Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do lots to
Speaker 1: get to this morning. So we've got results out of
Speaker 1: South Carolina. Nikki Haley losing her home stage chocked, not surprised,
Speaker 1: but there are some interesting poll numbers from the exit
Speaker 1: poles that we want to dig into see if there's
Speaker 1: anything to be gleaned from that with regards to Trump's
Speaker 1: chances in the general election. We also have Republicans sort
Speaker 1: of panicked over this whole Alabama IVF situation, trying to
Speaker 1: figure out where they stand there, so we'll break that
Speaker 1: down for you. A new report about concerns about Biden's
Speaker 1: age and ability, this time actually coming from the donor class,
Speaker 1: saying they are very concerned at his lackluster performances behind
Speaker 1: the scenes at these fundraisers.
Speaker 4: We'll get through that as well. Of course, we just
Speaker 4: had the two year.
Speaker 1: Anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and close to that anniversary,
Speaker 1: who has Zelenski putting forward a claim about the number
Speaker 1: of Ukrainian soldiers killed that doesn't really pass.
Speaker 3: The sniff test. Strange belief strains.
Speaker 1: Credulity for sure, to say the least, So we'll break
Speaker 1: that down for you and where we are in that
Speaker 1: war in general. We have some horrible breaking news to
Speaker 1: bring you this morning. A US airman, it appears now,
Speaker 1: has died after self immolating in front of the Israeli
Speaker 1: embassy here in DC for his protest over genocide in
Speaker 1: Gaza and his sense that he was complicit in that genocide.
Speaker 1: He died crying free Palestine. So we'll bring you that
Speaker 1: news as well as some updates from what is happening
Speaker 1: on the ground in Israel. And with the possibility of
Speaker 1: a temporary ceasefire and hostile to deal exchange, Soccer is
Speaker 1: taking a look at Ai with the future may hold
Speaker 1: for all of us it's not good and we are
Speaker 1: going to react to the Taylor Lorenz meets Kaya Raishchik,
Speaker 1: the libs of TikTok Tiktalk Lady extraordinary video here that
Speaker 1: we definitely have some things to say about.
Speaker 2: Yes, we certainly do, and we'll have We're going to
Speaker 2: be handling that a different way, So stay tuned in
Speaker 2: that video. If you can go ahead and help us
Speaker 2: out breakingpoints dot Com, you're going to access to all
Speaker 2: of our premium benefits.
Speaker 3: More importantly, you're going to be helping cover for our election.
Speaker 2: And don't forget we've got our State of the Union
Speaker 2: live stream, including a private live stream that we'll be
Speaker 2: doing for subscribers.
Speaker 3: Afterwards.
Speaker 2: We'll be able to submit questions live and we will
Speaker 2: answer them, but only available to our premium members. So
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot Com, as we mentioned, but let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and get to the big news out of South Carolina.
Speaker 2: Big or expected. Nikki Haley has officially lost in her
Speaker 2: own home state, Donald Trump absolutely crushing her in terms
Speaker 2: of the electoral results. He immediately took the stage after
Speaker 2: the networks called it for him at seven oh one pm,
Speaker 2: a minute after the polls closed in the state of
Speaker 2: South Carolina. He didn't want to be upstaged again by
Speaker 2: Nikki Haley. So we have a few of their two comments.
Speaker 2: Keep in mind, with Trump, some of this is going
Speaker 2: to be his electoral speech afterwards, but also some of
Speaker 2: the remarks from the preceding days just because they're hilarious
Speaker 2: and we want to talk about them.
Speaker 3: So let's take a listen to the two.
Speaker 5: I was just informed that we got double the number
Speaker 5: of votes that has ever been received.
Speaker 6: In the great state of South Carolina.
Speaker 3: So that's pretty good.
Speaker 5: So it's a record times too. And I just want
Speaker 5: to say that I have never seen the Republican Party
Speaker 5: so unified.
Speaker 3: As it is right there, never been like that.
Speaker 7: I said earlier this week that no matter what happens
Speaker 7: in South Carolina, I would continue to run for property.
Speaker 4: I'm a woman of my.
Speaker 3: Words, continuing to run on the whole woman thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, you know, in general, Crystal, it is a rule
Speaker 2: that you're supposed to drop out if you can't lose
Speaker 2: your own homes, if you're going to lose your own
Speaker 2: home state. Marco Rubio dropped out after the Florida primary,
Speaker 2: and in fact, many people forget ted Cruz did win
Speaker 2: the state of Texas in that Texas primary after Super Tuesday,
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why he felt like he could
Speaker 2: stay in the race. Similar to John Kasick, who mounted
Speaker 2: that campaign against Trump, he won the state of Ohio,
Speaker 2: and I think that's legitimate. If you can win your
Speaker 2: own home state and your people support you over somebody else,
Speaker 2: I think there's a little bit of a case to
Speaker 2: remain in here. But here we have a case where
Speaker 2: if we have the results, guys, let's put this up
Speaker 2: there please.
Speaker 3: I mean, it wasn't even close.
Speaker 2: We have fifty nine point eight percent for Trump and
Speaker 2: we have thirty nine point five for Nikki Haley. Don't
Speaker 2: get me wrong, you know she didn't do terribly, but
Speaker 2: she's still lost by twenty points. And it's like when
Speaker 2: we're talking about a twenty point loss, and especially when
Speaker 2: we're talking about the fact as we go into the
Speaker 2: crossed tabs as to how Trump absolutely dominated amongst actual Republicans.
Speaker 2: And if you can just look at the map, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's the populated areas which are more urban, which are
Speaker 2: disproportionately more highly educated, not in the traditional Republican coalition.
Speaker 2: There's just not a lot left here to know what's
Speaker 2: going to happen in a major primary, and this was
Speaker 2: again the most favorable territory that could possibly exist.
Speaker 3: It's already been endorsed, you.
Speaker 2: Know, by all the other people who've been dropped out
Speaker 2: of the race, Crystal, and in Super Tuesday, how can
Speaker 2: she possibly compete even to the level where she did
Speaker 2: in her own home state. She spent six weeks or
Speaker 2: something here on the ground campaigning and barnstorming the entire place.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's her right to stay in the right
Speaker 4: can say once. But I don't really understand what she's
Speaker 4: doing at this.
Speaker 3: Point, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she claims, she's saying now she's going
Speaker 1: to stay in through Super Tuesday. I'm a woman over
Speaker 1: my worry, that's what that's her line. Now, she won't
Speaker 1: tell reporters whether she plans to stay in longer than that,
Speaker 1: which you couple that with the news that the Coke
Speaker 1: backed Americans for Prosperity are pulling their funding. They're no
Speaker 1: longer going to be putting their millions behind her. I
Speaker 1: think the writing is more than on the wall for
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley at this point. To be honestly, the she
Speaker 1: did a little bit better than I expect. I thought
Speaker 1: she'd be in the thirties. She managed to get basically
Speaker 1: to forty forty sixty. But I mean, it's your home state,
Speaker 1: you were governor, and this is best you could do.
Speaker 1: You can see where things are headed. There was a
Speaker 1: she once again performed the best with independence, and there
Speaker 1: was a small percentage of four or five percent or
Speaker 1: something of Democrats who also participate in the primary.
Speaker 4: She did very well with them.
Speaker 1: But you know, in terms of Republican voters, she's getting
Speaker 1: her butt kicked by Donald Trump in every state that
Speaker 1: she can test, and the expectation is that will be
Speaker 1: absolutely the same on Super Tuesday. The only thing I
Speaker 1: can think, Sager, is that there's some theory of maybe
Speaker 1: if she stays in, she'll weaken Donald Trump. Maybe something
Speaker 1: crazy will happen and he'll drop down, and then her
Speaker 1: three delegates she got here will matter, and the fact
Speaker 1: that she's like they're in the race, she'll be the
Speaker 1: logical second choice. So even that I don't think would
Speaker 1: really work out. Even if something crazy happened and he
Speaker 1: was out of the race, I don't know that she
Speaker 1: would be the one that would end up in the position.
Speaker 4: But that's the only thing I can figure it.
Speaker 3: You're exactly correct.
Speaker 2: You could have made that case if you were round
Speaker 2: to Santis, because there's credibly, I think, enough of a
Speaker 2: chance for crossover and for Trump delegates. Let's say in
Speaker 2: this convention scenario where he's either dead or he's in prison,
Speaker 2: or some scenario where he's not allowed to run, well,
Speaker 2: then credibly those people, because remember it's up to those
Speaker 2: delegates after the second ballot, they're leaders where they're allowed
Speaker 2: to go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I could see them going. They're not going back.
Speaker 2: Nikki Haley, she's decided to, you know, permanently plant a
Speaker 2: flag as anti Trump. At this point, I saw a
Speaker 2: good column which is basically congratulations on winning the never
Speaker 2: Trump primary. The problem is you didn't actually win anything. Now,
Speaker 2: the takeaway that I've had after this, and I think
Speaker 2: this is definitely again where you agree, is that we
Speaker 2: are seeing some warning signs for Trump that has nothing
Speaker 2: to do with Nikki Haley but has to do with
Speaker 2: the anti Trump coalition.
Speaker 3: So let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: As we can see here for the pole prediction of
Speaker 2: where things were for the Iowa caucuses, the poll prediction
Speaker 2: was Trump thirty seven points over Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 3: The final results had Trump at plus thirty.
Speaker 2: For the New Hampshire primary, the five thirty eight average
Speaker 2: of polls had Trump plus eighteen.
Speaker 3: The final result was Trump plus eleven.
Speaker 2: And then for the South Carolina primary, if we can
Speaker 2: go to the next one, what we saw is that
Speaker 2: the final third five thirty eight average was Trump plus
Speaker 2: twenty eight, and the estimated result here is Trump plus twenty.
Speaker 2: What we can see there is a consistent underperformance within
Speaker 2: the polls. Now, the Trump cope, if I will offer it,
Speaker 2: is that especially in New Hampshire and in South Carolina,
Speaker 2: we saw a decent amount of the electorate, some thirty
Speaker 2: percent or so that was encompassing independence and a small
Speaker 2: number of Democrats. Those people overwhelmingly coming and supporting Nicki
Speaker 2: Haley in the primary. But they're making a primary case.
Speaker 2: If we are to extrapolate this to the general election,
Speaker 2: it's a problem. He has a significant issue here with
Speaker 2: all of the independent voters that have voted so far
Speaker 2: in a Republican primary. But of course there's a lot
Speaker 2: of self section bias. Those are people probably disportionately more
Speaker 2: anti Trump and who want to see, you know, anti
Speaker 2: somebody who's not Biden and not named Trump who is
Speaker 2: on the ticket. Those people may go to RFK Junior
Speaker 2: or something if he's able to get on the ballot,
Speaker 2: or some other independent.
Speaker 3: They may not vote period. What I do see is
Speaker 3: there's a.
Speaker 2: Problem here with the independent voters, and to what extent, Honestly,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of people.
Speaker 2: I just read a very interesting analysis of American non voters,
Speaker 2: and it turns out that American non voters are very
Speaker 2: much likely to decide this election in terms of very
Speaker 2: infrequent people will come out.
Speaker 3: Every once in a while.
Speaker 2: They never vote in primaries or any other thing, but
Speaker 2: they may come out to vote for Trump and or
Speaker 2: for Biden. They're roughly fifty to fifty in terms of
Speaker 2: who they support. But the question is, are those people,
Speaker 2: you know, in the same vein as some of these
Speaker 2: independence there's a lot of you know, external analysis that's
Speaker 2: being done here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So when you couple Trump's under performance in each
Speaker 1: of these primary and caucus states with what we've seen,
Speaker 1: consider instantly in special elections where Republicans are underperformed.
Speaker 4: Pretty much across the board.
Speaker 1: Especially when you talk about ballot initiatives, that have anything
Speaker 1: to do with abortion. And we'll talk more about abortion
Speaker 1: and actually about IVF here in a moment. But when
Speaker 1: you put those two pieces together, it's a worrying sign
Speaker 1: for Republicans. Now, what you could say, and I think
Speaker 1: this is a reasonable argument to make, is that when
Speaker 1: you're talking about primaries and you're talking about special elections,
Speaker 1: there is a bias towards college educated voters showing up.
Speaker 1: When you talk about a general election, that's when you
Speaker 1: get in your infrequent voters and those at this point
Speaker 1: this is a recent year's realignment switch. But now you're
Speaker 1: talking about those infrequent voters being more likely to be Republican.
Speaker 1: And so I do think that's a reasonable case to
Speaker 1: make here why a general election for Trump could look
Speaker 1: different than these primary results could look different from the
Speaker 1: special election results, But that is no guarantee because the
Speaker 1: flip side of that is these are early indications of
Speaker 1: who is motivated to come out, and as much as
Speaker 1: we've talked about, and you know, with good reason, the
Speaker 1: young people and progressives and Arab Americans and African Americans
Speaker 1: who are disgusted with Joe Biden over Israel and also
Speaker 1: over a variety of other issues and who may be
Speaker 1: open to third party, etc. There are some indications that
Speaker 1: Trump may have some problems with a Republican base, and especially,
Speaker 1: like you said Zagera, with independents who tend to lean Republicans.
Speaker 4: So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is some of the exit poll results among Nicki
Speaker 1: Haley voters. And again she got forty percent of the
Speaker 1: vote year, so this wasn't some tiny sliver of the
Speaker 1: electorate in South Carolina. So they asked, Okay, what's your
Speaker 1: feeling if Trump wins the nomination?
Speaker 4: Again?
Speaker 1: Among Nicki Haley voters, seventy eight percent said they would
Speaker 1: be dissatisfied. They also asked if Trump would be fit
Speaker 1: for the presidency if he is convicted of a crime.
Speaker 1: Eighty two percent said no. Now, again, people are very
Speaker 1: bad at predicting how they're going to feel about some
Speaker 1: hypothetical event in the future when it has not happened yet,
Speaker 1: because you know all the context, the circumstances, which trial
Speaker 1: is it, what happens, how does it all go down?
Speaker 1: Those things all matter, and so would I take that,
Speaker 1: you know as locked in? Eighty two percent say he
Speaker 1: wouldn't be fit for the presidency and they're not going.
Speaker 4: To vote for him.
Speaker 1: No, But again, this is a pretty significant warning sign
Speaker 1: for Trump in a Republican primary, especially among independent voters.
Speaker 2: I see it the same way, yeah, which is if
Speaker 2: these people were going to vote that Trump's strength in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen was not only bringing out the traditional Republican
Speaker 2: coalition which came out from Mitt Romney, but it was
Speaker 2: also bringing out all of these people from the woodwork
Speaker 2: on top of people not coming out.
