A (2:20)

Let's ease into this. It's. Ease into this.

B (2:22)

Okay, here's my first one. Despite a slate of blockbuster sequels coming out next Year, including the Dune Messiah movie, Avengers, Doomsday, Toy Story 5, a whole bunch of other familiar ones. The biggest hit of 2026 will be Christopher Nolan's the Odyssey. Ooh.

A (2:42)

Ooh. I'm going to say plausible to verging on probable.

B (2:48)

Okay. All right. Have you seen much coverage of this film yet?

A (2:52)

I have seen. I've consumed as much as I possibly can consume. And the reason why I say plausible to the point of probable is two reasons. One, Avatar is coming out in the next few days before 2026. So if Avatar was coming out in 2026, that would probably be the biggest movie of the year.

B (3:11)

Are you a fan of the Avatar movies?

A (3:14)

I enjoy the heck out of them. I really do.

B (3:15)

I honestly haven't. I saw the first one when it came out like, you know, 20 years ago, but I have not seen anything since then.

A (3:22)

I mean, I don't enjoy them to the point of like 2 billion in box office. You know, like that. The way the first one and the second winner are our number, I believe one in three all time. I don't think they're one in three all time in quality, even if you say of sci fi quality. But I really do enjoy them and they are undeniable box office juggernauts. But putting aside Avatar, consider this. Nolan's last movie, Oppenheimer, grossed almost a billion, roughly. I mean, a billion adjacent to a billion dollars. And it was a talk movie.

B (3:59)

Yes.

A (4:01)

With like, it was, it was a film. It wasn't like a, it wasn't like a movie. It was like a film.

B (4:06)

There wasn't any action in it.

A (4:08)

No, no. And, and it was almost a billion. And I was riveted to every single second of it. I mean, it was phenomenal. And so I think he's just special. He. It's my, my question back to you would be you have one director and or you have to make a choice between one director to direct the movie. That will be so awesome. It saves the world. Do you go with Nolan or Villeneuve? And I think those are the only two options.

B (4:37)

You wouldn't even throw Spielberg into the mix.

A (4:40)

Peak Spielberg. Yes. But we're not in the realm of peak peak Spielberg.

B (4:43)

Okay, well, I have, I have a different Spielberg one for you later in the day. I, I, I mean, obviously it's speculation. Who knows what movie ends up capturing everyone's imagination and the water cooler talk in 2026. The thing that intrigues me about Odyssey is number one, I will watch anything that Christopher Nolan creates because I hear he's that good a filmmaker?

A (5:01)

Yeah.

B (5:02)

But I'm intrigued in a. In a Hollywood environment where everything is a sequel, everything is a remake. They're now doing a live action Moana. It's just like, what? There's no originality anymore. The Odyssey is not exactly original. It's one of the oldest stories in recorded human history, but no one's ever really made a cinematic version of this story before. And he's undertaken something that a lot of people thought was impossible with a great set of actors. And apparently they're going to be releasing, instead of a normal trailer, the first six minutes of the film or some six minute extended preview of the Battle of Troy or something like that.

A (5:39)

Oh, man.

B (5:39)

Early reactions from people who've seen it are like, it's unlike anything we've ever seen put to film before. And so I think he's a brilliant filmmaker. I trust his storytelling abilities. He's tackling one of the most influential stories in human history. What's not to like about it? It's going to be great. I don't think this is an overreaction.

A (6:01)

On my 2026 is going to be a tremendous movie year like Dune Part three. We are going to have, you know, the new Spielberg coming. You've got no, I mean, when you have a summer with a Nolan, Anna Villeneuve movie at the same time and then a fresh Spielberg joint and. I mean, come on.

B (6:22)

Oh, we'll get to that later.

A (6:24)

Okay.

B (6:25)

Okay. Well, I'm glad to know that you are as excited for that one as I am. All right, let's go to a political one. We'll kind of. We'll volley back and forth here. Which one should I start with here? Okay, how about this? For the first time since 1988, Texas will elect a Democratic senator.

A (6:43)

Ooh, I. Oh, this is a good one. Plausible, not probable.

B (6:47)

Okay, plausible, but not an overreaction.

A (6:50)

Not an overreaction.

B (6:51)

So you think this is not an overreaction? Okay. There are two candidates running for the Democratic nomination in Texas. One who's been on this show before is James Telo. And the other, fairly new to the race, is. I'm blanking on her name. Oh, shoot. What is her name? Why didn't I look this up?

A (7:11)

Jasmine Crockett.

B (7:11)

Jasmine Crockett. Thank you. They sort of represent two fundamentally different approaches to politics in the Democratic Party right now. Two different approaches to the Trump era with James Talarico really presenting a cool, collected, smart and civic minded sort of Christian forward posture of malice towards none in inclusivity. I mean, he's certainly a Democrat in his politics and progressive views, but his. His tone is very conciliatory and open. Whereas Jasmine Crockett, I think she's the one who said, when they go low, we go to the gutter.

A (7:51)

Like. Well, she's the one who really came to prominence after Marjorie Taylor Greene went after her big time. Yeah, she did something, what was it? Bad butch built body? Something like, she did this string and it became shortened to B6. And she sold merchandise, like B6 merchandise, because she had every word she used to describe. I believe it was Marjorie Taylor Greene began with a B. And. And so, yeah, she was a viral star. And it really does go to sort of this problem we have with primary voters right now, sky, is that on both the right and the left, primary voters are your most activated, most energized. The exhausted majority isn't participating in primaries nearly as much. And so you kind of get this skew where coming out of the primary, it tends to go towards the more angry, populist voice. And that's not where Talarico is going to thrive. He's much more of a. What I would think of as a general election candidate. Right. But I went back and I looked at Cruz's and Cornyn's margin of victory. And so Cornyn in 2020, if he wins the primary, his margin of victory was 53.5 to 43.87 in a pretty blue year of 2020. But consider this. This is why I say it's plausible if not probable. Is that so far in the special elections we've seen, the lowest swing to the Democrats has been 13 points.

