Speaker 1: more than three hundred and fifty bucks an hour, way more.
Speaker 3: And all the normal caveats on all different sides in that,
Speaker 3: I don't think this is a good lifestyle from the
Speaker 3: john standpoint of making yourself happy. I think you're seeking
Speaker 3: some happiness that you're not going to find. And I'm
Speaker 3: going to make assumptions that none of these women are, like,
Speaker 3: you know, drug slave, being trafficked by violent pimps at
Speaker 3: this level, although they might be. But if that's but
Speaker 3: if you don't have that, I can't imagine why I,
Speaker 3: as a taxpayer, care if some attractive twenty five year
Speaker 3: old woman is willing to have sex with some rich
Speaker 3: businessman for money. I just can't imagine why I care
Speaker 3: about of all the things going on in my community
Speaker 3: that I'm worried about on a daily basis, Right, how
Speaker 3: about you attack those first?
Speaker 1: Yeah? To what extent should the government criminal eye immorality?
Speaker 1: Especially if it's I mean, there was no streetwalking hose here.
Speaker 1: This is you know, you'd never know it existed, right, can't?
Speaker 1: This is an interesting question.
Speaker 3: This is not that it's bringing in a criminal element
Speaker 3: and driving down home prices and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: With the streetwalking, hourly hotel situation.
Speaker 1: Right, and this woman paid the workers far more than
Speaker 1: generally is the tradition in this sort of work. And
Speaker 1: again I'm not arguing in favor of it. But one interesting,
Speaker 1: really interesting aspect to this, and I'm glad I almost forgot,
Speaker 1: was that the bust took place in two places, the
Speaker 1: Boston area. And also it just says Virginia, Oh, just
Speaker 1: out there. It is just outside Washington, d City. I
Speaker 1: was just about to say, you're gonna tell me. I know,
Speaker 1: I've read enough history to know this sort of thing
Speaker 1: has existed near the capital forever and always will probably sure.
Speaker 1: But so the Boston authorities have pursued charges against the Johns,
Speaker 1: and in a recent court ruling, the names have emerged.
Speaker 1: The various attorneys asked to keep them quiet because the
Speaker 1: damage that would be done would be disproportionate to the
Speaker 1: nature of the crime. Blah blah blah, But the judge said, no,
Speaker 1: you can turn them loose. Interestingly, just outside the capital
Speaker 1: in Virginia, the local authorities there said no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to go after any of the Johns. Well, uh,
Speaker 1: we'll just prosecute the madam and the sex workers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's a problem. It's either a law or it's not.
Speaker 3: And if you're going to enforce it on you know,
Speaker 3: an hourly wage dude who goes to a crappy massage
Speaker 3: parlor in a bad street, and you're going to ruin
Speaker 3: his life sometime over catching me, you got to treat
Speaker 3: the rich dude the same way.
Speaker 1: Well, and I will I will never ever know for sure,
Speaker 1: but I would bet heavily on the opposition that the
Speaker 1: non going after the Johns in Washington, d C. Is
Speaker 1: entirely because they're powerful people of the government and or
Speaker 1: lobbyists and the authorities, and you know Fairfax and Falls
Speaker 1: Church and the various incredibly rich suburbs of DC and
Speaker 1: It's funny. How does everybody get so rich in DC
Speaker 1: They don't manufacture anything, huh. Anyway, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: any accident that the local authorities said, no, let's keep
Speaker 1: these names out of the paper. Unbelievable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, again, it seems like such a sad, not going
Speaker 3: good place as a lifestyle. But remember what was the
Speaker 3: thing with Heidi Flies way back in the day. He
Speaker 3: got to be old to remember Heidi flies in Los
Speaker 3: Angeles in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: But that that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: It was like a high end hooker thing that eventually
Speaker 3: got busted.
Speaker 1: Great deal of discretion, and everybody was on the up
Speaker 1: and up. She had changing sex for money.
Speaker 3: She had her black book, her list, and then I
Speaker 3: was coming out in drips and drabs that include various
Speaker 3: movie stars.
Speaker 1: Charlie Sheen shot. You know, I everybody has their own
Speaker 1: opinion on this based on their own morality and religious beliefs.
Speaker 1: If it's an occasional seeking of pleasure as opposed to
Speaker 1: a lifestyle, as you put it, you know, teach their own.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure the government needs to be involved
Speaker 1: in it. Frankly, new listeners to the show. I've been
Speaker 1: faithfully married to my wife forever and don't indulge.
Speaker 3: But well, I'm serial no interest in that. But you know,
Speaker 3: like I said, I'm not concerned about somebody else who
Speaker 3: is interested in that. With all the caveats I threw
Speaker 3: out there of you know, it's not some doesn't speak
Speaker 3: English woman from El Salvador who's basically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's not. Oh, that's abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and a lot of prostitution is that, especially in urban areas,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely terrible. A brutal a pimp who who who
Speaker 1: well brutalizes the women under his thumb.
