Matt 0:01

I honestly think, Shawn, that Trump has done a great job of uniting the country in opposition to him. The more you there's not a single demographic group in the United States where a majority actually likes Trump. Welcome to the Latter-day Lens, your home for faith promoting, unscripted discussion of current events. If you'd like to contact us, you can send us a text message through the link in the show notes. You could also email us, latterdaylens at gmail.com. If you want to know more about the show, please visit our website, latterdaylens.com. Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It is so good to be with you this week. I am your host, Matt. I'm with me today is Shawn and nobody else. Shawn, it's just you and me.

Shawn 0:47

Yeah.

Matt 0:48

We're not letting anyone else jump on.

Shawn 0:50

Yeah, sometimes I get jealous, and I'm just like, no, please, please don't invite anyone. I know the listeners love all the guests as we do. They're amazing, especially which someone will bring up here in a minute, your daughter Melanie. But she's busy, she's married now.

Matt 1:03

Yeah. Yeah. She'll be on, she'll join us sometime in the future. Uh, I think some guests, some people like more than others, but yeah, for the most part, I've never heard negative things. Well, actually, that's not true. But I've heard positive things about every single one of our guest hosts. But it's nice to be just the two of us sometimes.

Shawn 1:19

Yeah, I get jealous. I just want some time with you and get ready. Just get ready, all right?

Matt 1:24

Yeah.

Shawn 1:24

Be ready.

Matt 1:25

I'm I'm reading a bunch of stuff from the mailbag to make up for the fact that we had have no extra guests. That gives us a little extra time to kind of read some mailbag stuff. So we'll spend some time on that at the beginning. So, one listener, this is their first time writing in. Welcome, listener. I'm not using your name to protect your privacy. Like, if you want me to use your name in the future, listeners, you just say, please read my name, and then I will. But I'm not going to say this person's name. So she wrote, I came across this Facebook post tonight and wanted to know your opinions. In case the link isn't available, the poll post acknowledges the new recategorization of religious affiliations for military personnel. The post discussed how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been reclassified from being Christian to its own category. Both Senators Lee and Curtis from Utah have spoken out about this change, calling it unacceptable. My question is, how much does this really matter? Do you think this will change further? Do you think this change will further other claims that members of the church aren't Christian? Or do you think people will pay even pay any attention to this at all? Would love to know what you think. P.S. Love whenever Melanie is on the show. We are around the same age and are both women in STEM. She seems super cool, and I'm glad she's able to represent our generation well.

Shawn 2:45

She doesn't seem super cool. She is super cool. She is so super cool. She really is.

Matt 2:49

Yeah, Melanie's cool. And this listener's cool too. Love the love the message. What do you think, Shawn? What do you think? Did the change? Tell me.

Shawn 2:58

You know how you always say, Matt, that when a government passes laws, especially when it it influences, I guess, a moral question, then the people, most of the people, just adopt that. Right. And it's funny, whenever you started teaching me that, I started going asking all my friends, hey, I I rode my car, I drove my car from my house up the block, and I didn't put the seatbelt on, which is against the law. Was that immoral or was that just against the law? Which got me down that path of, well, you don't like the Latin when I bring in the Latin, so I won't bring in the Latin.

Matt 3:27

No, no, but I love it when you say Latin words. Malum prohibited.

Shawn 3:31

Malum and say versus malum prohibitum, right? Whether, but but your point you always teach is whether the law is malam and say or malum prohibitum, people treat it as malam and say. They treat it as a moral thing. So when the government you always taught me the government behaves in a certain way and does a certain thing, that does affect the opinions and the psyche of the people. And so I think this does matter because there's enough opposition out there where pretty much driven by evangelical evangelicals that say they they want so desperately to say that we're not Christians because we don't define because they just they're just they're jealous. That's what that's just jealous.

Matt 4:10

By the way, we're not Christians. Like I was one of those people that I actually liked the change because I don't want we are not just another Christian denomination. We're not Baptists, we're not Presbyterians. There's a lot of distance, by the way, theologically, between like a Seventh-day Adventist and let's say like a Unitarian, and they all get classified as Christian. We're so different than all of them that they don't even want us to be part of that club. And that makes me happy inside. I love the idea that they're like we're not even like them. But and that designation, by the way, means that if you die as a military member of our church, the the symbol they would put on your grave or your tombstone at uh Arlington Cemetery would be a cross, right? Because that's a symbol for Christian. So again, I'm fine with us not being lumped in with that group of Christians.

Shawn 5:00

There's no butt?

Matt 5:01

I don't think so.

Shawn 5:02

From a theological standpoint, I'm with you. Well, I don't know if I'm with you. I'm on the fence there. I I don't like, for example, I debate with my friend all the time. There was a babushka in Ukraine and communist her whole life, and then she learns the gospel from us, and she's 90, and she loves it, and she starts to believe in Christ, and she has this faith, just this simple basic faith on one simple concept that there was a man who came to the earth and he lived a perfect life, and he gained the powers of God to suffer for all of our sins, and then he died, and then he rose again. Simple concept. That's what she had faith in. And she put her faith in that and she repented of that. But that's all she knew, Matt. That's all she knew. Now, that definition of Jesus Christ or Christianity is shared by every Catholic, every Protestant, every Baptist, every evangelical, the LDS church. Most, most anyone, right? Is she a Christian? Is she not a Christian? Are we supposed to put a label on whether she's a Christian or not? That's right, because I think this basic concept is really, really important. Now, you get into the mining shit and the details, and sure, evangelicals will yell at us. And honestly, to your point, when we look at the evangelical Trinitarian God, it's not even close to what we know has been revealed. And so to your point, I agree. But but then but then you should be Matt fighting for the opposite of what you just fought for. You should say then LDS should be the only designation for Christians, and everyone else should be designated as something else. You can't say, you can't allow them Christianity title if they don't allow us Christianity title.

Matt 6:32

Well, they they're the ones that created Christianity as a title, right? They're the ones that created the word Christian. So they can have that word. We can be disciples of Christ. We can be, we can be, right? By the way, Christian isn't like, what does he say we should call ourselves? Disciples of Jesus Christ. So I don't like they created that word. I don't need to, I don't need the word Christian in order for so what I like about it is again, it it it it says to people, we are different than those Christians, which we are. And this is the other thing I would point out, Shawn. In the first vision, when God comes to Joseph Smith, he says all of their creeds and their something else are an abomination before me. Bingo. So I understand why that Christian world doesn't want us included with them. So but that's my we believe that that stuff's an abomination.

Shawn 7:23

Yeah, I agree. I agree. And they don't like us because of that. And that's fair. They shouldn't, because yeah, we are telling them that they are they are wrong and an abomination. But but well then why not do this? They're called either Orthodox Christians or they're called creedal Christians, and we're called restoration Christians.

Matt 7:37

Well, do you know what the Pentagon did? They just took the word Christian away from all of them, and none of them are Christian.

Shawn 7:43

Which was the right move. That's that's fine.

Matt 7:44

Yeah, you think that's the right move?

Shawn 7:46

It satisfies you because you're saying we are a different entity than and and the Baptists are a very different entity from Calvinists, and so they should all be just their own thing instead of trying to tell the world who is the right church or not. Yeah, it was the right thing to move according to your theory, I think, right?