B (9:21)

Wow.

A (9:22)

The lowest. And that was in my old congressional district, District 7 in Tennessee, outside of Nashville. And so that's at the congressional level. That's different from Senate. I, you know, I'm not naive. I know that's different from Senate. But when you're dealing with the lowest swing was 13, all the rest were between like 16 and 28, then you realize the peril that Republicans see themselves in. And then when you add to the fact that let's. The primary voter problem goes both ways. Ken Paxton is challenging Senator Cornyn. I think if Senator Cornyn is the nominee, his victory is almost certain. Against Jasmine Crockett, I would say virtually certain. But if Paxton is the nominee, I think he loses to Talarico, and I think he might even lose to Jasmine Crockett, to be honest, because Paxton, as Sarah Isker, my advisory opinions comrade, has said, might be the most corrupt politician in America. And that's including Donald Trump in the equation. And so he is spectacularly dishonest and corrupt. And so. But he's also a darling of the hardcore maga. Right. So he may get the nomination.

B (10:36)

It sounds like in order for this to not be an overreaction, the Republicans would need to nominate a pretty terrible candidate in Paxton and the Democrats would have to nominate a moderate general election candidate like Tellarico. That's the combination that could get the Democrats a win in the Senate there. But if either of those things doesn't happen, you think it's going to go to the Republicans.

A (10:58)

Right? That's why I say it's plausible, not probable.

B (11:01)

Okay, fair enough. I agree with you. I think that that is accurate analysis.

A (11:06)

That's a good one.

B (11:07)

I will say this though. If Texas does, does elect a Democratic senator for the first time in 40 years almost, that will send shockwaves through the whole Republican Party. Like will they, will they at that point admit that maybe Trump was a mistake?

A (11:22)

If that, if, if there's a Democratic senator from Texas, that will be an earthquake. That will be the story. The story. Unless the only way it would not be the story is if the earthquake is even bigger.

B (11:34)

I got some of those on my list coming up.

A (11:36)

Yeah.

B (11:37)

Okay, let's tack back over to not exactly pop culture, but a little slightly less political. At least one state will pass a near total ban on social media for youth, similar to what was done in Australia.

A (11:55)

Probable, almost. I mean, Utah has passed. I mean there have been some pretty big sweeping laws passed already. I will say probable with an asterisk because there's real constitutional issues with flat bands on social media for, even for minors, really, that do not exist for pornography. That age gate age gating for pornography we now know, you know, from Supreme Court opinion is entirely, is legal. However, the difference between porn and say a 16 year old ranting about Israel and Gaza on Tick Tock is that you have no constitutional right to see porn as a kid. You still have constitutional rights to speak as a child on other matters and to. So there is a, there's a infringement there on a constitutional right that does not exist when it comes to access to porn. Okay.

B (13:00)

Putting the constitutional right aside, because that will take some time, perhaps years, for the courts to really figure all those things out there, it seems to me that there is a growing momentum towards the harm caused by social media, particularly for youth. And now that we're seeing entire countries like Australia banning it and local school districts, other communities, there's just Jonathan Height's been huge on this. It feels a little bit to me like when I was young and there was this broad cultural awareness of the harm of cigarettes, and it wasn't just that you were slapping warning labels on cigarettes anymore, but there was this tipping point where the culture reached a consensus that we don't want this permeating our world anymore. And I wonder if we're getting closer to that point with social media and kids and. Yeah, we gotta figure out the legality of all this. But the popular momentum is gonna lead some lawmakers to push through these bans in one form or another, leaving the courts up to figure out how this gets implemented.

A (14:02)

Yeah, you know, I. Here's, here's why I say it's probable is I'm complete agreement with you on this guy. I think that Jonathan Haidt's work, and he's not the only one, but he's been sort of the principal one. Combined with the just experience of millions of us and the millions of parents. Is that okay? Yeah, there is this groundswell that we have to do something. So, for example, one thing that I think would be most lay down easy prediction of all is we're going to see a lot more bands of phones in schools. I mean, you want to talk about an 8020 issue?

B (14:40)

Yeah.

A (14:41)

Banning phones in schools is an 8020 issue. I mean, in the, in the early empirical results of school phone bans is really. They're really good, better outcomes academically, socially, etc. I think banning phones in schools is a layup. I think you're going to see more age gating of porn sites. There's just a growing consensus that young men, in particular porn and sports gambling.

B (15:05)

That was one of the things I was thinking about putting on this list is, well, 2026. See, the, the rhetoric around sports gambling, especially in the church or Christian communities, become parallel to the discussion we've had for many years about online pornography.

A (15:20)

Yeah. And. Well, I have an announcement to make here on the Holy Post. I'm debating Chris Christie next year on sports gambling at Chicago Institute of Politics, University of Chicago.

B (15:32)

When is that happening?

A (15:34)

Oh, gosh, I have the date. I can't remember.

B (15:36)

Well, you can share with me later, but I want to be there. I assume he's on the pro sports gambling end of this.

