Unpopular Opinion: Trump is an Unmitigated Disaster.

I did not vote for this. Literally, I

didn't vote for Donald Trump because I

said before the election I'd be writing

in meet Kevin on the ballot. Not only to

preserve my independence, but also

because I'm extremely frustrated that

Democrats shoved Kla Harris down our

throats without a primary. And I want to

be very crystal clear here. I have

criticized the Biden administration a

lot on this channel. Afghanistan troop

withdrawal, complete disaster. I covered

it. I have covered a lot of their

policies with disdain on this channel,

but I've also pointed out credit where

credit is due, such as their funding of

TSMC and bringing them to Phoenix,

Arizona, a plant I've personally

visited. I think that's a good thing to

uh safeguard our ability to manufacture

advanced chips in America, especially as

they're related to our defense industry.

That said, Democrats are not scot-free.

By pretending that Joe Biden wasn't

suffering from dementia or somehow

scenile was a disgusting lie to the

American people. It is the same kind of

act though that Democrats conducted via

the official Democratic party in the

state of California in 2021 when they

ran against Governor Nuome for governor.

Why was it the official party policy

that people should vote for Gavin

Newsome on the recall? In other words,

vote against the recall of Gavin

Newsome, but then if the recall goes

through and Newsome is gone, just leave

the second option blank because why

would you want a backup person written

in? It's Newsome or nothing. That's not

Democratic. And it's that kind of

behavior that won Democrats Donald

Trump. Democrats are to blame. Men

playing in women's sports, multiple

genders, this insane ideology that most

Americans don't believe in is why we are

where we are today. So again, Biden and

Democrats are not scot-free in this

rebuke of actually Donald Trump because

let's be clear, the first 100 days of

Donald Trump have been an unmitigated

disaster. Now, this post is going to

require a lot of nuance because it's

going to upset people with very low

capabilities of critical thinking.

That's okay. They're going to leave

comments like unfollow, dislike, Trump

derangement syndrome, Democratic talking

points, blah blah blah blah. It's fine.

See, I believe I make videos for the 99%

of you that think critically, look for

valuable perspective and look for facts

and reason, and I don't make videos for

the random 1% uh trolls in the comments.

So, that said, we're going to be very

real in this video and open in this

video. I am very concerned with Donald

Trump. And I also want to be clear on

last disclaimer here. This video is not

paid for by anybody. There's no sponsor,

nothing. I get nothing out of the making

this video other than honestly probably

losing subscribers. But I feel like as

an American, it's my duty to explain

that I'm concerned about Trump. And I'm

not here to talk about Hunter Biden's

laptop because we've talked about this

in the past. This video is about now in

the future. And the president right now

and in over the next 1300 days is Donald

Trump. So again, this video is looking

at the first 100 days to express my

concern for the next 1300. Look, we were

promised a businessfriendly progrowth

administration with lower taxes and

secure borders. We got secure borders

and we got two

genders. I can't even believe that I

have I'm equating two genders with

secure borders. That shouldn't be done.

Okay, that one's a joke and the other is

serious. Secure borders, massive failure

of the Biden administration, by the way.

Great job to the Trump administration.

But that's really where my enthusiasm

for the Trump administration stops.

Sure, the focus on merit uh over, you

know, race is is to some extent a good

thing, but there are also conversations

to be had about the concentration of

poverty and why uh minority races are

often stuck in less desirable situations

with lower educational outcomes. Topic

for a totally different video. In fact,

if you want to watch, I've been talking

about this for years. You could type in

on YouTube meet Kevin black versus white

and you will literally get my breakdown

on the concentration of poverty. So I've

gone deep into this. I'm not going to

rehash it. I'm going to focus on Trump.