Matt 8:04

By the way, when you said Calvinist, it reminded me, Shawn, I've decided I'm a Calvinist. Not, I mean, I'm I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Shawn 8:11

Hang on, Matt, you are a Calvinist just as much as you're a communist. You talk about like this, like I think I like these ideas, but in reality, there's you're not a communist and you're not a Calvinist. Well, okay, why? Go ahead. Go ahead.

Matt 8:23

No, we'll have a we'll I we have to remember to talk about this on a future episode because I've decided I don't believe in foreordination, I believe in predestination. But in that way, I'm a Calvinist.

Shawn 8:34

Do you believe in agency? Do you believe in agency at all? That God gave man agency.

Matt 8:38

So I know you have a friend who's a true Calvinist, so I know that you're ready for this fight. And so that's why we have to remember to talk about this at a future episode.

Shawn 8:46

Okay, okay.

Matt 8:47

You won't even have to prepare. You'll wake up being like, I just had this discussion 10 minutes ago. Let's go. Why don't you tell me how there's no such thing as agency? Okay. But we don't have to, we're not ready for that today. Okay, so all right, here's the next listener. Good friend of mine wrote this in. Matt, I listened to the podcast today and am perplexed how a seemingly smart LDS friend of mine is seeing any good in socialism or communism. I am unaware of any government program that functions as well as capitalism, free enterprise, and freedom. The government restricts growth and investment. Remember, I am old enough to be your dad. I have seen a lot in my life. I think you need to relocate to New York, Cuba, Iran, or China. Please also listen to the sucking sound as people like me would move from New York, Illinois, and California, your buddy in the gospel. I would love to live in New York. If only I could afford to live in New York City. That would be a wonderful, glorious thing.

Shawn 9:49

You just made his point. No, he's I isn't he saying one reason you can't live in New York is because okay, maybe.

Matt 10:02

No, no, he puts New York into Cuba, Iran, and China as like socialist states or something like that.

Shawn 10:07

Yeah, okay, okay.

Matt 10:09

Listen, this is what I want to say. And I want to be very kind to people. Iran is not a socialist state. Iran is not a communist state, right? Iran is a theocracy. Right. China, there isn't a uh uh there is the official it's the Chinese Communist Party, but China is a capitalist system. The free market principles that work in the United States are in China every bit as much as they're in the United States. So if I'm every bit as much? Probably even more so, right? Like the the markets in the United States are at least as regulated, if not more regulated, than the ones in China. So the fact that they officially call themselves socialist doesn't make them a socialist country. But if that's gonna be your definition, then I'm gonna say Vietnam is a socialist country and has had incredible gains in both freedom for its people and economic growth over the last 10 years as they've implied as they've applied market principles in their socialist system. So to me, the question isn't socialism versus capitalism, because every single country in the world is a mix of both socialism and capitalism. So the question is where do we want socialism in society, not if we want socialism in society. Because we talked about this before, Shawn. Donald Trump is a socialist, is a communist, actually, more than let's say President Xi in China, right? Because President Trump, over the last year and a half, two years, has used federal government tax dollars to bail out private companies in at least three different sectors, and in return for that bailout, he takes ownership of those companies in the form of stock where the US government owns companies. That is cap that is communism, and that is socialism. So if people are afraid of socialism, then say the United States is a socialist country, every bit as much as China or Vietnam, not Iran, probably the same as Cuba. Like people choose the wrong examples to talk about socialism being bad. They should talk about the United States.

Shawn 12:18

Great point. I'm not gonna defend Donald Trump. I've said it from his first administration. He behaves like yeah, he doesn't behave fiscally conservative whatsoever. Not at all. Yeah, like he spent, yeah, yeah.

Matt 12:32

Okay, okay, yeah. And and in terms of like freedom to do things in the market, I don't people don't use a the same AI tools that I use, but there's a group there's a tool I use that's called Claude.ai. They introduced a new model, uh, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, and I started using it. I was like, this is phenomenal. And then I tried to do one thing and they said we've got these securities on it, we have to prevent people from using it for national security reasons. So there were some things I couldn't do that it seemed like their settings were a little bit too strict. But then two days later, they're like, guess what? We can't let people use this tool anymore because the the federal government has said no non-U.S. citizens can use this tool, and unless we can prove the citizenship of everybody that's using the tool right now, which we don't have the capacity to do at the moment, we're just cutting off the usage for everybody. So, in terms of like freedom in the United States, like this is why is the government involved in the use of some AI tool that I pay a subscription for to a private company, and now the United States government says no foreigners get to use this tool. That's something that didn't go through Congress. That's something that didn't go through like any kind of a democratic process, but it happens in the United States. So when people want to say to me, China restricts the use of digital technologies, so does the US government for just as arbitrary of reasons.

Shawn 13:50

So just as you've talked, I've done a little research. So there's there's definitely probably not a consensus that would say that China's free market is more free or more free market than the U.S. Most consensus would be that it's, you know, it's it's a version of it, not more so of it. Like they compared to a referee. So like our US government is a referee looking at this free market, like it's a free market, and then the government's kind of like, okay, let's kind of analyze there are rules, so let's be a referee. Whereas in China, the free market is owned and controlled by the referee. The referee is directing it, the referee is like playing the game.

Matt 14:26

And what I'm saying is that's what's happening in the United States right now. Historically, I agree with you. That hasn't been the case. But in the last two years, that's definitely the direction we're moving. And if people want me to be nonpartisan, I'll give you some of the Biden administration stuff did that too. So the United States government is definitely moving in the direction of not just being the referee, but controlling the game as the referee.

Shawn 14:48

So the the but the question that the the listener brings up is why do you want that? Why, if we're going in that direction, why do you like that? And if you don't, say so, because it does seem like you do when you talk.

Matt 14:59

I do. I so again, I I think it's helpful in some industries. I think that having the government both regulate and be a player in the market can be beneficial in industries where a pure free market doesn't work. As an example, the United States healthcare system is the most expensive and not as high quality as least less expensive healthcare systems around the world. So that's an arena in which so a little more socialism.

Shawn 15:29

What if how about this experiment with it? Let's try it. I don't know, in a state, maybe I don't know. Oh, California. California. Well, let's try in California. Let's try it in California because it's doing great. Dude, it is going great. Our healthcare here is very poor quality and probably the most expensive. So thank you very much, socialistic.

Matt 15:48

No, there's no socialism in healthcare. No. Sure, there is. No, no. To do it anyhow, so to that's a subject for a different day. But what I'm saying is there's there's arenas in which it makes sense. To me, education is one where it makes sense for there to be socialism. Military, socialism makes sense. Healthcare, socialism makes sense. And we can argue about which areas we want the government to own things and where we don't want the government. Right now, I would say artificial intelligence, socialism makes sense to me, to have the government own some of that technology. Just to compete in that space, right? Just to just to have some kind of an opportunity to direct the way that things go in the future. But so that so it's not a question of should there be socialism or should there not. To me, I say there is, that's just the way things are.

Shawn 16:36

Let me just where should we have it? Let me just respond a little bit to that. The Constitution of the United States is the guide that we should have. That's the referee. The laws, the principles within that document should drive how we in America are behaving, whether it's in a free market or in a legal arena. Not government officials, not government, not Donald Trump, who now can go in and or George Bush, who can go in and decide to bail out the banks and then create a whole new structure.

