Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Same time, we have had a slate of
Speaker 3: hearings that happened yesterday, confirmation hearings for incoming officials in
Speaker 3: the Trump administration. The most high profile person yesterday was
Speaker 3: Senator Marco Rubio, up for Secretary of State. Had a
Speaker 3: couple of interesting remarks. The most important for our purposes
Speaker 3: is really going to be about future policy visa the Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: Let me first stackle the President's words and what he
Speaker 4: said in an interview about a year ago. He was
Speaker 4: asked about the war in Ukraine, he says, I want
Speaker 4: to die to stop. I want people to stop dying.
Speaker 4: I want the killing to stop. And frankly, I don't
Speaker 4: know how anyone could say they don't. The destruction that
Speaker 4: Ukraine is undergoing is extraordinary. It's going to take a
Speaker 4: generation to rebuild it. Millions of Ukrainians no longer live
Speaker 4: in Ukraine, and the disruption that means so many of
Speaker 4: them are going to come back, and what are they
Speaker 4: going to come back to. Even as I speak to
Speaker 4: you now, the Ukrainian infrastructure and their energy infrastructure is
Speaker 4: being decimated in ways that are going to cost hundreds
Speaker 4: of billions of dollars to rebuild over the next decades.
Speaker 4: So this is an important conflicent. I think it should
Speaker 4: be the official position of the United States that this
Speaker 4: war should be brought to an end. And I think
Speaker 4: it should be the official policy of the United States
Speaker 4: that we want to see at end. Now what that
Speaker 4: master plan looks like, it's going to be hard work.
Speaker 4: This is not going to be an easy endeavor by
Speaker 4: this but it's going to require bold diplomacy. And my
Speaker 4: hope is that it could begin with some ceasefire and
Speaker 4: we're going to have there are in order to achieve
Speaker 4: objectives like the one that needs to occur in Ukrainian
Speaker 4: it is important for everyone to be realistic. There will
Speaker 4: have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but
Speaker 4: also by the Ukrainians and the United States lend itself there.
Speaker 4: It's also important that there'll be some balance on both sides.
Speaker 4: In essence, it will be difficult to achieve the subjective
Speaker 4: of a ceasefire and ultimately a peace settlement unless both
Speaker 4: sides have leverage.
Speaker 3: A couple of very interesting things that happened there. Number
Speaker 3: one is saying that, echoing Donald Trump's phrase, we need
Speaker 3: to stop the dying. But actually so I watched the
Speaker 3: entire hearing. The most important part was he says it's
Speaker 3: unrealistic to believe that Ukraine can ever push Russia back
Speaker 3: to pre February twenty twenty two invasion lines quote. There
Speaker 3: will also need to be concessions made by the Russian
Speaker 3: Federation and by the Ukrainians. He brought up later on
Speaker 3: Crystal the use of Russian sanctions as a leverage tool
Speaker 3: from the United States, effectively saying, listen, you guys, pull
Speaker 3: up this way, we'll take off these sanctions. I don't
Speaker 3: know how powerful that will be. The Russians have figured
Speaker 3: out a lot of ways around it.
Speaker 1: Sanctions. Turns out they don't actually work that well. Shocker.
Speaker 3: But I was very interested to say, I mean, this
Speaker 3: is effectively a declaration of policy here now from the
Speaker 3: incoming administration, that this idea of nothing without Ukraine. He
Speaker 3: even said, nothing without Ukraine, whatever long it takes, not
Speaker 3: going to happen.
Speaker 1: He's like, that era is over.
Speaker 3: But two, the mere acknowledgment of the incoming Secretary of
Speaker 3: State to say the pre February twenty twenty two is
Speaker 3: not going to happen. That is a radical change in
Speaker 3: US policy. I know that it was assumed and all
Speaker 3: this nobody really knew for sure, but I mean that
Speaker 3: is as close as you can get to an actual
Speaker 3: statement from the incoming White House. And in Kiev they
Speaker 3: must be I mean, they're probably freaking out, especially what
Speaker 3: happened after they're used to the Biden people just being like, okay, okay,
Speaker 3: you can shoot into Russia, but only two hundred yards,
Speaker 3: and then the next month be like, now three hundred yards,
Speaker 3: but all right, we'll let's do it, Okay, all right, sure, Well,
Speaker 3: let's do whatever you want. Yeah, Now, I mean this
Speaker 3: is a whole other this is a whole new thing.
Speaker 3: So arguably the most important thing that came out of
Speaker 3: my that hearing, in my opinion.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's probably right.
Speaker 2: I mean Trump says he's going to get us a
Speaker 2: deal on day one, and so we've seen.
Speaker 5: More days of war.
Speaker 1: Listen, Steve would cough, get your ass on the plane.
Speaker 3: The key to Moscow. He is our new Avrel Herriman,
Speaker 3: who was this rich banker. He was the FDR's ambassador
Speaker 3: of Moscow during World War Two.
Speaker 1: He was an excellent diplomat, by the way. So yeah,
Speaker 1: so listen, Steve, get over there, man, we need you.
Speaker 2: Part of what you say, though, does underscore the difficulty
Speaker 2: at this point of trying to bring this war to
Speaker 2: some sort of conclusion, because while with Israel we have
Speaker 2: all the leverage in the world, just requires the willpower
Speaker 2: to actually use it. With Russia we don't have as much.