Speaker 3: Yes, I don't know. We did a sex workers panel
Speaker 3: many years ago. It was very interesting sex workers of
Speaker 3: various levels. What percentage is what I described? You're a
Speaker 3: good looking twenty five year old completely doing this of
Speaker 3: your own volition, nobody's forcing you to do it whatsoever,
Speaker 3: with guys you trust, and it's what percentage is that?
Speaker 3: Is that such a minor percentage? I wonder that it's
Speaker 3: not even worth having the discussion around that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, that might be true.
Speaker 3: Maybe such a tiny percentage of all prostitution is that
Speaker 3: To throw that out there is just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Yeah, It's like the percentage of golf courses that are
Speaker 1: ritzy private clubs. For instance, there are fifty golf courses
Speaker 1: that aren't for each one that is, right, So crafting
Speaker 1: any laws or having attitudes about the whole prostitution business
Speaker 1: with that in mind is really distract might be I
Speaker 1: wish I knew that. Yeah, Yeah, And there are some cases,
Speaker 1: just again to get back to the philosophy of governance,
Speaker 1: where terrain in the truly horrific, sometimes the just mildly
Speaker 1: ikey gets caught up in It's it's well, like you know,
Speaker 1: these wealthy guys going to these apartments in Cambridge. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't care. Is it mildly icky from a moral
Speaker 1: point of view, yes, But that is what has to
Speaker 1: exist to prevent sixteen year old girls from l Salvador
Speaker 1: being trafficked by the cartels and becoming rape slaves in
Speaker 1: the United States under the thumb of some brutal pimp, Right,
Speaker 1: And that's the reality. I think it's important to know.
Speaker 3: If that's the case, then I am all for having
Speaker 3: a standard and making it clear every now and then
Speaker 3: we ain't.
Speaker 1: Cool with this. Yeah, I would love to know that.
Speaker 1: I know there are folks in law enforcement listening, drop
Speaker 1: us a note mail bag at armstrong and Getty dot com.
Speaker 1: What have you seen the actual reality? So this is
Speaker 1: terrible and I am going to pretend to be troubled
Speaker 1: by it. Depressed liberals are increasingly at risk of suicide
Speaker 1: due to so called climate change. According to a group
Speaker 1: of European and French Canadian scientists. The alleged findings, while morbid,
Speaker 1: could signal a bright future for the human race. Rights
Speaker 1: Andrew Styles, who apparently is not upset by this. A
Speaker 1: world with fewer annoying people would make life more tolerable
Speaker 1: for the rest of us, The species would grow more resilient,
Speaker 1: and the planet might also somewhat ironically benefit from the
Speaker 1: decline in population, assuming it isn't all a hoax.
Speaker 3: That is a cold eyed look that will jump into
Speaker 3: the whole terriff discussion. See where we are on that
Speaker 3: on a Monday, on day three of Liberation Day, so
Speaker 3: stick around for that.
Speaker 1: Stay with us.
Speaker 4: Mental health experts are saying that adults can help deal
Speaker 4: with trauma by sleeping with a stuffed animal, which is
Speaker 4: the same thing goofy whispered to your wife. Subway has
Speaker 4: partnered with Doritos to offer new foot long nachos. But
Speaker 4: I don't love the slogan, eat out of this trough,
Speaker 4: you pig.
Speaker 1: I don't like this. It's not a good slogan.
Speaker 3: I watched a musical act a young lesbian and an
Speaker 3: older lesbian. The musical act Brandy Carlyle and Elton John.
Speaker 3: If you just glanced to the screen, it looked like
Speaker 3: a young lesbian and an old lesbian singing the duel,
Speaker 3: which was very good.
Speaker 1: Musically, it was very good. Sure, not that there's anything
Speaker 1: wrong with it. Coming on.
Speaker 3: I want to read some stuff from a Shell Obama
Speaker 3: that came out over the weekend. I thought it was
Speaker 3: really interesting about it kind of clears up where things
Speaker 3: are with the Obama's marriage. You know, there been a
Speaker 3: lot of rumors flying around, and it really that sort
Speaker 3: of level of partisanship really bothers me. The like, if
Speaker 3: you would take joy in the Obama's marriage breaking up,
Speaker 3: I think you're deranged in the same way that people
Speaker 3: who anybody with the last name Trump has personal problems
Speaker 3: that makes you happy.
Speaker 1: I that's just weird. That's weird, man.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Michelle Obama said some things about their marriage. I
Speaker 3: thought everybody should hear that I thought were really really good.