The first things that make me very

concerned are what I think of as the

greatest level of grift the world has

ever

seen. You can now pay $500,000 if you

are invited. By the way, it's invite

only to join the president's family in

an investment club. Just what we need,

more insider trading. As if there aren't

daily examples of people in Congress or

politics insider trading. Here's just a

way to collect money as a fee to insider

trade some more. Who needs fundamental

analysis when you can insider trade?

Trump also raised $239 for his

inauguration, then dropped federal

enforcements and lawsuits against at

least 17 corporate donors that made up

part of this pool. And so, guess what

that means? With Trump, money, money,

money literally buys you freedom. Donate

to Trump, your judicial cases and fraud

will get covered up by Donnie T.

Trump has

114.75 million shares in Truth Social,

which basically serves as a tool for

getting updates on the Office of the

White House. Meanwhile, the app has lost

$400 million in 2024. Donald Trump's net

worth has exploded because of this

publicly tradable security, which other

companies will also buy shares of just

to try to cozy up to the Trump

administration. It is now a publicly

tradable grift. The Trump family also

took over the crypto firm that raised

hundreds of millions of dollars via the

token launch for accredited investors

under World Liberty Financial, raising

over $500 million. Then there was $300

million in round one, $250 million in

round two. It's not allowed to be

transferred because it's TBD, the

outcome of the project and what they

want to do with it, which is probably a

whole host of nothing because they

probably pre-planned nothing. But Trump

now has 75% control of that company and

investors in the meantime are writing

down their investments over

50% already because they don't actually

expect much out of it. Which why would

they after right before the

inauguration, Donald Trump and Melania

launched their own tokens, Trump and

Melania, which were basically a tactical

meme launch just before the

inauguration. And if you bought during

the hype, you're probably down about 85%

on that token. Meanwhile, Trump-owned

companies are up about $350 million net

in the ICOs, the initial coin

offerings. Lutnik's son, Brandon Lutnik,

uh is apparently now partnering with

SoftBank, Tether, and Bitfinex to

recreate Micro Strategy. Yeah. So, if

you are Howard Lutnik's son, you now get

whatever connections you want to

institutions to pull off your very own

version of Michael Sailor and get

started with a small loan, I mean fund

of $3 billion. We're going to call it 21

capital. Trump organization also gets

their beautiful billions of dollars

worth of golf courses in

Vietnam expeditiously approved

conveniently after he becomes a

president and also now potentially as a

tariff bargaining chip because it's not

about the American people. It's about

the Trump ad Trump organization not to

be confused with administration. the

Trump organization

uh well looking for favors. Bessent

holds private meetings with bankers like

JP Morgan suggesting before 24 hours

before all of us get to hear about it

that there are positive uh news items

coming on trade and that turned into a

9day market rally which insider bankers

well got the inside scoop on before all

of us.

CBS News 60 Minutes producer stepped

down because apparently the owning

company of CBS, Paramount, is being sued

by Trump and the controlling shareholder

of Paramount is trying to sell Paramount

to Sky Dance, which requires approval

from the Trump administration. And the

producer of CBS 60 Minutes was too

critical of Trump. And so now that

person got forced out because the

controlling shareholder of Paramount

wants that approval stamp from Trump.

And so now that free speech gets

silenced over at CBS. Now I'm not here

to shill traditional media. They all

have their bias and tilt. But my point

is you're not seeing that kind of

criticism on Fox. You only see it on

organizations that are more likely to

criticize Donald Trump. Instead, if you

look at the Trump administration, you've

actually got quite a few Fox News

anchors getting jobs in the Trump White

House, which enriches them. And so, it's

no surprise you've got people like

Charles Payne and frankly a lot of media

anchors doing everything they can almost

on a daily basis to suck up to the Trump

administration because they too want to

be incorporated in. Hey, I want to be

elevated. Let me get a job in the White

House. Come on, man. Don't forget about

me over here. I'm sucking up, too.

This isn't exactly a world of free

speech. See, if you say something

critical, your odds of getting invited

to the White House are basically zero.

