The Adam Mockler Show - Marjorie STUNS EVERYONE On Floor by SHREDDING TRUMP

Starting point is 00:00:00 I rise today to address the House about a clause that is in the one big, beautiful bill. In a shockingly unprecedented move, Maga Representative Marjorie Taylor Green took the podium today and spoke for five minutes straight about how she regrets voting for Trump's big, ugly bill. Now, she cites a single provision that she claimed she didn't know was in there, and I believe her. It seems like she didn't even read it. She said, quote, here's a lesson for us all. No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch. carefully the bills that we pass. Yeah, no shit. That's like your number one job. When you're

Starting point is 00:00:34 voting on a bill on behalf of your constituents, you should know what's in it. That is the bare minimum that we are asking. But Marjorie is angry about one particular provision that she says strips away rights from states. This provision says that states themselves cannot pass any AI regulations over the next decade. Only the federal government can. Now really quickly, just to run down the arguments, the argument in favor of this is that Certain companies will be incredibly confused if each separate state has different violations and norms regarding AI, so then we'll begin to rapidly lose out to China. The argument against it would either be state's rights, like Marjorie says,

Starting point is 00:01:13 or just the fact that certain laws can't be passed. Say one state has extra discriminatory AI forming throughout it. You would want specific circuit breakers or things that can stop that in that state in particular. But I'll stop yapping. Let's watch Marjorie Taylor Green. Make sure you drop a like. Make sure you subscribe and check this out. This clause would take away state rights to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I think federalism is something that we must always protect.

Starting point is 00:01:45 And I warn against the dangers of protecting a tech industry where we have no idea the future of what this industry will hold. AI is rapidly developing. AI has developed quickly over the past few years. Imagine what it will be one year from now, five years from now, and ten years from now. When we look to the future, we cannot take away state's rights to regulate or make laws to protect the people in their state or to regulate businesses that operate in their state. That would be destroying the very foundation of this country, which is federalism. We must always limit federal power. and protect state power.

Starting point is 00:02:28 Can I just say really quickly, she's acting shockingly coherent in this. I mean, I disagree with some of what she's saying, but she's acting shockingly coherent. Makes you wonder if she's generally putting on a performative persona. Now, the pushback and the reasons that I've been told about this is that American tech and AI companies must be able to compete with China. Well, American and tech and AI companies can compete with China. can compete with China. And they should compete with China. However, we don't destroy federalism

Starting point is 00:03:01 in order to allow them to do that. That would be a fool's errand. Here's how this can work. Governors and state legislatures can make their states friendly for tech companies in AI, bringing these companies in by making it easy for these companies to operate in their states. That's how it's been done for every single innovation, industry, manufacturing, and all companies across America. You don't destroy federalism for one industry. You protect it and allow states to compete to bring those companies into their states. That's the right way to handle this going forward. Here's a lesson for us all.

Starting point is 00:03:47 No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch carefully the bills that we pass, and we should be mindful about protecting not only state rights, but the rights of the American people, and look to the future. AOC is having like a kindergarten level realization about how politics works. She just came up there on live TV and said, I'm starting to think a few years into my tenure in Congress, I'm starting to think maybe we should read the bills before we pass them. Anybody else wonder if we should start reading these bills? Yeah, no shit.

Starting point is 00:04:22 And it's really telling that she doesn't care about the deficit or the debt. She doesn't care about that problem. She doesn't care about Medicaid or work requirements or the slashing of Medicaid. She doesn't care about the most vulnerable populations in Georgia. She only comes out when she has an opportunity to talk about federalism versus states' rights. Now, I'm going to play the rest of this clip, but where I fall on this, I can see the arguments on both sides. but I see more negatives in stopping states from being able to pass their own protections, their own rights. I mean, there are a certain consumer and civil protections that could change from state to state.

Starting point is 00:04:59 One state may need more discrimination policies, while one state may need more privacy policies due to privacy violations. So there are good arguments on both sides, but let's continue here. When I was a freshman member of Congress in 2021. And let me know what you guys think about this in the comment section. below. I really love what you guys are debating things on the comments in a healthy way and responding to each other. I was told that we would be at war with China within five years. Well, here we are approaching five years later. I don't think America should have to go to war with China. We can beat China economically. Ask yourself, why do we send our food to be processed over

Starting point is 00:05:39 in China? Why do we rely on China to produce our critical supply chain like medicines? Is she going to segue back into tariffs? So why would we depend on this country to have to, for the American people's supplies, and why would we go to war with them when we can be innovative right here at home in America, producing critical chain supplies, medicines, processing our own food? A war is nothing we should ever strive for or look for or prepare to have to engage in. We should conduct ourselves here at home. in a way where we don't have to go to war.

Starting point is 00:06:18 We don't have to depend on foreign countries. And we never destroy federalism for the future of an industry. I can't even tell if she's talking about a real war regarding Taiwan or a cold war in a race for AI at this point. She started talking about supply chains and semiconductors. So I thought she was talking about Taiwan. But now she's back towards talking about federalism. So I think she's still talking about AI. Either way, it's getting increasingly incoherent.

Starting point is 00:06:43 nobody wants a war. Marjorie Taylor Green said nobody should want a war. Of course, nobody wants a war, but sometimes the reality of it is we're competitive with certain countries. And this competition can get more and more heated. That we have no idea what it will do. With this warning, I urge all of my colleagues that when the House gets to vote on the one big beautiful bill again after it leaves the Senate, that we make sure we protect federalism and at the same time urge our colleagues in the Senate to pull this clause out of the one big, beautiful bill. This bill should be about tax policy, protecting Americans to not have to have a tax crease of over $4.7 trillion.

Starting point is 00:07:26 A tax crease, let me tell you about the tax increase she's talking about, there is no tax cut for lower income families. It's only an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and jobs act. And that extension disproportionately benefits the richest of the rich. the average middle to lower income family will save about $2,000 a year, which is an insane amount of money under this. That has a lot of money. But then when you compare that to what people who make $3 million a year save,

Starting point is 00:07:54 they save roughly $300 to $400,000 to $400,000. So talking about redistribution of wealth, yes, the extension of the 2017 cuts absolutely could help, but when you couple that with an insane redistribution of wealth towards the richest, then I'm not as impressed with the tax cuts. And the thing is, just to wrap the same, up the tax cuts on the lower class people or the tax extension, those are temporary. The tax cuts on the richest of the rich, you know the people were going to save 300 to 400,000, those are

Starting point is 00:08:24 permanent. So Marjorie is lying and she got lied to. I'm going to leave it at that. Drop a like. Subscribe if you appreciate these videos. I'll see you the next one. Peace up.

Your Ad Here

The Adam Mockler Show - Marjorie STUNS EVERYONE On Floor by SHREDDING TRUMP

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.