Speaker 1: Any I mean, with Ukraine, we've got total.
Speaker 2: With Ukraine, we do, but you have to get the
Speaker 2: Russians to come to the table as well.
Speaker 5: So it is a tricky situation.
Speaker 2: But and you know, Rubio constitutionally like he is a
Speaker 2: hawk and especially with regards to anywhere in Latin America,
Speaker 2: which we'll get to in just a moment. But you know,
Speaker 2: I think there's almost a built way wide recognition, whether
Speaker 2: they want to admit it or not, that, like what
Speaker 2: Rubio said, it's just manifestly true. They're not going to
Speaker 2: be able to retake all of the I mean, they
Speaker 2: were talking about Pelosi saying or one hundred percent going
Speaker 2: to get back CRIMEA.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's not happening. Crazy, that's not happening.
Speaker 2: So it's nice to hear at least a little bit
Speaker 2: of realism here from Rubio. We'll see how it actually
Speaker 2: plays out in practice, and the means that Trump uses
Speaker 2: he's a wild card in order to try to secure
Speaker 2: some sort of an end to the conflict if he
Speaker 2: decides to go in that direction. It was interesting, you know,
Speaker 2: it's so interesting watching Washington work like Rubio is basically,
Speaker 2: I mean, he is effectively a Neyoka.
Speaker 5: He's a hawkish guy.
Speaker 2: There's lots of always has been right, that is his
Speaker 2: ideological direction. The fact that he gets put in as
Speaker 2: Secretary of State is really antithetical to the idea that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is going to be oriented in this
Speaker 2: anti war kind of a way, and so you would think,
Speaker 2: like if it was you or I questioning, it would
Speaker 2: be contentious. But because Rubio is one of them, it's
Speaker 2: relatively like, you know, it's very core Joel The Washington
Speaker 2: Post endorsed him, like.
Speaker 5: You know, they're like, oh, he's one of us.
Speaker 2: He can yeah, he's respect he passes their respectability threshold.
Speaker 2: So it's a much different approach to him. I did
Speaker 2: think there was an interesting line of questioning taken by
Speaker 2: Senator Chris Murphy. He submerged as a kind of an
Speaker 2: interesting voice here in the second Trump emerging, second Trump term,
Speaker 2: where he really pressed Rubio on Trump's corruption and the
Speaker 2: fact that and this is this very important line of argument.
Speaker 2: Trump has these business deals all around the world, but
Speaker 2: in particular, he has massive and Kushner have massive financial
Speaker 2: interests in the Middle East and with the golf Arab
Speaker 2: states Trump, we don't even know how much money he's
Speaker 2: getting from this frickin Saudi live golf tour. They're going
Speaker 2: to have another event at one of his properties. That's
Speaker 2: just one example. Kushner got what two billion dollars from
Speaker 2: the Saudis they're all kinds of financial entanglements there. And
Speaker 2: you know, when you've got a president who the largest
Speaker 2: sphere of influence that a president has is in terms
Speaker 2: of foreign policy, you have to ask the question, how
Speaker 2: are these financial entanglements impacting their views and their approach
Speaker 2: to foreign policy. Is this just about American interest or
Speaker 2: is this about your business interest as well. Chris Murphy
Speaker 2: made this point and pressed Center Rubio on exactly this direction.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 6: Over the last eight years while he was in office
Speaker 6: and since he's been out of office, he and his
Speaker 6: family have become more deeply dependent on revenue from governments
Speaker 6: in the Middle East. During his last presidency, Middle East
Speaker 6: interests sent about ten million dollars to Trump properties. After
Speaker 6: he left office, Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, who
Speaker 6: was his primary Middle East envoy, was handed two billion
Speaker 6: dollars in investment by the Saudis, even though a Saudi
Speaker 6: investment board said the investment was a bad business decision.
Speaker 6: That investment actually comes up for renewal in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 6: giving the Saudi's massive leverage over the Trump family. And
Speaker 6: then to make matters worse. Right after the election, the
Speaker 6: Trump Organization said that in this term, the president elects
Speaker 6: second term, it would drop its previous prohibition on doing
Speaker 6: new deals in the Middle East with private with private
Speaker 6: foreign companies aligned with foreign governments. So the Trump Organization
Speaker 6: is going to be signing new business deals in the
Speaker 6: Middle East with private companies that have connections to foreign
Speaker 6: governments at the very moment that you are going to
Speaker 6: be conducting sensitive diplomacy in these countries. That's just extraordinary.
Speaker 6: Never before in the history of this country has a
Speaker 6: president been, I mean literally receiving cash from foreign governments
Speaker 6: and from foreign companies that are backed by foreign governments
Speaker 6: in the middle of their term. If you or I
Speaker 6: had done this as senators, we would be in violent
Speaker 6: violation of Senate ethics rule. Do you have an issue
Speaker 6: or will you raise an issue with the President about
Speaker 6: his growing financial connection with the governments that you're going
Speaker 6: to be negotiating with.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I am not neither authorized nor
Speaker 4: in any position to give you sort of any insights
Speaker 4: into any of these arrangements you've pointed out. You mentioned
Speaker 4: Jared Kushner as an example. He's a private citizen happens
Speaker 4: to be a Floridian. I don't know what, if any,
Speaker 4: engagement he has in the work that's going on. Now.