See, I obviously a social media

influencer and amongst many other social

media influencers. We applied, including

myself, to visit the White House uh

press briefing room and be able to ask

questions directly of our White House

press secretary, who's very good at her

job at defending Donald Trump. A+ Trump

propaganda. You got to give her that.

But of course, only right-wing

influencers who are favorable to Trump

actually get invites. People with fewer

views or fewer subscribers than me, who

are consistently solely proTrump, get

invited, but I do not because I cater

much more towards the middle. Now,

obviously, this video is going to seem

like I'm anti- the conservative

movement, but what I'm really anti is

the kneebending of people like, well,

let's just put it this way, Lindsey

Graham. This is the probably the

greatest clown show example of

kneebending I have ever seen in my life

and it deserves a screenshot. Quote, I

was excited to hear that President Trump

is open to the idea of being the next

pope. This would truly be a dark horse

candidate, but I would ask the PayPal

conclave and Catholic faithful to keep

an open mind about this possibility. The

first pope US president combination has

many upsides. watching for white white

smoke. Well, folks, uh, Congress

apparently is so weak that they can't

say a anything negative about Trump and

b can't even realize the power of the

purse that is bestowed upon them enough

to pass a resolution to limit Trump's

global tariffs by a vote of 49 to 49.

Once again, a resolution to limit

Trump's power has failed and this time

on economically destructive tariffs,

which we'll talk about more towards the

end of the video. The disaster of

tariffs and what it's doing to our trade

alliances is horrible. But again, more

on that later. Donald Trump would have

vetoed that anyway. And so we would have

really required twothirds a

supermajority of Congress to actually

pass this legislation which uh is

unlikely in a world where unfortunately

if you are anti-Donald Trump you will

not get reelected. And it seems the only

thing politicians care about is getting

reelected. Imagine if politicians were

only allowed to serve one term and we

got a new politician every single cycle.

This morning, we saw Donald Trump

literally question whether he should

uphold the Constitution, that he would

have to consult his attorneys, he said.

After all, the oath of office, which he

swore to, requires the president to the

best of his ability preserve, protect,

and defend the Constitution of the

United States. But

apparently is unable to tell you if

something is constitutional or not

without the consultation of his

attorney. Who knows? Maybe that's

a strategy for protecting himself. To

me, it sounds like Donald Trump is

trying to collect as much power as he

can by consulting his legal staff for

all of the loopholes possible. We

already know he doesn't pay attention to

the right to due process in America. But

hey, look, my point is everything that

I've mentioned so far. This is not about

the people. People I I see it in the

comments. They they say, "I voted for

this because Donald Trump is fighting

for the people. He's so transparent."

All of this transparent grift is not for

the people. It is for Trump and his

cronies. That is sad. And we have a

Congress that is too weak to reign him

in. Now, while Donald Trump is so

powerful, let's think about some other

issues. The Supreme Court upheld the

sale of Tik Tok, but via Donald Trump

unilaterally. The decision to sell Tik

Tok is being upheld because Trump is

using it as a tariff negotiation

bargaining chip with China. The irony is

the longer he upholds the sale, the more

profit bite dance gets to make off of

Tik Tok. So, I don't actually see why

delaying the sale of Tik Tok is helping

his ability to negotiate, but he's also

willfully violating what our courts have

demanded, the highest level of our

courts, mind you, the Supreme Court,

after Donald Trump also promised not to

weaponize the justice system, which he

says was used against him, which I think

a lot of people agree. He was uh he was

certainly microscoped. Okay, Donald

Trump is now Oh, and mind you, he told

us that he would be different, that he's

not going to weaponize the justice

system. He is now literally weaponizing

the justice system. I'm going to give

you an example. Donald Trump has ordered

Pam Bondi to look into Act Blue. This is

a fundraising platform for Democrats.