Speaker 3: To vote for Hillary. It was a multifaceted victory.
Speaker 2: Same thing basically in twenty twenty, kept on the traditional
Speaker 2: Republican coalition, added a bunch of traditional non voters who
Speaker 2: were very animated around the issues that were going on
Speaker 2: at that time. If he can, if he's going to
Speaker 2: strip out a decent percentage, let's say, twenty thirty percent
Speaker 2: traditional Republican voters, you got to make that up somewhere else. Now,
Speaker 2: it's certainly possible. It's certainly possible with people who are going.
Speaker 3: To come out.
Speaker 2: It's possible with gains amongst Latino men, black men, or whatever.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't need margins to shift all that much.
Speaker 2: But you can't bet on that going in. So looking
Speaker 2: at these numbers right now, I do see you certainly
Speaker 2: say some danger sign for Trump where Biden and the
Speaker 2: Democrats specifically, not just Biden have had a hidden underperformance
Speaker 2: very much in the same way that Republicans had back
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen and in a lot of the general
Speaker 2: election polls for twenty twenty. It's one of those where
Speaker 2: it flips the mind in many ways where you have
Speaker 2: to and all of our analysis you can hear a
Speaker 2: lot of hedging because you genuinely don't know what's going
Speaker 2: to happen. Yeah, there's recent history and then there's not,
Speaker 2: you know, still a reason but only seven years ago.
Speaker 2: Both of those are countervailing whenever we're looking at what's
Speaker 2: going to happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have two candidates who are historically extremely
Speaker 1: weak yes and hate it, and the American public is
Speaker 1: disgusted that they have this choice. And yet this is
Speaker 1: the choice that's in front of them. So for me,
Speaker 1: it's almost like whichever candidate I'm thinking the most about
Speaker 1: that day is the one that I'm like, Oh, there's
Speaker 1: no way that dude could win. But they both have
Speaker 1: things going significantly going against them. But to go back
Speaker 1: to this electoral trend. I mean it really starts with
Speaker 1: the midterms when Republicans dramatically underperform, and the cope then
Speaker 1: for Trump is okay, but Trump wasn't on the ballot. Sure,
Speaker 1: a lot of his extremism and stuff, the steal and
Speaker 1: it was his hand pit candidates, et cetera, but Trump
Speaker 1: wasn't on the ballot to really, you know, get his
Speaker 1: basic site and get them out, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a midterm that that kind of holds
Speaker 1: some water.
Speaker 4: I could see that.
Speaker 1: Then you have this whole string of special elections that
Speaker 1: they're just consistently going for Democrats and Republicans are consistently
Speaker 1: underperforming their typical performance in these districts, oftentimes underperforming the
Speaker 1: polls in these districts. And you're going, okay, well those
Speaker 1: are special elections, but those.
Speaker 4: Are a little weird.
Speaker 1: Now you do have Trump's name on the ballot, and
Speaker 1: you have some of the same warning signs showing up.
Speaker 4: In the electoral results here. So what does it mean.
Speaker 1: I mean, we'll all have to wait and find out
Speaker 1: whether this is enough to overcome you know, the extraordinary
Speaker 1: weakness and concerns that you have on the Joe Biden
Speaker 1: side of the Ledger. But the last thing I'll say
Speaker 1: about this is Trump is sort of famous for outperforming
Speaker 1: his poles. Y.
Speaker 4: You know, back in.
Speaker 1: Twenty sixteen, there was all this talk of like the
Speaker 1: shy Trump voter, the person who really liked him and
Speaker 1: voted for him, but they were like embarrassed to admit it.
Speaker 1: Is it possible there's a dynamic in the other direction
Speaker 1: now where actually in the Republican Party it has become
Speaker 1: like verboted to say you're not with Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: so you can have people who feel like, oh, I
Speaker 1: should be with Trump, and I'm going to claim I'm
Speaker 1: with Trump, but actually I'm kind of ready to move
Speaker 1: on from this whole era. I have no idea. That's speculation.
Speaker 1: I don't have any data.
Speaker 4: To back it up.
Speaker 1: But we have seen the way that some of these
Speaker 1: polls have undercounted certain dynamics before, and we're now starting
Speaker 1: to see a consistent pattern where they are overestimating Republican
Speaker 1: and Trump support and underestimating Democratic support.
Speaker 4: And that's something we have to take note of.
Speaker 2: Trump because he is, you know, probably the most electorally
Speaker 2: attuned Republican is definitely taking a position, which is vary
Speaker 2: against what I think a lot of the pro life
Speaker 2: community would like him to see.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Immediately after that Alabama Supreme Court decision on embryos being
Speaker 2: classified as person, Trump put out this truth. Under my leadership,
Speaker 2: the Republican will always support the creation of strong, thriving,
Speaker 2: healthy American families. We want to make it easier for
Speaker 2: mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder. That includes
Speaker 2: supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every
Speaker 2: state in America. Like the overwhelming majority all caps, including
Speaker 2: the vast majority of Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, and pro life Americans,
Speaker 2: I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who
Speaker 2: are trying to have a precious baby. Today, I am
Speaker 2: calling on the Alabama Legislature to act quickly to find
Speaker 2: an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF and Alabama.
Speaker 2: The Republican Party should always be on the side of
Speaker 2: the miracle of life, the side of mothers, fathers, and
Speaker 2: of their beautiful babies. IVF is an important part of that.
Speaker 2: Our great Republican Party will always be with you in
Speaker 2: your quest for the ultimate joy in life. So very
Speaker 2: politically attuned message there, and it's one where look five
Speaker 2: ten years ago, especially in the Bush era, you know,
Speaker 2: twenty years ago, you could not imagine something like this.
Speaker 3: This was a country.
Speaker 2: Locked in the debate which seems crazy now about stem
Speaker 2: cell research. I mean, remember these were huge things that
Speaker 2: Terry Schaivo case. I mean, these are captured the imagination.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Not only do you have the Republican candidate for president
Speaker 2: or likely presumed you.
Speaker 3: Also have the NRSC.
Speaker 2: This is the National Coalition to re elect Republican Senators
Speaker 2: putting out a memo which was immediately leaked to the press.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: They say that the NRSC is specifically instructing its candidates
Speaker 2: to reject clearly and concisely all government attempts to restrict IVF.
Speaker 2: Key messages I will read here express support for IVF.
Speaker 2: Clearly state your support of IVF and fertility rated services,
Speaker 2: blessings for those seeking to have children. Highlight the importance
Speaker 2: of these treatments and fulfilling the dreams of countless families
Speaker 2: to conceive.
Speaker 3: Oppose restrictions on IVF.
Speaker 2: Publicly, oppose any effort to restrict access to IVF and
Speaker 2: other fertility treatment framing such opposition as of defense of
Speaker 2: family values and individual freedom and campaign on increasing access
Speaker 2: actually to fertility treatments, including insurance coverage and support services.
Speaker 2: So I, you know, I definitely get behind that crystal,
Speaker 2: but it does show really some of the Pandora's box
Speaker 2: that was opened up by Roe versus Wade. And I mean,
Speaker 2: I have a couple of minds of this, which is certain.
Speaker 2: I agree with all this obviously, the bort IVF and
Speaker 2: all that. But I was talking with some very conservative
Speaker 2: Christian friends of mine and one of the points they made,
Speaker 2: which is that you know, if you really are a believer,
Speaker 2: like if you are you know, pro life in the
Speaker 2: scriptural sense, like you're not supposed to make concessions. Like
Speaker 2: the whole point of that movement is, we don't make concessions.
Speaker 2: We don't make political concessions, like we wholly believe in
Speaker 2: this movement. And even if it's unpopular or whatever. They
Speaker 2: spent some forty odd years crawling over broken glass to
Speaker 2: vote for people Trump, to get the Supreme Court to
Speaker 2: reverse their decisions, so they're not exactly of the mind
Speaker 2: to make concessions for their beliefs, especially when they basically
Speaker 2: won one of the craziest victories in modern American politics.
Speaker 2: So I guess I have sympathy with them in that,
Speaker 2: you know, the Republicans were definitely willing to use them
Speaker 2: for their votes, but now when it's very unpopular, they're
Speaker 2: being thrown under the bus per se. But obviously, like
Speaker 2: I don't agree with them in the first place, So
Speaker 2: it's one of the best where I don't feel bad
Speaker 2: for them. At the same time, Well, it's just the
Speaker 2: pickle that they're in by signing a deal with these people.
Speaker 1: If life begins at conception, right exactly, and you know,
Speaker 1: which is what many of these Republicans have said they believe,
Speaker 1: then how are you going to have a carve ount
Speaker 1: for IVS exactly?
Speaker 3: You know, I agree with it.
Speaker 1: If it begins at conception. It begins at conception. And
Speaker 1: the problem is, yeah, they've opened Pandora's box. They haven't
Speaker 1: thought through the consequences. It was all find and good
Speaker 1: to say things like life begins at conception when there
Speaker 1: were no actual stakes, There were no women and families
Speaker 1: who were you know, trying to conceive and using IVF
Speaker 1: something that is incredibly you know, normal and regular and
Speaker 1: accepted and popular.
Speaker 4: In American society.
Speaker 1: Back when there were no stakes, it was okay to
Speaker 1: say things like that. Now they're having to deal with
Speaker 1: the logical outcomes of the positions that they have claned
Speaker 1: to support over years, and so, you know, when you
Speaker 1: have politicians like I saw Kerry Lake put out a
Speaker 1: similar statement of like, oh I support IVF.
Speaker 4: You look at the.
Speaker 1: Comments below that there are a lot of pissed off
Speaker 1: conservative activists who I think justifiably are like that is
Speaker 1: inconsistent with what you people have been saying for years
Speaker 1: and years and years. Again, this is just the logical
Speaker 1: outcome of what they have claimed to believe. And it
Speaker 1: doesn't take a genius to see how wildly unpopular this
Speaker 1: position is.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen. This is a poll.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Some of the polling was actually outlined in that NRSC memo.
Speaker 1: It's not like it takes a political g here, but
Speaker 1: this poll says that only seven percent of Americans believe
Speaker 1: that IVF should be more difficult, only ten percent of Republicans,
Speaker 1: by the way, five percent of Democrats, six percent of independence.
Speaker 1: This is as fringe a position as you could possibly find.
Speaker 1: Yet because the pro life activist community has been so active,
Speaker 1: so organized, so influential in the Republican Party, incredibly fringe
Speaker 1: extremist positions of it like this have found widespread support
Speaker 1: among Republican politicians.
Speaker 4: So you actually have.
Speaker 1: If we can put I believe it's the ninth element
Speaker 1: here in this block, guys A nine up on the
Speaker 1: screen from Business Insider, you actually have one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five House Republicans who have backed a life at
Speaker 1: Conception bill that does not have any car mount for
Speaker 1: IVF or anything else that would again have the same
Speaker 1: impact nationwide as this Alabama court ruling. So now Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson's oh I support ivyah, No, you don't, because you're
Speaker 1: signed on to this bill that would have the exact
Speaker 1: same implications.
Speaker 4: They are the dog that caught the car.
Speaker 1: Now that they actually have to deal with the consequences
Speaker 1: of their positions, they're running away as quickly as they
Speaker 1: possibly can.
Speaker 4: But you know, this is this is kind.
Speaker 1: Of out of their hands at this point because you
Speaker 1: have this, you know, happening in courts across the country.
Speaker 1: The courts are ruling in line.
Speaker 4: With what the legislatures passed before. Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 1: Was overturned and you know, enacting the logical extension of
Speaker 1: what these insane fringe policies ultimately were with Really, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to lose sight of this. This isn't
Speaker 1: just about political games with really horrifying and traumatic results
Speaker 1: for women and families across the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's put a eleven out there just to show
Speaker 2: everybody the consequences, at least so far. You know, you
Speaker 2: have the major embryo shipping company is halting it's all
Speaker 2: of its business in Alabama. The three clinics which are
Speaker 2: in the state have all paused their care as they
Speaker 2: evaluate what the ruling means for their patients and for
Speaker 2: their legal liability. Now, as I understand it, what it
Speaker 2: comes down to is that the store of embryos and
Speaker 2: the legal liability that the clinics may incur as a
Speaker 2: result of this ruling make it such that doing business
Speaker 2: or operating it in the state could leave them potentially
Speaker 2: open in the event of an accident or something like that,
Speaker 2: in addition to storage to like a literal manslaughter charge,
Speaker 2: meaning of course that they don't want to be going
Speaker 2: through it. I mean, I'm especially horrified it some of
Speaker 2: the people were probably going through this right now. I mean,
Speaker 2: as you know, Crystal, it ain't like peachy and easy,
Speaker 2: you know from what I've read so far, Like you
Speaker 2: got women who are plugged up full of hormones and
Speaker 2: all of a sudden probably expecting treatments and medical procedures,
Speaker 2: and now they have to rebook and it's nightmare.
Speaker 3: I can't even literally imagine it.
Speaker 2: The import tire purpose though, in the point of the
Speaker 2: bill is where I again have a lot of frustration,
Speaker 2: where now some of the pro life community are politically pragmatic,
Speaker 2: they're like, well, you know, sometimes obviously this one doesn't ness.
Speaker 2: It's like, guys, you either believe it or you don't.
Speaker 2: And it's like, and you said you did and you
Speaker 2: wouldn't make any compromises, even though it's the most historically
Speaker 2: unpopular thing that's ever happened to the Republicans in modern history.
Speaker 2: You believe it then, but now you're willing to make
Speaker 2: some concession. And then the problem again with the concession
Speaker 2: is that then you're just opening yourself up to the
Speaker 2: same practical understanding of all of this issue that all
Speaker 2: Americans are, even secular ones. Whenever it comes to the
Speaker 2: issue of abortion, and that, you know, is really what
Speaker 2: it really bothers me in terms of how it all works.
Speaker 2: You have of course, you know, for the ones who
Speaker 2: are consistent the Catholic Church is straight up against IVF.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like, so which one is it, you know,
Speaker 2: or whenever in terms of what's consistent with the teachings
Speaker 2: and not. Once you open up your door to the
Speaker 2: political pragmatism, then you're in the same boat as people
Speaker 2: who are quote unquote reluctantly pro choice, just because they
Speaker 2: understand that when you live in a dynamic society and
Speaker 2: all that in terms of having choice and restrict access,
Speaker 2: et cetera, it's not always one that you can be
Speaker 2: one hundred percent adherent to your principle.