Speaker 4: I can tell you what I know. Obviously I'm not
Speaker 4: in the State Department yet, but I can tell you
Speaker 4: as an example, the President's envoid to that region who
Speaker 4: is charged. Steve Woodcoff, who was charged with being an
Speaker 4: onvoid towards reaching an accommodation between the Israelis and the Saudis,
Speaker 4: has been working cooperatively and together with the Biden administration,
Speaker 4: and in fact, I dare say that all involved deserve
Speaker 4: credit for the seaswire that the Chairman's just announced, but
Speaker 4: Steve wood calls been a critical component of it, and
Speaker 4: he has been involved in it from day one. I
Speaker 4: think the broader consideration about whether we want to see
Speaker 4: a Saudi Israeli mutual recognition and relationship would be one
Speaker 4: of the most historic developments in the history of the region.
Speaker 4: They have a right to be in the business. I mean,
Speaker 4: that's the business that they're in. They're in the real
Speaker 4: estate business. They've been for a very long time, both
Speaker 4: domestically and abroad. They have properties in multiple countries. So
Speaker 4: at the end of the day, I don't know his
Speaker 4: family is entitled to continue to operate their business. The
Speaker 4: fundamental question is not whether his family is involved in business.
Speaker 4: The fundamental question is whether that is in any way
Speaker 4: impacting the conduct of our foreign policy in a way
Speaker 4: that's counter to our national interests. And the Presence made
Speaker 4: abundantly clear that every decision he makes, and every decision
Speaker 4: we are to make at the State Department, should be
Speaker 4: driven by whether or not it serves the core national
Speaker 4: interests of the United States.
Speaker 2: So in any case, you're not going to get much
Speaker 2: out for Abana there. But I think that's a very
Speaker 2: important question, because we're a long way from Jimmy Carter
Speaker 2: selling his peanut farm in order to avoid any conflicts
Speaker 2: of interest. In fact, not only with regard to foreign
Speaker 2: government entanglements, but I mean, everybody knows the way to
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's art is through his pocketbooks. So they've been
Speaker 2: showering him with like insane amounts of money even after
Speaker 2: he wins reelection into his campaign coffies. They can't even
Speaker 2: run again, and yet all this money, hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars flowing into his campaign coffers. You know, Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: and Sam Altman and all these people sucking up to
Speaker 2: him with million dollar contributions into the inauguration fund. And
Speaker 2: then obviously you know the Golf AUP States in particular,
Speaker 2: they were early movers in this direction. I mean, the
Speaker 2: thing to Jared Kushner was just a flat out bribe.
Speaker 2: We know that MBS intervened in that decision to fund
Speaker 2: him to that regard, he had been rejected by the
Speaker 2: larger Council, and MBS came in over the top and
Speaker 2: was like, no, no, no, we're going to We're gonna make
Speaker 2: this one happen for him. So very legitimate, long line
Speaker 2: of questioning. Obviously you don't get anything useful out of
Speaker 2: Rubio there. The other thing that was just worth a
Speaker 2: mention that Glenn Greenwold pointed out is New York Times
Speaker 2: Hawks in particular Brett Stevens already making their move with
Speaker 2: Rubio lined up here to be Secretary of State, and
Speaker 2: he is almost certainly going to get confirmed by I
Speaker 2: think a large margin. I think a lot of Democrats
Speaker 2: will vote for Yeah, I think a lot of Democrats
Speaker 2: are going to vote for him as well. But New
Speaker 2: York Times publishing an op ed literally calling for military
Speaker 2: intervention into Venezuela to take out Maduro. We can put
Speaker 2: this up on the screen. This is B three. Donald
Speaker 2: Trump has set some grandiose foreign policy goals for a
Speaker 2: second term. They say, here's one goal that's overdue morally.
Speaker 2: Wright an international security interest deposing the regime of Nicholas
Speaker 2: Medoro in Venezuela through colercive diplomacy if possible, or force
Speaker 2: if necessary. Any lays out the case for why we
Speaker 2: should be willing to wage a regime change war in Venezuela,
Speaker 2: something that certainly Marco Rubio would be. If anyone it
Speaker 2: would be open to such a thing, it would be
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio.
Speaker 3: Well, the only thing I can say is, at least
Speaker 3: we have seen Donald Trump has been able to exert
Speaker 3: some influence. Rubio was sing a real different tune on Ukraine,
Speaker 3: and at least these guys know that it's not up
Speaker 3: to them in public.
Speaker 1: Behind the scenes, I have no idea.
Speaker 3: In fact, Latin America is one of the very things
Speaker 3: I warned about, because it's the problem is is that
Speaker 3: you can only do that for stuff that you really
Speaker 3: care a lot about. But when you have somebody like
Speaker 3: that Secretary State in power, there's a lots of that
Speaker 3: goes on behind the scenes. I've talked about this extensively,
Speaker 3: that you have no power, that you have no interest
Speaker 3: in right back burner relationship Venezuela whatever, who cares. So
Speaker 3: that means that's kind of default up to the Secretary
Speaker 3: of State. Now what policy is he going to pursue.
Speaker 3: Don't forget you know, John Bolton and all that in
Speaker 3: the past always advocated for a regime change in Venezuela.
Speaker 3: So we're all going to keep our eyes on that one.
