5.5.2025 -- NLS -- Trump vs. NPR, AI vs. Attorneys

On this episode with Neal and Julie, the discussion ranges from the political fallout of Trump’s executive order to defund NPR and PBS, to the sweeping implications of artificial intelligence on jobs, law, and the economy. Neal critiques so-called conservatives who act against conservative principles, while both hosts question the sustainability of publicly funded media in a competitive, ad-supported landscape. They also delve into the rapid rise of AI, emphasizing how it will eliminate certain jobs but create demand for new, unique skill sets—arguing that those who can't adapt may be left behind. The conversation touches on AI’s ability to draft legal documents, build app prototypes, and even reshape industries like plumbing and law. Julie and Neal warn that society must rethink traditional work models and prepare for disruptions to the 40-hour workweek. They close with reflections on political leadership, cultural expectations, and how Idaho politics—and national conservatism—have evolved in recent years. 

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Sandhill Media Group
The Sandhill Media Group LLC consists of 7 radio stations in East Idaho

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Good morning. It's 807 on Newstalk 179. Welcome. It's Monday. Another workweek underway. How many times do you wake up? Glance at the news cycle and say what is happening all the time? I know it's like, every, every day. So Donald Trump, the new, well, a new offering for creating the Golden Age of America is to reopen Alcatraz for what he calls the dregs of society.

The the worst of the worst. Let's send them back to that island prison surrounded by. I think it's surrounded by shark infested waters. And Trump says he wants to reopen, Alcatraz, not just reopen it, but expanded and hold a lot of different, different criminals. I'm totally good with it. I like I think about it, and there is sort of I don't have this, but in anticipation of others, there's a reflexive opposition and it will be ridiculed, it'll be mocked, it'll be opposed.

It it'll be, you know, lots of lefty pearls getting clutched and, they but they won't be able to come up with a good reason why not? And can I just say I've had that thought before? Why don't we reopen Alcatraz? Not that I think about Alcatraz nearly as often as I think about the fall of the Roman Empire.

But why? Why not reopen? Alcatraz. The island is there, the infrastructure is there. The buildings are still there. I think they've been, keeping them somewhat maintained because it's a tourist, tourist trap. You can go out and take a tour of Alcatraz, but. So that's happening. But there's also another bill that we want to talk about.

This is a federal bill, House resolution 867 and House resolution 867 would have fined you up to $1 million and sent you to prison for 20 years. As an American, if you participate in a boycott of Israel or its settlements, if the boycotts are endorsed by international bodies like the UN or the EU. Now the person who put this forward was a Republican pro-Israel.

Obviously, Mike Lawlor is a New York Republican member of Congress. And I thought, okay, let's sort of de emotional ize this. Take Israel out of it, take the UN and the EU out of it for and how you feel about them, because that could go one way or the other. This is the dumbest idea that I've seen. And certainly for any Republican, it's the dumbest idea that I've seen in a very, very long, long time.

John, how do you quote unquote, participate in a boycott? A boycott is a negative act. It is an act of omission. You are you're simply not buying from someone or something. Now, I could probably think of all the stores and businesses that exist in the world. If you simply define a boycott as you don't buy stuff from them, that's pretty much most businesses like there.

Yeah, there's a lot. So how how are you going to police and monitor a boycott? I, I, I'm not because simply the act of not buying from something or someone or some entity is just so this is a bad idea and it got a lot of backlash. Anna Paulina Luna is a Florida Republican, and I, she said, this is up for a vote.

Tomorrow. Aims to curb antisemitism, but threatens First Amendment rights. Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech. I reject and vehemently, condemn anti-Semitism, but I cannot violate the First Amendment. Marjorie Taylor Greene I'll be voting no. It is my job to defend Americans rights to buy or boycott whomever they choose without the government harshly fining them or imprisoning them.

But what I don't understand is why we are voting on a bill on behalf of other countries, and not the president's executive orders that are for our country. Thomas Massie, I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'll be voting no on the bill as well. Matt Gates, if this bill becomes law, how many Israeli products do I need in my home to avoid fines or prison if I leave?

An Israeli made product outside my home is it the 2025 version of Lamb's blood that keeps my family safe? And then Steve Bannon shared Matt Gates take and said fact check. True like we love is even people who love Israel said, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Now, we do understand that Lawlor has withdrawn the bill like it's it's been pulled.

But back in January, Lawlor said, I'm proud to introduce the Ijo Anti Boycott Act, a bipartisan effort to protect US citizens, businesses and our allies, particularly Israel, from discriminatory boycotts. This bill closes eight. Well, wait a minute. Let's say discriminatory. Isn't it a boycott itself, meaning you're making some level of discrimination happening. Like what does that mean?

Discriminating means you're deciding anyway. I don't know what that, this bill closes a critical loophole by ensuring that international organizations cannot enable harmful boycott, divestment and Sanctions efforts. This legislation is essential to safeguarding Israel's security and economy from unjust attacks. Now I pack, which is a pro-Israel group. They liked the bill. But now, apparently, Marjorie Taylor Greene said yesterday, the legislation has been pulled and the fate is, under unclear.

I look at this and I think, come on, this is a, can I can I maybe regionalize it or localize it just a little bit? And I'm not going to name names. I'm not even going to name which which particular version. But when you had the House Bill 93, in the Idaho Legislature under consideration and it was gaining steam, and the bill had been fairly finalized, I don't remember exactly what phase, but it was it was it was ready.

You actually had some local Republican county parties whose members were drafting letters that essentially echoed Democrat talking points in opposition to this bill. Now, the the problem here is that it's built into the platform that Republicans are for parental choice. And nobody who wants to occupy an official Republican position should be drafting letters opposing bills that support the platform.

So it turned into a bit of a brouhaha because the letter got out, it got public, and then there was some damage control that took place. And of course, we know House Bill 93 went on to pass very robustly. But we found out through that process which quote unquote, Republicans aren't quite the bona fide Republicans. They say they are, and they're probably in the wrong party, to be honest with you, I, I don't I like I look at this and sadly, I think about this almost as often as I think about the fall of the Roman Empire.

But the remember that from a few months ago. So my thought is you're not bad people, and I don't I don't want to put that out there that you're you're bad people. But I do wonder why. Why would you enthusiastically consider yourself a Republican when it's very clear being a Republican means, as a conservative, parents should have school choice?

If we're going to have publicly funded schools, then parents should be able to. And I it's it's not a it's a little more complicated than simply saying the money follows the child because in this case money would follow the child, but the money stays in K through 12 so as to make sure that budget stays whole. And so there, by the way, that saga is still going.

The bill signed into law, the governor touted the bill, paired it up with the lunch program. But you still have the retired, some retired education professionals that are busy out there, working hard to try and defeat it. And I think there's probably there probably going to oppose it. They're going to file lawsuits and it's going to be a big thing.

However, you may remember last week, the Supreme Court took up the issue out of Oklahoma. That is addressing what I think and depending on how they rule coming up in, well, next month, usually June is when we get these rulings that it speaks to a lot of the same issues about private schools and private religious schools receiving public money.