Matt 17:02

The challenge, Shawn, is that the Constitution, the entire document, is like not even as much as like the opening pages of your mortgage documents.

Shawn 17:10

There you go. So if it's not in there, buzz off. Like the prints, the principles which were inspired. Admit it, Matt. Were they inspired? What did we learn last week at church?

Matt 17:20

Sure, for sure. That yeah, I have the constitution is an inspired, it was uh this nation was founded by God.

Shawn 17:27

So then so the inspired elements that do govern X, Y, and Z, if they don't govern a market or then then it shouldn't, it shouldn't be in there. So I yeah, I'm with the listener, Matt. I don't understand why sometimes you're like, yes. Well, here well, you have repeated it many times. The people are stupid, they are and they need a savior, they need the government saviors to take care of us and make sure that we don't, you know, ruin our lives. That mentality.

Matt 17:53

Speaking of an inspired constitution, that's the system they set up. We decided as the people to give people more choice. What did the inside as a as a citizen of the United States, under the original system of the Constitution, who could you vote for in the federal government? Members of the House of Representatives and nothing else. No vote for courts, no vote for president, no vote for the Senate. They set up a system to insulate the federal government away from the whims of the masses. And over time, we've been like, no, let the people choose, let the people decide. Okay, well, as we do that, we get further and further away from those founding principles.

Shawn 18:34

But don't we still have the power to take those representatives and say, well, you're not representing me. You're doing wrong. Out. And so we'll bring someone else in who you're you're acting like a socialist regulator who's trying to control things. Out.

Matt 18:47

Right? Which is why in the 2024 election, only 97% of the elected officials got re-elected. Whoa. Yeah, that's right. Every election in the United States, uh, you you you can go through the numbers, but 2024 was a year for voting out incumbents. So 3% of the incumbents lost. Usually it's 98%, 99%, but 2024 it was only 97% that got re-elected.

Shawn 19:15

Okay, but just like you can go through your favorite document, uh, what's it called? The principles of communism. What's it called? No, the uh what's it called? The communist manifesto. Just like you can go through the communist manifesto and find ideas and concepts and principles that are trying to manage or govern a certain situation in a marketplace or whatever. I think we can go through, it would be a little harder, but we can go through the constitution and maybe some of those books that inspired the constitution, like The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, maybe. Oh, yeah.

Matt 19:44

Okay, sorry.

Shawn 19:44

Okay, then we can go through the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, like maybe even the Declaration of Independence. And why don't we find the principles that would really truly govern what a free market looks like? I got there's gotta be, they gotta be in there.

Matt 19:58

By the way, I don't think that they tried to create a free market system with the U.S. Constitution. But I will say this that one of the great ironies of the history of the United States is James Madison, who's the father of the Constitution, was the first person to start redefining what the Constitution said once he became an elected member of Congress and the Constitution didn't allow him to do the things he wanted to do.

Shawn 20:21

Interesting.

Matt 20:21

So this idea that we should just do what the founder said, the founders contradicted themselves. They created a system based on ideas, and then when it came time to like actually implement those ideas, they found it inconvenient to hold to all of those principles, and so they started redefining what the document actually said.

Shawn 20:39

So I guess the question then to round this off, can you go and identify which principles in the founding documents are the inspired ones?

Matt 20:48

I'll just stick with I'll stick with President Oaks. President Oakes told us what they are.

Shawn 20:52

He did. Do you remember? Go do it. Yeah, I love it. I love this.

Matt 20:56

Federalism. Uh he talks about the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law.

Shawn 21:00

Nice. I love it. I love that.

Matt 21:02

That's what he says is inspired.

Shawn 21:04

Those are the principles that govern. Do you find socialism in any of any of the principles that govern those four areas?

Matt 21:09

Every single one of those. Every single one of those.

Shawn 21:11

Your face. What do you mean every single one of those?

Matt 21:13

There's nothing more socialist than the rule of law. That everyone has to be governed by law. And if the law says, give me your property, you have to be governed by law. Did you know India is a country with a good federalist system? And some states in India are socialist, and some states are really capitalist. There's actually better federalism in India than there is in the United States because their central government doesn't force compliance as much as ours does.

Shawn 21:40

Oh, that's interesting.

Matt 21:41

So you could have, you know, you like the laboratories of democracy idea.

Shawn 21:45

Okay, I do, but I also like a central inspired set of principles that do are the standard for what states can and can't do. I like that too, though.

Matt 21:53

But that principle of separate of federalism says if the some state wants to go create a social, a truly socialist state. Not just to pretend one like they're trying in California. If they want to really be socialist, true federalism would say, let them do that. And then every other state could learn from that and say, we love what they're doing or we hate what they're doing.

Shawn 22:12

Yeah, as long as they don't violate the principles of the Constitution, which I think is a great system. It's awesome.

Matt 22:17

Okay. I I like our constitution. Okay, last this is the last listener wrote in. Your discussion of character versus policy and Cornine versus Swalwell definitely needed to mention Graham Plattner, a problematic Senate candidate from Maine. This lefty is sad to watch Dems Fall. Wait. This lefty is sad to watch. Dem's fall for the morality problematic economic populist. Janet Mills was the right choice. Okay. Anyhow. We didn't talk about Graham Plattner because we recorded before that election, but yeah, I would say that.

Shawn 22:51

Yeah, say it. I want to hear you say it.

Matt 22:53

Yeah, they should. I I do not approve of voting for Graham Platner. So the the Democrats in Maine should not, if they were following the first presidency, I'm not going to say they should have voted for Janet Mills, but I would say Graham Platner is probably not a high upstanding moral character guy.

Shawn 23:11

Well, I'm glad the listener noticed that sometimes you try to shock people by only pointing out the bad Republicans. And she said, or he said, Come on, Matt. Come on, man. Don't be bipartisan.

Matt 23:20

But if you listen to that conversation, I did say we'll see what happens in Maine next week. Like I did realize this was a possibility that this would happen. Yeah. Okay. And so I I fully intended that we would talk about Graham Platiner, although I don't think we should give a lot of airtime to people like that. But since he's running for Maine and he's the Democratic nominee, then I guess we have to mention his name. Let's move on to the thought provoker, Shawn. All right, so first up this week, Switzerland is voting on a radical referendum called the Sustainability Initiative, proposed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party. The initiative seeks to place a hard cap on the country's permanent resident population, keeping it below 10 million until 2050. The current population is 9.1 million. On the one hand, this seems like a totally fair way to handle immigration. Place a hard cap on the population and nobody gets in after that cap is hit. But here's the question: Is a policy like this morally objectionable?

Shawn 24:21

That's a it's an interesting question.

Matt 24:25

I became armed with scriptures today.