A (15:41)

He's on the pro sports gambling side. And I'm on the ante. And, and I'm a relatively new convert. I mean, I'm. I have generally libertarian instincts. Guy, you've got to show me. I'm Just not going to say oh, I don't like something, let's have the government ban it. Then you've got to show me on a cost benefit analysis. And you know, hyper regulation needs to be justified. It shouldn't be the default sort of position when dealing with social problems. But I will say this, I think the evidence is in on sports gambling. I mean think about this guy. I would say, and maybe this is controversial to some folks, but I would say that the combination of easy access to porn and sports gambling and is doing a heck of a lot more to harm young men than ideological issues in schools. I agree, I, I really do. I, I, it's not that I don't think that ideological issues are, are in unimportant but you know, like you talk about like my son's peers and, and people, you know, if you're growing up in, in suburban Nashville or rural Tennessee, you're exposed to minimal wokeness but giant amounts of gambling, porn, etc, you know, it's one of the reasons why, I think if you're looking at young men struggling, I don't think you see that young men struggle more around clustered blue areas. Right. They're just struggling in general. I think, and I think this is.

B (17:10)

A reason what we have not yet figured out culturally and certainly in government is pornography has always existed. Literally always existed. Yes, gambling has as well and gambling has as well. The difference is we haven't wrestled with the accessibility of these things through digital technology in all of our pockets and the assumption was in a more libertine society where adults are responsible for their own self regulation, we shouldn't have the government preventing access to pornography or preventing access to gambling. Well, okay, if you used to have to go to some gambling establishment to access gambling, that maybe made sense. Or if you had to risk social shame by going to a strip club or something to access those kinds of things and maybe there was some natural barrier there, but now where there are no barriers and it's instantaneous, we just haven't factored in the cost to society and to individual lives and families and households and on and on and on that these things that are known to be addictive and destructive behaviors. So yeah, I mean we could go on a rabbit trail here about other addictive things like substances and drugs. The Trump administration has been making this kind of pathetic argument that they're justified in blowing up these boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific because they're bringing drugs into the country. Imagine if those drugs were instantaneously available to every single American on their phone.

A (18:39)

Right, right. And. And it's not just an access issue. It's an evolution issue of gambling itself and of pornography. I mean, pornography is depraved at now at a level that, like, kids who grew up trying to find their grandfather's playboy stash under the bed, like, can't grasp. Like the, the sheer depravity of being. Of what's being put out there is horrifying beyond words. So you have access to something that. Massive access to something that is increasingly depraved, and that. That's a huge problem. And then on gambling, it's a very simple similar thing. You have massive access to a product that's evolving in a very particular way with these prop bets.

B (19:22)

Right.

A (19:23)

Where you can bet you could maybe cast in a. If you want to go all in. I would bet in a single football game while you're watching it, you could cast 20, 30 bets on the action as it unfolds. It creates a kind of this slot machine effect where you're just looking at your screen and hitting your buttons and. And it's. It's terrible. I mean, sky, there are so many issues that if we had a functional government, that you could actually get some real stuff done. And gambling, I think, is another one of those areas in which there is an actual bipartisan sense of rising consensus that. Wait a minute, we've. We've gone really far here, and it's got really negative and terrible consequences.

B (20:10)

Yeah. One. One more thing on that front. Apart from the way it destroys the users of these things, there's real harm being done to those involved in the industry itself. Obviously, if you're being trafficked and you're being exploited for the creation of pornography, that's a horrific level to that industry. But I think there's bouncing evidence that spread sports betting is actually hurting professional sports and, and risks the future of these leagues that are also making a lot of money on the sports betting. But we're seeing more scandals emerging now from people in professional sports around this stuff.

A (20:48)

Oh. Even when people in sports are not being corrupted and many people are. I mean, we've seen pitchers, we've seen basketball players, we've seen coaches. I mean, the indictment. No one should ever think for a moment that we've seen the last of the indictments. Right. It's all been rooted out. It's, you know, in all likelihood, tip of the iceberg stuff. So you. Even if that there's no corruption, the experience of playing is changing and coaching is changing because people are getting death Threats over prop bets. They're getting death threats over point spreads in a way that. At a scale and in a way they didn't used to. So here you have innocent people being impacted by this in a profound way. Similarly, with porn, one of the most sobering pieces that the Times has run in the last two to three years is a piece talking about the rise of choking in sex amongst younger people. That it's just ubiquitous now. Just ubiquitous. Why? Why is that happening? Pornography. So you have young women who are being subjected to these really brutal and degrading sexual practices because young men are growing up thinking that, is growing up thinking that, you know, that's what a sexual relationship is. And so, again, you know, some of these things are really, truly, honestly, when you dig down in them, just consensus, bipartisan, sensible concerns that people have.

B (22:13)

Right. So this all started because I propose that at least one state will pass a new total ban on social media for. For. For young people.

A (22:19)

We went down a rabbit.

B (22:20)

We did. But I think the broader reality is there. Maybe we are reaching a tipping point where enough Americans are seeing the. The shadow side of all this technology and media that their anger will be directed toward the right places, which is one, the lack of regulation from the government, and two, the profiteering and exploitation of these media companies that are destroying lives, especially young people, for the sake of their profits. I don't know if that means it's going to pass a bill somewhere in some state house, But I'm hoping 2026 sees a tipping point where we see real action on this stuff. Okay, yeah, back to politics. This might be my most controversial one I want to throw at you.

A (22:59)

All right.

B (23:01)

In 2026, J.D. vance will become the 48th president of the United States.

A (23:09)

Highly improbable to implausible. If you had said 27, I. An eyebrow would raise more. If you'd said 28. The eyebrow.