Speaker 3: So anyway, that's kind of my major.
Speaker 2: Analysis of how here they're willing to be pragmatic yea,
Speaker 2: but other times never.
Speaker 4: Some of them.
Speaker 1: Anyway, did you see Tubberville getting asked about.
Speaker 2: This, say, I know, he didn't have a response basically
Speaker 2: like short circuit.
Speaker 1: And I think this is emblematic of the fact that again,
Speaker 1: if you say life begins.
Speaker 3: At conception, yes, I agree, yes, then this.
Speaker 1: Is the logical outcome of that belief, and so he
Speaker 1: was really sort of trapped by that situation. Also, I
Speaker 1: think was like confused about what had actually happened. But
Speaker 1: having impost asked him his reaction, and initially he said
Speaker 1: that he was quote all for it.
Speaker 4: I was all for it.
Speaker 1: Then they told him, you know, women are losing access
Speaker 1: to IVF treatments. Health clinics have stopped IVF treatments. Then
Speaker 1: he insisted that people need to have access. Then he
Speaker 1: started to try to backtrack and he's like, ah, it's
Speaker 1: this is really hard again. You want people to have
Speaker 1: that opportunity. We need more kids. I'd have to look
Speaker 1: at the entire bill, how it's written. I have not
Speaker 1: seen it. Of course, this isn't a bill, it's court ruling.
Speaker 1: So he just had no idea how to navigate, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm supposed to be pro life, I'm supposed to support
Speaker 1: things like this, but then on the other hand, IVF
Speaker 1: this is really unpopular. And then he just sort of
Speaker 1: bails on the conversation altogether, saying, oh, well, I haven't
Speaker 1: seen the bill.
Speaker 4: You know, it's just one.
Speaker 1: More indication of where Republicans actually are on this issue,
Speaker 1: and how you know what they're claiming now of oh,
Speaker 1: of course we support IVF doesn't match up with where
Speaker 1: they've actually staked their ground politically across years and years.
Speaker 1: Tammy Duckworth actually has a bill that would guarantee access
Speaker 1: to protect IVF nationwide. She's been looking for Republican support
Speaker 1: and has apparently not had any success finding it.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen what she had to say.
Speaker 8: If I can get personal, I know that you turned
Speaker 8: to IVF to for your daughters, aage nine and five.
Speaker 8: What was your reaction when you saw the Supreme Court
Speaker 8: decision in Alabama?
Speaker 3: Not at all surprise?
Speaker 9: Unfortunately, I've been talking about this twenty eighteen, when it
Speaker 9: was very clear that Republicans were working to eliminate women's
Speaker 9: reproductive rights. Well, the decision is very clear that a
Speaker 9: fertilized eggs a child is a human being, which means that,
Speaker 9: for example, in my case, when we had five fertilized
Speaker 9: eggs and three were non viable, when my doctor discarded
Speaker 9: those with my consent, that woululd be considered potentially manslaughter
Speaker 9: or murder. Basically, Republicans have put the rights of a
Speaker 9: fertilized egg over the rights of the woman and that
Speaker 9: is not something that I think the American.
Speaker 3: People agree with.
Speaker 8: You introduced a bill west month to safeguard IVF access nationally.
Speaker 8: The National Republican Senate Campaign ARM is instructing their candidates
Speaker 8: to quote, clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government
Speaker 8: to restrict IVF. So do you think you can now
Speaker 8: get Republican support to pasture bill?
Speaker 9: It's been crickets is the Alabama ruling. And let's make
Speaker 9: it clear. Republicans will say whatever they need to say
Speaker 9: to try to cover themselves on this, but they've been
Speaker 9: clear and Donald Trump has been the guy leading this
Speaker 9: effort to eliminate women's reproductive rights and reproductive choice. And
Speaker 9: so this is the next step. And by the way,
Speaker 9: not a single Republican has reached out to me on
Speaker 9: the bill. I've introduced a bill multiple times now, multiple Congresses.
Speaker 9: But frankly, you know, let's see if they vote for
Speaker 9: it when we when we bring it to the floor.
Speaker 3: So, very great question, I group. By the way, everyone
Speaker 3: please vote for that.
Speaker 2: Also, what they talked about insurance, Yeah, we should cover
Speaker 2: that obviously, especially you know, I support for tillity, I
Speaker 2: support I want our birth right.
Speaker 3: You know, right, and all that to increase.
Speaker 2: How do you think that's going to happen in an
Speaker 2: age where people are waiting way later to get married
Speaker 2: and people, you know, look, there's all kinds of hormone
Speaker 2: problems and all this other stuff. This is a very
Speaker 2: you know, obvious option for a lot of people. It
Speaker 2: should not be purely accessible to the wealthy. And that's
Speaker 2: actually what a winning position, you know, on something like
Speaker 2: this looks like. But don't leave it to them to
Speaker 2: square themselves up by Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and the last thing I'll say on this is,
Speaker 1: I think we're publicans had sort of hoped that after
Speaker 1: ro versus way is overturned, after the Dabbs decision, that
Speaker 1: you know, eventually things will kind of calm down, people
Speaker 1: would move on. I mean, we're probably going to have
Speaker 1: more rulings like this, more situations like there. Certainly, this
Speaker 1: conversation about IVF is far from over at this point
Speaker 1: when women in Alabama basically have already lost access to
Speaker 1: this procedure, and there are other states around the country
Speaker 1: with very similar legislation on the books claiming that you know,
Speaker 1: life begins at conception with the very same uh, you know,
Speaker 1: potential outcomes here. So this conversation is far from over,
Speaker 1: and Republicans are dramatically on the wrong side of publican
Speaker 1: opinion in a way that I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: people can really wrap their heads.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is like defund the police and awesome.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's actually worse. I mean seven percent.
Speaker 1: You're on the side of seven percent who want to
Speaker 1: make IVF more difficult.
Speaker 4: That's where you are.
Speaker 3: Good luck.
Speaker 1: All right, Speaking of good luck, let's i'll talk about
Speaker 1: some of Joe Biden's problems.
Speaker 4: They cover both sides of s here.
Speaker 1: So a new remarkable report coming out of the donor
Speaker 1: class that they also are a little worried about Joseph
Speaker 1: Robin at Biden.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen. This is from
Speaker 1: Axios headline. Here is Biden's cheat sheets at fundraisers.
Speaker 4: Worry donors.
Speaker 1: President Biden has apparently been using note cards and closed
Speaker 1: door fundraisers, calling on pre screen donors, then consulting his
Speaker 1: notes to provide detailed answers, corning people familiar with the routine.
Speaker 1: Most of Biden's conversations with donors are shielded from public view.
Speaker 1: The president gets his remarks with reporters but not TV
Speaker 1: cameras in the room's frequently a teleprompter to help him
Speaker 1: stay on track. After his opening comments at fundraisers, reporters
Speaker 1: are then ushered out before donors are allowed to ask
Speaker 1: two or three questions vetted by the president's staff. So,
Speaker 1: just to sum up here, he's doing these fundraisers, he's
Speaker 1: obviously not accessible with American people at all, done far
Speaker 1: fewer interviews prose aveils than basically any other president in
Speaker 1: the modern era.
Speaker 4: Okay, so there's that.
Speaker 1: But even when he gets behind closed doors at these fundraisers,
Speaker 1: he reads from the teleprompter his comments while the reporters
Speaker 1: are there, ushers them out, and then can't even handle
Speaker 1: three pre screened questions without note cards and cheat sheets.
Speaker 4: So that's where we're at.
Speaker 1: Even behind closed doors, he is not freelancing here whatsoever,
Speaker 1: not able to speak off the cuff whatsoever. His aids
Speaker 1: clearly have no confidence in his ability to speak extemporaneously
Speaker 1: on any issue.
Speaker 4: Again, even with.
Speaker 1: Two or three pre screened, pre scripted questions.
Speaker 4: I don't know us wild.
Speaker 2: It's just funny, Crystal, when I see the standards that
Speaker 2: we hold these people to like. For example, we both
Speaker 2: do this for a living and sometimes whenever you interview people,
Speaker 2: they will ask you for a list of questions that
Speaker 2: are you know beforehand for people what they're going to
Speaker 2: be in an interview. My rule is I will never
Speaker 2: participate in that. And in general, unless you're like somebody
Speaker 2: who was like tangentially involved.
Speaker 3: And now we're in the public realm.
Speaker 2: If you are a podcaster or something like that, and
Speaker 2: you can't just show up extemporaneously and speak, I'm talking
Speaker 2: about an actual list of the questions, you don't belong
Speaker 2: in this business, period, right, And that is what we do,
Speaker 2: which is like the lowest possible stakes.
Speaker 3: Yes, now he's we have the president higher.
Speaker 1: Standards for random run of the middle podcaster than we
Speaker 1: do for the president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's my standard for a guy with like two
Speaker 2: hundred thousand YouTube subscribers as something like not the president
Speaker 2: who's in charge of running the entire country. And I
Speaker 2: mean it's trite, but it's like a daily reminder with
Speaker 2: this man of he's just not fit for the job.
Speaker 3: Period. You can't.
Speaker 2: He was in public life for four fifty years. Ask
Speaker 2: him twenty years ago if he would have allowed anybody
Speaker 2: like this to be president. I mean, I've seen him
Speaker 2: speak off the cuff, you know, ten twelve years ago.
Speaker 2: It was something that a lot of these people actually
Speaker 2: pride themselves on the ability to do it, to have
Speaker 2: a spontaneous moment.
Speaker 3: I've seen it, you know, at a campaign rally and
Speaker 3: all this.
Speaker 2: That's the mark of a sharp politician, somebody who really
Speaker 2: belongs in public life. And this is the most friendly
Speaker 2: audience that exists. And yet he's relying on this and
Speaker 2: enough that they're leaking it and being like, hey, this
Speaker 2: is a real problem, and they are dragging him across
Speaker 2: and at this point, like we're almost entering like criminal territory,
Speaker 2: at least morally for me, for the people who are
Speaker 2: shielding the public from this, like we need to see this. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's FDR fourth term level stuff where he's drooling out
Speaker 2: of his mouth and they're dragging him, you know, across,
Speaker 2: just because they want to still list.
Speaker 1: After I was doing some good shit and I had
Speaker 1: a whole program and people behind him.
Speaker 3: It was just a different deal.
Speaker 2: It was very anti democratic at that time, and this
Speaker 2: is the closest analogous that we have gotten to.
Speaker 3: Something like it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's very similar to the Diane Feinstein situation.
Speaker 1: Is he as far gone as Diane Finestein? You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think we would put him quite in that category.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's only ten years young.
Speaker 1: Yet, but we've still got, you know, if he gets
Speaker 1: re elected, we got four plus more years to watch
Speaker 1: this decline.
Speaker 4: That was one of the things that struck me.
Speaker 1: I don't remember it was Azracline or Neat Silver in
Speaker 1: their analysis of why they thought he should drop out,
Speaker 1: who pointed not to him as vice president, you know,
Speaker 1: back a decade plus ago or whatever. They pointed to
Speaker 1: his announcement speech when he ran for president back in
Speaker 1: twenty you know, the announcement speech was in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: not long ago, and said, look at this difference, Like,
Speaker 1: look at the decline in just this short period of time.
Speaker 1: What is this going to look like over the next
Speaker 1: number of years? What does it look like now? When
Speaker 1: you already know that he cannot handle the very basics
Speaker 1: of campaigning. He can't even handle the fundraising circuit right,
Speaker 1: let alone campaign rallies, let alone any sort of remotely
Speaker 1: contentious interview.
Speaker 4: He can't do any of it.
Speaker 1: That's why he says no this Super Bowl interview because
Speaker 1: he can't do any of it, and his aides have
Speaker 1: no confidence that he could do any of it. But
Speaker 1: to go back to the Feinstein thing, you know, some
Speaker 1: of the cope that I see from Democrats is like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if there was a real problem, we'd know it. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of reporters in this town I would love
Speaker 1: to report on Joe Biden's decline, ETC's Oh really, how
Speaker 1: long was Diane Feinstein in grave decline before we ever
Speaker 1: heard a word of any of that?
Speaker 4: And many of.
Speaker 1: These reporters knew exactly what was going on, but they
Speaker 1: thought it was a little uncouth, disrespectful, et cetera for
Speaker 1: the American people to know the truth. So do I
Speaker 1: put it past any of these people to lie and
Speaker 1: obscure and cover up the reality of the situation here
Speaker 1: with regard to Joe Biden, of course not. These are
Speaker 1: the very same people who covered up how far gone
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein was, and we really only got a glimpse
Speaker 1: of it when she was practically on her deathback.
Speaker 2: You would have to have a stroke on camera for
Speaker 2: them to even really take it serious. I'm serious, or
Speaker 2: you'd have to be hospitalized and you know you found this, Crystal.
Speaker 2: I feel gross even setting this up. But there's been
Speaker 2: a more recent leak from Biden to show how virile
Speaker 2: and strong he is. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. It's exclusive to The Daily Mail from an
Speaker 2: expert of a new book leaked by staff. Biden eighty
Speaker 2: one see's the Key to his marriage is good sex.
Speaker 2: How Joe Biden infuriates Jill, his wife of forty seven years,
Speaker 2: with a very risky joke to staff about their private life,
Speaker 2: even though they aren't shy about their PDA. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's pretty clear apparently I like many presidents apparently before him,
Speaker 2: John F.
Speaker 3: Kennedy, Lyndon B.
Speaker 2: Johnson, many others who've occupied the Oval Office, Bill Clinton,
Speaker 2: he likes to brag about his sexual virility to his staff.
Speaker 2: Imagine having to work for this old man who could
Speaker 2: barely put a sentence together, which I guess probably fits
Speaker 2: with some nursing home behavior, and sit there and just
Speaker 2: just be like, oh sure, mister president, like very uncomfortably like.
Speaker 3: Laugh at the jokes.
Speaker 2: I feel bad for them other people who are subjected
Speaker 2: to this, But I think it was very clearly leaked
Speaker 2: in an evidence as you said to show like, Nah,
Speaker 2: he's fine, he's just you know, he's like a big
Speaker 2: Oh he's still look like he's still got it. He's
Speaker 2: like al Pacino. He's fathering a kid at eighty three
Speaker 2: years old. Tiro, you know, eighty is the new twenty. Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, that's very much the clear intent of this league
Speaker 1: of like, well, he can't he can't even sit for
Speaker 1: like a basic interview with a friendly reporter. But look
Speaker 1: at this, Look at what a manny is behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: making his wife uncomfortable with his riscade jokes about his
Speaker 1: sex life, like oh, please stop, I feel that's not
Speaker 1: he's not helping your case. No one wants to hear
Speaker 1: about this. Absolutely, those are not the only issues that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has. Though obviously there are concerns about his age.