And I think that it could answer some of the key and core questions of what happened with Idaho's House Bill 93. So I, I look forward to that ruling. Mean I and I hope I look forward to it because we get a favorable and positive outcome. But the key here is I think sometimes you have people who are Republican or say they're conservative, but they do things that demonstrate they're not.

Now that's not a sin, and that's not a crime to not be a conservative. So you might hear, well, here's this radio talk show host, this firebrand, and he's he's talking about Republicans that aren't conservative like it's an epithet. It's not this is not a I don't want anyone to take, take offense because I'm calling some conservatives not Kan or excuse me, some Republicans, not conservative.

You're just not conservative. That's that's sometimes I think there are people in our camp who think that's a sin. It's not. The sin comes when you say you are, but you're not. Don't say you are, when in reality you're not really dedicated to parents making that primary choice for their kids. Okay. You're you're somewhat of an institutionalist. You're like, well, we don't want to touch K through 12.

That's a sacred cow. And that's well, the thing is you're not touching K through 12. You're just you're just offering a, It's basically quite brilliant to be honest with you. It's a tax credit. It's a tax credit. Like the grocery tax credit. Like the fuel tax credit or you know, I've done my state taxes before. There's lots of different tax credits that you can claim.

And this is one more the problem that they have. And I think this is the elephant in the room when it comes to House Bill 93. The problem is that it's taking kids out of the system. Even if you leave the money, if the kids aren't there, then they don't have the control over the kid. And I know they're worried that it's going to be even more popular.

It'll get used so much that there's going to be a mass exodus, blah blah, blah. I don't think that's the biggest worry. It's not, as Wendy Harmon calls it, the end of Western civilization. Everything is going to be, okay and and just fine. So we have that and, sorry, that was a bit of a bit of a tangent there.

President Trump was all over the news over the weekend. And I want you to hear this question. This is Kristen Welker, NBC news and this, well, you you'll probably spot it as quickly as I did. But listen to this question. Prices are already going up on some popular items. Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Strollers. This is such a dishonest interview already.

Prices are down on groceries. Prices are down for oil. Prices are down for all energy prices are down at tremendous numbers for gasoline. And let me tell you, when you have the big thing, what he did, he spent like a stupid person, which he was, but he spent like a very stupid person and that was bad for inflation.

But what really killed us with inflation was the price of energy. Okay? And Donald Trump is exactly right. If energy prices go up, everything else tends to go up to. The problem that I have with Kristen Welker is that how many different products can you buy? Millions, probably. I bet if I did a complete study and started counting all the things that I could buy in this world, I would.

I guarantee you I will find some that are always going up. It's a cherry picking opportunity for the media to say, well, you know what? Here's the thing. Let's find the items that are going up this week, and then we'll elevate those to the news cycle. Because we want to make Trump. We have to counter the idea that the the cost of living is going down or that generally priced in.

I don't know if that's true, but the general prices of things are coming down. Grocery prices, yes, they've leveled off. In some cases. They are coming down energy prices and and and the point to is you have to look at what are you comparing it with. Because I could say energy prices are higher. Yeah. I think when I got married it was like a buck 39.

So yeah, you're right, they are higher. But when you compare it to you know, in recent, the last couple of years, it's down. So we're, I think the trajectory is down and there's wide category swaths of the economy where we are seeing the prices moderate. Now, that's not a dramatic drop, but at least we've turned the corner.

But it's dishonest and disingenuous for people like Katie Welker. The media clashed. Come along. Cherry pick the items they can find that week that are going up in price. And then to throw that at President Trump, because you could just as equally cherry pick items that are dropping in price and put them forward. But they don't do that because their whole goal is to make him look bad.

And it it's frustrating. It's frustrating. And I here's here's one more listen to this. Listen to Katie Welker how in the middle of the question she changes the goalposts, border crossings are at their lowest level ever recorded. Is the border good? Is the border now secure? Yeah, it's really secure. It's absolutely the. So when you say that okay.

Notice she changed because Trump answered it without reservation. Yeah. The border secure. And then she said is it absolutely secure. Well is anything absolutely anything right. I know there's no certainty in life. Are you still going to have a couple hundred people between 100 and 200 people crossing the border? Yes. Why? Because it's a massively big border. So when you when you say it's a trap, it's an I'll tell you the trap.

The trap is when she changes the goalposts and she says, is it absolutely secure if Trump says no, then that becomes the next news cycle. Trump says the border is not absolutely secure, but if Trump says yes, it's absolutely secure. Once one illegal crosses, then it turns him. It destabilizes his credibility. He's a liar. He he. So they the media thinks they win either way, regardless of how he does.

So Trump doesn't doesn't play. He doesn't take the bait. And he keeps talking. That just sound good. After being abused for years by an incompetent president that allowed people to push through an open border, criminals from all over the world, murderers and insane people from mental institutions and insane asylum. So is it. Is is it a beautiful thing when you say it's the most secure, it's ever been in the history of our country?

Isn't that a nice statement? He's like asking the questions back to her. And he's not wrong. Now I've got to take a break. But, there was another clip where Donald Trump said that the Wall Street Journal is a rotten newspaper. Listen, will you people treat us so bad? Wall Street Journal's literally gone to hell. Go ahead. Yeah.

Rotten newspaper. Give me what I said. It's a run. This man, obviously he's on the plane, but he says it's a rotten newspaper. We'll comment on this coming up on this Monday on Newstalk 1079. It's 826.

It's 831 on Newstalk 1079, Neil Larson and Julie Mason on this Monday, and if you'd like to reach us via text or call on the Stones Automotive Group calling text line, that number is (208) 542-1079. All right. Julie Neil, you had Trump calling the Wall Street Journal a terrible newspaper that it's gone to hell, in his words. So I think that's a fair assessment.

I kind of like down the tubes as well. Like, that's a that's a good phrase for Trump. I can absolutely appreciate the reckoning that is happening with the mainstream media. You've got NPR and PBS freaking out over the weekend because Trump's signed an order, I believe it was Thursday afternoon saying that the funding was going to be removed from them.

They're doubling down, saying they are straight down the middle. There are straight news sources, which is unrealistic. Absolutely. And everyone knows that's not true. It's very easy to find the data points on this. So it's become quite easy with AI to scan news sources and see how many times they negatively talk about something, and how many times they positively talk about something.

And NPR consistently talks negatively about Republicans and Trump, and so does PBS. Their their, news stories are much friendlier to criminals. There's just an agenda that's driven behind these these two organizations. I love the demise of this. I like to see them fall apart. I have zero problem with Trump calling the Wall Street Journal pathetic. Here's here's my thing.

And and if they fall, they fall, and I don't I don't think that NPR and PBS are national treasures that we need to bend over backwards to save. I think if they're truly of value to the American people, then they'll be okay. Because that's that's the whole that's what makes you viable in a society economically is you're valued.

So if they're going to be fine, if what they're arguing is true, then they're going to be fine. Yes. But I, I so I don't know if I cheer for their demise, I just don't want taxpayers to be funding it anymore. We don't need it that all the arguments that they had in the first place for sending money to PBS and sending money to NPR, it's it was because we did not live in an environment of media diversity.

