Speaker 1: In a borderline traitorous rally in Conway, South Carolina,
ahead of the Republican primary. There, the failed former president Donald Trump shockingly made the
statement to a cheering crowd of sycophants that he would encourage Russia to invade our allies if
they need to be taught a lesson. If they're not paying what Trump thinks they should be paying
with regard to NATO or the U.N. or whatever it is he's talking about. This is repugnant
and dangerous. And I have a really specific question for you after we watch this together.
Speaker 2: They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said,
well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said you didn't
pay your delinquent. He said, yes. Let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I
would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.
Speaker 1: I would, and not only would I not protect you, I would encourage them, Russia,
to do whatever the hell they want because you gotta pay your bills. You know, one of the things
I'm actually. I'm reading a really interesting book, and you'll bear with me here, okay? I don't
want to go all Putin on everybody, but bear with me. I'm reading an interesting book about the case
for and against space exploration, and one of the things that the book makes clear is there's some
real gaps in international space law, and that one of the difficult realities about international law
is that it can be extraordinarily difficult to enforce in the sense that if a country
says we'll be party to this, or we won't be party to this, or we'll be party to it, but then they
break the rules. Who really has the authority to enforce it? Well, an International Criminal court,
or maybe it's not totally clear. It's not black and white. And anyway, the point here is how
would you enforce if I can't imagine that there's an agreement that you can't make sovereign any
land on other planets, and then the US goes up to Mars and says, hey, this is our city. We consider
this like part of the United States, but you're violating the rules. Okay, so what are you going
to do? And there's a real question as to in which situations and in what ways can you actually hold
those, parties accountable? Trump's entire thing here about. Well, I've determined that
such and such countries should pay more, and thus we aren't going to come to their defense if A, B,
or C were to happen. It's a real minefield in two senses. It's a minefield in the sense that Trump,
of course, has no authority to demand more money from other countries into an international
agreement in this way. But number two, what would the penalties be if there was such a
situation where the United States should come to the defense of a NATO ally and Trump or whoever,
as president says, we're not going to. This is not me saying, here's the answer. This is me saying,
this is really complicated and, potentially problematic stuff. When you have presidents like
Trump willing to say things like, now, I not only would I not come to their defense, I'd encourage
Russia to do whatever the hell they want. Now, forget everything else. Forget the failures of
the Trump presidency, forget the lies. Forget the being civilly liable for rape. Forget the 91
felony counts. Forget drawing with a sharpie on a hurricane map. Forget the bungled Covid response.
Like forget everything. Doesn't this statement alone disqualify Trump from being president of
the United States? Wouldn't this alone say, oh, this guy should not be president? And the answer
is it only is disqualifying based on what voters are willing to do or not willing to do. I don't
think we should elect a guy who says, let Russia do whatever they want because some of them aren't
paying. That's my opinion. There are probably tens of millions of people in this country who
have no problem electing a guy like that, and that's where the problem actually comes from.