Pretty much, if you're a political

candidate for any office and you're

going to run as a Democrat, you use Act

Blue as a payment rail. Think of it like

Stripe, but for

politicians. Now, Congressman Brian

Steele, a Republican, already

investigated Act Blue in Q3 and Q4 of

last year and found no evidence of

illegal foreign funds being funneled

into our elections through Act Blue and

actually cited that they had safeguards

in place uh and increased their

safeguards to prevent those things from

happening. Well, four months later,

Donald Trump directs Pam Bondi to

investigate Act Blue, which you know,

sounds like judicial weaponization. very

clearly against a Democratic platform,

mind you, because if people aren't going

to use Act Blue, what is the next

runner-up fundraising platform for

Democrats? Nobody actually knows. Which

is the perfect way, mind you, to try to

stifle your competition is prevent your

competition from being able to fundra.

It's kind of brilliant in a really evil

uh, you know, I don't know how to put

it, dictator-ish way. I hate to say it.

It's like, yeah, cut off their money

supply. It's kind of brilliant, but

again, it's also evil. So, while Donald

Trump is going after Act Blue because

there are rumors that Democrats are

fundraising from foreign

corporations through straw buyers via

Act Blue, and so far there's no evidence

of this. Donald Trump basically pardoned

Eric Adams of the same damn thing. Okay,

Eric Adams, New York, was investigated

by the FBI for illegal donations from

the government of Turkey. Mind you, Eric

Adams had flown to Turkey a few times.

Okay. From the government of Turkey, who

donated to Eric Adams campaign through a

Brooklyn construction company as a straw

donor to Eric Adams. This is exactly

what Donald Trump is accusing Act Blue

of, but has no evidence for was

literally happening with Eric Adams. But

because Eric Adams is a Trump friendly,

what happens? Donald Trump says, "Hey,

look, we know FBI. You have unsealed

fraud charges against Eric Adams. Drop

all the charges. And if any of the

charges are to stick, I'll consider

pardoning

him." H to me, it seems like you're

weaponizing justice for the same thing

that is actually happening on a

fraudulent basis within your very own

party. To me, that is an unmititigated

disaster. That is disgusting. I can only

laugh about it because there's obviously

nothing I can do about it. I'm just

making the observation. I also live

streamed January 6th for over 10 hours.

I mean, the video is still public and

the violence we saw was disgusting. Now,

I'm not saying that every person who,

you know, walked through the halls or

were guided through the halls in certain

cases should be subject to four to 10

years in prison. But I do think that

people who whacked Capitol police

officers and battered them with flag

poles or other weapons deserve to be in

prison. But those people were pardoned

along with the more innocent visitors,

we'll call them.

This is disgusting. The attack on our

universities and the process of chilling

and stifling free speech in America is

also in my opinion an unmitigated

disaster. Now look, universities are

going to be more liberal institutions.

So yes, it is true that universities are

going to say things that do not always

align with Democrat or with Republican

causes. And so it makes logical sense

for Donald Trump to say, "Hey, we don't

want uh universities saying things that

we don't like and we're going to

threaten to take their funding away

unless they do what we like." Now, I'm

going to break down exactly what's

happening here, but first to understand

this, and this is a complicated

one, let's just put this up on screen.

This might help a little bit.

Okay? People who go to universities tend

to lean more

democratic. That's

because you've got the super low end of

incomes that lean democratic because

they have to. They need social services

and they can get in via financial aid

programs to finally try to get a leg up

and get out of the hell of

poverty. Then you have the higher

incomes like the highest of incomes that

also lean democratic.

They send their children to elite

institutions. And yes, institutions

fueled by research and thought can tend

to lean significantly to the left.