Shawn 24:27

Oh bless you, Matt. Bless you, Matt. Okay, good. Well, I can see both sides. You've taught me to look at both sides of things. So on the one hand, there's self-determination, right? Like I look at a country like Ukraine, who has been meddled with first by the United States by promising them that they would, if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, that they would protect them against foreign invaders like Russia, and then didn't. So the United States meddled with them. And then for the last four 30 years, watching Russia just meddle and meddle and meddle and watched these desperate people say, we just want to self-determine, right? We want to be able to control and govern our own lives. And so, look, I get it. Switzerland should have the right to self-determine. But then on the other hand, if there's goodness out there, if there's something that Switzerland has that is good for the people, then I say let the people enjoy it, let the people have it, right? Learn how to manage that. But that's kind of how I feel about the United States is immigration is so good, not necessarily because what it adds to America, but what it what America adds to these great wonderful people. So if you're not a criminal and you're you're not a terrible person, have a process that lets more people in than not, because it the blessings of America should be given to those people, the freedoms and the rights and the opportunities. But I'm on the fence, man. So I can't wait to hear your scriptures. Let's hear it.

Matt 25:45

All right. So this is from Leviticus. If a stranger sojourn with thee, ye shall not vex him. Thou shalt love him as thyself. And then in Deuteronomy, God loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger. Or if we go to Jesus in Matthew, I was a stranger and ye took me in. And then Jesus also in 2 Nephi 26, 33, he denieth none that come unto him, all are alike are unto God. So I feel like God says, as a people, we should be welcoming to strangers. So I think that means that we have to let immigrants, like we have to let people in. The best way to share the gospel is with by getting to know people who don't know about the gospel, just like you said, Shawn, right? The good things that come that changes people's lives for the better when they come to the United States. So I think any mindset that says no vacancy, we're full, we can't afford you, we don't want you. I don't think that there's any justification for that kind of thinking in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Shawn 26:48

Yeah, I mean, I see videos of people. Yeah, there's this crazy video the other day of this. They were all at a home an HOA meeting. Oh man, these HOA, these videos of HOA people drive me crazy. And there's there's a picture of the side view of this woman talking to the to the panel or the HLA leadership. And there's this other dude like staring at her listening. And she basically was like, you know, uh, you know, when our landscapers come and do their work, they they at lunchtime they uh occupy our common areas when they eat their lunch. And and and and she's like, and I j they're just hanging out, like they're hanging out, they're living in our society now. And this guy was looking at her like give me a break. Like, come on, how stupid, racist, evil, dark, selfish can you be? Certainly, if the reasons for us not wanting people to come are based in those kind of selfish, evil, you know, reasons uh that are racist, that are uh I don't know, elitist, that are pride out of pride. Yeah, that's that's horrible. But don't you think there are some good reasons perhaps that you wouldn't want? Like, for example, you have some standards, Matt. You don't want a criminal here. Let's say a petty criminal.

Matt 27:55

I will welcome criminals to the United States.

Shawn 27:58

No, you would not. Because I can give you five scenarios and you'd maybe say, yeah, one is welcome, but the other four wouldn't be.

Matt 28:05

I don't care what they've done in their past. If they want to come to the United States, I'll let them come.

Shawn 28:09

Okay, so uh a Cuban serial rapist.

Matt 28:14

Mm-hmm.

Shawn 28:15

Why? Don't be dumb.

Matt 28:17

Okay, so so a situation under which now is it uh if they've escaped from prison, okay. Right, if they're fleeing justice and they're coming to our country to hide from the law, I think we should turn them over to the authorities in their own country to let them pay their penalty or whatever. But if a person has committed a crime in the past and they've gone to jail or whatever, and they've paid their dues to society, 100% let them in. Okay. I'll let anybody into our country.

Shawn 28:46

Now, listeners who get triggered by that, let's just point out this is the latter-day lens, and Matt is being Christ-like right now. Matt is showing the example of how Christ looks at you. You who just got triggered by Matt what Matt just said. Jesus Christ looks at you and goes, Look at all these sins. Yet you've repented and I've suffered and died for them. I welcome you into my fold. That's what you're doing right now.

Matt 29:07

Right. Yeah, thanks, Shawn, for clarifying. Because I don't want to trigger people, but I do just want, like, we all know people who have ghosts in their closet, things that they've done in the past that are not good. We've all done things that we're embarrassed of. The idea that I would say to somebody, you cannot move to another country, try to improve your life, try to make life better because of things you've done in the past. To me, that's not Christ-like. That's not what Jesus would say.

Shawn 29:32

So when when people say we someone, common people, a lot of people say, okay, let's immigration is a great thing, just we need to keep criminals out. What do you think commonly is meant by that?

Matt 29:45

I have no idea what people think when they say that.

Shawn 29:48

But come on, yes, you do.

Matt 29:50

No, I really like it.

Shawn 29:51

You mean they mean people who are current active criminals, people who are people who are fleeing justice in their own country? Either that or are are actively continuing to commit crimes.

Matt 30:02

Okay, that that is not an immigration question, right? We have extradition agreements with countries all around the world.

Shawn 30:10

No, no, no, not that. No, no, no. People who are actively committing crimes. Like if you're a non-citizen and you're here actively committing heinous crimes.

Matt 30:18

Okay. If you come to if you come to the United States and you commit a crime, what do I want the punishment to be? Whatever our law says the punishment is, do I really want somebody, let's say they are, I don't know, the prince of Saudi Arabia, and they come and they murder somebody in our country, or they take someone from our country and murder them in Turkey. Do I really want their punishment to be, oh, you've got to go back to Saudi Arabia and live as a prince? No, I want them to be punished by our laws. We have a criminal justice system that works just fine. So if people come here and break the law and commit crimes, 100% I want them to be subject to the laws of our land and get punished here. And then after that punishment is up, we'll decide if they stay or don't stay. I don't see why I'd have to send them back to another country, especially if they have family here or something like that. So to me, if somebody says I don't want criminals coming into the country, I just say that's not an immigration question. We already have laws in place. Remember that guy in Utah that kidnapped the kids and went to Mexico? Guess what happened? They found him in Mexico. And guess what they did? Sent him back to the United States to reunite. Actually, yeah, so because we have this already in place now. It's not like there's people that are committing crimes in Venezuela coming here and they're like, ha ha, now I'll never have to serve justice for the crimes I've committed. That doesn't happen.

Shawn 31:36

Okay. So I want to So your one standard, your one exclusion for Switzerland, your advice to Switzerland is let everyone in, let everyone in, except for any convicted criminal who escaped justice. You don't let them in. Everyone else, let in.

Matt 31:52

That's right. Keep your extradition laws in place. And if you have a law, which many European countries do, that say that somebody convicted of the death or who could get the death penalty in the United States, we won't extradite them. Well, change that law. If you feel like there's too many murderers in your country, whatever, so here's justice, then just change that policy that you have.

Shawn 32:12

So here's a potentially triggering tangent question, then. So what do you say to the Swiss who look at England and go, England has doesn't have a recognizable moral or cultural identity anymore because they've been infiltrated by so many other cultures that it doesn't exist anymore? And the morals or the cultural, I guess, values, they're gone out the window. Should Swiss should the Swiss not look at that and be so scared and say, we need to maintain our own culture and our own values? What do you say to that?