Speaker 1: There's also concerns about the way that he has destroyed
Speaker 1: his previous winning coalition out of you absolute fealty and
Speaker 1: unconditional support for Israel in their assault on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: John Fetterman, though unshaken in his support for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and saying that anyone who would criticize the man, and
Speaker 1: by criticize, I mean just like literally describe his policies
Speaker 1: or his current condition as evidence by what all of
Speaker 1: us can see and hear with our own eyes and ears.
Speaker 1: Anyone who would criticize him should just go ahead and
Speaker 1: fly the Maga flag, put the Maga hat on.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: The president is going to win here in Pennsylvania. And
Speaker 10: I've always believed that whoever wins Pennsylvania is going to
Speaker 10: be the next president as well too. And this is
Speaker 10: going to be It's going to be difficult, and we
Speaker 10: all have to lean in on that. And we also
Speaker 10: have to start having in all kinds of Democrats criticizing
Speaker 10: the president too publicly. I don't understand why. I don't
Speaker 10: know what's in it for you to do that, whether
Speaker 10: you're just chasing clout or you want to make it
Speaker 10: in the news or anything like that. But if you're
Speaker 10: not willing to just support the president now and say
Speaker 10: these kinds of things, you might as well just get
Speaker 10: your mega head, because you now are helping up with this.
Speaker 1: Love Yeah, love Amiga holds herself on as a journal
Speaker 1: Oh yeah. If you're not just engaged in complete propaganda
Speaker 1: and denial of the reality in front of all of us,
Speaker 1: then you might as well put your maga hat on
Speaker 1: like they These are the same people who loved including
Speaker 1: John Ftterman loves to talk about democracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, could you be I mean?
Speaker 1: And this is North Korea style propaganda. This is like
Speaker 1: you cannot question or say one critical.
Speaker 4: Word of the dear leader, or you know, you are
Speaker 4: an enemy of the state. That's basically the position here.
Speaker 3: That's what he says.
Speaker 2: And you know, we have an MSNBC panel. They actually
Speaker 2: did a focused group of voters in Michigan. Many of
Speaker 2: them Muslim Americans, are activists around Gaza and you know
Speaker 2: these are not Maga people, folks, but they are just democrats.
Speaker 2: They're very upset with Biden, and they've got some choice
Speaker 2: words for him. And I think for the John Fetterman's
Speaker 2: of the world, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 11: Is there a pathway forward for you with Biden? Oh?
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
Speaker 12: You cannot keep killing people with our money and just
Speaker 12: keep thinking that, oh, we are stupid enough to elect
Speaker 12: you again, because we'll fall in line, You'll forget.
Speaker 11: How can you?
Speaker 12: How can like this is an insult to me as
Speaker 12: a word for you?
Speaker 3: Biden has a pathway forward.
Speaker 13: Biden has a pathway forward is not what does that
Speaker 13: look like? That is him calling for a permanent immediacy inspire.
Speaker 13: The straightforward, simple answer for the Biden administration is presureci spire,
Speaker 13: stop aiding Israel in their war crimes, and I guarantee
Speaker 13: you there are enough people who would be willing to
Speaker 13: deal with it and vote for the man. It is,
Speaker 13: in so many words, insane to me to have the
Speaker 13: Democratic Party in the Biden administration sit here and essentially
Speaker 13: say if Trump happens, it's your fault.
Speaker 12: If you don't want a Trump presidency, then are you
Speaker 12: not worried about what he could do domestically to this country?
Speaker 6: I am, you know, it's luck a vaccine. I'm willing
Speaker 6: to take short term pain for a long term gain.
Speaker 6: I'm willing to let go of Jewel and oppose Joe Biden,
Speaker 6: make him a one term president. Punish Joe Biden by
Speaker 6: making him a one term president and pairing his loss
Speaker 6: with the genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 7: Why does our democracy? Why is having a Trump president
Speaker 7: and see more important than those people's lives? Why is
Speaker 7: our democracy more important than thousands of men, women and
Speaker 7: children being killed?
Speaker 3: Woof all right, I don't know, Crystal, I don't see
Speaker 3: a lot of those.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, that one guy he said, He's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I could, I could see a pathway back to him.
Speaker 2: But you know, one of the points that some of
Speaker 2: the other voters made, and I think you've made this
Speaker 2: one too, some of the political prices of this is
Speaker 2: baked in period, and it's like a lot of these
Speaker 2: people they may never come back, you know, even at
Speaker 2: this point if there is some change in US policy,
Speaker 2: just because of the initial actions in the first one
Speaker 2: hundred days or so.
Speaker 3: So I am increasingly convinced this is going to be
Speaker 3: a problem.
Speaker 2: And I think it's not just because of Michigan. I
Speaker 2: think it really is an overall depressive effect of chaos,
Speaker 2: a weakening of the coalition across the board. In the
Speaker 2: same way that Biden's decline really happened in the polls
Speaker 2: after Afghanistan. It wasn't really just because of Afghanistan. It
Speaker 2: was because nine different things all hit it once. But
Speaker 2: it was a precipitating factor. I think Gaza and Israel
Speaker 2: has now entered territory.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, for a lot of people who see this
Speaker 1: as a crime against humanity, and as Joe Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: facilitating being directly complicit spending our tax dollars on these,
Speaker 1: you know, bombs to kill children, the Gaza strip, Like
Speaker 1: it is a moral red line. And so the consequence
Speaker 1: of oh, but you might you might elect Trump, It's like,
Speaker 1: that's not on me, that's on it, that's on you.
Speaker 1: That is on you and what you have done, you know,
Speaker 1: in our name and with our support and backing from
Speaker 1: the previous election campaigns. So I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people this is just a red line beyond which they
Speaker 1: will not cross. And you know, even for the gentleman
Speaker 1: who said I could see my way back to him,
Speaker 1: the series of policy changes he laid out are things
Speaker 1: that are not going to happen.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, even for him, I think.
Speaker 1: It's very unlikely that he's able to be persuaded at
Speaker 1: the end of the day to come back to Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a much more immediate question right
Speaker 1: now this week, which is how many votes is uncommitted
Speaker 1: going to get in this mission Chigan primary, which is
Speaker 1: on Tuesday. I mean, Joe Biden at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously he's going to be the Democratic nominee unless he
Speaker 1: drops out, her dies or his thorn.
Speaker 4: Prisoner or whatever.
Speaker 1: The black Swan events that are on the table for
Speaker 1: him are same as Trump. He's going to be the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee. But there is a quite organized and effort,
Speaker 1: with now quite a bit of relatively mainstream support to
Speaker 1: register a protest against Joe Biden by voting uncommitted. Actually,
Speaker 1: one of the most telling things I saw Soccer was
Speaker 1: Grushian Whitmer has been sent out to the Sunday shows,
Speaker 1: the CNN and wherever to try to make the case
Speaker 1: to affirmatively vote for Joe Biden in Michigan.
Speaker 4: I believe it was in an interview with Dana.
Speaker 1: Bash where she was very she would not say if
Speaker 1: she would not set any expectations for how she thought
Speaker 1: Joe Biden would do in the state against uncommitted, which
Speaker 1: showed me a level of nervousness that I was frankly
Speaker 1: a bit surprised by. But one of the latest supporters
Speaker 1: of the uncommitted campaign is lifelong Michigan resident Michael Moore,
Speaker 1: who whatevery thing about Michael Moore. He has been very
Speaker 1: prescient in his political analysis, especially in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1: He's had his finger on the pulls of how people
Speaker 1: are thinking there, and he went on m SMEBC and
Speaker 1: a variety of other places to explain why he is
Speaker 1: backing the effort to vote uncommitted.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 14: I guess I'm a recovering Catholic at this point, but
Speaker 14: Joe Biden is He's one of the few presidents in
Speaker 14: my lifetime that actually when they went to church like
Speaker 14: he means it. You know, Jimmy Carter was like that.
Speaker 14: I think, you know, very few presidents. I think I
Speaker 14: think he does mean it. And I'm just if I
Speaker 14: had a chance to talk to Jill Biden, the first
Speaker 14: thing I want to ask him is, what do you
Speaker 14: still go to mass? I mean, what's going on here?
Speaker 14: Why are you participating something that's killing civilians and children
Speaker 14: and thirty thousand now dead. He's going to cost himself
Speaker 14: the election. He's going to you know, if Trump has
Speaker 14: any chance, it's that the decision that he's made to
Speaker 14: embrace slaughter, carpet bond, incubator babies and incubators dead because
Speaker 14: they cut off the electricity, on and on.
Speaker 1: And on, so explaining they're his horror and how Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is responsible for potentially getting Trump reelected.
Speaker 4: Michael Moore someone who has the.
Speaker 1: Most maximalist views of the potential danger of another Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: and that's important to keep in mind, as well as
Speaker 1: some of the people who are saying they're going to
Speaker 1: vote Uncommitted in Michigan or are supporting that campaign, or
Speaker 1: people who you really believe in the harm of a
Speaker 1: Donald Trump presidency of him getting reelected, feel it is
Speaker 1: very existential, but also feel that Joe Biden himself is
Speaker 1: imperiling his reelection chances. This one surprised the hell out
Speaker 1: of me. Put this next one up on the screen, guys.
Speaker 1: Beta O'Rourke, blast from the Past, is supporting the Uncommitted
Speaker 1: campaign in Michigan's Tuesday presidential primary. He says he agrees
Speaker 1: with the aims and the goals. We should have a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: There should be a return of each and every single
Speaker 1: one of those hostages. There should be an end of
Speaker 1: this war, and there should be a negotiated solution of
Speaker 1: palsting in statehood. All of that needs to happen, and
Speaker 1: I share that concern that the US is not doing
Speaker 1: close to enough to bring those things to pass. He
Speaker 1: goes on, he lays out some history here in his thinking.
Speaker 4: He says the.
Speaker 1: Campaign to vote uncommitted is not without precedent. When Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Junior and Andrew Young first approached Lyndon Vane
Speaker 1: Johnson about passing the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 1: President told him he didn't have the political power to
Speaker 1: get it past. King and Young spent the weeks and
Speaker 1: months that followed organizing to get Johnson that mandate. It
Speaker 1: culminates in John Lewis leading that march across the Edmund
Speaker 1: Pettis Bridge in March of nineteen sixty five, almost being
Speaker 1: beaten to death in the process and really galvanizing the
Speaker 1: conscience of the country. Within eight days, Johnson convenes a
Speaker 1: joint session of Congress and by that summer has passed
Speaker 1: and signed into law the Voting Rights Act of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five. I know that Joe Biden is a good man.
Speaker 1: I don't know that, but anyway, who's saying that. I
Speaker 1: know that he wants to do the right thing. Also
Speaker 1: don't know that sometimes split up pressure helps a president
Speaker 1: get there, and that may be what's needed now. So
Speaker 1: that is Beto's thinking here, and Sager Many people have
Speaker 1: commented on the extraordinary turn of events that has Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders endorsing Joe Biden, including in the Michigan primary, and
Speaker 1: Beta O'Rourke coming out for a ceasefire and for voting uncommitted.
Speaker 2: I didn't know that he endorsement in the Michigan primary.
Speaker 2: That's pretty that's crazy. He did remember he won Michigan
Speaker 2: back in twenty sixteen. That was a big deal.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Wow, that that I have to have to toy
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 4: One of mine did not see that.
Speaker 2: We certainly did not see that one coming. Like I said,
Speaker 2: I think Biden is probably going to win. It's really
Speaker 2: just a question of whether they're going to get a
Speaker 2: decent amount there on the ballot. If they can crack
Speaker 2: anywhere between what do you think ten percent?
Speaker 3: It's extraordinary. Ten percent would be a lot.
Speaker 1: I think what I heard from the organizer is that
Speaker 1: their original.
Speaker 4: Goal was ten thousand votes. Okay, ten thousand votes.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that would be as a percentage,
Speaker 1: but I would think that they're I don't know, but
Speaker 1: I would think they're in line. I mean, given the
Speaker 1: level of national attention and support, given the number of
Speaker 1: college towns in the state of Michigan, given the sizeable
Speaker 1: Arab American population. You know, had the mayor of Dearborn
Speaker 1: come out and say vote uncommitted. I saw a Detroit
Speaker 1: councilwoman come out and say vote uncommitted. You got Rasheta
Speaker 1: to leave, You've got Michael Moore, You've not cut Beto Verborg.
Speaker 4: So it's got some momentum.
Speaker 1: What does it amount to, I don't know, but you
Speaker 1: know it's at least in an attempt to send some
Speaker 1: kind of a democratic vessage to Joe Biden. Whether or
Speaker 1: not he is concerned by that or heeds their calls
Speaker 1: to change policy is another question altogether.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine
Speaker 2: has now come and gone. President Zelenski of Ukraine giving
Speaker 2: a landmark speech in which he pleaded for more Western aed,
Speaker 2: but in which he also made a comment which we
Speaker 2: simply can't just let pass by because it really demonstrates
Speaker 2: the level of delusion right now inside the Ukrainian government
Speaker 2: and really the wilful life are being propagated to the
Speaker 2: American people. Let's put this up there then on the screen.
Speaker 2: In the speech, President Zelenski claimed, with a straight phrase,
Speaker 2: Crystal that the tally of a number of Ukrainian soldiers
Speaker 2: who've been killed is thirty one thousand now as even
Speaker 2: the New York Times remarks quote US officials have said
Speaker 2: that the number is closer to seventy thousand. I would
Speaker 2: say that both of those estimates are dramatically underestimating the
Speaker 2: number of people who have been killed in the conflict,
Speaker 2: because if we square it with everything that we know,
Speaker 2: even in terms of past estimates, in terms of the
Speaker 2: amputation numbers, in terms of the fact if you've only
Speaker 2: had thirty one thousand people who are killed, then why
Speaker 2: is the average agent side of the Ukrainian military fifty
Speaker 2: years old? Why are you kidnapping disabled people off the
Speaker 2: street who are like forty five with one leg or whatever,
Speaker 2: have been previously dismissed and allowing them to serve. Why
Speaker 2: have six hundred and fifty thousand You know, prime age
Speaker 2: males have also fled the country, and that's how we
Speaker 2: know that the remainder of the population is not there.