Donald Trump does not like this, which

makes sense. It is a threat to the

future of the Republican party to have

universities lean

left. Now, middle and upper middle inome

individuals tend to lean more to the

right. However, the middle and upper

middle class also can tend to be more

entrepreneurial and of the mindset that

we don't actually need college. Now,

this video isn't here to say we need

college or we don't need college. That's

not what this video is about. It's

simply to give you a baseline of income

understanding and the realization that

this right here is a core audience for

Donald Trump. Very, very core voter

base. There are many more middle and

upper middle inome individuals than

there are upper inome individuals. And

it's really easy to latch on to this

when the, you know, 59% of Republicans

have a negative view of colleges and

universities and only 18% of Democrats

have a negative view of universities. So

going into this, if you're a political

strategist for Donald Trump, it's

obviously very easy to say, "Yeah,

attack the universities." like you're

not going to piss off that many

Republicans and you're going to piss off

Democrats, but who

cares? So, what Donald Trump is doing is

he's attacking what's called viewpoint

diversity. He's basically trying to say,

"Hey, we want you to accept into the

universities as many conservatives as

liberals." Now, the reality is most

18-year-olds have no idea what

identifying as a liberal or conservative

actually means. very few were involved

in the political process at 16, 17 or

18. And even people who are have very

limited experience just by virtue of

probably have being only been exposed to

politics for maybe the last 2 or 3

years. So that said, Donald Trump is

trying to force universities to accept

more conservatives and prove some form

of viewpoint outcome to this. Some elite

universities have bent the knee to

Donald Trump and others have said,

"Yeah, you know what? We're just not

going to do that." As a result, Donald

Trump has frozen funding to a lot of

institutions such as $2.2 billion of

funding to Harvard and much more money

to other universities. I'll go through

some of the examples of what some of

this funding is going for

to of the federal funding that goes to

Harvard. We actually send them $9

billion. 7 billion goes to Harvard

affiliated hospitals, which that

portion, as far as I'm aware, is not

being touched. But the two billion that

goes to Harvard, the vast majority of it

goes to research. In fact, Harvard

spends more money on research than they

get from federal funding. And so when we

cut federal funding to a university like

Harvard, what we're actually doing is we

are reducing their capability of

conducting research. Let's just use a

year-by-year basis rather than sort of

these block grants which represent

multiple different years. During the

fiscal year of 2024, I'll show you the

evidence of it. During the fiscal year

of 2024, federal funding of $686

million was available for Harvard and

that was the university's largest source

of support for research. Okay, so they

got $686 million at Harvard in 2024.