Matt 32:45

So I would say that that's not Christ-like, right? The idea that there's something British that the people in England need to maintain, if you can't maintain that by virtue of the quality of itself, meaning if somebody moves from North Africa is going to change it so that your kids don't want to be British anymore, then maybe it's not good enough to hold on to. If if all these people believe in free markets and your identity is so strong and powerful, then why do you need to protect it and keep it from other people coming in? I think that the world is a better place when we interact with people of different cultures, different backgrounds, different persuasions. It makes everything better as we interact with those people. So so I think what it means, if if I'm Switzerland and I'm worried about losing what it means to be Swiss, I would say all of these people coming into your country are gonna kind of like shake things up, and all the good stuff that was Swiss is gonna stick around. I imagine Swiss chocolates going nowhere and it's gonna just stick there with you, and all the stuff that should have gone away years ago will slowly get moved out of your society.

Shawn 33:46

So so kind of like a pure free market.

Matt 33:49

Yeah, I said there are times when free markets make sense. There's times when socialism makes sense.

Shawn 33:56

But the but in this case, no socialism, no government control trying to decide for the people. In this case, let the people be completely free market, not when it comes to what they purchase, but when it comes to who's in my who's my neighbor is free market.

Matt 34:12

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a government that can be unbiased about deciding who can and cannot come into the country. So since they're gonna introduce some bias that could be bad for society, keep government out of that. The market is not going to introduce that same kind of bias. It's gonna probably introduce some kind of a wealth bias, maybe or something, right? If it's a desirable place to live. But I think that when there's opportunities for bias to come in that treats people unfairly, keep government out. But in situations where there's no reason to think that there would be a bias, bring government in.

Shawn 34:51

You get the points, Matt, because you made me think a lot. You did a good job. That was a great, great way to kind of defend it, whether you believe it or not. You defended it well. But hey, it's not my fault that you have to, after every stance you take, convince us that you believe it. That's not my fault. Don't blame me for that. Don't act surprised when I question it.

Matt 35:08

No, I just want to say that I have been consistent on that. I've never, I've never changed on that.

Shawn 35:13

Yeah, you have. It's true. So you get the points. That was very interesting and well, well, well argued.

Matt 35:17

Thanks, Shawn. All right, let's talk the World Cup. So it's happening in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. And some of us, I can see Shawn with his Boston Red Sox hat is some of us are not celebrating the World Cup as we ought to.

Shawn 35:33

As we ought to. Socialist. Don't tell me what sport I should be a fan of, you socialist.

Matt 35:38

Did you know soccer is the third most popular sport in the United States?

Shawn 35:42

How is it oh, in the United States. I thought you were gonna say in the world, but no, it's the number one in the world, isn't it? By far.

Matt 35:48

So some people are wondering if this could be the last World Cup ever. They argue that increasing nationalism, political conflicts, immigration restrictions, and disagreements within FIFA are putting pressure on the tournament and the international cooperation it depends on. At the same time, ticket sales for a U.S. team's opening match against Paraguay, which they won four to one, have been slower than expected because some of the ticket prices were really high, costing over $1,000. In addition, Omar Arton, the only World Cup referee from Somalia, was denied entry into the United States because of immigration concerns, and he was unable to officiate in the tournament. So, altogether, these stories suggest that politics, the high cost of the tournament, and international tensions are creating serious challenges for the World Cup before it even begins. So here's the question, Shawn. Will the World Cup held in the USA while it celebrates its 250th birthday be the last World Cup ever held in the history of mankind?

Shawn 36:50

The answer is if your socialist principles abide, then possibly, yeah. If capitalism is free to abide, heck no. There's no way the most popular sport in the world would go away because political interfering forces it to. No, in a free market, there's no way. It's the most popular sport in the world. There's going to be money to be made, and there's going to be fans who will always choose to love it, and it will never, ever, ever go away. But if you over-regulate and you get your stinking politicians and your governments who know better than everyone, if you get them involved, yeah, you could destroy it. Sure, sure. Yeah, socialism could destroy it for sure.

Matt 37:25

It is interesting for someone to say ticket prices are so high that this will never happen again. Like, isn't that the opposite of how things are never happening again? Ticket, right? They're like ticket prices to like the to watch. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, then it'll destroy it. Yeah, yeah.

Shawn 37:42

Yeah.

Matt 37:42

Right? If ticket prices are so high, that means that there's a lot of demand to go to the event, which suggests that it's not going to die.

Shawn 37:52

But a socialist who only has a worldview of power imbalance goes, 90% of the people can't afford that ticket. This is bad. Let's shut it down. But the capitalist says, look at how high the demand is. Look at all the people who are being blessed to buy these thousand dollar tickets. The families of the soccer players, who many of whom, what kind of career would they possibly have? Maybe nothing, right? Look at all the people that are being blessed. The capitalist free market person looks at it and goes, Yes, let them be, let the New York Knicks charge $5,000 a ticket in the nosebleed. Because the demand is there and that's the free market.

Matt 38:25

And then yeah, so did you know, by the way, that James Dolan he gave out 750 tickets to poor people to that game just so average people could attend.

Shawn 38:34

Who's James Dolan?

Matt 38:36

He he owns Madison Square Garden. He's the owner of the Knicks.

Shawn 38:38

How many tickets did he give out?

Matt 38:40

750 just to poor people.

Shawn 38:42

That is awesome, dude.

Matt 38:43

And did you see that?

Shawn 38:44

See what the free capitalism see what marketing uh free markets do. See what capitalism does. Stephen A.

Matt 38:48

Smith on ESPN like went after him, attacked him, saying, that's not enough. You need to give away more than 750 tickets.

Shawn 38:58

Yeah, the yeah, that's I love it. That's so fantastic.

Matt 39:05

Why aren't you letting in more people for free? And they're like, because capitalism, right?

Shawn 39:09

Right, yeah, because capitalism should be.

Matt 39:10

Okay, here's what I think, Shawn. Here's the one scenario in which the World Cup ends in this tournament. This and tell me what you think about this. If the United States, now I know you're not a World Cup geek fan like I am, but in there's like there's like group play and then there's the knockout stage. So if the United States comes in second in their group and Iran comes in second in their group, then Iran and the United States would play each other on July 3rd in the first game of that knockout round. So if the US and Iran are playing soccer against each other on July 3rd, right before the 250th birthday, and some kind of military terror, some sort of awful thing happens at that game, then I think that could end the World Cup forevermore.

Shawn 39:59

I love that you you're you're a political scientist first. You see things through the political scientist eyes first. I mean, that's a complicated political scientist scenario. So what do I what do I think of that? I think you said something pretty complicated that is very political science politically scientific based.

Matt 40:17

Well, let me make it simpler. If Iran and the US play on July 3rd and there's a terrorist attack or some horrible thing that happens at that game, could that end the World Cup forever?

Shawn 40:27

No, of course not.

Matt 40:28

Even that couldn't.

Shawn 40:29

It'll bring it back even stronger because the humans will be like, no, we're not gonna let evil people crush our favorite sport.

Matt 40:36

I don't want to geek out in a political science way, but I can see all kinds of terrible repercussions that could come from that. An attack on U.S. soil at a sporting event doesn't have to end like September 11th did, where everybody comes together as a country and rallies around. We're at a stage right now where it could, in theory, break things apart.

Shawn 40:53

Are we is this what social scientists or political scientists do? You you like doomsday predictions? This is dark, dude. What are you doing? Don't do this, man.

Matt 41:02

I'm actually trying to get a calci or a polymarket bet going.

Shawn 41:06

Yeah, okay, okay.