Speaker 2: So if we know the fleeing estimate, and if we
Speaker 2: know the previous population of Ukraine, the number is very
Speaker 2: likely in the hundreds of thousands. That is far more
Speaker 2: likely of an estimate. I would just put this up
Speaker 2: there from the New York Times, again only a few
Speaker 2: months ago, which they seem to have forgotten even according
Speaker 2: to US officials, the death toll, and well, they include
Speaker 2: death and injuries. This was back in August of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three, so there have been several probably thousands, tens
Speaker 2: of thousands since then. Was near five hundred thousand. Now
Speaker 2: they're claiming, you know, a little bit more for the Russians.
Speaker 2: That's probably likely in terms of what the overall number is,
Speaker 2: but we don't know what it is. We don't know
Speaker 2: if it's three hundred thousand, which is what the Ukrainians claim.
Speaker 2: But at the very least, Crystal, the reason why I
Speaker 2: felt so compelled that we had to cover this is
Speaker 2: that there are people in this country who believe that,
Speaker 2: including I mean the Times, the media. People are people
Speaker 2: are pointing to this some sort of evidence of victory
Speaker 2: by the Ukrainian forces. Like again they are claiming with
Speaker 2: the straight face, Crystal, that they have had thirty one
Speaker 2: thousand killed and the Russians have had three hundred thousand.
Speaker 2: So either they are the greatest defensive force like known
Speaker 2: to men, or they're lying, and that's unfortunate because they're
Speaker 2: pleading for more weapons and for more support when they
Speaker 2: are barely able to recruit fifty something your people who
Speaker 2: are old. They have people who are seventy in the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian armed forces who are on the front line, many
Speaker 2: of whom just mass surrendered in one of their biggest
Speaker 2: strategic defeats in years on the battlefield. It's like the
Speaker 2: reality on the ground and the propaganda narrative is diverging
Speaker 2: at a historic level, and yet a lot of people
Speaker 2: in the establishment of this country, including the media, are
Speaker 2: buying a hook line and sinker.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean even again to underscore, the.
Speaker 1: US official assessment is more than double what Zelenski is
Speaker 1: claiming here, and I think most estimates are that the
Speaker 1: Russians have more killed on their side. They out number
Speaker 1: Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one. They also
Speaker 1: have a massively larger population in order to refill their ranks,
Speaker 1: so you know, yes, they have probably suffered more casualties.
Speaker 1: They're also in a better position to continue the fight
Speaker 1: and send more soldiers to the front line.
Speaker 4: I mean, the manpower.
Speaker 1: Issue for Ukraine is just as critical as the ammunition
Speaker 1: shortage is for Ukraine, if not more at this point.
Speaker 1: I think the reason why it's important to talk about
Speaker 1: just like the brazen nature of this lie, is because
Speaker 1: it's consistent with some of the domestic criticism that Zelensky
Speaker 1: has faced, including from some of his own military commanders,
Speaker 1: about this propaganda bubble that he has created and persisted with.
Speaker 4: So it's one thing.
Speaker 1: Look, you're in wartime trying to you know, trying to
Speaker 1: prop up the population, keep them positive, you know, showcase
Speaker 1: whatever victories you're having on the battlefield, keep morale up, etc.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think anyone would acceptect any country to
Speaker 1: do that. It's another thing to just out and out
Speaker 1: lie about the reality of what's happening on the ground
Speaker 1: and the defeats that are being suffered and the level
Speaker 1: of suffering that occurs. I can't imagine that. I mean,
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are the ones who know the people who are
Speaker 1: dying and being killed, know the people who are coming
Speaker 1: back with limbs lost, know the men who are having
Speaker 1: to flee the country to avoid getting scooped up, know
Speaker 1: the people with intellectual disabilities that are being sent to
Speaker 1: the front.
Speaker 4: Lines, etc.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that they buy this crap either. So
Speaker 1: that to me is what's so noteworthy, is just how
Speaker 1: even the New York Times can't take this with a
Speaker 1: straight face because it is such a brazen lie and
Speaker 1: so at odds with the realities that actually exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the US estimate, which again is dramatically undercounted.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up here again, which is on the screen,
Speaker 2: because I feel really compelled if Zelenski's not going to
Speaker 2: to speak to the reality of the situation in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: the amputations. This was in August of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: The number of Ukrainians who had lost limbs had already
Speaker 2: reached the levels that four years of the First World
Speaker 2: War had incurred for Germans and Britons who went through
Speaker 2: the entire four and a half year war. This is
Speaker 2: a war which where we learned about the devastating effects
Speaker 2: of artillery, of modern machinery, machine guns, and this is
Speaker 2: what they incurred in just a year and a half.
Speaker 2: It's been six months or so since this piece came out.
Speaker 2: How many more tens of thousands have been suffered amputations?
Speaker 3: It just does it.
Speaker 2: It flies completely in the course like its strains credulity,
Speaker 2: as you said in our beginning that we could have
Speaker 2: First World War level amputation and tend to have more
Speaker 2: than what's half the number who have been killed in action.
Speaker 2: Not even the most strenuous Ukraine believers would privately admit
Speaker 2: anything like this, and yet that's what they want us
Speaker 2: to believe. And the reason why, again we're spending so
Speaker 2: much time on this is that they are in pure
Speaker 2: desperation right now, peers, that we are going to enable
Speaker 2: that with some of the most devastating consequences. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there please on the screen. And the very
Speaker 2: same time that Zelensky is giving this speech, then Secretary
Speaker 2: General of NATO John Stoltenberg is now hinting that Ukraine
Speaker 2: this is from a Ukrainian outlet, is hinting that Ukraine
Speaker 2: could use F sixteens for strikes on military targets inside
Speaker 2: of Russia. So let's make very clear that President Biden
Speaker 2: allegedly extracted a promise from the Ukrainians that they would
Speaker 2: not do that, and yet here's the NATO Secretary General
Speaker 2: who is saying that he would endorse such a policy.
Speaker 2: We have also seen in recent months crystal the use
Speaker 2: of US weapons by the Ukrainian forces deep inside of
Speaker 2: uncontested Russian territory, for example, in places like Rostov. Well,
Speaker 2: they claim it's a military depot, and yet they're using
Speaker 2: the exact same tactics of the Russians. They're hitting civilian
Speaker 2: infrastructure and they're killing kids in some instances, not saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, they're on the same level or whatever. But
Speaker 2: if you're going to drag yourself down into that, and
Speaker 2: you you know, the last gambles as you're losing these
Speaker 2: major battles on the battlefield, are going to be throwing
Speaker 2: things out like that, that's probably the scenario most likely
Speaker 2: to lead to some sort of war. And then on
Speaker 2: top of it's like I can't stop. We have more
Speaker 2: inclinations that people want to. Like the new candidates for
Speaker 2: NATO Secretary General because this man is outgoing, many of
Speaker 2: them are committing to a policy that a Ukraine will
Speaker 2: eventually be in NATO. And President Putin gave a speech
Speaker 2: just yesterday He's like, let's be very clear, if that happens.
Speaker 3: We will be in a full blown nuclear war. I
Speaker 3: mean it. And you know, maybe he's lying. I'd rather
Speaker 3: not find out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's one of those we just have to be
Speaker 2: real here in terms of the manpower situation, the ammunition situation,
Speaker 2: and desperate people often resort to desperate things, which I
Speaker 2: don't blame them.
Speaker 3: I probably would too, But.
Speaker 2: If you know, just like in the Israel situation, if
Speaker 2: we're going to co sign, we're going to give you
Speaker 2: the weapons to do it, then we could be considered
Speaker 2: an active combatant the same thing.
Speaker 4: No, that's absolutely right, that's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And I think part of why Selensky felt the need
Speaker 1: to put out there such a brazen live at even
Speaker 1: the New York Times isn't buying at this point, is
Speaker 1: because he needs to for the US audience, mask the
Speaker 1: incredible suffering of his own people, because I think if
Speaker 1: people really understood what the costs have been of prosecuting
Speaker 1: and continuing to prosecute this war, that raises some very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable questions for the continued level of support going forward.
Speaker 1: Which doesn't mean that people don't have sympathy for the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian cause, that doesn't mean that is justifying Russian actions.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is the other cost of having
Speaker 1: a president who is so infirm and unintelligible that he
Speaker 1: can't sit for a single basic interview is there is
Speaker 1: no accounting of how they think this is all going
Speaker 1: to end, how they think this is going, where they
Speaker 1: think this is going, what the you know, ultimate endgame
Speaker 1: is we used to have some theory of the gal
Speaker 1: the spring offensive and they're handibly strained, and then maybe they'll.
Speaker 4: Come to what is the theory?
Speaker 1: Now, what would this additional aid package? What is that
Speaker 1: going to get us? What is that going to get
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians? Where is that going to put us all
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. So, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the piece that has long been missing here is you
Speaker 1: may hate the idea of a negotiated settlement that would
Speaker 1: include some sort of you know, giving up some portion
Speaker 1: of the previous you know, the Ukrainian land to Russia.
Speaker 1: You may absolutely hate that idea. I think that it
Speaker 1: is incredibly unjust. I'm not claiming that it is. But
Speaker 1: what's the alternative. What's the alternative at this point? What
Speaker 1: is the theory of the case for how you're going
Speaker 1: to get to a solution that you find to be better,
Speaker 1: that you find to be superior. And that's how I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the logic soccer of how these wars always continue
Speaker 1: in definitely, it.
Speaker 4: Was the same thing.
Speaker 1: That's why we ended up staying in Afghanistan forever. These
Speaker 1: other presidents weren't stupid. They knew that it was not
Speaker 1: a good sugutuation. They knew that if we left, it
Speaker 1: was not going to be a good situation, and so
Speaker 1: they just the easy logices are, we'll just keep it going,
Speaker 1: We'll just pass the buck, rather than actually try to
Speaker 1: bring this thing to some sort of a conclusion, ugly
Speaker 1: or not.
Speaker 2: Well, the tragedy is that, as a result of the
Speaker 2: policy of the West and enabling Zelenski's literal egotism, fanaticism
Speaker 2: and now delusion, is that they are in a way
Speaker 2: worse position today than they were at the beginning.
Speaker 3: Of the war, no doubt.
Speaker 2: Now they have lost their entire generation of Ukrainian men.
Speaker 2: I just saw a video today of a single local
Speaker 2: recruitment person in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: They pulled a million.
Speaker 2: Dollars out of shoe boxes that he had in his
Speaker 2: apartment because he was taking bribes to let people out
Speaker 2: of the draft. I mean, this is one guy in
Speaker 2: one depot inside Ukraine, and they're.
Speaker 3: All us dollars too.
Speaker 2: Just so we're all aware in terms of where that
Speaker 2: currency is coming from.
Speaker 3: That's just one guy. The grift, the graft.
Speaker 2: It is extraordinary to a degree that you can barely understand.
Speaker 2: And on top of all of that, our major Russian
Speaker 2: battlefield victories are a Russian you know, moving away from conscription,
Speaker 2: successfully backfilling all of the three hundred thousand people that
Speaker 2: have either been killed and or injured. They've had a
Speaker 2: very successful program by basically bribing people in the caucus
Speaker 2: regions to come and join the military, very willing. It
Speaker 2: peers to be fight and to use attrition style warfare
Speaker 2: in terms of navalny and all that. He basically, you know,
Speaker 2: somebody died his major political opponent.
Speaker 3: He's never been more in control of Russia.
Speaker 2: They are going to produce four point five million artillery
Speaker 2: shells in twenty twenty four. According to the Estonians, it
Speaker 2: could actually be even higher. Our best estimate for Europe
Speaker 2: and the United States couple hundred thousand. It's like between
Speaker 2: the man power between the power and balance between the will.
Speaker 3: It's a devastating situation.
Speaker 2: The longer they keep this going, they're going to lose
Speaker 2: even more of their country, and they're going to lose
Speaker 2: even more of their people.
Speaker 3: To be killed. It will actually put them in a
Speaker 3: position where Putin.
Speaker 2: Is the least likely to negotiate if he's you know,
Speaker 2: has breakthroughs on Like I was reading one military analyst
Speaker 2: that compared some of these recent breakthroughs that have already
Speaker 2: happened to the initial opening gambles that led the Germans
Speaker 2: to capitulate in the First World War. Just to put
Speaker 2: it into perspective, you know, many of the gains from
Speaker 2: their original counter offensive of that have been now won
Speaker 2: back by the Russians. And you can't blame it just
Speaker 2: on artillery because we don't even have the ammunition to
Speaker 2: deliver if we wanted it, which would only lead to
Speaker 2: F sixteens missiles and other things being launched into Russia,
Speaker 2: which would only bring us all into a worse situation.
Speaker 2: So bleak situation that's happening over there.
Speaker 1: We have some horrifying breaking news this morning. A US
Speaker 1: airman by the name of Aaron Bush now self immolated
Speaker 1: in front of the Israeli embassy as an act of protest.
Speaker 4: He streamed this live.
Speaker 1: He said in part he did not want to be
Speaker 1: complicit in genocide, and as he was on fire, he
Speaker 1: was screaming Free Palestine. His family wanted the video to
Speaker 1: be released. Obviously Aarin is this, you know, as part
Speaker 1: of what he was doing, wanted people to see what
Speaker 1: he had to say. We're going to show you a
Speaker 1: little bit of the video so you can hear his words.
Speaker 1: We're going to cut it off before he begins to
Speaker 1: douse himself and set himself a light.
Speaker 4: But just a warning.
Speaker 1: Even this portion is very disturbing, so only watch if
Speaker 1: you want to see this.
Speaker 4: Let's take a look.
Speaker 16: Is Aaron Bush now, I am an active duty member
Speaker 16: of the United States Air Force, and I will no
Speaker 16: longer be complicit in genocide. I'm about to engage in
Speaker 16: an extreme active protest. But compared to what people have
Speaker 16: been experiencing in Palestine had the hands of their colonizers,
Speaker 16: it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling
Speaker 16: class has decided.
Speaker 14: Will be normal.
Speaker 1: So he then goes ahead and sets himself on fire.
Speaker 1: Paramedics Russian as well as I don't know it's cup
Speaker 1: or some sort of law enforcement or Israeli embassy security
Speaker 1: who is pointing a gun at him as he is
Speaker 1: potentially burning to death. There are conflicting reports this morning.
Speaker 1: Some outlets say that he has died from those injuries.
Speaker 4: Others say that he is.
Speaker 1: In critical condition, in very very bad shape. A few
Speaker 1: things that we have learned. First of all, it has
Speaker 1: been confirmed he is in fact a current active US airman.