Now, how much money did Harvard spend on

research? Well, it's right here. Total

expenses on research,

$1.3

billion. In other words, more than twice

the money they received went towards

research. And now, why did colleges

start getting research? Well, part of it

was because after World War II, the US

government needed a way to get better

medical research, financial aid for

students, innovation, and a way to

really not only motivate the advancement

of the United States via, you know,

outcomes from research, but also to have

people who are capable of going to

school, researching, learning, helping

discover, and then hopefully go into the

private sector or move on and continue

to contribute to society. So, it's kind

of a win-win from the government to fund

research at universities. Some of the

research, such as uh Cornell's $1

billion goes into programs like their

jet engine propulsion system, LLM

robotics superconductor research teams,

and their satellite and space

communications departments. That money

has now been cut because they didn't

bend the need to jump. of the $790

billion that are frozen at Northwestern,

we could see that money no longer go

towards things like nanotechnology,

robotics, and Parkinson's research. Some

of the money from uh Harvard might no

longer go towards cancer research. So

this idea that these institutions are

spending money on uh you know woke

purposes is really because what you'll

find at universities is these sort of

louder protest groups that might you

know hold rallies like you know uh pro

Palestine rallies and then the entire

university is then cast as oh okay well

that's clearly an anti-Trump university

let's cut funding except they're not

cutting cutting funding for those

individual protest groups who are really

just expressing their right to free

speech. What they're actually doing is

they're cutting funding to research,

which is really good and important for

Americans and the future of not only our

safety, but also our

health. All right. Now, of course, there

are also things that the Trump

administration can point to that isn't

great, such as, you know, in donations

to Northwestern, some of the money to

Northwestern was allocated to foreign

military training where basically we're

fighting a we were teaching Afghan

fighter pilots how to fly fighter

planes. Now, obviously, that didn't do

us much good because Biden had this

horrible troop withdrawal. Now, some

people argue that one of the reasons the

troop withdrawal went went so poorly was

because the Afghanistan's military, the

Afghan military was so dang weak because

Trump in 2018 already cut funding for

foreign troop training. But then again,

the flip side argument is, but why are

we funding them in the first place? So,

I like I see this one as like blurry,

but my point is people will take that

and latch on to that and say, "Aha, some

of the money went to a cause I don't

like. Kill all of it." And so what you

do is, oh, that money went to that and

it was misappropriated. Fine, then kill

that, right, with like a surgical tool.

But instead, what's happening is you're

taking an axe to the entire budget and

you're going, Parkinson's research,

nanotechnology, and jet propulsion

systems, we don't need any of that crap.

which I mean it does sort of raise the

argument like should institutions uh

like you know NPR or PBS or Harvard just

not have any government funding at all.

Sure, you could have a smaller

government by doing that. I not opposed

to that. Fine. Nobody gets government

funding, right? That could work. Now

Harvard, a lot of people look at

Harvard's endowment and they're like,

"Oh, they have $52 billion." That's

true. Their endowment is $52 billion,

but that doesn't mean they have that

available to just blow every year.

Universities operate based on collecting

a yield in Harvard's case, about 7% on

their money, and then they spend about

5% and they grow their endowment by

about 2% per year. So that endowment is

kind of like a retirement account that

they're sort of living off of to keep

their research funded. Remember, they

spend two times as much money on

research than we actually fund for them.

So, this idea about like NPR and PBS, a

lot of people absolutely hate these

these organizations. I personally don't

think they're that bad. I actually like

NPR and the smaller member stations a

lot. And when you look at a company, I

actually think this is a pretty useful

tool, media bias fact check. you see

that yeah, you know, NPR and PBS will

lean slight left of center, slight to

moderate liberal bias, but their

reporting is very high in a factual

basis, both of them, NPR and PBS. And I

agree with this. I think the same of The

Economist, though, I would say The

Economist has high factual reporting,

but they're honestly probably even more

to the left than this. But then you

contrast this with, you know, right now

liberal media organizations, mind you,

and I'm not trying to defend them

getting government money. I just think,

you know, fine, don't give any of them

government money. If you want to play it

that way, that's fine. But left-leaning

media is not making the money

right-leaning media is right now because

if you parrot Donald Trump right now,

you can make a lot of money. That's why

Newsmax went public to such fanfare. And

Newsmax has an extreme right tilt with a

low

uh and questionable rating for facts.

Look at Right Side Broadcasting Network.

Extreme right, low credibility. You

know, then you look at the Wall Street

Journal. At least they're mo mostly

factual, but they also lean more to the

right. They're even right of center.

Mind you, you know, people on the

internet now are even complaining that

the Wall Street Journal is just legacy

media and that, you know, the people are

the media now. Okay, I have to say

something about

that. Putting a video together like the

one that I'm doing right now takes about

six or seven hours of research. So like

one video that's maybe 30, 40 minutes

long is like six or seven hours. That's

a lot. And most people are not going to

get their news by actually doing deep

research. I mean, how many of you have

pulled up the fi the financial

statements for Harvard? Well, I have

because that's part of my video, but

most people don't. It's much easier to

just read snippets on Twitter and then

get a really biased view of the world.

At the same time, trust for media or

journalists who actually do research

goes down because of in heavily part

Donald Trump bagging on journalism. you

end up getting a populace that has kind

of a really skewed view of reality. And

it's kind of sad because this idea about

deleting research budgets at

universities, in my opinion, is not only

designed to try to chill universities

into bending the knee towards Donald

Trump, but what you're doing is you're

acting like a dictator to try to control

anyone by any means necessary with a

narrative that is slightly different

from yours. And it's just my opinion

that that's dangerous for our society.