Matt 41:09

Well, you maybe are a capitalist. I teach I teach intro to American politics, so I have freshmen asking me these kinds of questions like could America die? Like anyhow. So I think about I from time to time I run through the scenarios. Which scenarios could happen in the United States? And that seems like one of them that might.

Shawn 41:28

I mean, you'd know better than me, but what terrorist what terrorist activity targeted toward the United States has ever made us weaker? Hasn't it always been a rallying cry? Like I I know people don't like George Bush, some people don't. I actually really like George Bush, George W. Bush, and his response to 9-11, even though it you know led down a weird path, pretty rallying. Like that was a very, very powerful unifier for the country.

Matt 41:54

Trump doesn't have it in him to be like that, number one. Number two, Trump is he's up there. He's since we've started keeping polling, he's not he is the least popular president ever, but he hasn't quite hit the uh Nixon low, but he's really close to being as unpopular as Nixon was when he left office.

Shawn 42:10

Yeah, but but look when it when tragedy happened to him, like that whole those assassination assassination attempts were probably the reason he won. So when tragedy happens and he is a strong, like like like frontman leader, are you kidding me? You don't think he could rally the the country a little bit? I think he could.

Matt 42:26

I think that most of the Americans right now, again, in that scenario, because we attacked Iran and many feel like it was unprovoked, then the response would be you caused this to happen for no reason at all.

Shawn 42:39

Yeah, I think I think I think half the country might think that because they're Democrats, and the other half who are loyal Trump Republicans, or not the other half, but yeah, the there's 36, 33 percent that would support him.

Matt 42:50

But that's 66% that wouldn't support him. And I don't think I don't know, man.

Shawn 42:54

I'm not I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Trumper, but I can look objectively, and you have too, at the Iran situation, and not be like this is maybe criticized like anyone, but I don't think you've concluded that it's the a terrible thing that that took place.

Matt 43:10

100% it was a terrible thing that we did in Iran. We've talked about this.

Shawn 43:13

You said the opposite on the podcast.

Matt 43:15

No, you defended it. I said there's a possibility for good to come of it, but now we're four months into it, and we he's about to sign the deal that's gonna be worse than what we had in the first place. And if they attacked us and killed Americans, yeah, anyhow.

Shawn 43:29

I don't give you the points. I take the you do not get the points in in your doomsday prediction just so you could win money on a poly market. I don't give you the points. You don't get the points.

Matt 43:39

I give you the point, Shawn. Thanks. That was good. You are Shawn, independent minded, and you look at both sides and you get the points for that. You are.

Shawn 43:47

Thank you. Thank you. I I can't tell if that was the backhanded compliment or not. I'm gonna say it's sincere. I'm gonna say it's sincere. Thank you.

Matt 43:53

It was sincere.

Shawn 43:54

Okay.

Matt 43:54

All right. Some female Navy officers are worried about their future careers after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Removed nine officers from a promotion list, including all three women who had been selected for promotion to admiral. As a result, no women will become one-star admirals in the Navy this year. Many female officers fear that promotions are becoming political and that women may have fewer opportunities to reach top leadership positions. Heggseth has said promotions should not be should only be based on merit, not gender or race. But the Pentagon has not yet explained why these officers were removed from the list. Some officers worry that these decisions could discourage women from staying in the military and could affect the next generation of female leaders. So here's the question, Shawn. Which recent action by defense secretary Pete Heggseth was worse? Changing the religion designations or stepping in to stop the promotion of female naval officers?

Shawn 44:51

Well, I I think that I mean I I I think I think that uh the religious designation one quit that which quickly got reversed, I think isn't is a net positive for our church because in the end it did spark a ton of conversations. And in the end, by reversing it back, there was there was he basically was him admitting, like, oh, I wasn't trying to say that even though I'm an evangelical that LDS people aren't Christians, I was just trying to be helpful in its designations, quickly changing it and fixing it and remedying it. Was everything good for us? Like every conversation I've had with people allows me to stand strong and just be like, look, A, I don't care what my government says about my status with God, but B, uh the discussion about who is Christian doesn't get determined by religion, nor you, my friend, right? So I don't think he did damage there. I don't think he did. I think that was no damage done. I think the this one, you you're loading you're loading the action with an assumption. You you have predetermined that it's he's doing this because he doesn't like women and he does not want to see women succeed. Now you either have to take him at face value and say it's just based on merit or you have to insert a racist sexist motive. Well, and if you can show me evidence for that, then we can discuss it. But you can't just default to it. It cheapens it. When real sexism happens, you don't recognize it.

Matt 46:15

No, what Hegzeth is doing is very unusual. It's unusual to step in and say, I'm going to, as Secretary of Defense, stop the promotion of these people. Because they've gone through a process and they even have to get approved by Congress in order to get those promotions. So to say these individuals, all nine of them, three of whom happen to be women, right, were not, you are not eligible for promotion, despite the fact that everybody who has evaluated you all the way up to here has said that you are eligible to say no, you don't get to be promoted. And by the way, I'm not going to tell you why. I'm just going to say you don't get to be. The fact that there are three women and it's and it's stopping women from advancing, I can say that is sexist, even if he doesn't say I hate women.

Shawn 47:00

But how is it sexist? What if it's just political? What if these four people, what if they all lean anti-Trump?

Matt 47:07

That's it, then that's illegal. You can't do that.

Shawn 47:10

Okay, but that is more but look at the way the Trump administration acts. That's more likely than the cliche of just I don't want to see women in my leadership. Like that would be so cliche and obvious that it can't be it.

Matt 47:22

So no matter what the reason I'm gonna say, it's still worse. It's still worse to say to somebody who has spent their career trying to promote to an admiral, you don't get to. And I agree with no reason why.

Shawn 47:34

I hundred per okay, I 100% agree with that. That wasn't your question at all. Oh, maybe that was your question. Okay, that was your question. But the fact that you preloaded the question with it's sexist, what's worse, him being sexist or him being anti-LDS?

Matt 47:47

I don't know. Well, it did sort of read that way. But but I was just saying like women are worried, and people are worried that yeah, I don't know.

Shawn 47:55

I agree with you. Uh well, you can't speak for all women. You can't say women are worried.

Matt 48:00

Female naval officers are worried. That was the story. Female naval officers are worried.

Shawn 48:04

Yeah, did they talk to every female naval officer? They must have.

Matt 48:07

Because to make that statement, they must have talked to all of them because sampling, Shawn. I can't randomly select a sample of the population.

Shawn 48:16

You know what I think about uh poll polls, how accurate polls are.

Matt 48:20

The Navy had selected 31 sailors to promote from the rank of captain to one star admiral. Heg Seth recently intervened to strike nine people from the list, including three women and two black men. So 31 up for promotion, nine he chooses. Okay, well, why don't we be minority? Why don't you and I be women?

Shawn 48:41

Why don't you and I look at the nine people and let's play this game, Matt? Let's find out what other boxes we can put these people into so we can blame someone for being an is sexist.

Matt 48:51

The Associated Press spoke with eight female naval officers of varying ranks who said on condition of anonymity, out of fear of retribution from their superiors, they're concerned.