Now we have massive media diversity. They don't they don't need it anymore. You you have tons and tons of media serving the communities they said they were serving initially. Yes. Yeah. And we're going to be fine without them. There is private sector jobs here on, the upswing. We saw the job reports on Friday showed, great growth amongst the private sector, a decrease in or in government funded organizations because people started taking the early retirement.

Everything that totally makes sense. Federal jobs are down. That's fine. That is fine because you create new jobs in the private sector. I, I really struggle with the concept that NPR, PBS, these mainstream media outlets act like they're the gold standard for everything. Everybody is replaceable. Everyone, including journalists. Yeah, and I don't I'm not really sure where they got in their mind that they aren't.

Yeah. My time was going to change. And they're not keeping up very quickly. No they're they're not you know what though once you start and I apologize if, if this is imagery that offends people. My apologies. But when you start slurping at the teat of the federal government you don't want to stop. And we have to wean them off of that.

And and again if they're a value they're going to be fine. If they, if they aren't then they needed to go away a long time ago. Well and I would think that other organizations, whether it's Fox or CNN or whoever is probably looking at them going go sell ads because that's what we have to do. Yeah. No kidding.

So a question let me ask you this hypothetically, because I love Trump's executive orders. I think they're fine. What if politically to make it more feasible? The executive order was we're doing a three year off ramp. You get 75% funding this year, 50% funding the next year, 25% the year following. And then after that, you're on your own.

Just just drop. So they have a little bit of time. They can they can plan and and adjust to it. Well, do you want the brutal truly or do you know justice for me? I, I'm with you. Yeah. But I you need to do what's politically feasible. And I think that the courts now are, are stopping Trump solely because they think something looks mean.

That's not a judicial standard by the way. There's not a lot it seems mean. So we're stopping you. We're going to we're going to fail or we're going to impose some kind of injunction on you. Well again it's sort of, you know, what is a perfect, perfect corollary here? I floated an idea a week or two ago, and I asked you, I think it was off the air.

I said, would you be okay if we if the taxpayer funded the illegals flights back to their home country? And part of me says, no, they're here illegally. Why do we keep spending money on them to to just get them compliant with the law? But then I thought, okay, if we don't do something like that, they'll just continue to evade the law in our country.

Law enforcement, it'll cost more. And sure enough, I saw the headline today. In fact, Fox had an exclusive a few minutes ago that the federal government, I think it's about a thousand bucks, will pay up to $1,000 for illegals to go back home and to Self-Deport. And I thought that actually, all things considered, makes sense, not because I like spending even more money, but because I don't want to keep spending more money.

So you got to spend a little now so you don't have to keep spending in perpetuity. Yeah, I, I've got no issue with this concept of self-deportation. And we'll help you get out of here because I promise the social programs that are aiding these people are going to cost us more, not just a little by a lot.

And, and the, the strain on the social economy, the social welfare economy in a city will be eased by doing this. So I've got no problem with that when it comes. I think that they're going to try to stop everything Trump does. And I guess the brutal part of Julie just says they didn't deserve the funding. Anyways, if you were using the funding appropriately and just providing news, then I would feel bad that we cut it.

But you haven't been and and admittedly so I believe it is. The head of NPR who said, yes, we we have been like admitted to running damaging stories against Trump. Yes. Yeah. Then you don't deserve the money. Yeah. No matter what a judge says. Yeah. You are not providing there should be some sort of a service they're providing to the to the nation for that government money.

And if it's to harm and you admit that you were trying to harm, you don't deserve the money. Yeah, yeah, I agreed agreed. And they probably would never make that admission that it was to harm I they do have I believe it is NPR that, the gentleman who leaves NPR is on. He was in an interview and talked about it through Covid and how they purposely tried to harm Trump.

Interesting. So use those words. Yeah. Yeah. It I listened to the clip this morning. So yeah. Yeah I, I just feel like that's not their job I mean yeah I would imagine you'd be like well we needed to tell the truth. Then we felt like Trump was harming the country or whatever. But that that's an and stunning admission that he said we were trying to harm Trump.

Yeah. Here's my deal with all of that is I if you are going to present yourself in a genuine light and we as a government still give you money, that's our fault. Yeah, but if we're operating under this concept that they're a national news and, and they're giving us right down the middle and it's clear cut reporting and it's not it's not agenda driven and everything.

And that's the expectation. And you take the money and it's an agreement between the two. Yeah. You have felt your contract. So it's time to go. Yeah it is. And I think if I'm Trump Trump doesn't think like this. And he doesn't communicate like this. But if I'm Trump and I want to be clever, I'm my EO in cutting funding for NPR and PBS is couched under the concept that we are allowing you to be a fully independent journalistic organization.

You shouldn't have to have this worry from year to year about your funding, and you should be able to to report freely and accurately without being encumbered by that pressure. So we're going to set you loose. Yeah, that'd be a great way to frame it. But but that's not Trump. Trump's like they're the enemy. And we're cutting the the gravy train's coming to an end.

Yeah. All right. 840 on Newstalk 179. Quick break. We'll come back after this. It's 845 on Newstalk 1079. Julie, this is a very, very, very bad sign. I was reading an AP story about Trump and NPR and yeah, and we're talking about in the previous segment, I get a pop up from AP asking for money, asking for donations.

They've got their little aluminum tin cup out there rattling a couple of coins saying, can you give me can you help us out? Like they're like a homeless man? Yeah. On the streets of downtown. Name your city. They kind of smell like one, too. So here's what it said at the Associated Press. We've been bringing the world factual news and information for more than 175 years.

Our journalism informs and empowers over half the world's population every day. Now more than ever, we remain committed to covering the news quickly, accurately and without bias. In nearly 100 countries and in all 50 U.S. states, AP journalists go to great lengths, often overcoming tremendous obstacles to fulfill our mission. If you believe in the importance of a free and fair press, please consider supporting AP.

Your donation advances our mission to provide fact based nonparty and information to the world. Okay, that last sentence is a big, flat out whopper, Willie. And there are superheroes. They're journalists. We've overcome so much now. You do a job, right? Just like everybody else does a job. Yeah. That's true. You heard it's true. Okay. But just the nature of them needing to take donate, like, that's that's not the sign of a vibrant, profitable need.

Really? Not really. Like, so I don't I mean, part of me is kind of I mean, it's kind of sad because, I mean, Associated Press is sort of a ubiquitous presence has been anyway. But I do think that they've become their own worst enemy. Yeah. And I think the old, the old business models just aren't working anymore now.

Well, there's just so many other choices. You can't keep offering the single hamburger that has two pickle slices and a dollop of ketchup and think that everyone wants it when you have gourmet burgers available all over the place. Yeah, it's just it just doesn't work. You're not going to be the most popular organization. No, you're not keeping up.

No, you're you're not. And I, I think we saw this Julie in the newspaper industry. And I'm already using past tenses, though it doesn't exist. It's still there, but it is really struggling and it's really hard to make newspapers profitable for a whole host of reasons, mostly technology. But when when I look at this, I think the problem is you had too many people internally that were clinging to the old ways of doing things.

And I mean, part of the problem is when your medium is called a news paper. Paper has been that the phase out of paper started about 25 years ago, and maybe even before that in some ways. And it sense if you're if you're part of the print media, especially the daily print media, your, your model every week, it just gets more and more outdated.