Speaker 3: And I genuinely think that is the biggest danger area.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's a significant constituency in favor of EUD
Speaker 2: that's where it goes.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go to the next one. This was
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi.
Speaker 3: She's going to be the art is up for Attorney General,
Speaker 3: probably going to get it. Looks pretty likely she was
Speaker 3: pressed about election certification in twenty twenty and some of
Speaker 3: those cases.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: That's central to the peaceful transition of power in a
Speaker 7: democracy is the acceptance of the results of an election.
Speaker 7: To my knowledge, Donald Trump has never acknowledged the legal
Speaker 7: results of the twenty twenty election. Are you prepared to
Speaker 7: say today, under oath without reservation, that Donald Trump lost
Speaker 7: the presidential contest to Joe Biden in twenty twenty.
Speaker 8: Ranky Member Dervin. President Biden is the President of the
Speaker 8: United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is
Speaker 8: the President of the United States. There was a peaceful
Speaker 8: transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly
Speaker 8: elected in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So yeah, typical.
Speaker 3: But I mean, listen, I guess one, now this doesn't
Speaker 3: really matter anymore. Let's put this one up there on
Speaker 3: the screen as well, because we wanted to keep you
Speaker 3: guys updated. Tulsi Gabberd's confirmation hearing is probably the diceiest
Speaker 3: one currently just in terms of the number of votes,
Speaker 3: and also it has not yet been scheduled, which people
Speaker 3: are very interested in. Shall we say. They are blaming
Speaker 3: it on procedural paperwork issues, but here the Washington Artistartre
Speaker 3: of the Wall Street Journal reports quote some Senate Republicans
Speaker 3: have left recent meetings with former Tulsi gapp Representative Telsea
Speaker 3: Gabbard with reservations about her qualifications. Those concerns have largely
Speaker 3: remained private, and gopmakers are expected to publicly support her
Speaker 3: despite that, but further missteps could jeopardize her nomination. In
Speaker 3: her meeting with Senator James Langford, Gabbard couldn't clearly articulate
Speaker 3: what the role of the D and I entails, According
Speaker 3: to two of her Republican aids and two transition officials.
Speaker 3: When she met with Senator Mike Rounds, she seemed confused
Speaker 3: about a key US national security surveillance power that's the
Speaker 3: top legislative priority for nearly every member. I'm assuming we're
Speaker 3: talking about seven zero two. They're keep in mind, these
Speaker 3: are anonymous leagues.
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 3: They probably want a knew ger and so they're sending
Speaker 3: this to the journal. The point, though, is that this
Speaker 3: is the first one I have seen where they said
Speaker 3: there were multiple people behind the scenes who are very,
Speaker 3: very skeptical of her. Senator Susan Collins, for example, has
Speaker 3: told reporters that she's going to wait for the background
Speaker 3: check before making any decisions. So they're not outright coming
Speaker 3: out and saying that they would vote for her. Senator
Speaker 3: John Curtis of Utah said he quote needs more information.
Speaker 1: And that was just on Tuesdays.
Speaker 3: It was a couple of days ago before he can
Speaker 3: decide to vote for her.
Speaker 1: So there are multiple people.
Speaker 3: It seems, behind the scenes who are way like weary
Speaker 3: and absent direct intererviation from Trump. Let's say there's one
Speaker 3: thing they can hang their hat on, then they She's
Speaker 3: only one vote away from getting voted down. So she
Speaker 3: right now actually seems to be in a way more
Speaker 3: precarious position than even ourf cagion.
Speaker 5: I think that's right. I think that's right.
Speaker 2: I mean you have to think about both the personal
Speaker 2: and the ideological.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The Democrats hater because she's a turncoat, right exactly, she
Speaker 2: cannot count We'll not get a single vote. She cannot
Speaker 2: count on any support from the Democratic You may have
Speaker 2: one or who knows, but she cannot count on any
Speaker 2: support from the Democratic caucus because she's a turncoat.
Speaker 5: They don't want to support her.
Speaker 2: The Republicans, you have a lot of ideological concern because
Speaker 2: of things she said in the past. Now she's proven
Speaker 2: herself like willing to bend with the wind and you know,
Speaker 2: flip completely her position on Section seven oh two whatever.
Speaker 2: But they don't trust her, right and she doesn't have
Speaker 2: her really she was in the Senate, so she doesn't
Speaker 2: have a relationship with these people, And I'm just gonna
Speaker 2: be honest with you. When you're around Tulci Gabbard, she
Speaker 2: comes off kind of odd, like she's a hard person
Speaker 2: to like, really immediately click with. So the Republicans are like,
Speaker 2: not sure about this one now. I think they'll probably
Speaker 2: all end up voting for her. Donald Trump wants her.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is likely to get her.
Speaker 5: But if there was any other shoe to drop with
Speaker 5: her and.
Speaker 2: They had an excuse to not vote for her, I
Speaker 2: think that there are a number of them who would
Speaker 2: take that excuse to.
Speaker 5: Not vote for her. And the margin is very narrow.
Speaker 2: Republicans control fifty three seats in the Senate, so she
Speaker 2: only has a few that she could lead lose assuming
Speaker 2: that she gets absolutely no Democratic support, So hers is
Speaker 2: definitely the most on the rocks. Again, I expect that
Speaker 2: the most likely outcome is she also gets through. But
Speaker 2: this leak to the Wall Street Journal is, you know,
Speaker 2: a little bit of like a test balloon. I feel
Speaker 2: like to the Trump people of like, well, if we
Speaker 2: didn't vote for this one, how mad would you.