B (23:20)

I mean, the actuarial tables are such that. That gets there. I mean, obviously there are probably only three ways he becomes president. Donald Trump is removed from office, either by the 25th amendment or impeachment. Donald Trump dies, and he's not getting any younger. There's all kinds of news reports about speculation on his health. I guess those are the only two.

A (23:45)

25Th Amendment Amendment.

B (23:47)

20Th Amendment is one, impeachment's another. Or. Or death. So. Or I guess the fourth one would be Donald Trump just resigns. Like he voluntarily steps off the presidency. I don't see that happening.

A (23:58)

I. Let me put it this way. If and when, because we don't know, you know, some people, you know, I, I think it's very obvious he's lost more than a few steps. Um, I think it's also pretty obvious that he's still more vigorous than Biden was at the end.

B (24:13)

But definitely, to be fair, it's also harder to tell if Trump is actually experiencing mental decline.

A (24:20)

Yeah, true. I mean, he's word salad.

B (24:23)

Exactly.

A (24:23)

For years.

B (24:24)

Right.

A (24:25)

But I, I think, to me, just, you know, he has lost a step, his schedule is lighter, his travel is less. I mean, there are signs, but, you know, as frustrating and irritating as it was and, and ultimately just deeply, historically consequential that Biden hung on too long and that the Biden team closed ranks around him and actively really deceived America about his true condition. One prediction I have here would be my prediction back to you. If and when Trump does go into the kind of Biden esque precipitous decline, the Trump team will close ranks in such a way that it will make the Biden team look open and transparent.

B (25:06)

Okay, I, here's the. I, I agree with you on that. But here's the difference. By the time Biden had closed ranks, his administration had closed ranks significantly. It was in the final year of his first term. And the problem was he had to, he chose to run for reelection and obviously that blew up in their face at the horrific debate he had. This is only going to be Trump's second year and they have a, they have three years to go here that they have to.

A (25:34)

He's also a lame duck.

B (25:35)

He's also a lame duck. And this is the piece that I think makes a real difference, is you're already beginning.

A (25:39)

I might be already retracting what it.

B (25:41)

You're already beginning to see some Republicans break rank with Trump. And you mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene. Just today in the House, there were a bunch of Republicans that broke with Mike Johnson in order to try to get a vote on extending subsidies to Obamacare. Like Indiana voted against what Trump wanted to do and redistricting, like, I think there's blood in the water. And other Republicans are realizing maybe my political future is not as hitched to Donald Trump as it once was. If they start to see significant cognitive and physical decline in the president, you might see a groundswell of people going, hey, this is our chance. Let's be done with him. And whether it's 25th Amendment or just pressure on him to resign or something in a way that I don't think Democrats were talking that way in 2024.

A (26:29)

About Biden you're right. I think you're clearly right, I'm clearly wrong. That if there is a midterm wipeout and there is visible decline, it will be unlike anything we've seen. You know, unlike any, you know, it will be. There will be. The sharks will circle and, and there will be, you know, chum in the water, so to speak. Without question. I think what I'm thinking about is let's imagine the midterms are fine, that they're much better for Republicans than you might think. Which was one of the in seeds of the Biden right Disaster.

B (27:08)

Yes.

A (27:08)

Was. Had it, oddly enough, had there been a red wave in 2022, we might not have President Trump in 2024. Biden would have taken that as a cue to depart. Republicans would have seen a future without Donald Trump and maybe history is very different. So if I feel like if Republicans hang on and Trump gets the same boost internally that Biden gave himself in 2022, like, look, you know, I'm still, I'm in command. I'm large and in charge. We're doing well, full steam ahead. That's one area where I think that people would circle their wagons around Trump. But if it's the opposite, if there's a midterm wipeout and Trump is invisible, decline, I, then I agree with you completely. MAGA is just too full of ambitious scorpions for one of them not to take make their move. Man. No question.

B (27:59)

Yeah. And I, I don't watch the president regularly. I try not to. But the times I do see him, he just seems significantly slower than he was a year ago during the following the election and the beginning of his second administration. And for anybody who has watched somebody age and slowly decline, that tends not to slow down. So I can only imagine a year from now what condition he might be in. And I think you're, you're right. If, if there's no indication right now that the Republicans are going to have a very good 2026 mid cycle election. And I, I think the knives will be out for him. And I think J.D. vance is a particularly ambitious and unprincipled political actor. So I, I could very much see him trying to figure out a way to, to pull up Brutus. But we'll see.

A (28:59)

Well, we'll clarify. Politically. Politically.

B (29:02)

Politically.

A (29:03)

Yeah.

B (29:03)

I am by no means calling for any kind of political violence.

A (29:12)

Okay, back to culture.

B (29:15)

This one's a little weird. I had, I had to get nerdy.

A (29:17)

On the weirder the better. Let's do it.

B (29:20)

The release of Steven Spielberg's new film Disclosure day in June will coincide with the first official acknowledgment from the US Government that it possesses technology of non human origin.

A (29:33)

Okay, love this question. Okay, how about this? Implausible. But I really want it to be probable. Like I, I'm, I'm all in on wanting there to be UFOs. You know, I, I would, I now listen to me say that and then it actually happened and then you go through an, a cascading series of. Oh, crud.

B (29:59)

Yeah, yeah.