And that's a, that's a tough obstacle for them. That's not an insult. It's it just is what it is. I attend a weekly church meeting with youth up at BYU Idaho that they're the leaders and they come to a meeting and we do that once a week. Yeah, there's probably 20 of us in the room. There isn't, especially among the male population.

There isn't a single pen and paper out. Yeah, but they've all got laptops or iPads and they're all typing furiously. And three people are accessing the document that's on the gigantic TV that we're referencing for our agenda, and they're adding things like announcements and other stuff, and they're adding from different computers. That's what's happening now. It is not a sit down in a meeting and you get handed a paper agenda.

That's very that doesn't happen very often anymore. Yeah. It's just a different world. And they just haven't kept up. Well, I, you know, I go back and I have to sort of roll back my, my memory on this. But newspapers, I remember they were kind of slow to adopt the internet because they felt like, why would we put our stuff up on a website that people could instantly access when our great when our when our bread and butter comes from people either getting a subscription and having it delivered, or going out and grabbing a copy at their local.

So they kind of resisted the migration to digital. I think that's probably what ended up being one of their biggest disadvantages. But part of the the issue is you're not a news paper anymore. Paper is a physical, tangible thing. This is very, very different. And I just think it was understandably, they were they were very slow to make that migration.

Yeah. And it was a beautiful part and probably still is for some people. Yeah. It's just a dwindling number. It was a beautiful part of their lives. I bet you could go to a college campus and ask, how many of them have touched a newspaper in the last five years, and I bet a majority of the students have not.

Yeah, I think you're. And you're giving them a big span. Five years. Yeah, yeah. You're right. You are giving them a big a big. When was the last time you actually took a newspaper and opened it up physically? Like grabbed it? You know what? I did it across the street. We stopped at the convenience store. And they carry a local paper there.

You can buy it. Yeah. And I, I didn't open it, I flipped it over so I could read the rest of the headline that was at the fold. Okay. Gotcha. That's the last time I've touched a newspaper. How long ago was it. Oh geez. What was that. Three months ago. We went maybe four months ago. Before that. Probably a year before.

I mean, it just rarely happens. Well, and I, I don't know if they're, aggressive about publishing their circulation rates for their, their actual physical newspaper, but I, I feel like most people, their customers, I promise you were probably all over about age 60 to 65. I still access papers, especially for my podcast online, but I'm not touching a physical paper.

Yeah, yeah it is. And it's just the the migration. And it's weird to watch the media like we're talking about this because of the AP story soliciting donations. Now, and the TV local TV has had kind of the same struggle, and they're competing with a whole bunch of new offerings now. Like when you how many different how many different video services do you have?

Streaming services? I when I pull up on my Roku app, there's probably two dozen. Oh yeah. At least. Yeah, that we have a bunch a bunch. And well, and then you consider the free stuff they like the tube TV and freevee and all like you don't all you need is internet now, and you've got a whole bunch of competitors to your what used to be three TV stations.

Well, four if you count PBS, but yeah, but now it's, it's it's totally changed. I think they're, they're working hard to try and adapt to it. The one, the one legacy media category that continues to thrive is radio because we have some advantages. We're on devices. So we're you can listen to our stream right there and it we're local as well.

We're very portable and and spoken word is a lot easier to create than videos. And then we don't have to go out and take pictures. And and so we have a unique, unique set of advantages. You know, it's super interesting because I don't we're not in the newspaper industry even though they're cousins. Right? Yeah. Our radio is never subscriber.

If you go to the digital version of the Nielsen show, it's not subscriber. But if you go to the digital version of a handful of papers throughout the region, you can't get in. And, and you wonder, is, is that really a value to you? Like, somehow maybe you entice your advertisers to, to increase your advertising base so you can get rid of your subscription?

Yeah, right. I know that that paywall conundrum is a tough one. It's a tough one for them to navigate. Yeah. All right. We'll be back. It's 855. All right. It's, 859 on Newstalk 1079. I saw a provocative point being made on the internet the other day. Julie, I'm going to throw it by you at the first of this next hour, okay?

It's all coming up. Stick around.

And good morning. It's 907 on Newstalk 1079 and Neil Larson along with Julie Mason. So Mike pence got a profile in Courage Award. And, I think at that same banquet, they gave Michael Moore a Profile in Health Award to show. Welcome back. It's good to have you with us on, this Monday as we get another workweek started.

So. Yeah. And they gave all the, Democrats, proxy award for, loving life and supporting children. Yeah. Rosie, the Rosie O'Donnell got a profile and happiness award to show, you know. All right, Julie, I saw this, I saw this video on social media, and at first I thought, oh, the video's sort of over the top.

But then I started thinking about it, and I think it could be this guy was talking about AI and the impact that I was going to have on the economy and on jobs, and I've, I've vacillated on this because AI is a developing phenomenon in our society. And he said he asked the host, and I don't remember those to us.

Doesn't really matter. Would you send your kid to law school now with AI? And they both agreed, no, we wouldn't send our kid to law school because not that we won't need lawyers, but we won't need nearly as many lawyers as we used to have. And and because sometimes we think of lawyers like Matlock or, you know, a criminal trial attorney, I is not going to replace those attorneys.

But but a lot of the work that attorneys do is just sort of this pretty tedious legal stuff, making sure documents are written correctly and in accordance in compliance with the the laws that exist precedent and contracts. And and I was telling you about a need that I had for, a document to be crafted for something I'm working on.

And so I put in a prompt and I asked, it creates, this, this script for this need that I have and it, it did it in about the only in just a few seconds. And I thought if I were to go out and hire an attorney to look this over, to write it, to make sure it's in compliance, it probably would have been a few hundred bucks to to do this, and it probably would have taken, a week or 2 or 3.

I don't know how how fast attorneys work and in getting this particular need back, but I did it, with a prompt and I said, you know, make sure it fits legal guidelines and it produced it. I haven't done this, but I bet if I went to if I went to I and said draft for me, a will with the traditional language, then it would probably do that for me as well.

And it, it might, I might even get more complex and say, ask me as many questions as you need to craft a will for my kids or whatever. And it probably would would do it in in a pretty good job, and you'd be 90% of the way there, if not 100% of the way there, so that the demand for lawyers, it could go down dramatically with an AI future.

Now that could be applied to a lot of other, other areas as well, I think. So I think it also opens up the door for additional things, because, you know, there will be there will be consulting services. So you'll use AI to write these, but then you send it off to lawyer Q and that lawyer, reviews it for $100 instead of the $500 an hour.

You're going to get bill or $75 or whatever, and maybe they even charge by page or whatever just to make sure, you know, a lawyer has approved what I wrote. This looks good, blah, blah, blah. Yes. And you send it back. There will be the ability for those kind of services to open up. It is interesting how AI is going to change things.

And I think at first we underestimated what was going to be changed. I think that at first we thought like everybody was under threat. I don't think that's accurate anymore. I think that, the more, unique you can make yourself, the less likely you are to be replaced by AI. I think it's super important to identify how I can make what you do better.