Speaker 1: Be at us? Effectively?
Speaker 3: Yet, so let's all watch it. It's very possible that
Speaker 3: it may not happen the hearings. I mean, we've only
Speaker 3: got four days till Donald Trump is going to take office.
Speaker 3: They're going to continue a little bit after that. But
Speaker 3: da I mean, John Ratcliffe appears to be able to
Speaker 3: go through like quite easily for CIA director. But as
Speaker 3: of things where they stand right now, Kirsty Nome and
Speaker 3: Telsea Gabbard and R. K. Junior do not have hearings
Speaker 3: currently scheduled before the committees, which itself is kind of
Speaker 3: a problem, just because the longer this drags out, the
Speaker 3: more juice and energy that may be able to have.
Speaker 1: That said, probably more likely not she gets confirmed.
Speaker 3: But she's the one who I only have at like
Speaker 3: the fifty five percentile as opposed to the rest where
Speaker 3: I have in like the sixties and plus absence.
Speaker 1: Something pretty crazy what happened.
Speaker 3: At the same time, Turning to Vivik Ramaswami, it seems
Speaker 3: that there could be a way out of him for DOGE,
Speaker 3: but it wouldn't be necessarily a firing, maybe just moving off.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen. Our very
Speaker 3: own Jeff Stein has scooped this report. Ramaswami is being
Speaker 3: encouraged by Donald Trump to consider filling Ohio's vacant Senate seat.
Speaker 3: So remember jd Vance has officially vacated his seat as
Speaker 3: United States Senator before he's worn in as the Vice
Speaker 3: President of the United States in interim, Mike DeWine has
Speaker 3: a few days before he has to name the replacement
Speaker 3: for jd Vance. Now, the reason why that's important is
Speaker 3: that it is presumed whoever Diwine will appoint to fill
Speaker 3: out the remainder of the two years on jd Vance's term,
Speaker 3: that that person will then run for the seat after
Speaker 3: the term is up in twenty twenty six. Okay, So
Speaker 3: when we think about that though, it means that Shared Brown,
Speaker 3: who just narrowly lost his election Crystal, could actually run
Speaker 3: against the vivike Rama Swami. So part of the reason
Speaker 3: why people are afraid of appointing Viveke is, Yeah, look,
Speaker 3: he might be a beloved Maga figure and all this
Speaker 3: Ohio read, but it's not that red. We're not talking
Speaker 3: about Montana or something like this. And Shrige is a
Speaker 3: very unique political talent. Also, black Swan stuff happens all
Speaker 3: the time. Right in two years, who knows what's going
Speaker 3: to happen. Trump could be massively unpopular, like in the
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen midterms, and you can have all these people
Speaker 3: who get elected who have no business usually getting elected
Speaker 3: in their home state. You know, you don't want to
Speaker 3: leave a lot of things up to chance. But it
Speaker 3: seems clear that Trump Viveke is not tweeted in what
Speaker 3: two weeks January third, So it's been thirteen days since
Speaker 3: we've heard from Vivike.
Speaker 1: He's been effectively disappeared.
Speaker 3: Trump is now leaking or people around them are leaking
Speaker 3: that they want him to go take this Ohio sentence.
Speaker 3: So clearly they're like, yeah, this doge thing, maybe that's
Speaker 3: going to happen. The other argument here is that he
Speaker 3: didn't piss Trump off. He pissed off Elon, which I
Speaker 3: think is equally possible. Is big egos, you know, eat,
Speaker 3: maybe Elon doesn't necessarily want to share the doge mantle
Speaker 3: with Viveke Ramas swam and he told Trump He's like, hey,
Speaker 3: I need you to get rid of a vic for me.
Speaker 3: So I don't know what's happening, you know now, But
Speaker 3: it is interesting because they had zero chance of getting
Speaker 3: the Senate seed zero Like previously Mike Dwine were about
Speaker 3: to show everybody. Ohio local media had lists of people floated.
Speaker 3: As of a couple of days ago. His name's not
Speaker 3: even on the damn list. It was one hundred percent assumed.
Speaker 3: But ever since this hold h one b saga, it
Speaker 3: now seems that Trump is looking for a way to
Speaker 3: get him out of the government and shunked him over
Speaker 3: to the Senate. A little weird though, because senator is
Speaker 3: actually like a very important job, like also your own
Speaker 3: principle and your own right. You know, I'm not so
Speaker 3: sure how Ohioan's feel about being called lazy. Love to
Speaker 3: see that one go over good luck, good luck to you.
Speaker 3: I'm sure shared would make a so I'm very curious
Speaker 3: to see what happens here. But nonetheless, something is happening.
Speaker 3: Either he pissed Trump off or he pissed off Elon.
Speaker 3: He hasn't tweeted it in a while, and now this
Speaker 3: thing before he's even taken his job.
Speaker 1: Now he's being flowed for another job. You don't want
Speaker 1: to be this whenever you're here in DALs.
Speaker 2: Could be some combination of both, but the pissing off
Speaker 2: Elon thing actually does make some sense, because this.