Shawn 49:02

It's well, then all women must be concerned. All women of the military must be concerned. Well, all I'm saying is it's not useful or helpful unless you can find and point out very specific evidence that this is sexist or this is racist or this is anti-religion, it's not useful at all. It's damaging. No, it's so damaging to say out of the nine, just because well, five of them, dude, were brunettes. No, but five of them had brown hair. And so if there are eight people with brown hair, that is not fair to me, dude. I'm a brunette.

Matt 49:35

If there are 31 people up for promotion and you choose the only three women to say no, then that's sexist. No matter whatever reason you put behind it.

Shawn 49:46

There's saying out of the 31, there are only three women, and none of those but it's not, it's not if it's based on merit, then it's not sexist, Matt.

Matt 49:55

It sounds pretty sexist.

Shawn 49:57

If it's based on merit, how can it be sexist? Listen, listen, hang on.

Matt 50:01

Explain the merit, he has to explain the merit, he has to explain what that means.

Shawn 50:05

Yeah, no, I agree that the failure is to do this without explaining it. That's not fair. But but Matt, if you don't know that if they looked so he the 31 resumes or whatever, they get laid down in front of them and they go down all been approved by the whole process to get promoted.

Matt 50:21

Sure.

Shawn 50:21

Now, if someone looks at those papers, now if someone looks at those paper resumes and just looks at the history and looks at and they have benchmarks for merit that they're trying to achieve, and they go, Wow, look at this. Nine of these people, I don't know if they're men, I don't know if they're women, I don't know if they're black, I don't know if they're white, on merit, if they didn't reach the benchmarks, how do you know that didn't happen by not assuming that like you have no evidence in the opposite?

Matt 50:42

It just so happened that of those nine, you also had all three of the women that were in the pool, and the two black people in the pool.

Shawn 50:49

You can't just you have to show me more evidence, though.

Matt 50:53

Here's when my wife makes dinner and she makes all of this food for me to eat, and then there's like these noodles that I don't eat. She's like, You didn't like the noodles, and I say, No, no, no, I loved the noodles. Didn't you see me eat some of those noodles? I just liked the meat and the veggies a little bit more, but the noodles are fine, there's nothing wrong with the noodles. That's what you're saying, Shawn.

Shawn 51:16

But but you've eaten noodles a hundred times in the past, sure. Because there are other women in military leadership.

Matt 51:22

No one star admirals this year.

Shawn 51:24

So what? There's plenty. There's plenty, aren't there?

Matt 51:27

No, there's actually a history over the last year of Pete Heggseth uh firing women and leadership in the military.

Shawn 51:33

Okay, so then give me the reasons and the evidence. I want to see more of that. Like if he has, if he has look, if he does have a clear bias against women and there is sexist evidence, base your decision on that. Show me that evidence.

Matt 51:46

I just showed it to you. What is it 31 people, 31 people that were so that have gone through the process to be promoted? I don't think that's true.

Shawn 51:54

He happens to choose the three that are women, and but if it was only three, there wasn't, though. There were nine. And so you have to look at the profiles and the merit.

Matt 52:02

So he also just throws in some white men, and then he's like, see, clearly I don't hate women because I hate a couple of white men too.

Shawn 52:09

Look, I'm not a fan of the guy. I'm not trying to defend him. I'm not.

Matt 52:12

No, I know. Like I wouldn't put this past him. This is why you get the point, Shawn. I know you've got strong defense.

Shawn 52:18

I know you definitely want someone on here who does like all in buy into the Trump side and want and to defend them. No, I can't, I can't be that. I'm not ever gonna be that.

Matt 52:26

I don't want you to, I don't, I don't think that we need someone to defend the Trump side. I honestly think, Shawn, that Trump has done a great job of uniting the country in opposition to him. The more you there's not a single demographic group in the United States where a majority actually likes Trump. So it's like the idea that someone has to defend Trump, nobody has to do that anymore because most of America is solidly on the anti-Trump side.

Shawn 52:50

Well, Matt, here's my bottom line is this I am absolutely willing to, if it is sexism, dude, I'll go on the streets and fight with you. Like I will go to his office with you. If truly women were discriminated against in this situation, I'm with you, dude. I'm angry about that. That makes me so angry. It really does. But you just have to find stronger evidence. I can't just go based on there happen to be three women out of 31. And so done. It's all racism. Matt or sexism. If it truly was, Matt, then you gotta be way more upset. If you really believe it, then you gotta be way more upset than you are.

Matt 53:25

I'll tell you this, Shawn. There are a number of listeners listening to the podcast that are screaming at their radio right now, and they will not radio, however they listen to it, that are gonna be writing into the podcast to let you know how that's sexism.

Shawn 53:40

I would love it. Give me, I I I I lazily haven't done the evidence to see what kind of sexism is in his past or the motive, the sexist motive. Show me.

Matt 53:49

I would love to find it. But for now, I'll just give you the point, Shawn, because I want to talk about this big question.

Shawn 53:55

But yeah, we still have another question. I forgot.

Matt 53:57

Sorry. It's okay, it's my favorite. Russia seems to be becoming weaker in its war against Ukraine. Ukrainian drone attacks have damaged important Russian military and oil facilities deep inside of Russia, forcing changes in Russian tactics and even causing President Putin to use a more respectful tone when talking about Ukraine. At the same time, Russia's advances on the battlefield have slowed. It has suffered very high casualties and is struggling to recruit enough soldiers. Analysts say Ukraine is now in a stronger position than a year ago, helped by new military aid from Europe and successful drone operations that disrupt Russian supply lines. However, Russia still has the ability to launch large missiles and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities and may continue escalating the conflict upon despite its growing difficulties. This most recent phase of the war has lot lasted longer than World War I. But here's the big question Can Ukraine actually win this war?

Shawn 54:52

I mean, I say Slava Ukraine. Like they they have been we know intimately these the the plight and the history. And I love that this is a just a pretty shiny example of a country that has been meddled with for so long who decided they want self-determination and they fought and they tried for so like a long time. Is there corruption in Ukraine? There definitely was after years and years of corruption. But in the end, they were a great example of people trying to do the right thing and moving more towards democracy and moving more towards freedom until Russia does this. And so I love seeing them continue to become, I mean, I wouldn't call them independent, right? Like I am almost, I don't know. Would you give credit to Trump for kind of pushing Europe to be a little more interested in this? Because I think one but one reason Ukraine is stronger today is because Europe has continued in a like they've got more to lose than the US does, right? So I like that I don't think Trump did it the right way. I think we should continue to be very, very, very supportive, more supportive. But I do like that Europe has stepped up. So I give them a little bit of credit.

Matt 55:57

Europe was going to step up regardless of anything that Trump did. The only reason Europe didn't step up sooner was because they didn't have the capacity to step up. They didn't have a military-industrial complex where they've been producing weapons and all of that stuff. They had been relying on the United States, right? Right, right. So from the moment Russia invaded in 20, what was it, 2022, Europe, Germany specifically, started production of weapons. And it just took them a long time in order to be able to develop enough weapons to defend Ukraine. So they were going to defend Ukraine regardless. So I don't give Trump any credit. Good. Fine. I'm good with that. Screw Trump. I'm good with that. No, so I say Ukraine wins the war regardless. Even if, even if there's a ceasefire where they draw up some boundary where the Donboss goes to Russia, which in my case is the in my mind is the worst case scenario. Even if that happens, Ukraine is on a path toward EU membership now with something never would have been before.