You need to learn how I can enhance what you do. Those are the people that are going to hold on to their jobs in the future. All right. (208) 542-1079 let's go to the, let's go to the phones. Hi, caller. How are you? I'm well, sir, how are you? You good? What's up on the subject of AI? I've got a website and web traffic is terrible.

For a long time I spoke a little developers, and they said, pay us more money and we'll put more SEO content, yada yada. I plugged it in grok and asked it, hey, what's wrong with my website? And in 30s it discovered that it had a and I don't even know the term some sort of JavaScript error where the Google search crawler thought our website was blind and then gave me a very detailed step by step process how to fix it.

Very deep level technical stuff. And I had it done at 30 minutes, and that would have cost untold hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a web programmer to to go through each page of the website, figure out. So yeah, save me tons of money and fix it like that. Yes. And I, I if I were a web developer, I would be very worried right now what I if I were an app, if I were, if I programed apps for a living, I'd be worried.

And and again, I think we still need those guys, but they're the ones that are going to be guiding the AI rather than, And I think if you're sitting there thinking, no, it's not going to affect me, it's not going to affect me. Yeah, it will, it will affect you. You've got it. You got to enhance your skills.

So that's that's interesting. That's that's great. Thank you for the call. And for that example, I think another thing that it kind of pulls the covers off of is sometimes you, you ask, a professional in whatever field, a lawyer, an app developer, a web developer, whatever, to do something for you. And it takes weeks. Yeah. You're calling back and you're like, hey, our deadlines looming.

Are do you have anything like a beta? But I can look at something and, oh, we're getting to it, we're getting to it. And then you realize that it that if you had employed AI, you could have done most of the job. And probably one day. Yes. And you're wondering why it takes these professionals weeks to get things done.

I think that will be the change that that the ability to make yourself unique is that you operate at a different level than everybody else. Yeah. You operate a little bit quicker. Yeah. I, I feel torn because something that you say from time to time, which I love and agree with, is, you know, support local businesses, you know, because there is Amazon and people can get on Amazon.

They typically can find the cheapest or close to the cheapest. But yet that means you're not buying from a local person, which we want you to support local. But when people are operating businesses, they're trying to keep their expenses reasonable and low, and that might force them to purchase certain products from Amazon like it's I mean, it's a conundrum that that people are are into.

I feel like there's a similar dynamic here where if we turn to AI to provide our legal needs or web SEO needs, I had clawed, which is similar to ChatGPT, but it's really good at writing code. I had a concept in my mind for an app that I think could be very, very valuable. I won't go into the details there, but I thought, okay, I'm just going to see what it'll do, because Claude has that reputation of of writing code.

I, I, I, I created what I thought was a pretty good prompt and it just sat there for several minutes and it, it asked me some clarifying questions like, is this how you want this to happen? And do you want it to look like this, or do you want it to operate like this? So it asked, it came back and we had this interactive process, and then it took a few minutes and it was writing the code of everything I wanted.

And then it even created a mock up of what the app would look like on an Android and, and how it would work. And I thought if I were to get this same kind of service from a live app programmer or developer, it would take hours and hours. And like the last caller said, it would have cost a lot.

Now I have lots of friends who work in that field. I don't want to see them lose their jobs. At the same time, I want the app developed and I'm not going to fork over 60, 70, $80,000 to get the app done. So we're sort of caught in this vortex of priorities. And and I don't I don't know what it looks like on the other side because you're, you're going to have you're going to have.

And I want to make sure because I think people in fact, I bet if I looked in the in the text line, I'm probably already gotten a quote unquote correction. I'm not saying all of these people will lose their jobs. And so if you text in and say, oh, no, we're still going to need that, you're right. We are.

But I think AI is going to carry so much of the burden in the future. We won't need nearly as many of a certain kind of profession that we have right now, and that's why it'll be out of work. Not that the web development, industry will go away, it's just that I will carry so much of that load that companies will say, you know what, with AI, we can accomplish five times as much as we used to, with only a third of our of our programmers.

And so they downsize and they keep their best. And the ones that are good at AI and the ones that have stayed up and then they downsize that way. That's what I'm saying, is going to be disruptive. And I'm back to my statement that I think if you're a unique and you offer something that I doesn't deliver, that's how you maintain, you know, and it could be it could be a myriad of things.

It could be efficiency that you can work as fast as you know, I'm willing to pay the extra money because you're going to get it done for me in a couple of days, not six months. Yes. Or because a lot of people who are developing these things are doing other jobs. Yeah. So they don't they don't have time to sit here and massage AI and get it to where it needs to be.

So maybe efficiency is your uniqueness or maybe you you provide something that I can't. You have to be looking at the job that you do and make yourself the stand out in that position. Yeah, that's how you don't get replaced. I think one of the best skills you can learn right now and this could change. So don't hold me to this in a year or 2 or 3.

I think one of the best skills you can learn right now is prompt engineering. Know how to ask and direct AI to get the results that you're looking for. If you can do that, that is a very, very marketable skill that I think that, that the companies are going to want to have. Yes. So yeah, it's fascinating.

It is a we're in a like a pioneer age. Things are changing quickly. Landscapes. People are I mean, if you really think like pioneers that they were in wagons and moving to new territory and settling new land and building new things, that's all happening just at hyperspeed. Well, and I also think, and we're still a few years away from this, but when you combine AI with quantum computing, once we get quantum computing up to where it needs to be, where it's it's usable on a consumer level, it people are saying that is that is godlike power at that point.

Yeah. So there's some fear in all of this. There's a little bit of nervousness. It's definitely a definitely a brave new world. But is there a sense I think everybody in their own industry wants to think, oh, I will never replace me because I'm me. I will never be a radio talk show host because I'm me. And I think that for some categories that's true.

But I people need to take a very, very courageous look in their career mirror and make sure that you're not replaceable by AI because it it very well could and and I think we are going to have to figure out really innovative things to do to help people who get displaced by AI because it's coming and it's coming pretty quickly.

I think we went through a time frame to where it was desirable to always have a desks desk job. You know, I I've reached a higher level if I'm doing a desk job and we've, raised a whole, an entire generation now on cell phones and video gaming devices from the time they were babies. And so they've always known that.

Right? That's why the trades are clamoring for people. And there is massive opportunity in the trades that I just can't replace. And if you are a trade worker who combines AI with what you do learning, learning different ways to do things, man, you're unstoppable right now. You know, it's it's interesting because I, I agree with you. I don't think I is going to replace the trades anytime soon.

However, I am seeing these videos of homes that are being built. They're basically massively big 3D printers and the ink is actually concrete and it's going through and it's it's printing you a building and I'm like, okay, that that's going to bring housing costs down dramatically. And then when they figure out how to implement the plumbing and the electrical and all of that, that it will, it'll everything is about to change, I would say, in the next 15 to 20 years in terms of how we we live our lives.

So. Yeah. But if you know how to do it, let's say you're a trade worker and you know how to do it. As that technology comes aboard. Yeah. You can just like we're talking today learn it so that you can make your, your, your company or your self unique. Yeah you're right and I don't disagree with that.

But will there. Let's say right now you have 100,000 plumbers across the country. As this technology develops, you may have only a need for 10,000 plumbers that know how to incorporate AI, because the efficiencies in the scale will mean that one plumber can now do the work of ten plumbers. And that's what I'm talking about, is you're right as the that's good advice for the individual.