And I I don't know where this is going

to end up leading us at all. But I guess

we'll see. So once we get past this sort

of attack on universities, we have to

look at Donald Trump's actions when it

comes to the Constitution and due

process. The due process clause applies

to everyone within the jurisdiction of

the United States. I think this should

go without saying, but because most

people do not actually read the

Constitution, we should probably just

pull up the 14th Amendment and look at

the 14th Amendment. The United States

nor any state shall deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law. This very clearly

says any

person. It also states that no state or

the United States should deny any person

within its jurisdiction of the equal

protection of the law. In other words,

this is not limited to citizens. Yes, I

understand there is a citizen item here

which says if you are born or

naturalized, you are a citizen of the

United States or state where you reside.

But here in a separate segment we have

that no pro person doesn't say legal,

illegal, undocumented or otherwise. No

person shall be deprived of life,

liberty or property without the due

process of law. In other words, yes,

undocumented or illegal individuals are

protected by the right to due process in

America, but Donald Trump doesn't give a

flying hoot about the Constitution. And

we saw him himself say this

morning he doesn't know if he can uphold

the

constitution. So this is a problem. So

let's think about this. We know that

Abrego Garcia was deported without due

process. Now as the judiciary has said

it doesn't matter whether he was an

MS-13 individual. He's entitled to due

process. So you know you could say oh he

was MS-13. Fine. Maybe he was. But is he

not still entitled to due process?

Because what if he's not MS-13? And what

if he was mistakenly deported, which

Donald Trump did say? Imagine that was

you. Imagine somebody said that your

tattoos and your Chicago Bull sweater

make you look like you are MS-13, and

then you got deported, sent to El

Salvador, and then courts in America,

which are designed to protect you, say,

"Hey, you're entitled to due process

because our constitution says when

you're within our jurisdiction, you are

entitled to that." doesn't matter if

you're a resident of El Salvador or

whatever. When you're within our

jurisdiction, you're entitled to that

constitutional protection. And then

courts say, "Bring him back." And then

you have a president who says, "Nah,

that's up to the president of El

Salvador. Hey, you you're not going to

send him back, right?" El Salvador's

president wants Donald Trump's favor. Of

course, he's going to do whatever Donald

Trump wants. But it wasn't just that

guy. is the other 237 immigrants removed

without due pro process with courts

which which courts tried to stop. I mean

even Nazis in America in the 1940s got

30 days to plead their case. These

people got rounded up and put on a plane

on a weekend and sent out. Courts tried

to stop it. Donald Trump doesn't give a

flying hoot. So, there's no doubt here

that Donald Trump is willing to skirt

due

process, which is scary because it it

does make you wonder when the limits of

Donald Trump's power are ever going to

be tested. I mean, now we have like

frank judicial chilling happening. Two

judges were recently arrested in a

public manner for actions that likely

require discipline and punishment. But

their public arrests which are

ordinarily handled through discipline or

uh you know private uh uh sort

of enforcements if you will were done in

a public manner to purposefully instill

fear in the judicial system to say hey

do anything that Donald Trump doesn't

like we'll just avoid our typical policy

of not publicizing the FBI arrests of

judges. is and we'll make it very very

public that if you mess with us, we're

going to arrest you. And again, I'm not

here to defend these judges. Both of

them did things that were certainly

questionable. Well, one of them much

more than the

other. But the message is clear. If you

donate to Trump, we'll drop cases

against you. And if you mess with Trump,

we'll come after you.