A (29:59)

What does this mean? But in theory, in concept, like, that would be amazing. That would be fascinating. I've never thought that a creation is exclusive to mankind. Like, I've never had that, that conception that it's exclusive to me. I even wrote an entire Sunday newsletter that's like, what will Christians think when the aliens arrive? I didn't even say if, I said when sky. But, but I have. Let me put it this way. There's a new, a new movie out and documentary that a lot of people are raving about. And I read a critical review of it and they said something that's very interesting, which is at some point somebody's got to produce something other than their own eyewitness testimony.

B (30:43)

That's right.

A (30:44)

And, and there has been that to an extent. We have seen the, some of the camera footage from Navy fighters, for example, and that's done more than any of the eyewitness testimony to convince me. Yeah, but there's even something weird going on.

B (30:59)

The eyewitness testimony of a Navy fighter pilot is pretty high on my, on my, you know, criteria of credibility, for sure.

A (31:09)

Yeah. So, you know, I. Eyewitness testimony is evidence. There's no question. Like when people say there's some testimony.

B (31:15)

Is more credible than others, though.

A (31:16)

Exactly. Yeah. But then when you buttress eyewitness testimony, you know, when the UFO report was released not long ago, there was a whole discussion that there's things that were recorded with other sensors. In other words, not just your human eyes or ears, but other sensors recorded things they couldn't quite explain. So there's definitely a mystery. But there's two things that the skeptic said that I thought were fascinating. One was, look, at some point you got to produce some stuff, right? And so far nobody has. And, and it's really head scratching, given the sheer number of people that according to the conspiracists. Right. Have had access to the information technology. There's people make claims that there's alien remains. And then there was this other point which I'd never really thought of before, which was why is it always the case that in these, in this telling that people have traveled trillions of miles, you know, not people, but something. Someone has traveled trillions of miles safely only to invariably land here in the Earth and crash?

B (32:24)

Right? Yeah.

A (32:26)

So we've transversed 300 light years with the most advanced technology. So advanced that human beings can't possibly conceive of how we did this. And then as soon as we hit the atmosphere, it's like, we've got turbulence, captain, we're going down. And so there's always, it always seems to be, well, we had a crash. Really? Really?

B (32:47)

Yeah.

A (32:47)

Wait a minute, hold on.

B (32:50)

I mean, I tend to be skeptical about a lot of this stuff and I think my, the best argument I've heard against any of this is if, if any of this is true, you're talking about the most significant conspiracy cover up in human history, right?

A (33:06)

Yeah.

B (33:06)

And I think as a species we don't have a great track record of keeping secrets. And the number of people that would have to be involved in something like this over multiple generations would be so enormous it would be shocking that more hadn't leaked out or more credible witnesses or some material evidence hadn't leaked out. So I put all in the category of, yeah, this is probably unlikely. On the other side, especially in recent years, there's been a preponderance of testimony and evidence and admissions from official government agencies saying, yeah, this is a thing, we don't know what it is. So, okay, this whole idea for 2020.

A (33:46)

We'Re losing, we're losing. I know, we're losing extreme speeds. And I'm all into this.

B (33:51)

This is the craziest thing I'll say. I came across a conspiracy theory recently about Spielberg's new movie that was basically saying Spielberg has been working on this topic since the 1970s with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And throughout all the different Alien movies he's made, ET I forget what other ones he's done, but he has had consultants on these movies who are people that, whose names are familiar in kind of the UFO world or who work for government agencies or whatever it might be. And the conspiracy theory is essentially wink, wink. Spielberg's been in the know throughout his career and he's been dropping these cultural seeds to prepare the world for what he is finally going to reveal in this film in 2026. And it's kind of the capstone of his career and it is going to have more congruency with reality than we might be comfortable with. But it's all been part of a plan. I think that's kind of far fetched, but I also find it really intriguing.

A (34:54)

I, it's like one of those things like not, not real, but I wish it, it would be cool if it was real. But I'm with you, Sky. I think the idea that we're going to have some reveal like in the movie Independence Day where they get to Area 51 and they have a ship that had crashed. Right. And they, that they refurbish and, and launch out there to take on the aliens or that they had an alien body like that. The fact that that's, I don't think that's out there. I think what is more likely is sort of, we are just really stumped by the following things for the following reason. And that, that to me is much more interesting and potential. And we've already kind of done this. Yeah.

B (35:34)

We've had government officials on the record say there are things that we are encountering that we cannot explain. But that's as far as they go.

A (35:41)

Yeah, yeah. And I think, I think that that is will, I think that will continue and it may even increase. But as far as, like, here's, here's the alien body. Here's Bob, we named him Bob.

B (35:56)

No, well, yeah, I would, I'm not willing to go that far either. That's why I said the government will just admit that they have technology of non human origin. I think that's a safer way to go saying we have this material, we don't know what it is, or we've this.

A (36:10)

What?

B (36:10)

I don't know, something like that. I don't think they're going to roll out a body and be like, here's the Roswell crash victims from 1947 or whatever it was. But we'll see. Okay, back to politics. And this is right in your wheelhouse. In 2026, Donald Trump will appoint his fourth justice to the Supreme Court.

A (36:32)

I'm going to say probably yes.

B (36:35)

Okay. My thought was, tell me if I got this analysis wrong, it's very likely that the Democrats could win the Senate in 2026 when those, the new Congress comes into session in 2027. So if you are an aging Republican on the Supreme Court, you might think this is my last chance to retire and have my replacement selected by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican Senate. Like, this is your window to get out. Because in 2027, it's going to be a lot harder for a staunch conservative to get nominated and appointed. So Is it Clarence Thomas? I think he's the oldest serving justice right now, correct?

A (37:19)

Yes, he is. Yes, he's the oldest. Oldest serving Justice.