Speaker 1: We also know, and this is crazy to me, that
Speaker 1: we had no idea about this. This is actually the
Speaker 1: second act of self immolation in this country. There was
Speaker 1: another individual who set themselves on fire for very similar
Speaker 1: reasons outside of the Israeli embassy in Atlanta, I believe so.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how that got covered up and we
Speaker 1: didn't hear about any of this. We can put some
Speaker 1: of the details here up on the screen again, disturbing
Speaker 1: image of Aaron here on fire. The breaking news headline
Speaker 1: here from marinofall is an active duty member of the
Speaker 1: US Air Force set himself on fire in front of
Speaker 1: Israeli embassy in Washington.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 4: I will no longer be complicit in genocide.
Speaker 1: While on fire, he repeatedly yells, free Palestine. I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say about this. The media, of course,
Speaker 1: fell down completely on the job here in reporting exactly
Speaker 1: what happened. We could put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: New York Times and other major outlets. First of all,
Speaker 1: took them long time to cover it at all. Second
Speaker 1: of all, in their headlines, they don't explain the reason
Speaker 1: why Aaron gave for committing what he described as an
Speaker 1: extreme active protest and likely ending in at least critical
Speaker 1: critical injuries and very possibly in his death. We can
Speaker 1: see these headlines here New York Times a man set
Speaker 1: himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy and Washington. The
Speaker 1: police said US airman sets himself on fire outside Israeli Embassy.
Speaker 1: Active duty airman sets himself on fire, US araman sets
Speaker 1: himself on fire. Again, nothing about his stated reasons for
Speaker 1: why he did this. Sager, It's just it's horrifying to watch.
Speaker 1: It's just horrifying.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's horrible.
Speaker 2: I really recommend people do not watch that video, the
Speaker 2: full video of it, unless you really like you need
Speaker 2: to know exactly what you're getting yourself into. And it's
Speaker 2: just one of those where headspace and all of that.
Speaker 2: As you said, this fits with the second one, which
Speaker 2: again I did not know about, about the Atlanta the
Speaker 2: US Air Force confirming that the active duty US airmen
Speaker 2: was involved in the incident.
Speaker 3: We're not yet sure as to his condition in the hospital.
Speaker 2: There have been sustained protests outside of the Israeli embassy
Speaker 2: here in Washington, as well as many as there Israelly
Speaker 2: consulates and other diplomatic outposts around the world.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's just horrifying to the entire.
Speaker 2: Situation is just devastating, especially to think he seems to
Speaker 2: be a very young man. As you said, apparently his
Speaker 2: family wanted the video and all that released.
Speaker 3: But it's certainly, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, this is reminiscent of the I'm very likely why
Speaker 2: the act of protest was taken, the monk who set
Speaker 2: himself on fire in protests of the Vietnam War, which
Speaker 2: became one of the most iconic images of that time.
Speaker 2: So very likely trying to recreate something like that. But
Speaker 2: I don't want to glorify or you know, anything like this,
Speaker 2: just because you know, this man very likely is going
Speaker 2: to lose his life as a result of.
Speaker 1: This, yeah, if he hasn't already, or you know, the
Speaker 1: fruit seller in Tunisia, that's right, another you know extreme
Speaker 1: act taken, their desperate act taken, which had massive geopolitical consequences,
Speaker 1: And as you said, Saga, I'm sure that's what Aaron
Speaker 1: who was clearly desperately trying to do something to stop
Speaker 1: what he sees and what I see and what much
Speaker 1: of the world sees as a genocide, and as an
Speaker 1: active duty service member, feeling that he was being made
Speaker 1: to be complicit in that genocide. You know, our thoughts
Speaker 1: are certainly with his family. I hope that he and
Speaker 1: his family are able to find peace and comfort in
Speaker 1: her horrifying time, horrific situation. All right, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and move on to the very latest from bb net Yahoo.
Speaker 1: He was on one of our Sunday shows over the weekend,
Speaker 1: Margaret Brennan pressing him pretty aggressively on whether he is
Speaker 1: losing support of the United States.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to how he responded.
Speaker 17: The IDF has only destroyed thirty percent of HAMAS leadership,
Speaker 17: and that the amount of tunnels that Hamas uses have
Speaker 17: really only been tiny in terms of what has been
Speaker 17: destroyed by the IDF. There is growing distrust of you personally,
Speaker 17: So you know this in the US Congress and within
Speaker 17: the Biden White House. When your closest ally is telling
Speaker 17: you things like this and telling you that you need
Speaker 17: to reconsider a strategy, isn't it worth considering Look.
Speaker 18: I think that the US agrees with us on the
Speaker 18: goal of destroying Comas, yes, and on the goal of
Speaker 18: releasing the hostages. The decisions of how to do that
Speaker 18: are left with us and with me and the elected
Speaker 18: cabinet of Israel, and we're doing that. A lot of
Speaker 18: things that you that we were told by the best
Speaker 18: of friends initially turned out not to be true. They said,
Speaker 18: you can't enter the ground war without having enormous complications.
Speaker 18: They said, you cannot fight, you can't enter Gaza City,
Speaker 18: you can't go into the tunnels there. It will be
Speaker 18: a terrible bloodbath. All of that turned out to be
Speaker 18: not true.
Speaker 3: Sure, but the former.
Speaker 17: Head of Central Command was on this program just a
Speaker 17: few weeks ago and said, basically, you have not articulated
Speaker 17: any specific end game here. So but putting that aside,
Speaker 17: I want to come back to a few different things
Speaker 17: to Margaret.
Speaker 18: Margaret, hold on, you love these these grenades at me
Speaker 18: and you keep on moving. Well, first of all, you
Speaker 18: say there's no confidence, meet, Well, there's really public has
Speaker 18: confidence in me.
Speaker 17: Last week there were massive protests throughout Israel yesterday.
Speaker 18: Of course, we have protests. We have protests as well
Speaker 18: as democracy that protest.
Speaker 17: What Hamas has done is horrific. But President Biden has said,
Speaker 17: your actions, sir, are over the top. Aren't you concerned
Speaker 17: that Israel is creating more risks than it is killing?
Speaker 18: What would America do? What would America do? Margaret? If
Speaker 18: you face the equivalent of twenty nine elevens fifty thousand
Speaker 18: Americans slaughtered in one day, ten thousand Americans, including mothers
Speaker 18: and children held hostage, would you not be doing what
Speaker 18: Israel is doing? You'd be doing a hell of a
Speaker 18: lot more. And all Americans that I talked to nearly
Speaker 18: all say.
Speaker 2: That, I'm sure the Americans he talks he does say
Speaker 2: that that's certainly right. I'm just so this man is
Speaker 2: living in a delusion, like in a pyramid of his
Speaker 2: own construction. He's like, the Israeli public supports me. How
Speaker 2: in a straight face can you possibly say that you
Speaker 2: know the other part of this thing, Crystal. He continues
Speaker 2: to do only interviews with US based media outlets. He
Speaker 2: won't face his own people in Hebrew to face any
Speaker 2: critical challenge. Go and sit with your own media outlets
Speaker 2: who will actually ask you very detailed questions.
Speaker 3: They're not nearly as afraid as our people are. I mean,
Speaker 3: look at that. It's the most tepid.
Speaker 2: Like, hey, you know, some people say President Biden in
Speaker 2: you know, Haretz and many Israeli journalists and others that
Speaker 2: we have covered here are far more critical than net
Speaker 2: On Yahoo government than most of the people in our
Speaker 2: own country.
Speaker 3: So that was my big takeaway.
Speaker 1: I thought she did a decent job of pressing him,
Speaker 1: but you know, the Biden administration gives him every out
Speaker 1: because first of all, their criticism of him is so tapid.
Speaker 1: Oh Biden said it was over the top. Oh my gosh, Wow,
Speaker 1: that's unbelievable. It's so tapid, it's so lame. It doesn't
Speaker 1: come with any sort of pressure. And you have multiple
Speaker 1: US fokespeople who have now repeated basically what Boebe says
Speaker 1: there of like, hey, it's their country. They can do
Speaker 1: what they want, Okay, but we don't have to ship
Speaker 1: them the weapons of their genocide and of their atrocities.
Speaker 4: Okay. We don't have to ship them the funding.
Speaker 1: We don't have to provide them diplomatic cover both at
Speaker 1: the UN and at the ICJ, like we have done
Speaker 1: over and over and over again.
Speaker 4: We don't have to block and.
Speaker 1: Veto multiple ceasefire resolutions, as we have done now.
Speaker 4: So it just is so it's the peak.
Speaker 1: Of gas slighting to pretend like, oh, it's just up
Speaker 1: to them and we've got nothing to do with it. Bullshit,
Speaker 1: you don't want to use the leverage that you have.
Speaker 1: And so Bbe feels perfectly comfortable to go on American television.
Speaker 4: Say oh, they've been Americans.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they've they've pressed us on some things, but ultimately,
Speaker 1: actually they've been wrong about all of the criticisms that
Speaker 1: they've lobbied a US or all of the suggestions that
Speaker 1: they made about how we should conduct this offensive. I mean,
Speaker 1: he said, oh, they told us it would be a
Speaker 1: terrible bloodbath if we want. It has been a terrible bloodbath.
Speaker 1: It has been a terrible blood bath. No one was
Speaker 1: wrong about that. Now, did the US actually, you know,
Speaker 1: fully express those concerns that we've been willing to do
Speaker 1: anything about that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's just another humiliation for the Biden
Speaker 1: administration to have BB on our television basically like throwing
Speaker 1: in their face any sort of concerns or objections they have.
Speaker 1: And BB getting a little bit testy there with Margaret Brennan,
Speaker 1: because as you said, Soccer, he's not used to being
Speaker 1: challenge or subjecting himself to anything approaching a critical interview.
Speaker 1: We're going to get to the protests and Tel Aviv
Speaker 1: in just a minute, because as you said, it is
Speaker 1: he's not delusional.
Speaker 4: He knows he's just a shameless liar.
Speaker 1: He knows how precarious his domestic political situation is. That
Speaker 1: has driven a lot of his war making decision making,
Speaker 1: is how precarious his political standing is.
Speaker 4: I mean, you have an overwhelming.
Speaker 1: Majority of Israelis, for a variety of reasons, most of
Speaker 1: which don't match my discuss with bab nine Yaho, but
Speaker 1: for a variety of reasons, want early elections and want
Speaker 1: him gone. So insane and delusional and just a flat
Speaker 1: out lie to claim otherwise. But let me just also
Speaker 1: update you on we've been telling you there have been
Speaker 1: ongoing negotiations about a potential new temporary cease fire. This
Speaker 1: was the reason the US gave for the most recent
Speaker 1: blocking of a resolution in favor of a permanent immediate
Speaker 1: cease fires. Oh well, we can't do that because we
Speaker 1: need to negotiate this other temporary potential ceasefire here's the
Speaker 1: framework as best we know it that is being worked on.
Speaker 1: I don't know how close they are to actually securing
Speaker 1: this deal, but reportedly the updated US framework includes the
Speaker 1: release of several hundred Palaestinian prisoners in exchanged the release
Speaker 1: of thirty five to forty Israeli hostages, including civilian women,
Speaker 1: female soldiers, men over fifty in hostages in serious medical condition.
Speaker 1: The number of Palestinian prisoners released for each.
Speaker 4: Of the female.
Speaker 1: Soldiers will be higher than for the other abductees that
Speaker 1: will be released at this stage.
Speaker 4: For each hostage.
Speaker 1: Who is released, Israel will agree to a day of ceasefire,
Speaker 1: when in total, in the first phase of the deal
Speaker 1: it will be possible to reach six weeks of ceasefire.
Speaker 1: The number I saw floated was potentially like sixty days.
Speaker 1: The US framework includes an initial and limited return of
Speaker 1: Palestinian citizens to the north of the Gaza Strip that
Speaker 1: will start during the implementation of this stage of the deal,
Speaker 1: under conditions that will be defined during the detailed negotiations.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's next to nothing to go back to
Speaker 1: in the north of the Gaza Strip, which has been
Speaker 1: utterly destroyed. The US framework also includes a significant increase
Speaker 1: in the scope of humanitarian aid that enters Gaza Strip well.
Speaker 1: Previous frameworks have called for that as well to no avail.
Speaker 1: We'll get more on that in a moment. And the
Speaker 1: next phases in the deal that focus on release of
Speaker 1: soldiers in exchange of bodies were left very general as
Speaker 1: in the previous framework, So no clue if they are
Speaker 1: actually close to securing this deal, although there seems to
Speaker 1: be serious efforts to engage with this framework, although BB
Speaker 1: also making clear that even if they do agree to
Speaker 1: something approaching this framework and this temporary cease fire, he's
Speaker 1: still fully one hundred percent intends to continue the war
Speaker 1: after that, including going into Rafa, something that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration has also expressed concerns over, and our own spokespeople
Speaker 1: and national security advisors like Jake Sullivan have said that
Speaker 1: they have not received any plan for keeping civilians in
Speaker 1: Rafa safe. One point three million Palestinians have been pushed
Speaker 1: into Rafa. Also with regards to, you know, provision of aid,
Speaker 1: that is where the overwhelming majority of humanitarian aid flows through.
Speaker 1: You already have people dying of starvation, incredibly desperate circumstances,
Speaker 1: So that's where we are in terms of this potential
Speaker 1: hostage deal and BB's intention to continue the war that
Speaker 1: has already encouraged such an unbelievable cost on Palestinian civilians
Speaker 1: after that deal's conclusion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the hostage deal, I think the major headline
Speaker 2: out of it really was not only in terms of
Speaker 2: the upcoming rough operation which could be delayed, but it
Speaker 2: was the unwillingness, at least on the part of the
Speaker 2: Israeli side, not yet clear really on the Palestinian side,
Speaker 2: that they're like, this has to be a time limited
Speaker 2: hostage deal that doesn't leave it open ended. That said,
Speaker 2: the framework, as you know, what we have first six
Speaker 2: weeks or something like that, we did see a resumption
Speaker 2: of hostilities after the last one.
Speaker 3: It is certainly possible there could be.
Speaker 2: Some sort of diplomatic opening though whatever in the interim
Speaker 2: that would either delay or significantly change because you can
Speaker 2: just imagine, Crystal, if you have six weeks weeks of
Speaker 2: you know, no headlines and a change in the diplomatic situation,
Speaker 2: of a release of the hostage, continuing deteriorating domestic political
Speaker 2: conditions for bebe inside of Israel, and if they double
Speaker 2: down on their military operation.