Speaker 5: Did the vics.
Speaker 2: You know, boy, meets World Saved by the Bell infamous
Speaker 2: tweet at this point, which seems to have spelled somewhat
Speaker 2: of an undoing here in Maga world. I mean, that
Speaker 2: is part of what brought so much wrath against not
Speaker 2: just a fake but against Elon's the h I mean
Speaker 2: that just was absolute fuel on the fire. And you
Speaker 2: can see the way that Elon has reacted, you know,
Speaker 2: jumping into the UK Grooming Gang's discussion and all of
Speaker 2: that in an effort to regain the credibility that he
Speaker 2: previously had with Mega. So he clearly sees this as
Speaker 2: having been a problem for him with regard to his
Speaker 2: rep on the right.
Speaker 5: And yeah, Vivek was an.
Speaker 2: Important part of creating that story and making it as
Speaker 2: much of a conflagration as it ultimately was. So that
Speaker 2: does actually make sense to me that Elon was like,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't really need this dude around, Like,
Speaker 2: go do something else with him, Go to the hinterlands
Speaker 2: and run for this Senate seat in the you know,
Speaker 2: in his conception, Yeah, I don't know how it will
Speaker 2: go for him if he's running against Jared Brown, who's
Speaker 2: probably the one Democrat who could potentially still even win
Speaker 2: in the state of Ohio has tons of working class
Speaker 2: and labor cred. After Viveake did his whole screed against
Speaker 2: the white working class and kind of showed us colors there,
Speaker 2: that might be a little bit of a difficult thing
Speaker 2: to overcome. And then the other thing Sager that I
Speaker 2: didn't realize is apparently Vivecan wanted to run for governor
Speaker 2: of Ohio, which is up in twenty twenty six, which
Speaker 2: if you are in this Senate seat and you get appointed,
Speaker 2: then you have to run in twenty twenty six for
Speaker 2: the full Senate term. So it creates some awkward timing
Speaker 2: for him. So and then you've got DeWine who just won,
Speaker 2: I mean Diwine won his seat, and absolute Landslide has
Speaker 2: its own power base in the state of Ohio, does
Speaker 2: not have to kowtow to Donald Trump and you know,
Speaker 2: enact his wishes. But then what does he want to
Speaker 2: do post governor's mansion? Does he want some sort of
Speaker 2: administration gig? Is there something that Trump could give him
Speaker 2: as well? So there's a lot of different interesting political
Speaker 2: peace is here going on, But the most fascinating one
Speaker 2: is the big standing within Maga world visa v. Trump
Speaker 2: Visa v Elon and how they clearly are trying to
Speaker 2: kind of push him aside and push him out of DOGE.
Speaker 5: At this point.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, let's put C three up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: So this is why this is a time sensitive segment.
Speaker 3: Governor DeWine is set to put his is set to
Speaker 3: name this person, like I said, any day now. According
Speaker 3: to somebody close to him, this was local Ohio media.
Speaker 3: They say, whoever it is has to be sworn in
Speaker 3: or should be sworn in before Jdvance is sworn in
Speaker 3: as vice president on January twentieth. Okay, so that means
Speaker 3: like we're talking about four days and now this is
Speaker 3: a very fast moving thing. The previous names that have
Speaker 3: been floated are the Lieutenant Governor John Husted. Sorry, by
Speaker 3: the way, to the local ohioans, I don't know who
Speaker 3: you are. Other notable names include the Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague,
Speaker 3: former state Senator Matt Role, yeah Big Sprague, Head Secretary
Speaker 3: of State Frank LaRose, Columbus Area Congressman Might Care, and
Speaker 3: former Ohio Republican Party chair Jane Timkin.
Speaker 1: I don't know why that name.
Speaker 5: I know she's familiar to me, so she ran for
Speaker 5: something else. I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's funny some of these names, they're back here somewhere
Speaker 3: from various news coverage now over the years. But the
Speaker 3: point is, every single one of the folks that we
Speaker 3: just listed are Ohioans in their own right. There are
Speaker 3: people who are long standing ties in the state. They
Speaker 3: have been floated previously. Vivek is from Ohio. I don't
Speaker 3: actually know if he lives there. I'm assuming he does,
Speaker 3: probably has houses everywhere. But he was not even on
Speaker 3: the short list. It was assumed one hundred percent of
Speaker 3: was going into dog. So the question mark now is
Speaker 3: if he does get it. Was that an Elon move?
Speaker 3: It makes some very interesting politics going forward. Man, I
Speaker 3: would love to cover that if he is. If he
Speaker 3: gets it, I'm gonna go to Ohio to go see
Speaker 3: the midterm. I got to see it for myself, Like
Speaker 3: this h one b stuff, Share it and it would
Speaker 3: be an incredible race.
Speaker 2: It absolutely would well because I mean not only the
Speaker 2: victims anti why working class creed, but also I mean,
Speaker 2: here he is this billionaire dude who you know, basically
Speaker 2: got rich from scamming investors on this Alzheimer's drug that
Speaker 2: had already failed test trials multiple times, and so there's
Speaker 2: a lot to work with that someone like Shared can
Speaker 2: actually make Hay out a different Democrat. Like we had this,
Speaker 2: you know problem in Virginia with Glen Youngkin running against
Speaker 2: Terry mccuff. Like Colo couldn't make anything of Glenn Youngkin's
Speaker 2: past financial dealings.