That is a pretty clear message towards

silencing opposition. It's not just

happening with universities or on social

media or in the news uh landscape access

to Donald Trump in the press briefing

rooms or

otherwise. But frankly, the same

behavior is what's happening with

tariffs. Tariffs are an unmitigated

disaster in our economy. Even Elon Musk

agrees with this, especially with his

retweets of Milton Friedman. Although

even Elon Musk fuels the same problems

by saying things like, you know, quoting

the the same Trump disciple retort,

well, if other country, you know, if

tariffs don't work, why do other

countries use them? All right, look. It

like logic would have it that if we

actually put up the trade weighted level

of tariffs with our major trading

partners, we'd actually see that tariffs

are really really low, you know, on the

United States from Hong Kong zero,

Singapore zero, Australia 1, United

Kingdom 1, Vietnam 1.1. Like, if we want

to negotiate these lower, Germany 1.3,

if we want to negotiate these lower,

let's negotiate these lower.

But to say, "Hey, we're now going to

slap 10 plus sectoral plus other

punitive tariffs on everyone is

insane. It brings the United States's

tariffs from 1.5% up to 10 at minimum

and in many cases much higher. It is

economically disrupting and it's also a

slap in the face to our alliances. We

are telling Australians, Canadians,

Mexicans, Britons, Germans, French,

Italians, go f yourself. we're better

off alone. Just like Warren Buffett

says, this is

dumb. At the same time, we are

emboldening

Putin, who's nowhere closer to getting a

Ukraine deal done with Donald Trump than

Biden was. And Biden wasn't even talking

to him. Sure, we're talking to Putin

now, but here's Putin again talking

about using potentially hopefully not

having to use nuclear weapons against

Ukraine to get what he wants. He's been

emboldened by this drama that Donald

Trump has created. China is emboldened.

They're making deals with all of our

allies. Vietnam, the European Union,

Japan, South Korea, and what's happening

in

America. We're alone. China, who

literally calls us their enemy, is

making deals with our partners and being

emboldened. This trade disaster is a

perfect way to tell all of our allies,

"Go f yourself." And it's the dumbest

thing ever. And it's based on a complete

misunderstanding of, frankly, how

tariffs even work. Like Donald Trump

literally says in video, I mean, you

know what? I'm just going to pull it up

because it's so dumb. Uh, and and this

makes me really question his presidency,

but let's pull it up because it's it's

just embarrassing.

Well, let's make sure our audio is

working here. Stand by. Cost, how long

should people expect that transition to

last, Mr. President? I don't I can't

tell you that. I can tell you that uh

we're making a lot of money. We're doing

great. Again, we're losing more

than5 billion dollar a day. $5 billion a

day. You don't talk about that. And

right now, we're going to be at a point

very soon where we're making money every

day. Look, how soon? We were losing

hundreds of billions of dollars with

China. Now, we're essentially not doing

business with China. Therefore, we're

saving hundreds of billions of dollars.

Very simple. You take me to my This is

actually really embarrassing because

what Donald Trump is talking about is

the trade imbalance that basically we

import more by more than $200 billion

more from China than they import from

us. That's not money we're losing. They

have more stuff that we want versus what

they want from us. That is not money

we've lost. And so then Trump is like,

"So, you know, now we're not trading

with them anymore, so we're not losing

that $200 billion anymore. You're

destroying the economy.

This stuff does make me question how

smart Donald Trump is. Maybe he really

thinks that what he's doing is the right

thing. I don't know. I I I'm

really saddened to see what has happened

with Donald Trump because I I feel like

I admired him back in the days of the

original Apprentice.

You know, I even called one of my first

corporations the Paprath organization.

You know, kind of like the Trump

Organization. But now it's sort of

embarrassing to say that because it just

it almost

aligns with either a lie

with stupidity

uh or bad logic. Why not advertise these

things that you told us here? I feel

like nobody else knows about this. We'll

we'll try a little advertising and see

how it goes. Congratulations, man. You

have done so much. People love you.

People look up to you. Kevin Praath

there, financial analyst and YouTuber

Meet Kevin. Always great to get your

take.