Shawn 56:53

Because you the guy that you love, you and Levi love that socialist dictator who got just ousted. Who is it?

Matt 57:01

Victor Orban.

Shawn 57:02

Yes, you guys love that guy. He's the shiny example of a socialist who is who has just shined. And and then he got voted out. They had elections and he allowed elections and he got voted out. And now the now you now that country, sorry, they are Hungary, Moldova. Now they're gonna now they're going, let's get Ukraine into the EU. And that's a huge it's now explain this to that to us. Is that literally an obstacle that will allow Ukraine to become a part of the member of the EU?

Matt 57:30

Yeah. Well, so it wasn't just that. It's that there are EU member states that didn't want more Eastern European countries to come into the EU because they feel like those uh Eastern European countries are a drain or a drag on the the economies of those nations. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what Ukraine has done is they've forged a path that shows the EU things that they have to offer the EU to the point the EU said they want you as part of our country. Okay.

Shawn 58:00

So it's a combination of that, plus Hungary being now open to it. Now, do you think the Hungary situation did play a huge role in for sure? So why so do you think so? This is more evidence that Putin is really in a weak state. Like if Putin knew that that could happen, he would have like meddled so much with Hungary's elections.

Matt 58:18

And he's he's trying and failing. He also tried to influence the Armenian election that just happened, and the anti-Putin candidate won the prime minister election in Armenia, right? So so Putin's global influence is weakening. So so even if on the battlefield all that happens is that Ukraine loses some territory for a little while, it's a net victory for Ukraine as a country because they become part of the EU. So let's help them to modernize and and develop in ways that they couldn't have done if they didn't become a part of the EU.

Shawn 58:52

I love how you present that. I love that you're teaching us about this. Can we take it one step further for our listeners' sake? Because of Trump, Zelensky has gotten such a bad rap. How does does history not go back and look at Zelensky as one of the greatest leaders of all time?

Matt 59:06

Yeah, like what Trump says about Zelensky only affects opinion among Trump supporters in the United States. Around the world, and even among Republican leaders, Zelensky is a hero. Zelensky would be Romero. Yeah. Like if you if you had to choose a legacy, whose legacy would you rather have, Trump or Zelensky? I would pick Zelensky every single time. There's gonna be statues to Zelensky, there's gonna be holidays in honor of Zelensky in Ukraine.

Shawn 59:33

I'm so proud of that dude. And whatever negative thing that a Trump Trumper could throw at him, it won't matter. What? It won't matter. You don't have anything against him. This man has been an absolute hero by the dead, like at the at the level of Abraham Lincoln, which he's the equivalent of our Abraham Lincoln. Or any any uh like uh yeah, yeah, I can't I don't know why I'm blanking on people's names, but yeah, yeah, yeah.

Matt 59:57

So in the end, I think Ukraine wins. By the way, this is another thing. One of the challenges for Ukraine entering the European Union is the Donbass. So you and I served our missions there, so we have a it's got a special place in our hearts, but the Donboss, let's be honest, their entire economy is built on coal and steel and pollutants, and the European Union doesn't love that. And so before Russia invaded Ukraine, that was another real challenge for Ukraine, is they couldn't even say our country would vote to join the EU if you offered us a pathway in, because eastern Ukraine doesn't want the EU stuff, they think the EU's liberal, they think that they're progressive, and by the way, they're not gonna let them pollute the air the way that they like to pollute it in the Donboss.

Shawn 1:00:47

So you're suggesting that it might be a win-win for Russia to read for them to concede the Donbass to Russia?

Matt 1:00:54

So, regardless of what happens, it's even so if if the Donbass becomes part of Russia, Ukraine becomes a part of the EU, and that's that's a win for Ukraine. If they draw the territorial boundaries as they originally were, the people in Donbass have been so like humiliated is the wrong word, but like decimated, like they're they're so defeated that they would not fight against joining the EU now the way they would have before Russia invaded.

Shawn 1:01:21

Plus, anyone listening, if you're at all interested in go look up Rusification and look at the history of Russia trying to Russify the Soviet Union and especially Rusify Ukraine. And what you'll find is the only area that was maybe a little bit successfully Rusified was the Donbass, because it's right there on the border. And so to to, I mean, we lived there, Matt. It was pretty rusified, wouldn't you say?

Matt 1:01:46

Yeah, a hundred percent.

Shawn 1:01:48

Yeah, so not to say that those, you know, that was justification for any war or anything, but that was the only place. So to me, I I like what you're saying. If the win-win is get rid of the pollutant coal miner, that does it does break my heart to think about that, that they would become part of Russia. But you're saying it's a win-win and that's pop maybe a possible outcome.

Matt 1:02:09

Yeah, I think Ukraine wins. I my hope is that they win militarily and they get all of their territory back, including the Crimean Peninsula. But even if they don't, EU membership, NATO membership helps all of Ukraine better and ultimately will lead to those areas and those regions that are part of that would have been part of Russia deciding they want to come back to Ukraine because it's better to be a part of Europe than it is to be a part of Russia.

Shawn 1:02:34

I know we're over time, but how much of a role do you think the next president US presidential election will play in the outcome and the victory of Ukraine?

Matt 1:02:42

I don't think we have to wait that long. I think if the Democrats take the Senate, then that will be enough for the Republicans in the Senate who are already pro-Ukraine to start voting in favor of support for Ukraine to the to where it could override a Trump veto. So it's it's weird to say, Shawn, but after the midterm elections, Trump will be a lame duck president. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he will have very little authority or influence in primary elections. Yep. So if the Democrats take back the Senate in the midterm elections, you're gonna see a totally different Republican Party than you see right now.

Shawn 1:03:21

Yeah, that's gonna be fun to watch, actually.

Matt 1:03:23

Yeah, you don't have to wait till Trump leaves office. Usually that lame duck period after the midterms at the end of a president's term, they usually don't get much done. And especially if the Democrats are in control of the House and the Senate, there really will be so much pushback on everything Trump tr tries to do that it and Trump, by the way, in his deal-making inclinations, he will be the type that he would rather just go along with people rather than try and fight in a way that could make things worse for him down the road.

Shawn 1:03:49

So I mean, to be honest, Matt, one of the legacies of Trump is going to be that guy campaigned every day saying, Oh, the the the the Ukraine-Russian war, his whole response was repeated, it never would have happened if I was president, which I kind of believe. I agree with that. But then he would follow up and say, I'm gonna end that war in two days, I'm gonna end that war in two days. That failure of his is part of his legacy, just part of his absolute legacy. And so my dream, Matt, is that Ukraine wins this the way that you've described it, that the people of Russia who are just absolutely beautiful people, listeners, you Russia has such a beautiful, rich history and culture and people. And if and they're just brainwashed, they're just completely controlled by this authoritarian Putin. Matt, how great would it be that Russia rises up against Putin and that becomes more of an open free state?

Matt 1:04:36

Yeah, that'd be great. That'd be so great. Hey Shawn, good job. Hey listeners, thanks for joining us this week, and we will talk to you again next week.com. Thank you for making us one of the most listened to podcasts. We love our listeners.