But when you look at the macro economy, what this what this means is that some of those people are going to get squeezed out and that this sounds really unfair, unfeeling and without emotion. Yeah, but that's reality. It is. It's how it works. Hey, I, I just this concept that of AI and we have infused it through second through college courses and everything that if you train yourself, you'll always have a job.

Yeah. No, that's it's just not how it exists anymore. There's 40 year olds who train themselves 25 years ago who are retraining themselves and new things so that they stay relevant. Yeah. You are never guaranteed a job. Yeah. No, you're you're you're not, you're not. Have you seen the the tunnel machines that they used to to bore tunnels.

And it, it collects all the dirt and then the dirt goes out the back and they've that's like. And I'm bringing that up for a reason. I'm not changing the subject here. The point is, if you go back in time and you think, well, the way they used to build tunnels is, I don't know how they used to build tunnels, but I know it wasn't that.

And I know you can build bigger tunnels faster now with that technology than you could before. That's going to hit so many industries. And and you're right, Julie, we're we're going to have to find new things to do and to, to pay people for. I think it's going to blow up the preconceived notion of a 40 hour workweek Monday through Friday for a lot of industries or even a, you know, longer workweek Monday through Saturday.

I think that society, by necessity, is going to have to relinquish their attachment to the way things have always been done. The what is it? Change always happens. Do you think that you can live in a world without change? Then you're going to live in a world that doesn't exist? Yeah, change is always going to be occurring.

Yeah, one, one thing too. This is more of a psychological observation and me listening to too many podcasts, but I feel like we've never had more tools at our disposal, more opportunities ahead of us, and we are as unhappy as we've ever been. How does that how does that work? Well I think there's multiple facets to that.

But we just used a whole entire segment talking about how we're personalizing everything you do. Yeah. That you're not working with people that you're not working with personalities that you vibe and mesh with or whatever. It's you and an AI tool that's a lonely world. Yeah, it is a lonely world. And it is. It is a disconnect.

I think social media has something to do with it. I think societal priorities have something to do with it. All right. 926 on Newstalk 1079. We'll take a quick break. Can be back after this. Okay. Yeah, that's true. I design web. Web designers are probably using AI too. I'll ask Ethan about this. My brother's a programmer that has his own business in his home and is struggling because of AI machine.

I was reading that one about the coding, the really long one, the ups and the downs. Oh, okay. So Jackie, on Facebook I was going to say this, but we moved on past the attorneys. I do know there is a local attorney. I don't know if it's he or she or name. I just know of a local attorney that got in big trouble with a judge because they used I to put together the case, and it was it was citing false things.

Oh yeah. That's a problem. Yeah. So what, Jackie on Facebook says her husband has already had attorneys called out by judges for using AI, and it has given them citations that don't exist. Oh, well, true. And I and I don't disagree with that. That's obviously a problem. It can't happen. But are these just the early kinks that have to be worked out?

I don't know, that's a great question because I don't know if you can ever work it all out, because how do you stop a system from going rogue humans go rogue? Yeah, yeah. But I think about we use computers for all sorts of things, and they they work pretty well. I mean, in terms of efficiency compared to what we used to do.

So I don't I don't know the answer to that question. I think no matter what, it has to be a combined effort between. Yes, I mean, especially if you still need human eyes on it. Yes. Especially if it's going before a judge in a like a courtroom case or whatever. Yeah. I mean, it would be it would be wise for a criminal defense attorney to utilize AI to gather, potential strategies and court cases they can cite, but you can't leave it at that.

No, you got to research all of that once you grab it. Yeah. I was, as I was reading that big long one about the pros and cons to learning the code. It's so interesting that that was a catch phrase of the Democrats when they cut all of the energy jobs, learned to code. Right? And and now those jobs are being threatened.

You know how how unaware the Democrats are of how actual business functions. Yeah, it's true that you couldn't have guessed that enough. Someone in this I want to ask a question to you that I think was sort of, hypothetical. Do you really want your banking app or airplane software built only by AI? If it works? Well, my my response back to that is there's been plenty of apps that have been built by humans, and they're getting ransomware all of the time.

Yes, I, I would almost you're perceiving that they're good now. Yeah. They have flaws now. Yes I okay let me let me we'll have this kind of conversation. 930 on Newstalk 1079 Neil Larson along with Julie Mason. So Julie, we got a what I think is a pretty good text from listeners, from code with Chris arguments why you might not want to learn to code.

AI tools are getting really good. You can now build apps just by telling AI what to do. Entry level coding jobs are shrinking. Companies are starting to use AI instead of hiring junior developers, and the pressure is rising on current developers. They're being told to use AI even when it doesn't work well yet. The arguments why learning to code is still worth it because coding is more than just typing.

You learn how to build safe, fast, and reliable software, not just make something work. You don't know what you don't know. Learning to code teaches you things like databases, networking, and problem solving. Number three, it helps you use AI better, knowing how code works makes Vybe coding way easier and less frustrating. What is vibe coding? I never heard of that before.

And then fourth, we still need real engineers. Do you really want your banking app or airplane software built only by a AI? That question jumped out at me because my answer to that is if it works, I'm fine with it and I don't. I think human coded software is also subject to the same vulnerabilities that I coded software is.

So I mean, we have you mentioned it off here, ransomware. I mean, we still have problems with with human coded AI. So if you had a pristine, fail safe way of coding versus a a flawed way, then the argument is settled. But we have two flawed ways so that we it doesn't really settle it with that question. Yeah, I, I mean, that's my response to that one.

I think Chris, lays out some great arguments here and I think for me, what Chris is arguing for is use AI, but make sure you know it. Make sure you know what you're doing. Try. Don't you know, he says there's good willingness to learn to code because then you understand the software better and everything. That's right. You're making the argument.

Yeah. A coder should be able to effectively use AI to make them the more valuable coder. Yeah. Then the person who refuses to use AI. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Do you remember back, Julie, how old were you when you had the first home computer in your house? Oh, we didn't have a computer when I was a kid. Oh. You didn't okay.

No no no no no no. I mean, we had gaming systems, but not a full blown computer in our house, like a PC. Yes. Yeah, but I probably first year of marriage. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I my dad was an engineer, and he loved, loved math. Loved his mind was just geared that way. So I remember as soon as Commodore 64 became available, we had one in our house.

And I absolutely loved it. It was a lot of fun because I learned to do some programing on it and used it to write papers. I just used it a lot, but I remember sort of this fear that people had that when when the computer came it, you could do so much with it, and it was so productive that you were going to replace people and that they'd lose their jobs.

Indeed, that happened, but the economy changed enough where you freed up human capital and people got trained to do other things. But look, it's a lot of people initially thought that the computer was a zero sum, factor in the economy, that if a computer came along, let's say one computer can do the the conceptual work of ten people thinking, processing, calculating, whatever.

Well, it's true. So your staff of ten went down to say a staff of one because you still need somebody to run the around the place. Those other nine people went somewhere, but they also had access to the value that a computer brought. So they all had computers, and they found ways to use those computers to be valuable.