B (37:23)

So would it make sense for at the end of this court term in June, all the cases are decided, all the opinions are out, Thomas announces, I'm retiring. And that gives Trump and the Republicans a couple of months to find someone and get them through the Senate before the election in November. That's the scenario I'm thinking is most likely.

A (37:45)

Yeah, I, I agree. Although I would be actually a little surprised if it was Thomas.

B (37:52)

Really?

A (37:53)

Yeah.

B (37:53)

Who do you think it is?

A (37:55)

Alito. Alito would actually, I wouldn't fall out of my chair in shock if it was Thomas. I, so why Elito in shock if it was Thomas and Alito?

B (38:05)

Could you imagine if, if five of the justices on the Supreme Court were all appointed by Donald Trump? That'd be crazy.

A (38:12)

Oh, I know. But the, what you just walked through sky is I think on might be on their minds because if you are a Republican, if appointed justice and you want to retire and you want to be replaced by a Republican, appoint, appoint a Justice, then. Well, if the, if the Republicans lose the Senate, you're going to have to wait and see in the outcome of the next presidential election. And if a Republican doesn't win, then, you know, so Thomas is 77 right now, and so it would not be inconceivable that if he didn't do it next term, he might not have an opportunity for a long time and he could end up in a situation, you know, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg situation, where you're waiting for the right moment to retire and because of unexpected political events, the right moment doesn't occur. Right. And so you just stay in and in and in and, you know, so I, I do think I'm gonna, Yeah, I think probable, I think probable. I, I, it would actually surprise me if there was no retirement.

B (39:18)

Why do you think Alito is more likely than Thomas?

A (39:22)

You know, this is just pure. Take this is, this is. He's 75, so he's almost as old as Thomas. And it's, how shall I put this? It's sort of in the air maybe that he might not love it as much and, you know, might not love being on the court at this point in his life as much as maybe some other people do.

B (39:49)

Okay.

A (39:49)

I don't know if that's true. I don't know if that's true, but there is this weird level of consensus that I've seen around very, very close And I consider myself a close Supreme Court watcher, but I'm not as close as some people who are live in Washington or one degree removed from family members and things like that. There's just something in the air that says amongst close observers, if somebody's going to retire, it's probably going to be Alito before Thomas now. Doesn't make any sense on the basis of age, doesn't make any sense on the basis of any objective external factors that you can see. But I will just say there's just something in the air that I always hear from people who are, like, one degree closer than I am.

B (40:33)

Well, you're certainly much closer than I am. So I trust that. Last thing related to this, I think from what I've heard you say and some of the things you've written, you're pretty happy with the three justices that Trump appointed in his last term, which were, yes, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. Would you anticipate another justice of their ilk, or is this a different Trump administration, and does he have a different attitude towards the court, which might result in a very different kind of nominee?

A (41:04)

Oh, that. So I'm much more worried right now than I was last term, without question, because for a couple of reasons. One, Trump has gone out of his way to kind of declare war on Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society and sort of the whole infrastructure that brought him his first three justices. Number two, he's angry at those justices because they didn't support his bid to stay in power in 2020. Number three, that anger is even extended into parts of Maga. You know, DeSantis incredibly enough, ran saying, I'm not going to pick people like Gorsuch and Barrett. And I'm like, wait, what has the right radicalized so much that Gorsuch and Barrett are too squished now? So you have multiple factors, all indicating that they might go with somebody much more extreme. Also, you have the selection of Emil Bove to the Third Circuit, who is really what I would call one of the very few truly MAGA judges that we've seen him appoint. So there's a lot of factors that are sort of pointing in the direction that this could be different. But also, many of his other nominees have been excellent from my perspective. And so he's still out there nominating Court of Appeals appointees that are very, very solid. But at the same time, we've seen the whole record of the rest of his administration. Now, the interesting thing is, if he's weakening.

B (42:35)

Mm.

A (42:37)

How much would say you know, how much would the Senate confirm? Justice Bondi? Right. I mean, yeah. Or I leave Cannon. Justice Cannon. Right. So I do think that as he weakens his ability to just ram through anybody and, and we'll know by, you know, next summer, a lot more about sort of the state of play for the midterms. And if senators who are facing tough reelections are being asked as a part of the package of what they're walking into November with to confirm an out of control fringe nominee, I think some of them are going to say no to that. And so, you know, especially people who might be having tough races, because if the, if present trends continue, giant, if we don't know, Trump can, you know, Trump can turn things around. In theory, if present trends continue, the Republicans are going to be really worried, really worried by June, July, August of next year. And I don't know that they'd be willing to rubber stamp Trump.

B (43:43)

Okay, I agree, I agree. We'll see. Once this term is over, in the summer, I'm going to be fascinated to see if one or two justices decide to retire. I'd be shocked. Wouldn't it be unprecedented to have two vacancies at the same time?

A (43:56)

I don't know. Unprecedented, I don't think unprecedented, but it would be very unusual.

B (44:01)

Very unusual. Okay, back to more cultural stuff. And this, this one I'm informed by a thing I read recently from Ryan Burge, who does all kinds of stats on interesting topics around faith and culture. Since peaking in 2020 at 8.6%, the number of young adults who identify as transgender will continue to decline in 2026.

A (44:26)

Yes, high confidence in that. That response.

