ver have a proper country. Elon Musk commented on Bukele's comment and said the only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges. Now, how do you feel about that? Isn't it scary to you if the executive can fire all the judges or whatever judge they want to fire? Because I would put the executive really in charge of the judicial branch of the government, and that was never what was intended. So whoever formed the government doesn't want that or didn't want it. So I feel like there's no right answer here because on one hand I completely understand why you need to be able to control rogue judges. On the other hand, if you had complete control over rogue judges, then there's no point in having a judicial system. It's just going to be a slave to the executive. So I don't know which one works better. I suppose your best situation would be the executive is as independent as you can make them. But if you really try hard, the way impeachment is supposed to work, if there's really a strong reason, then you can put together this big, awkward, expensive, time-intensive process to maybe impeach somebody. But you don't want it to be too easy. You don't want the president to be able to call up and say, "All right, get rid of that Ketanji Jackson." You don't want that. All right, we'll see how that goes.

Trump has threatened a 5 percent tariff on Mexico because Mexico apparently is reneging on some of their agreements for water rights. So I guess the US farmers get some significant amount of water from south of the border, and apparently Mexico has the ability to dial that up and dial it down, and they currently have it dialed down. And Trump is doing what I've never heard Biden do. Is this a problem that we've always had but no prior president even dealt with it? Because what Trump is doing is saying, "No, you're going to give us the water you agreed to, or we're going to give you a tariff." Now, will that work? Maybe. Maybe it goes from 5 percent to 10 percent if it doesn't. But it does seem like at least he's acting on it. And that feels like a better president than one that isn't acting on it. So we'll see. I'm in favor of Trump getting tough with Mexico over water. We can't mess around with water rights. Water rights, especially if you have an agreement, you're going to have to push that hard. You can't be flexible on that once we've got the rights.

Interestingly, Trump has given the green light, according to Reuters and the New York Post, for Nvidia to ship their powerful AI chips to China despite the fact that people are worried about the national defense and national security risks. So I'm a little bit unclear. He's going to allow Nvidia to export its H200 chips to China. But what are those, the top ones? In the comments, can you give me a fact check? Are the H200s the most powerful chip at the moment, or is the H100 more powerful? Feels like 200 would be more powerful than 100, but I don't know if that's the case. So there's a little delay in the comments, but somebody will tell me. One of you knows. We've got a lot of engineers in the audience here. No clue. Won't help me. You need a sentence. H300 the most powerful. Are you joking? I can't tell if you're joking. Is there an H300 chip?

All right. Well, whatever it is, the interesting part of the story is that Trump is going to allow Nvidia to sell these to China, the H200 chip, but 25 percent of what they would make would be paid to the United States government. So once again, Trump sees a pile of money sitting on the table, and he says, as he always does, hey, is this pile of money going anywhere? Does anybody own this? Well, we kind of own it. Would it be okay if I said you can't sell to China unless I get 25 percent of this pile of money? Well, we don't love that, but yeah, what are you going to do? So once again, Trump just picks up the free money. It's not exactly free, but it's about as close as you can get to free. All you have to do is say, I'll say yes if you give us 25 percent of this pile of money. That's pretty close to free money. So until we saw Trump do this the first few times, which is make a deal with an American company like Intel, where if the US government helps the company, then the US government gets to share some of the upside potential. When it first happened, you probably thought to yourself, oh no, we're going to turn into a fascist country where the economy and the government are now merged. Well, I could see why people would be worried about that, but is it bad? Again, it makes sense to be worried and to watch it carefully, but it doesn't look like it's a problem yet. And if Trump can put together some kind of a future where the government is making a percentage of our biggest companies and we're also cleaning up with tariffs, maybe we have some way out of our debt problem.

Now Elon Musk has said the only way, and I do believe him, the only way we survive our gigantic government debt is if robots and AI just goose the economy to a level we've never seen before and suddenly it just creates wealth like we've never seen. Now, is that possible? Do you think it's possible that AI and robots and maybe self-driving cars and maybe space stuff, the biggest things that are happening, if those four or five things and maybe fusion in a few years, if those four or five things just completely change the game, even to the point where you don't need a job anymore, it's like everybody has everything. I mean, that's going to take a while to get to that point. But is that our only way to survive?

All right. I have to look at this comment. Somebody's saying did my IQ drop more than 40 percent. Where's that comment? It went away. There it is. Sam says, "Your IQ dropped more than 40 percent. Scott, what responsibility does Candace have? I wouldn't give my opinion if you didn't listen to her podcast." Okay, that's a stupid comment. So I thought I would highlight your stupid comment. What part of that do you think I disagree with? Well, I don't even know what topic you're on. I mean, other than the people you named, you're not even making a smart point. There's not even anything to disagree with. It's just so stupid. So if I were you, I wouldn't talk in public if that's the best you can do. So you start with an ad hominem and then you ask this question. What responsibility does Candace have? Which has never been a topic and is not one that I'm interested in. So I'm not interested in the topic, and it's not one we're talking about. And you said I wouldn't give my opinion if you didn't listen to her podcasts. Really? Have you ever heard of what podcasts are? You know that sometimes we're well-informed and sometimes we're just catching up. Do you think I should not talk about it because I'm just catching up? Now, I'm not interested enough to dig into the details of what Candace's opinion is. You tell me why that matters. Why does that matter? Does it matter that I have a well-informed opinion about Candace Owens's opinion? That doesn't matter. In what way am I better off or the world better off or are you better off if I've done a deep dive on Candace Owens's opinion about Turning Point USA? It doesn't have any impact on me. I don't think it has any impact on you. So why don't you grow up a little bit and stop being an idiot? And that would be cool.

All right. Probably if you're as dumb as Sam is, you should not say things in public. I'm going to leave your stupid comment up there, Sam, so that everybody can mock you for how dumb you are.

All right. Let's see what else we got. Well, Ukraine. Of course we have to talk about Ukraine. Zelensky says that the recent US talks were constructive. I never believe that when you're talking about peace deals until it's a done deal. I don't believe anything that anybody says when they characterize these negotiations. Anyway, Zelensky thinks that Europe is the obstacle to peace. Well, maybe. Breitbart News is writing about this. But apparently he said in an interview that negotiations with the US to find an end to the war were constructive but indicated that questions remain regarding the position of Europe. Well, do you believe that there's anything like an agreement of where the borders should be if they stop shooting there? There's no agreement. I don't believe we're even close to an agreement. I have no idea what they're talking about. Just I feel like maybe they're just trying to act like it's closer than it is.

And then one of the questions is how can Ukraine get something that's NATO-like protection without being part of NATO? Yeah. So is that even an option? What would you do that wasn't NATO but looked and acted like NATO and would keep Russia from a