Now computers are everywhere. They're in every home, they're in every business. They're they're everywhere. So there was actually a multiplier effect. I feel like there's a corollary here that I will get really good at some things that will all kind of stop doing, or many of us will stop doing, but we'll be able to take AI and redirect it so that it will benefit us professionally in the same way people who got replaced by a computer ended up getting one, and it made them more productive.

So they had a had opportunity. Yeah, I, I think you just enter this new arena, this new frontier to, you know, borrow from a fourth your AI in a new version of reality. Be open minded and learn. Yeah. I think those who will be left behind are the close minded. Yeah, yeah. Agreed. All right, 935 let's break and, we can we can shift gears when we come back.

(208) 542-1079 okay. Pritzker does he think he's the Trump killer? I think he thinks he's they're just really sad for the Democrats. And yeah, it is really is that battle. Yep yep. Oh he probably thinks he can make a resurgence as well. I can't look at. The only thing I hear when I look at Baidu is, hell yes, we're going to take your guns.

That's all I. That's all I ever hear. That was the. The visual I always see is him standing on a chair and making sure his staff took a picture from clear down here, like down the floor and shoot the picture. Yeah, because somehow that made him feel big. I don't know, I don't know what that desire was. There.

Is David Hogg out yet another train him? I don't think so. Yeah. Oust him but he doesn't. You want to know one of the things that's weighing heavily on my brain. What? Think about where you get your, your news from, whether it be local wherever. How many stories do you see come across your news feed about 43 year old man charged with child porn blah blah blah blah.

The federal charges. There was one over the weekend. A teacher was caught kissing a kindergarten winner. Like the amount of education, child issues that involve sexual material. Yeah. It's terrifying. What is going on? We are so degraded in this country. Yeah, it is so common. And maybe it's just easier to get caught now because everything's digital and there's cameras in classrooms and there are cell phone apps and people find that.

And so maybe it's not as big of an increase as possible, but it it is disturbing. Who does that. That is weird I don't I because what brought it to my mind is I just refreshed East Idaho News and their lead stories. Bonneville and Bannon County men sentenced in child porn cases. Like how many times do we see that headline?

Yeah, sometimes multiple times a day. That's a good question. Has this just always been going on? But we have the tools to catch it now. Or is the flood of porn across the nation well across the world? Is it creating more crime? Yeah. People, probably got access to it. It's probably both. Yeah. It's sad. It is. What else did you do over the weekend?

Motor lawn, mowed the lawn and, wash the windows because it had been a minute, worked on perfecting the website while improving the lives. Now, do you have any good food? Grilled hamburgers yesterday. Good. That was good. Even. Mushrooms and, onions in butter. And put those on top of the patty and then the cheese on top of that.

So cheeses melted up. That was really good. Good. How did you do sourdough? I know I fed my sourdough starter, but I didn't make it. I made banana bread. How was it? Good. It's pretty hard to screw up if you have a good banana bread recipe, which I think mine is really stellar. Yeah, it's pretty hard to mess it up.

I did see a recipe that we I think it was Friday night. You take hoagies, you hollow it out like a canoe. You put down some spaghetti sauce, and then you put down some pepperoni. And then you put down some string cheese, and then you put your meatballs on that, and then more spaghetti sauce and then mozzarella on top of that.

And then you bake it in the oven anyway. That's all. Yeah. It's really good. Good. Anyway, Julia was asking me what I ate over the weekend, and, I wasn't quite telling her what it was there. I was about halfway done when she said that, so welcome back. (208) 542-1079. That's their number if you'd like to join us. (208) 542-1079.

And so, Julie, we have Trump. And he was all over. He didn't sit down with MSNBC which have we ever had a president that does this much interviewing with the media. There, there is a ripple effect. This the answer is no. We've never had this much transparency ever. People are going to get very used to it.

And if he keeps doing this, both parties because Trump will go away. Both parties need to learn from this, that you can't you can't hide and just stay with your good old boys or good old girls club or your your caucus. There is an expectation that you be more transparent. I actually hope that this filters down to Idaho.

I hope that there are lawmakers that realize they can't run and hide. Yeah, and we do have lawmakers who hide. They they win their election and then you really don't hear much from them. They don't do a whole lot of really high profile things in Idaho. And, they never really ruffle feathers either. They just, they just kind of stay neutral all the way along.

We don't need lawmakers like that. We need to know that you're there to put in the grit, put in the hard work, do the do the things that you sometimes have to do to answer tough questions for and and then we would I would hope Idahoans realize which lawmakers they should give respect to. Yeah. I would agree.

I in my mind, that's just part of your job. Now, I don't expect lawmakers to give as many interviews as Trump does. You know, I think he he's very, very comfortable. But I do think availability is a very important thing as, as a lawmaker. And there are a handful that, they won't they won't interview with us even though we're I feel like we're respectful.

We will ask hard questions and especially on particular issues. But they they they won't they won't reply. Sometimes they reply, but they always decline. So, look, things have changed a lot about Idaho politics in the eight years that I have worked with you. That first year, it was I was quick to learn during the legislative session, and I came on board in September.

First legislative session. Session was that January? I was quick to learn that there was one new source only coming out of the Capitol that was run by Betsy Russell, and that that was about it. We were taking whatever she said as gospel about what was happening in Idaho politics. This last led legislative session. So eight, eight sessions later, you have multiple people who spend their time at the Capitol and they're putting live updates on X, and they're sharing it on their discord channels.

And they're they've got podcasts. They're putting it out there. There is no longer the ability for lawmakers to go over there and just have it kind of be a quiet session. Does that make sense? Right. Yeah, yeah. And that is healthy for politics. There's no gatekeeper anymore there. You like you said, there's so many ex accounts now and I do I do love that the the Idaho legislature has video archives.

They always have. Well they have for quite a few years. But now you have the social media infrastructure to go in and parse through all of that footage so you can grab the P and, and poop and in periods, moments. Yep. You know, and and and make those available. So yeah. Yeah. Hey no offense rod, by the way, if you're just but that's what I mean about I think that both Republicans and Democrats need to follow the lead of Trump.

And I don't mean that every presidential candidate should be as open and transparent as Trump is, but you've got to have a level of it because people are going to get used to it. Hey, I don't know how Democrats, if you if you put all of your emotions away about Trump, put them all away. How you're not just outright angry that your president didn't hold a cabinet meeting for a year.

Yeah. You should be so angry that that administration was run that way. That has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with his cognitive ability. It it's all leadership. Yeah. And that's horrific leadership. That's just that's not even a that's not a specific to Biden problem. That's just a process problem. You can run the nation and not have a cabinet meeting for that long.

Yes. And then when you do have a cabinet meeting, you have your wife run it. Yeah, I so what I'm saying is I, I hope that people understand there's a level of expectation that has been set. Now, you don't have to have as many cabinet meetings as Trump has had. He's had an insane amount, you know, since those people have been placed into their positions.

But there is a level of transparency that I hope people learn to expect and demand from their politicians. Yeah. So, let's get to a couple of these, clips where, he was asked about, about once he's gone and, who takes over MAGA? You have built a political movement that has transformed the Republican Party. It's transformed the country, frankly, a political movement in history.