Speaker 3: It could change.
Speaker 2: I mean that doesn't mean I don't think it's not likely.
Speaker 2: I think it's probably the most likely course. But if
Speaker 2: there is some sort of framework in general, when the
Speaker 2: guns stopped firing and there's some sort of release, that's
Speaker 2: not positive for everybody who's involved.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the only time that there's been significant hostage exchange
Speaker 1: was in the previous short cease fire. I mean, the
Speaker 1: people of Gaza, the Palestinians are suffering so so much
Speaker 1: so you have to cheer for even a temporary ceasefire.
Speaker 1: But Bbe at least is making it pretty clear right
Speaker 1: now that he fully intends to go into Rafa. And
Speaker 1: you know, this also does get to his domestic political standing.
Speaker 1: Because they haven't come anywhere close to eradicating Hamas, they
Speaker 1: haven't even been able to take out the top leaders
Speaker 1: that have been on their target list. He has every
Speaker 1: incentive to hold on to power by continuing this assault
Speaker 1: on the Gaza strip and going into Rafa.
Speaker 4: So I fully expect that will be the case.
Speaker 1: You know, as evidence of just what shaky political ground
Speaker 1: he is in Tel Aviv experiencing some really wild protests
Speaker 1: and met with a violent police reaction, we.
Speaker 4: Can Put this on the screen. You can see the.
Speaker 1: Size of the protests here, the number of people on
Speaker 1: the streets in Tel Aviv. These are protests directly against
Speaker 1: net Nyahuo, people who have a variety of criticisms of him,
Speaker 1: also concerns about the failure to secure release of the hostages.
Speaker 1: You can see some of the police response here, which
Speaker 1: again very violent, very aggressive. Here you see a water
Speaker 1: cannon being shot at people. There are some incidents from
Speaker 1: the police here that are already being investigated, So those
Speaker 1: are that's a reaction to the protests that are going
Speaker 1: against Beebe. Now let's take a look at the protests
Speaker 1: that have been going on now for some time that
Speaker 1: have been actually very successful at starving the Palestinian people
Speaker 1: by further blocking AID from going into the Gaza strip.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. Oh, look at these
Speaker 1: folks milling around, blowing up a bouncy castle and you know, celebrating, dancing,
Speaker 1: waving the flag. I don't see that same aggressive response here.
Speaker 1: And you can see on the screen all of the
Speaker 1: AID trucks that are backed up at this crossing, unable
Speaker 1: to pass because of these protesters desire to starve Palestinians.
Speaker 1: More than they're already starving, and make no mistake, they
Speaker 1: are already starving to death. Of course, it will be
Speaker 1: the youngest, the weakest, the infirm who's succumb to starvation first.
Speaker 1: And again, very difficult video to watch, but let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This is a two month
Speaker 1: old baby. So this baby was born after October seventh,
Speaker 1: and here he is. His name is Mahmud Fatu breathing
Speaker 1: some of his last breaths before dying because of starvation.
Speaker 1: That is the direct result of the US administration's policy
Speaker 1: of unconditional support.
Speaker 4: That is a direct result of bib Natyahu and his government.
Speaker 1: That is a direct result of those protesters blocking AID
Speaker 1: from getting into the Gaza strip and imposing collective punishment
Speaker 1: on the entire population, including this baby that never saw
Speaker 1: a day, that wasn't comprised of this horrifying assault on
Speaker 1: the people of Gaza.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's terrifying.
Speaker 2: The hospital said that he died of acute malnutrition. The
Speaker 2: reason that really what comes through in terms of the
Speaker 2: Israeli government is that they loved and you would even
Speaker 2: notice interviews like, of course we have protests, we're a democracy.
Speaker 3: I'm like yeah, dude, but you're spraying those people.
Speaker 2: In it's called Democracy Square actually in Tel Aviv, of
Speaker 2: these protesters.
Speaker 3: But then the people who are blocking food trucks you're.
Speaker 2: Building, you know, you let them have bouncy cans castles.
Speaker 2: Not only that they're being visited by cabinet members, including
Speaker 2: the Defense Minister of the government. That's disparate treatment of
Speaker 2: people who are protesting. Remember, the official position of the
Speaker 2: government is that those people are not supposed to be there,
Speaker 2: and the AA trucks are allowed to let in according
Speaker 2: to their framework negotiated with the United States and with
Speaker 2: the United Nations. And it's like, well, well, okay, if
Speaker 2: all protesters are treated the same, I actually had no
Speaker 2: issue with that.
Speaker 3: But you're not treating all protests is the same.
Speaker 2: You're selectively allowing some and then selectively suppressing others with
Speaker 2: the ruining ruling coalition to keep a lid on how
Speaker 2: unbelievably unpopular were And what's even crazier is what you know,
Speaker 2: Israeli media is reporting some of the people here who
Speaker 2: were sprayed and who were in the Democracy Square were
Speaker 2: the families.
Speaker 3: Of hostages who are being held in Gaza.
Speaker 2: These people look obviously we're all the same and all that,
Speaker 2: but their voices, I would, you know, given the Israeli public,
Speaker 2: those are some pretty important people.
Speaker 3: We don't spray them in the face.
Speaker 2: But you know, these pro these pro war like, anti
Speaker 2: food people who are just allowed total impunity, and that's
Speaker 2: basically the policy of their government. They're held hostage by
Speaker 2: the most fringe elements of their society. They're green living
Speaker 2: settlements and all this other stuff. And if you protest
Speaker 2: against it, which again, let's be clear, not a lot not.
Speaker 3: All Israeli support this stuff.
Speaker 2: I know plenty of them who do not, and would
Speaker 2: cringe and are horrified specifically by the settlements and all
Speaker 2: that in the West Bank. What are they going to
Speaker 2: do if they take this street so the governments can
Speaker 2: throw their asses in jail and spray them in the
Speaker 2: middle of the square.
Speaker 4: Yeah, unreal, That is exactly right.
Speaker 1: The Washington Post actually had a very good report on
Speaker 1: those protests, blocking food, blocking the food trucks, the ones
Speaker 1: with the bouncy castle and the dancing and whatever. And
Speaker 1: they reported on how you know, there were IDF soldiers
Speaker 1: present or police president and they just let it continue,
Speaker 1: let it continue, even as those age rugs are backed up,
Speaker 1: even as that little baby boy is starving to death,
Speaker 1: and there are more and more report reports every day
Speaker 1: of people who are dying of starvation at this point,
Speaker 1: again as the direct result of all of this. And
Speaker 1: so you know, you look at things like that, you
Speaker 1: look at the settlement policy the Biden administration. Oh, they
Speaker 1: they've put sanctions on four settlers. Oh my gosh. It's
Speaker 1: an attempt to frame it as it's as if it
Speaker 1: is the actions of a few fringe extremists versus the
Speaker 1: explicit policy of this government. And not just this government,
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean, the settlements have expanded under
Speaker 1: every Israeli government since the seventies, every one. So to
Speaker 1: pretend like this is some fringe project project or it's
Speaker 1: just coming out of the net Yahoo administration even is
Speaker 1: really inaccurate. This is the explicit aim of the Israeli
Speaker 1: government has been for years and years and years, you know,
Speaker 1: as long.
Speaker 4: As Joe Biden has been in Washington.
Speaker 1: This has been the policy of the Israeli government, and
Speaker 1: to tend otherwise is incredibly incredibly dishonest. You know, if
Speaker 1: the Israelis didn't want those food trucks to be blocked.
Speaker 1: If they wanted those food trucks to get into those
Speaker 1: starving gosins, you can damn well bet they would be there.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean then that's the other thing is
Speaker 2: you have a cabinet minister who openly goes to war
Speaker 2: with his own government and supports these people for protesting.
Speaker 2: It's just a he's an incredibly weak prime minister. Every
Speaker 2: act of his is weakness, and it's just to bolster
Speaker 2: his coalition. And you're basically allowing eight to ten percent
Speaker 2: really of the population to hold hostage the entire country.
Speaker 3: I honestly, this is an intolerable situation. I don't know
Speaker 3: how people there.
Speaker 2: Aren't protesting even more against the government for something like
Speaker 2: especially if you want to see the hostage release, you
Speaker 2: should be out there, you know, in major force, which
Speaker 2: is you know, supposedly allegedly you know what the vast
Speaker 2: majority of that population actually does believe whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to this deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, the overwhelming bulk of the Israeli population
Speaker 1: believes very much in this war, thinks it should be
Speaker 1: incredibly aggressive. When we saw those poles early on saying
Speaker 1: oh the IDF if anything isn't going far enough, there
Speaker 1: was only I think one point eight percent that said
Speaker 1: they had gone too far. So we shouldn't delude ourselves
Speaker 1: about what it is that the population supports. But there
Speaker 1: is genuine friction with regards specifically to the efforts to
Speaker 1: secure hostages. At least one poll showed a majority of
Speaker 1: Israeli's thought that should be the primary goal of the war.
Speaker 1: And of course what we've seen is that Israel has
Speaker 1: killed more hostages than they were able to rescue in
Speaker 1: the course of this offensive, end that the only time
Speaker 1: that there was significant hostage release was during the ceasefire.
Speaker 4: That's where the pressure to secure some sort of a
Speaker 4: deal comes from.
Speaker 1: And so we'll see if this temporary ceasefire framework that
Speaker 1: the US is pushing rather than a permanent ceasefire, they've
Speaker 1: decided they want this temporary ceasefire be be very likely
Speaker 1: to go in.
Speaker 4: After the conclusion of that.
Speaker 1: If that is to come to pass, we'll see if
Speaker 1: that's able to come together.
Speaker 3: There you go, We'll keep you guys updated.
Speaker 4: All right, Sagar, are we looking at well?
Speaker 2: Last week we had a fun segment about Google's Gemini
Speaker 2: AI image generator. By this point you've probably seen it,
Speaker 2: but just so I can have a laugh too. Let's
Speaker 2: relive that saga. The basics of it are that Google's
Speaker 2: AI generator on launch day seemed genuinely incapable of creating
Speaker 2: an image of a white person, even when it was
Speaker 2: actually called for, like with prompts about America's founding fathers
Speaker 2: Polish soldiers in World War Two, it injects Asian or
Speaker 2: black people into images of what a European family was
Speaker 2: supposed to look like. The images took over social media
Speaker 2: in a matter of hours. They quickly prompted an apology
Speaker 2: from Google, whose then halted the product as it updated
Speaker 2: its software, and even we're shuddering it for some time.
Speaker 2: This prompts two very important questions. First, how does this happen?
Speaker 2: The second, what are the actual stakes here at play?
Speaker 2: And then, if we accept those steaks, what if anything
Speaker 2: should be done about it? So I'm going to answer
Speaker 2: all those. Let's start with the first, how does something
Speaker 2: like this happen? If you watched our original segment, we
Speaker 2: got in some of the basics that Google is a
Speaker 2: bureaucratic nightmare of an organization infected by political correctness. The
Speaker 2: way that a product like this gets shipped is that
Speaker 2: people are too afraid to say something like hey, why
Speaker 2: can't the image generator produce white people?
Speaker 3: It would rather embarrass the.
Speaker 2: Company in front of the eyes of the world than
Speaker 2: flag it internally and face some problems. Quickly after this,
Speaker 2: entire freakis became to light. Videos began to surface of
Speaker 2: some talks from Jen jen I. She is an Irish
Speaker 2: technology executive at Google who heads up the quote Responsible
Speaker 2: Innovation Team for Artificial Intelligence and is responsible for programming
Speaker 2: in the social parameters at Google.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to some of her HR philosophy
Speaker 3: in the past.
Speaker 19: We do work together day to day to try and
Speaker 19: advance the technology and understanding around responsible AI.
Speaker 6: So today I.
Speaker 19: Won't be speaking as much from the Google perspective, but
Speaker 19: from my own experience. I have worked at Google for
Speaker 19: over fourteen years. I've led about six different teas, mostly
Speaker 19: in the user research, the user experience area, and now
Speaker 19: in the ethical user impact area.
Speaker 11: So I'll be.
Speaker 19: Sharing some of my learnings from across that time, but
Speaker 19: also some my failures and challenges. I think it's okay
Speaker 19: to talk about things that you've made mistakes in because
Speaker 19: we will make mistakes when we're trying to be good allies.
Speaker 19: When we're trying to be anti racists, we will make mistakes.
Speaker 19: The point is, though, to keep trying to keep educating
Speaker 19: yourself and getting better.
Speaker 3: Day to day.
Speaker 2: Okay, not surprising anti racism DEIHR gobbledygook speech.
Speaker 3: If you're a right wing internet pundit, most of the analysis.
Speaker 2: It stops right there. You'll laugh for these woke idiots
Speaker 2: and you move on. But I would urge others to
Speaker 2: not think about AI images, which don't really matter all
Speaker 2: that much, and instead thinking about the lurking assumptions in
Speaker 2: the text models that we are missing and what a
Speaker 2: future with these hanging over our heads will look like.
Speaker 2: For that to happen, we have to close our eyes
Speaker 2: and envision a future. A future of AI does not
Speaker 2: necessarily mean replacement. It more is an alter of our
Speaker 2: total interaction with machines. Instead of typing something and respung
Speaker 2: getting response, we may use our voice. Instead of asking
Speaker 2: for a definitive response, we will ask for aggregated recommendations.
Speaker 2: As we all know, good recommendations are derivative of our
Speaker 2: knowledge base and assumptions programmed in, and.
Speaker 3: That is where the danger lies.
Speaker 2: As Brian Chu has deciphered in a substack newsletter from
Speaker 2: the New World. The Google paper itself demonstrates the nefarious
Speaker 2: principles that are programmed into the model. Humans explicitly filter
Speaker 2: data fed into the Gemini to comply with the diversity
Speaker 2: standards at Google, and quote unquote harm reduction is programmed
Speaker 2: in when the AI is considering questions. Finally, the model
Speaker 2: itself has a rule I'm not kidding where stereotypes should
Speaker 2: be opposed, whether.
Speaker 3: Those stereotypes are true or not.
Speaker 2: So the stereotype rule is that one responsible for generating
Speaker 2: the ridiculous image, but it demonstrates how dangerous language.
Speaker 3: Of this type itself is.