Speaker 3: They did have some really tough spots and anyway, I'll
Speaker 3: read them later and we can discuss.
Speaker 1: So you want Michelle Obama to be the next president,
Speaker 1: that's a good lord. Some texts on things we talked about.
Speaker 1: We got this text.
Speaker 3: I used to frequent prostitutes often after my divorce. Here's
Speaker 3: what I learned. You don't have to pay a hooker alimony.
Speaker 3: That's not a good text, that's not helpful to the conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, please, aren't the.
Speaker 3: Intelligence agencies from China, Russia in the US. They must
Speaker 3: love these madams, these high dollar madams in these hotels,
Speaker 3: especially around DC. I guarantee you they have cameras set
Speaker 3: up so that every one of these brothels following these girls,
Speaker 3: so they.
Speaker 1: Know who came and went. I don't know, maybe maybe not,
Speaker 1: but you know, if they knew it was happening, But yeah,
Speaker 1: that would be an enormous trove of blackmail material for
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence agencies. Yeah.
Speaker 3: On sports gambling and whether AI has ruined it, Gents,
Speaker 3: I've been using AI for the past six weeks, probably
Speaker 3: with a lot of March Madness stuff. For gambling, and
Speaker 3: it's not that great. At best, it's fifty to fifty,
Speaker 3: so it's like a coin flip. But I can do
Speaker 3: that for you. I would think you would have to be.
Speaker 3: I mean, if there's such thing as professional sports gamblers,
Speaker 3: because they dedicate so much time to taking in through
Speaker 3: so many statistics, that they're better than a coin flip,
Speaker 3: AI's got to be able to do that, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: Well if yeah, yeah, I don't know. That's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: I'd like to see a statistical study of how many
Speaker 1: gamblers are better than fifty to fifty and how many worse.
Speaker 1: But I think for the average schmo, they're definitely worse
Speaker 1: than fifty to fifty. Oh, I know, I would be Yeah,
Speaker 1: so use AI.
Speaker 3: Somebody said they're just watching Jim Kramer, and he said
Speaker 3: Wall Street made twenty percent each of the last two years.
Speaker 3: A correction needed to happen. It should be resetting around
Speaker 3: thirty five thousand. Anyway, that's an interesting take.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was crazy overheated the price to earnings ratios.
Speaker 1: I won't get technical on you, but they were like
Speaker 1: twice as high as the historic highs in a lot
Speaker 1: of sectors.
Speaker 3: I mean, just insane and everybody knew that, So I
Speaker 3: guess the question would be, is did this tariff thing
Speaker 3: just kick in the correction that was bound to happen.
Speaker 1: At some point anyway, I don't know that either. That's possible.
Speaker 1: It couldn't continue the way it had been. That's true
Speaker 1: where the tariff thing comes to rest. That's not an
Speaker 1: argument in favor of what Trump's doing, but it's a
Speaker 1: point worth observing.
Speaker 3: I'm somewhat amused by the stories Fox is doing so
Speaker 3: that they have something to.
Speaker 1: Talk about other than the stock market and the tariff thing.
Speaker 1: Looking up there. This is a big story this morning.
Speaker 3: Disc golfer refuses to play against trans athlete out into
Speaker 3: the worlds disc golfing.
Speaker 1: You know something.
Speaker 3: Viewers can get around well, but they head over in
Speaker 3: the corner. Dow down seven hundred points. It was down
Speaker 3: as many as almost two thousand earlier in the day
Speaker 3: and is now back to being down between low hundreds,
Speaker 3: two hundred.
Speaker 1: To five hundred.
Speaker 3: So it's possible that we reached some sort of correction bottom.
Speaker 3: It's possible, like I mentioned earlier from one pundit, that
Speaker 3: Wall Street believes Trump's not gonna stick with this and
Speaker 3: have some reason to think that I have some inside
Speaker 3: knowledge on that.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, he's made a couple of noises
Speaker 1: that hinted at that, but it's you cannot possibly overestimate
Speaker 1: the importance of speculation in the US stock market at
Speaker 1: this point. Speculation being i'll bet it's gonna go up
Speaker 1: sw I'm going to buy regardless of I would like
Speaker 1: a share of this company for I believe it will
Speaker 1: be profitable in future days. That's what investing is supposed
Speaker 1: to be. And so people sell when they think it's
Speaker 1: gonna go down, by when they think it's gonna go up,
Speaker 1: and the the you know, the underlying principles of what's
Speaker 1: a good investment what's not tend to get lost. So
Speaker 1: we're dealing with a lot of speculation change right now.
Speaker 1: More of that coming up.
Speaker 3: Biggest movie debut of the year happened over the weekend too,
Speaker 3: and a bunch of other stuff. I hope you can
Speaker 3: stay with us, Armstrong and Getty