MAGA when Make America Great Again, when you look to the future, Mr. President, do you think the MAGA movement can survive without you as its leader? Yes I do, what gives you? I think it's so strong and I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them.

You look at Marco, you look at JD Vance, who's fantastic. You look at I could name ten, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here. No, I think we have a tremendous party. And you know what I can't name? I can't name one Democrat. I mean, I look at the Democrats, they're in total disarray. So, Julie, you we did a flash poll last week and we had our listeners make a choice.

And the two names we offered were J.D. Vance and Ron DeSantis. But we had a lot of Marco filtering in two from from our listeners. I feel like Trump. And one of the points that we we arrived at was that Trump is going to be the kingmaker. It will very likely be whoever Trump wants it to be, in in the end, because once he gets behind one of the candidates in 2028, a lot of people are going to be like, okay, I'll give Trump who he wants because we want MAGA to continue.

Notice Trump doesn't mention DeSantis. He mentioned JD Vance, but he said, I'm not going to endorse at this point. That would be crazy to do that. But then he mentioned Marco, well, where Ron DeSantis belongs in that club somewhere, at least on some surface level. Is there a reason why Trump is directing the conversations and the attention away from DeSantis?

What's going on? I don't know, I have actually wondered this as well. I'm wondering if he thinks DeSantis can't win, if he's looking at the winning probability and he believes JD Vance and Marco Rubio have a better chance of maintaining, you know what, I think so. And don't get me wrong, I really like Ron DeSantis. He's not a warm and engaging guy.

Like, he's very kind of serious. You can tell he's been in the military. I mean, so has JD Vance, but but there's there's a stiffness about about Ron DeSantis that I don't think you really get with JD Vance and Marco Rubio, maybe a little bit with Marco, but but I sometimes he's awkward. I know during the debates he kind of did that smile thing where you could tell he was angry, but he was smiling to try and mask it.

And it was just sort of a howdy duty. But, you know, sort of projection and, so maybe, maybe you look at Ron DeSantis on paper, he's absolutely ready to be the president of the United States. But as a retail politician barnstorming the country, maybe he isn't the best bet. I think if he were to line up DeSantis and JD Vance side by side today, now May 5th, 2025.

Yeah, I think that you can already mark more missteps for DeSantis than for JD Vance. And especially over the last 7 to 8 months, JD Vance has been far more visible. So far more opportune to make those mistakes. And he hasn't. Yeah. And so maybe that's where the win ability ratio comes in that JD Vance had some moments a few a handful on the national stage.

And a couple of them didn't go so well. Yeah. And JD Vance has had far more than a handful a bucketful. Yeah. And almost all of them have gone well. Yeah. Yeah I think so. Yeah. He's he's done well I think he and as vice president he's just going to have more visibility too. So yeah, it's interesting to, to watch part of me during this interview, I don't have the audio of this, but Trump said he's not running for a third term, which I'm a little disappointed.

Not that he's not running for a third term, but it was kind of fun to watch the left get completely triggered, controlled by Trump in him leaving it vague. Yeah. And and leaving it at who knows I might I might do that but so I maybe he maybe he was starting to get blowback from some Republicans like in the polling that they're like, no way.

Whoa, you can't be a dictator in the making. So yeah, you can't be joking about. In his comments, he had a nod to the Constitution. He said, I don't think I don't think there's a way that I can do it constitutionally. So which is that that's the right thing to say. Yeah. And it also fulfills his ego, which is, yeah, I know I could win another one, but I don't think I should probably even try to do this because it's probably not good for the country constitutionally.

Yeah. Yeah. Probably. So. All right, quick break 952 on Newstalk 107. And we'll be back. We'll have our final segment coming up. Okay. You okay? Let's do the other, town and country when we get back. Okay. Actually, now let's do, Grand Peaks. So as I was driving home from Rexburg yesterday. Oh, it was probably right about 6:00, maybe 5 to 6, 10 to 6.

Right in that range. Yeah. Like monsoon level rain for about three minutes. Did that happen here? We had a little bit of rain. Yeah I don't know if it was monsoon level but it it was crazy. Got the roads wet. So like windshield wipers full blast. It very short. Yeah. But yeah. Dumped for just a brief little moment.

There's a name for that, Michael. What is it? Maybe not. When I was talking to my daughter in Arizona last night, she said they had a flash flood. Because they had some sort of a rain dump, and the water can't go anywhere in Arizona, so. Yeah, I have a cousin in Moab who, I remember she posted a video a couple of years ago.

There was a flash flood, but it was like in the mountains, miles away. But all of it goes to this one stream bed, and it it moved through like it was pretty impressive. I've never been in Arizona for one, I was with my friends in Vegas probably 15 years ago, maybe 18 years ago. And, we were driving and they started shutting down streets because they were full of water.

Yeah. I don't know if I've ever seen a flash flood. My daughter went to Vegas a couple weeks ago. She's like that place is filthy. It is okay. So dirty. These kinds of videos are all over the place. And this one was arguably one of the most propagandistic ones. But they said ever since a certain they had a construction project and it dug up an ancient, grave praying Native American grave that everyone has said that Vegas is like evil.

People don't go like the tourism is way down in Vegas. It has a very negative air feeling to it. I don't know if that's true or not. I haven't been to Vegas in two years. Ryan and I went right after intermission and we did a quick road trip. But, now I've always felt demons were crawling the streets of Vegas, but, but they said, this is.

It's weird. It's like, got a very dark feel to it now. My daughter was there at a specific hotel because her, her sister in law, which is much younger than her, was playing in a volleyball tournament, but hers was just trash and filth everywhere. The streets are dirty, the hotels are dirty. Like it's just dirty. I wonder why?

Because they're usually been pretty good, do you think? Yeah. Mean. It's 957 on Newstalk 1079. Grilled burgers yesterday. Julie. Yum. Yeah, it was really good. The cheese, the mushrooms, the onions, all of it. But the beef is so good. That's why Grand Peak's Prime Meats is so important to, Well, if you're getting steak or if you're getting ribs, if you're getting ground beef or hamburger patties, that's the place to do it.

The prices are competitive, but the quality of their meat is very good. Yeah. GP Prime meats.com. That's where you want to go to learn about all the different cuts of of meat that they have. They have packages there. It gives you a good idea of cost ranges and what you're going to find out is that it's very comparable to your big box stores.

So why not go for quality? You're not I if you're looking to save a ton of money, that's not happening. So go get quality meat at GP primates and they can deliver it to you. For orders $75 or more. They deliver for free in the Idaho Falls area. And if it's more than that, it's, small fee, I believe $10.

So GP primates.com. That's the place to go. All right, Julie, last minute I'm going to throw this at you. There is a story out right now that the white House says it has no timeline for releasing the Epstein files. Well, I don't think my opinions changed on this at all. I think you and I probably share the same opinion that there are too many people that will be implicated on both sides of the aisle, and it's going to cause such a national disruption that I don't I don't think they can release it.

Okay. Can you imagine the the massive distrust? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Now, you know what? This is where James O'Keefe needs to come in. Project Veritas needs to figure out is he still missing it? Did he go missing? Well, he just he he went off the market, I don't know. Yeah. Check. All right. We'll see y'all tomorrow. It's 959.