Speaker 5: Because he was implicated in that sort of thing as well.
Speaker 2: So so yeah, he couldn't make anything out of it.
Speaker 2: But Shared Brown, that's his lane. He would know how
Speaker 2: to exploit those weaknesses with regard to if the vague,
Speaker 2: So that would be I'm cheering for it just because
Speaker 2: that would be a really interesting race to cover and
Speaker 2: listen if you had to.
Speaker 5: Bet right now.
Speaker 2: I mean, just history is that typically the opposition party
Speaker 2: does well in the first mid term. After you know that,
Speaker 2: there's like a backlash and people want to check and
Speaker 2: the opposition is motivated and the people were in power
Speaker 2: less motivated. So you know, that also makes things more interesting.
Speaker 3: I think there's only been three midterms since the eighteen
Speaker 3: hundreds where the party in power has gained seats, so
Speaker 3: three since the eighteen hundreds. Biden was actually one of
Speaker 3: those who defied expectations shockingly enough only to go on
Speaker 3: to get blown out in the next election. So that
Speaker 3: goes to show you public opinion is very thermostatic, and
Speaker 3: it moves around a lot. You can get do well
Speaker 3: on the midterms, you can get blown out in the
Speaker 3: general election. So things happen and they move and they
Speaker 3: shake all the time. Yes, all right, let's get to California.
Speaker 2: Yes, So, John Stewart had a in my opinion, fantastic
Speaker 2: monologue talking about the LA wildfires and really in particular
Speaker 2: going after Republicans for suggesting, and many of them will
Speaker 2: show you in a minute, including Speaker of the House
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson, that either California not get aid or that
Speaker 2: it be tied to some sort of preconditions. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen to a little bit of what John Stewart
Speaker 2: had to say.
Speaker 10: Problem now is Republicans apperior to want to attached there.
Speaker 10: I told you SOS as a condition of funding California's
Speaker 10: disaster relief, expect.
Speaker 7: That there will be strings attached to money that is
Speaker 7: ultimately approved.
Speaker 1: I think there should probably be conditions on that day.
Speaker 5: That's my personal view.
Speaker 10: Before we put funds into place, we've got to find
Speaker 10: out exactly how we're going to hold these leaders accountable
Speaker 10: and what sort of policy changes are required. Reb states
Speaker 10: are always the tragic victims of circumstance outside of their control,
Speaker 10: and Democrats always vote for their aid, whereas blue state
Speaker 10: disasters are a function of their flawed morality and policy.
Speaker 10: And if we help blue state survivors, well, what message
Speaker 10: will that send? Improvements can be made in leadership, in management,
Speaker 10: in design, in materials, in myriad ways, but sometimes fire
Speaker 10: fox a tornado and make some mockery of human infrastructure
Speaker 10: and our ability to dictate the terms of our existence
Speaker 10: on this planet. One thing it shouldn't dictate is the
Speaker 10: cruelty that we would show to those in pain because
Speaker 10: we don't think they consistently vote right.
Speaker 2: I think that is all very well said, And I
Speaker 2: was telling you, Sager, one of the things that actually
Speaker 2: radicalized me against the Democratic Party is when I lived
Speaker 2: in Kentucky, and Kentucky has was one of the sort
Speaker 2: of shifting red states that actually held on to Democratic
Speaker 2: majorities in their state House for a long time. This,
Speaker 2: like Appalachian Realignment, was the last one to happen at
Speaker 2: the state level, and the number of just I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about like you know, Nancy Plis, I'm
Speaker 2: talking about just random Democrats online who as this raft
Speaker 2: of terrible legislation, attacks on teachers, pension, and attacks on
Speaker 2: labor unions, et cetera, et cetera, was rolling through the
Speaker 2: Kentucky State House and being signed into legislation by the
Speaker 2: at that time Republican governor Matt Bevin.
Speaker 5: Who were like, we'll screw you.
Speaker 2: You should have voted different, like you should have known better,
Speaker 2: you should have done something different. And I found that
Speaker 2: attitude so disgusting because I don't think whether people have
Speaker 2: a good life or not should be dependent on whether
Speaker 2: they voted for the politician that you like or don't like.
Speaker 2: I you know, have Karen Bass I think has made
Speaker 2: a mess politically for herself.
Speaker 5: She pled she wouldn't go out in the country.
Speaker 2: Then she was out in the country when the worst
Speaker 2: disaster possible struck the state. I am no Gavin Newsom fan.
Speaker 2: I don't think that should have anything to do with
Speaker 2: whether or not people who just lost their homes and
Speaker 2: everything they ever worked for, whether or not they get aid.
Speaker 2: Some of those people, by the way, are Republicans too.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of Republicans in California, though the
Speaker 2: state overall is blue. And if we start going down
Speaker 2: this path of saying I'm only giving aid and only
Speaker 2: helping out when you vote for the politicians that I
Speaker 2: want you to vote for, there is no end to
Speaker 2: that hell for this country that we would go, I.
Speaker 1: Will look, I'll split the difference.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying I'm fine with conditioning aid as long
Speaker 3: as it's reasonable. And what I mean by that is,
Speaker 3: for example, like when we bailed out pension funds, right,
Speaker 3: we don't bail out pension funds and allow them to
Speaker 3: just continue doing business after two thousand and eight. We'll
Speaker 3: bail you out, but we need to have some systematic
Speaker 3: reform to make sure that this stuff doesn't happen. So
Speaker 3: if it was actually policy focused, I would be fine.