B (44:30)

Okay, so Ryan published this piece recently where he looked at the data of the number of young people, and this is defined as people 18 to 22. So college age young people who identify as transgender. In 2020, it was nearly 9%, which is very high. But every year since then, it has been declining precipitously. And there's been all kinds of speculation to like, why, why did it spike in 2020? Why has it been going down? Especially when you consider that so much of the rhetoric around sexual identity coming from progressives is that this is an immutable quality. All right, well, apparently the surveys, people who in 2020 said that they were transgender are no longer identifying that way, which either they weren't telling the truth then or they're not now, or they're being influenced by something else. And I think the argument I'm hearing from people on the left is they don't feel safe anymore in the, in the cultural climate to identify themselves as transgender. Or there could be another thing which is some of what's going on with young people in our country. And gender identity has been culturally influenced more than intrinsically part of their identity.

A (45:43)

Yeah. So, you know, one of the things that happened in all of these debates is a lot of terms got kind of mashed together, you know, so gender dysphoria, having. If you have gender dysphoria, that's not the same thing as being quote, unquote, gender queer or non binary or. And so there were a lot of different concepts that were sort of being all plunged into the T and the plus of LGBT plus.

B (46:12)

Right.

A (46:13)

And then it just all kind of got subsumed under the headline trans, which is not exactly right. You know, and so you, you had a. So I do think that there are sort of an irreducible minimum number of people, a certain set number of people who have gender dysphoria. That. And that number exists. And sometimes people feel more comfortable coming forward into the culture or not who possess gender dysphoria based on external conditions. And so you are going to have some fluctuation in that number of people who have gender dysphoria who are comfortable sharing and expressing that based on cultural trends. I do think that that is true. But at the same time, we're not talking anywhere near 9% of America, nowhere within shouting distance of 9% of America. And there was this really interesting survey done several years ago that found that a number of people who identified themselves as bisexual or even gay or non binary had never done anything to externally. They'd never engaged in same sex sexual behavior. They had never engaged in any sort of quote unquote, gender affirming care, et cetera. If this really was, I think for some people it became a kind of political cultural act of dissent and. Or a kind of a political cultural kind of expression that was intimately related to the moment in time that we were in at that period. And, and so nothing about this surprises me. And in fact, when you go back and you really look at some of the controversies that really ripped us to shreds, like our country to shreds, like the controversy on youth gender affirming care. And what you actually, then when you peel back and you look at the actual numbers of people who received the hormone treatment, much less surgery, far fewer than the prominence of the issue would suggest, I'm not saying it's an insignificant number. Right. I'm just saying it's a much Smaller number. So we're never talking about a movement that was really large when it came to actual medical steps. That was never a big movement. What was the really big movement, the 9% movement was much broader into sort of the non binary genderqueer, you name it. That was not the same as gender dysphoria. And so we just have to distinguish between gender dysphoria and the whole rest of the argument and the spectrum and the conversation, because a lot of these other categories are just proving to be much more malleable.

B (48:53)

I agree. And part of, I think what fueled a lot of this in the last number of years is it was latched onto by political actors on both sides. The Republicans saw this as a wedge issue that they could scare their voters with, and Democrats saw it as a justice issue that they could placate their voters with. And whether it's gender affirming, care for children, or the whole controversy over trans girls and women in women's sports, like, it's been fascinating to watch how quickly the Democrats coming out of 2024 have run away from that issue. And Gavin Newsom, governor of California, who has clear presidential aspirations for 2028, has already said he does not support trans women and girls in female sports. So they're, they recognize this is a losing issue for them. They want it to go away. They don't want to put the spotlight on this anymore. It, it bit Kamala Harris really badly in that ad that the Trump campaign run ran. So I, I think on that front, on the cultural and political front, no one wants to go near this issue anymore. And it's just the, the spotlight, the air, whatever you want to say, it's just deflating out of this thing. And I think we're going to hopefully continue to see it, not be the distraction that it has been all the while. I agree with you. There is a set number of people who are, have gender dysphoria and ought to be treated with dignity, respect, and get the appropriate care that they need.

A (50:24)

Exactly right.

B (50:26)

Okay, last one. And this is in the sort of political, but maybe cultural thing. 2026 will see the coalescing of a movement to amend the Constitution that will become a central issue in the 2028 presidential campaign.

A (50:44)

I'm going to say yes, probable. Okay. Because it's already moving. It's already happening. And I, I think we're just a few more pardons away, maybe for being located in the pardon power.

B (50:58)

I, that's what I was speculating, that that's going to be the, the thing that galvanizes Americans across the spectrum politically to be like, yeah, this is a mess, and this just, just shouldn't happen.

A (51:09)

Because, again, you know, if Trump is wiped out in 20, if the Republicans are wiped out in 2026, it's interesting how many of our what ifs there, there is a pivot point, and that pivot point is next November. And we don't know how this is going to happen. We know where the trends are heading, but we don't know how this is be going to, to happen. But if present trends continue and he's wiped out and he's viewed as a drag, a liability, and then he does what I fully expect him to do, which is A, continue to pardon extremely corrupt people who've, you know, enriched his family or sucked up to him in some way, and then B, engages in mass pardons on his way out the door in late 2028, early 2029, I think there's going to be a real groundswell because Republicans are still mad about Biden's pardons and many of Biden's pardons. We're a real problem. Yes, a real problem. We remember Clinton's pardons. A real problem. You know, the, the January 6th, by the time, in all likelihood, by the time, you know, Trump's term ends, a lot more of these J6ers will have committed fresh crimes. Right. I mean, this wasn't a class of America's finest who had been pardoned after January 6, and some of them have gone on to reoffend already. And so I think we're looking going to be looking at a real reckoning about the Trump years. And, and one of the least popular things he will have done in all of his two terms is this string of incredibly corrupt pardons.