Speaker 2: The model is designed for image and techs to do
Speaker 2: his best to preduce false information, let's say, on racial stereotypes,
Speaker 2: even if they are literally true, like in the case
Speaker 2: of skin color. You can imagine a myriad other ways
Speaker 2: that this could manifest itself, for questions around affirmative action,
Speaker 2: test scores, crime statistics, and more. But this is where
Speaker 2: we reach a crossroads of how do we fix this problem? First,
Speaker 2: if we accept as a problem I think it is,
Speaker 2: I think people v allscripe should Yes, the examples I've
Speaker 2: highlighted are very coded right wing. But you should be
Speaker 2: terrified of the principle of a future where information presented
Speaker 2: to you as fact is explicitly curated to comply with
Speaker 2: political correctness in vogue at the time, especially if these
Speaker 2: are models and systems through which we will solely interact
Speaker 2: with the digital world and which will have a huge
Speaker 2: impact in teaching our children of the future. Second, if
Speaker 2: we accept that problem, we have to grapple with the
Speaker 2: system design itself effectively. What we have here is an
Speaker 2: AI arms race, the sheer cost of servers.
Speaker 3: Chips, and staff. Have only the biggest.
Speaker 2: Players right now that are open AI, which is backed
Speaker 2: by Microsoft. You have Google, you have Amazon, you have
Speaker 2: Meta Apple.
Speaker 3: Sometime in the future.
Speaker 2: There are multi trillion dollars of money and market cap
Speaker 2: and investment with little ability right now for startup entries
Speaker 2: to meaningfully enter into the space right now. So if
Speaker 2: we accept then that there's this path to fixing this,
Speaker 2: the first preferred solution of the establishment is going to
Speaker 2: make the same mistake that we did when it came
Speaker 2: to social media. We let massive monopolies arise, and then
Speaker 2: when the problems began to arise, we created a censorship
Speaker 2: industrial complex, through which the government, the NGOs, and ideology
Speaker 2: individually pressure these companies to censor their enemies.
Speaker 3: The counter argument that comes back, they.
Speaker 2: Say, no, no, no, don't censor us, censor our enemies, and
Speaker 2: then we enter a natural race to the bottom where
Speaker 2: government becomes all powerful and it works with just.
Speaker 3: A few of these entities.
Speaker 2: The other way is to declare now that we should
Speaker 2: not repeat the same mistake of the past. The way
Speaker 2: to get there is through decentralization and open source.
Speaker 3: Currently, the reason why quote unquote woke Google, woke.
Speaker 2: Chat, EPT and all these others are bad is because
Speaker 2: they are inside a controlled system models that are controlled
Speaker 2: by Sam Altman, CEO of Microsoft. The DEI to turn
Speaker 2: a team at Google the future AI team at Facebook.
Speaker 3: When you have an open.
Speaker 2: Source version of this, however, none of them are actually
Speaker 2: cutting edge themselves. Open source AI instead would allow for
Speaker 2: these models that become available to everyone, So instead of
Speaker 2: guessing as to whether something is programmed to be bad,
Speaker 2: you can know by simply looking at the code.
Speaker 3: It can be audited, It can then be tweaked by another.
Speaker 2: Open source would allow a first principles approach where we
Speaker 2: start from democratic grounds and we would build from there
Speaker 2: rather than allow mass centralization and jockey over who gets
Speaker 2: to pressure the oligarchs. It is genuinely vital that we
Speaker 2: act soon, or the exact same network effects that took
Speaker 2: place with Facebook and Google in the early days of
Speaker 2: the web will happen again with all the attendant massive
Speaker 2: social costs. Worst, if the AI optimists are right, it
Speaker 2: will replace a huge part of our digital life. It
Speaker 2: is the same current tech monopolies that will become stronger
Speaker 2: and more intrusive into our daily life than ever before.
Speaker 2: We will have to play catch up and only further
Speaker 2: and further get away from the dreams of the early Internet,
Speaker 2: which was a more connected, a more democratically informed, empowered
Speaker 2: society rather than a subjugated one. We know what our
Speaker 2: elites would prefer, which is why we should have to
Speaker 2: take it into our own hands. That's something that I
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time kind of thinking about this Crystal, and.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com, all right.
Speaker 2: At the same time, we had to put something fun
Speaker 2: in the show just to give us all a smile.
Speaker 3: A friend of the show, Taylor.
Speaker 2: Laron'z, a great journalist of course, probably a great admirer
Speaker 2: of this program, had a sit down interview with Chaia Raichik.
Speaker 2: She is the founder and the person who runs the
Speaker 2: libs of TikTok account on Twitter, previously of TikTok and
Speaker 2: of social media fame, which of course both of these
Speaker 2: individuals have become lightning rods on social media. And so
Speaker 2: there was a great summit between the two which occurred
Speaker 2: with some interesting moments which I think revealed something about
Speaker 2: the two of these people who are, for better or worse,
Speaker 2: central to our online politics debate and all of that.
Speaker 3: We've pulled some of this.
Speaker 2: We will be gating some of our reaction for our
Speaker 2: premium subscribers. So if you want to hear fully what
Speaker 2: we have to say Breakingpoints dot Com. With all of that,
Speaker 2: let's watch the video and we'll react on the other side.
Speaker 15: If you eradicate transgenderism, which I believe you suggested in
Speaker 15: a post today, I.
Speaker 11: Never suggested those.
Speaker 15: Oh okay, you reposted a post that was advocating for that.
Speaker 15: What would happen to the people that have already medically
Speaker 15: socially completely transitioned and or leading happy lives.
Speaker 11: What would happen to them? I mean, what's your plan
Speaker 11: for that?
Speaker 15: If transgenderinism doesn't exist, which it seems like you're that's
Speaker 15: what you believe. What happens to all the people living
Speaker 15: happy lives as trans people?
Speaker 20: Well, first of all, the whole trends is it's based
Speaker 20: on a lot. You can't change your you can't change
Speaker 20: your gender trunks, okay, But so they could go live
Speaker 20: their life. I mean, I can't tell someone what to
Speaker 20: do in their in their house.
Speaker 11: Sounds like you do want to tell people what to
Speaker 11: do in their house.
Speaker 3: I never said that.
Speaker 15: So you're totally okay with people being trands, just not
Speaker 15: as long as they're in public.
Speaker 20: No, I never said that they could. It's the whole
Speaker 20: thing is based off of a lie. And I think
Speaker 20: that the fact this lie cannot be mainstream in our
Speaker 20: in our society.
Speaker 11: It's just it's a lie. And what harm is it causing?
Speaker 11: Do you believe? I like the truth?
Speaker 15: I like truth, right, but I'm saying, what what's the
Speaker 15: what's the harm of people expressing their gender identity differently
Speaker 15: than you believe it to be? What?
Speaker 11: What harm are they causing. Like I said, we are
Speaker 11: a nation of truth, and I'm I seek the truth.
Speaker 15: But that's but I'm asking about the harm. What's the harm?
Speaker 15: You might believe it to be possible.
Speaker 20: The harm is that there's a lie that is very
Speaker 20: mainstream as being abouted into every institution.
Speaker 15: I guess I'm wondering what the material harm is, aside
Speaker 15: from it's maybe something that you disagree with, is in
Speaker 15: your version of the truth is different than their version.
Speaker 11: Of the truth.
Speaker 15: What is the material harm of them living in their
Speaker 15: life as a woman or man or gender that you
Speaker 15: don't have.
Speaker 20: Not anything that's wrong. Is there a material harm necessarily
Speaker 20: so there's no harm? I didn't say that.
Speaker 2: Who Okay, I have a lot to say about this.
Speaker 2: So it's funny because I think I said this to you.
Speaker 2: I think that the most midwit like right wing gen
Speaker 2: Z poster on Twitter could have given a better articulation
Speaker 2: of the quote unquote case against transgenderism than apparently the
Speaker 2: lives of TikTok founder could have.
Speaker 3: It's for a.
Speaker 2: Person who spends all day aggregating and pushing out all
Speaker 2: of these videos to not have apparently better formed views
Speaker 2: about this is genuinely stunning. I don't know what it
Speaker 2: takes really to make Taylor Lorenz look like intellectual in
Speaker 2: this entire discussion. So Christal, I don't know. I'm genuinely
Speaker 2: stunned by this interview. And we watched the full thing
Speaker 2: just so we're clear. None of that was edited or
Speaker 2: at least that was put out by them and hasn't
Speaker 2: been disputed yet, you know, by either of the parties
Speaker 2: that were involved. So I truly produced these two people
Speaker 2: deserve each other. That's that's my general take.
Speaker 1: I mean, for Kya to not be able to, i know,
Speaker 1: even articulate what her view even is.
Speaker 3: She keep saying I'm for freedom, It's like, what does
Speaker 3: that mean?
Speaker 1: She keeps saying, well, okay, so if you want to
Speaker 1: eradicate transgenderism, like you you know you liked or reposted
Speaker 1: I didn't say that, Okay, well do then you're fine
Speaker 1: with it?
Speaker 4: If you I didn't say, I mean, so what do
Speaker 4: you actually even believe?
Speaker 1: Let's start there, and then you can't articulate the basics
Speaker 1: of why you believe that. And to your points, Soccer like,
Speaker 1: this woman is obsessed with trans people.
Speaker 3: It's like her number one, this is her whole shit.
Speaker 1: She's doing this all day, every day and apparently won't
Speaker 1: even fully articulate what her views are, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean so the initial you know, moral outrage panic
Speaker 1: on the right about transfel was very focused on kids, right,
Speaker 1: and this was like, what's what's being taught to kids
Speaker 1: in schools and what procedures that are open to them,
Speaker 1: and you know, that's that's our focus, that's what we're
Speaker 1: concerned about. And in the beginning there is a very
Speaker 1: clear attempt to say grown ups can live your lives,
Speaker 1: do what you want.
Speaker 3: And I believe that to be clear.
Speaker 1: But as things have progressed, now you've got people like
Speaker 1: the Matt Walsh's of the world and others who know,
Speaker 1: we also want to impose our view of how you
Speaker 1: should act out your gender roles on all of the country,
Speaker 1: including you know, consenting adults just living their lives however
Speaker 1: they want to live their lives. I think that part
Speaker 1: of why Kaya has a hard time even saying what
Speaker 1: she even thinks is she knows that that piece is
Speaker 1: like very extreme and wildly unpopular with Americans who will
Speaker 1: instantly have revulsion to you trying to tell an adult
Speaker 1: how they should be and what they should do, and
Speaker 1: what decisions they should make in their own lives and
Speaker 1: with their own bodies. And so she's stumbling over that,
Speaker 1: and so can't even articulate the basics of our position,
Speaker 1: let alone how those adults living their lives create any
Speaker 1: sort of quote unquote material harm to other people in
Speaker 1: the world. So that's how you end up with this
Speaker 1: just embarrassing, incoherent display in which and that's the other thing.
Speaker 1: Taylors are not asking a hard questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, these are the most basic, easy questions.
Speaker 1: I could explain your philosophy, that's it, basically, and she can't.
Speaker 4: She can't do it.
Speaker 3: She keeps asking how the material of harm? That's the
Speaker 3: easiest question on earth.
Speaker 2: We could talk clearly about the detransitioners, about people and
Speaker 2: all of that who have identified as transgender, underwent life
Speaker 2: altering surgery and then now find themselves in an irreversible position,
Speaker 2: and they believe they were victims of social ideology.
Speaker 1: Which is a tiny tiny of the population.
Speaker 3: First of all, it's a brand new phenomenon. So that's it.
Speaker 2: And even if it is harm reduction quote unquote, as
Speaker 2: the Europeans have found, have found that that means that
Speaker 2: it's not necessarily something that you should just cavalierly come
Speaker 2: through with.
Speaker 3: We have a massive explosion of all.
Speaker 4: Kinds of decisions.
Speaker 1: I agree that they regret in their lives, and we
Speaker 1: don't ban them for doing that.
Speaker 2: I agree, if you were eighteen years old and you
Speaker 2: want to fundamentally alter your body chemistry, be my guest.
Speaker 3: Honestly you could do what you want. I don't think
Speaker 3: tax dollars should pay for it.
Speaker 2: And if you find yourself, you know, on the other
Speaker 2: side literally sexually dysfunctional, that's your fault. That's like people
Speaker 2: will get tattoos and then come to regret them later on.
Speaker 2: But if you're under the age of eighteen, I think
Speaker 2: there should be a total and complete.
Speaker 3: Ban on it now. Also in terms of any.
Speaker 2: Puberty blockers, I've basically become convinced of that just because
Speaker 2: of the irreparable harm.
Speaker 1: Should we've ban puberty blockers for girls who have early
Speaker 1: onset menstruation. That has been used in that context for decades.
Speaker 2: That's not to thing that's not the same. But it's
Speaker 2: being used No, but it's being used for medical first. No,
Speaker 2: but it's not chemically castrating those.
Speaker 1: It does have the same irrevocable harm because it's the
Speaker 1: same chemt okay.
Speaker 2: But that's a decision that can be made based upon
Speaker 2: a medical decision, not one based on a social explosion,
Speaker 2: where we see three hundred thousand years you have.
Speaker 1: Is more likely to litigate the medical decision gender politicians
Speaker 1: and kaya reischik or doctors and medical professionals in conjunction
Speaker 1: with families.
Speaker 2: I believe that the most of these decisions should remain
Speaker 2: within the family. When I said it here is that
Speaker 2: within the context of a social ideology and explosion. For
Speaker 2: three hundred thousand people now between the ages of thirteen
Speaker 2: and seventeen identifying as transgender, which has been some one
Speaker 2: thousand percent increase in the span of just ten years.
Speaker 2: It is so obviously a social ideology that is coming
Speaker 2: and being pushed I think by some elements of our society.
Speaker 1: But you completely discount also though, that there's increased acceptance
Speaker 1: which can lead to more people.
Speaker 3: I guess a thousand you think it's one thousand percent.
Speaker 1: You can also you also are ignoring the fact that
Speaker 1: the vast majority of people who identify as non binary
Speaker 1: or transgender don't go through with either the you know,
Speaker 1: hormonal true any sort of medical treatment, it's just more
Speaker 1: in how they present to the world, which Hya and
Speaker 1: others like her seem to have a problem with even that,
Speaker 1: which was something that in another part of this, Taylor
Speaker 1: was trying to press her on that piece of like right, well,
Speaker 1: where do you draw the line? And what if someone says,
Speaker 1: like the way that you're expressing your womanhood isn't appropriate?
Speaker 1: Like where do you draw the line on these things?
Speaker 1: Which is another thing that she just had no answer
Speaker 1: for us. Again, Hey guys, ready or not, twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four is here and we here at breaking points, are
Speaker 1: already thinking of ways we can up our game for
Speaker 1: this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, we will see you guys later.
Speaker 9: The k