B (52:43)

Yeah, I agree. I think the, it's unlikely. We haven't done a significant constitutional amendment in a long time in this country, and you're going to need an issue that has bipartisan support. I think there's enough Republicans who saw the abuse of the pardon power by Joe Biden that they might get on board with this. And there's obviously a ton of Democrats who see the Trump administration is abusing this. So it might get to the point where enough Americans go, yeah, yeah, let's do this. And I hope if that happens, it sort of of reawakens America's memory that, oh, yeah, forgot we can amend the Constitution. There's things that we can do, and maybe it begins a new era where we do that with some regularity. The Part that I wonder about, though, when it comes to Trump and the pardon power, is we know a couple things about this man having been in the political world for the last 10 years. One, he's not particularly loyal to the people around him. Two, he's always looking for scapegoats to blame for whatever failures he or his administration's made, which makes me wonder, if he gets to the end of his term, will he actually give a blanket pardon to everyone? Or will. I mean, there was so much turnover in his first administration, so many people that he said, I, you know, hire only the best people, and 6, 9, 12 months later, they're the worst. And he has nothing positive to say about General Kelly or Mark Milley or anyone else that he had in his verse. Will he actually withhold the pardon from people in his current administration because he's going to use them as scapegoats for everything that went wrong? Or if one of the other scenarios plays out that I mentioned earlier, where he leaves office not voluntarily, will it essentially fall to J.D. vance or whoever comes in after Trump to decide whether or not am I going to pardon everybody? Almost like a Gerald Ford situation, to clean up this mess, and will it destroy the Republican Party? Again?

A (54:39)

I think J.D. vance is. @ this point, I don't know that there's much moral daylight between Trump and Vance at all. I think Vance is a pretty vindictive person and a extremely. He places a high premium on political loyalty, and he's also extremely vindictive. So for my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law is a kind of, you know, that's the way J.D. vance has been evolving for a while. So I could easily see him, let's say, if they're his buddies or people who've been loyal to the administration from day one, not, you know, General Milley and others, they were. They didn't owe everything to Trump. You know, the. These were people who. And a lot of the people in his first term he turned on, they were not maga. They were never maga. But if you have a Pete Hexith, if you have a Cash Patel, Cash Patel wrote children's books praising Donald.

B (55:34)

Trump. Yeah, but, I mean, look at Marjorie Taylor Greene. She was a loyal Trump.

A (55:39)

Follower. And he turned on her real quick, but she turned. But he didn't turn on her before. Yeah. You know, I just wonder if.

B (55:49)

There'S enough heat that comes down on a Pete Hegseth or a Bondi or whoever for mishandling these files or the. The prosecution of these attacks on boats in the crib, whatever that Trump is gonna say, well, it's all them, it's not me. And he just lets them out to.

A (56:03)

Dry. I do think he has a little bit of that mob boss in him that you're like, you know, Paulie, Paulie, he's. You can take, you can count on old Polly. He's going to go to prison. As long as we take care of his family, he's going to be all right, you know, So I think he's got a little bit of that where he's like, Pete, Pete's always had my back. Pete gets a pardon. Cash has always had my back. Cash gets a pardon. Even if he fires Pete or fires Cash. I do wonder about that because a lot of the people in his administration are acting as if they're getting.

B (56:35)

Pardons.

A (56:35)

Exactly. They are not acting like they're going to be held to any kind of accountability at all. Not at all. And so that's. That speaks volumes to me. When people are acting as if that they are not going to face any accountability, that they're not going to face any consequences. It makes me feel like assurances have been made or at least either explicit or implicit. And I'm very worried about.

B (57:01)

This. It is remarkable because if you are in one of those cabinet positions or whatever position it might be, you know that your, Your ability to stay out of jail, frankly, completely hinges on one person liking.

A (57:15)

You.

B (57:16)

Yeah. And so you have no incentive to ever. No matter what order he gives you, no matter how unconstitutional or illegal it might be, you have no incentive not to follow it because he could cut you loose and you could spend the rest of your life in jail or in some horrific situation because you're depending on a pardon from. So it is very much a mob mentality where you are in his debt and there's no way out of that unless you follow him loyally to the very end. And what a creepy way to run a government. Well, on that lovely note, I gotta run. So, David, we're gonna catch up here soon because you're gonna be coming with Nancy to the Holy Post Christmas party in a few night. We're looking forward to that. Grateful to have you. Thank you for all that you've contributed to French Fridays over this past year. Your wisdom, your writing, your insights, your perspective. Been the beneficiary of it, as has everyone who listens to this. So thank you for.

A (58:11)

That. Look, the fact that Phil Vischer wrote a theme song for me is all the Things that I.

B (58:17)

Need. Wow, you're a cheap.

A (58:20)

Date. I know. Hey, I mean this. If you had gone back 25 years when I'm watching Bob the Tomato and Larry Cucumber and say, you know that voice, there's going to be, it's French Friday. I'm like, hey, there you.

B (58:32)

Go. That's.

A (58:33)

Right. I would have been preemptively a hero in the eyes of my.

B (58:36)

Kids. So nice. All right, well, everybody, thank you for being a Holy Post plus supporter. Thank you for tuning in and making it possible for us to do this work. Hope you have a wonderful holiday and New Year and Christmas and we will catch you in January. French Friday is a production of Holy Post Media featuring David French and me Sky Giotani music and theme song by Phil Vischer. This show is made possible by Holy Post patrons. To find out how you can become a Holy Post patron and to find more common good Christian content, go to.