Speaker 3: But the problem is is if they're for example, as
Speaker 3: people here know, I don't agree with the electoral vehicle
Speaker 3: mandate at all.
Speaker 1: It had nothing to do with the fire.
Speaker 3: So we shouldn't be bailing out the state, conditioning on them,
Speaker 3: reversing policy that has nothing to do with the actual
Speaker 3: circumstances here. So let's say we're talking about water reservoir Well,
Speaker 3: we're like all right, Well, here's this money for this
Speaker 3: water reservoir to build ten more. Don't use it for
Speaker 3: something else. I'm fine with that, you know whatever. I
Speaker 3: don't even know if.
Speaker 1: It's necessarily conditioning eight.
Speaker 3: But if it's about broader politics, I'd be totally against it.
Speaker 3: I mean another principal thing too. People here, now, I
Speaker 3: love California always. Well, it doesn't matter how screwed up
Speaker 3: it gets. It's just a beautiful state. But the thing
Speaker 3: is is, we're given unconditioned aid to Ukraine and to Israel,
Speaker 3: but we're going to condition aid to the state of Calcia.
Speaker 1: That's too much for me.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Where I'm like, so the Israelis can do whatever they
Speaker 3: want with our money, and so the Ukrainians can do
Speaker 3: whatever we want through our money.
Speaker 1: And look, I can make.
Speaker 3: An economic case probably California deserves to get bailed out
Speaker 3: than any other state in the entire nation. They paid
Speaker 3: probably more income tax to the federal government than anybody else.
Speaker 3: They've got the biggest population. It's a G seven nation
Speaker 3: in its own right. You got twenty five percent of
Speaker 3: the GDP of the entire country tied up in an
Speaker 3: industry which is headquartered there. So look, got a lot
Speaker 3: of problems and all that, but you know, if California
Speaker 3: is split off from America, we'd be screwed.
Speaker 1: It'd be not good for any of us.
Speaker 3: So look just based on that alone, and then you've
Speaker 3: got the civic argument here, which is, look at state
Speaker 3: just like any other I would stay for Alabama, I'd
Speaker 3: say from Mississippi. All these other states which are probably
Speaker 3: net negatives you know, on a balance sheet for the
Speaker 3: federal government, doesn't mean they aren't our citizens. Puerto Rico,
Speaker 3: any of these places. If you're under our purview, we
Speaker 3: take care of you. So yeah, I have some problems
Speaker 3: with it, and I just think it'd be absurd.
Speaker 1: I also do think.
Speaker 2: It's pretty antithetical the America first conception of it, when
Speaker 2: you're like, sure, Israel have whatever you want, but oh,
Speaker 2: struggling citizen in California.
Speaker 5: Sorry, not a big Karen Bass fan.
Speaker 3: So your and I do think that there are I mean,
Speaker 3: like you said, there are a lot of Republicans in California.
Speaker 1: I need to go look it up. I have millions
Speaker 1: of people.
Speaker 5: I saw someone there.
Speaker 2: I think just the state is so large, but I
Speaker 2: think there's the largest number of Republicans of any state
Speaker 2: in the state of California, just simply because it is
Speaker 2: such a large population there.
Speaker 3: Population shift all the time. I I can tell you this.
Speaker 3: I know people in La California, they have been radicalized.
Speaker 3: Things are very going to be They're going to be
Speaker 3: very different. I think the LA elite. I mean, look
Speaker 3: at ari Emmanuels are supporting a recall on not officially,
Speaker 3: but he's like endorsed Karen Bass. He's the unofficial mayor
Speaker 3: right like WMME. You've got people like Rick Caruso and others,
Speaker 3: the tech guys, half of them are right wing. Peter
Speaker 3: Thiel lives in La. There's a lot of right wingers
Speaker 3: who live in LA. There's a lot of very rich Californians.
Speaker 3: But not just them. Now, the voters, they've got a
Speaker 3: good case against Karen. I mean, she's done right, she's dead.
Speaker 3: She's never gonna I would certainly, Yeah, she'll probably get
Speaker 3: a recalled given them what's happened to her, and that
Speaker 3: guy Rick Caruso is probably gonna win. So you can
Speaker 3: think about You've got all these guys and others who
Speaker 3: are effectively supporting a Dino like a Democrat in name only,
Speaker 3: I mean, who cares whether it's Democrat or Republican if
Speaker 3: you want the policy to change. This would actually give
Speaker 3: Karen Bass and some of the liberals an argument for
Speaker 3: why to you know, to argue against people like the
Speaker 3: actual reformers and others that you may want to see
Speaker 3: in power. So that'd be another main reason not to
Speaker 3: do it well.
Speaker 2: And also just keep in mind, like a lot of
Speaker 2: the focus has been on Pacific policies, which is not
Speaker 2: I guess the I mean, I have sympathy for anyone
Speaker 2: who works their home, even they're rich, famous, whatever, But
Speaker 2: you know, these are wealthy people.
Speaker 5: They're going to be able to rebuild. By and large.
Speaker 2: There's a middle class, longtime black community that was just
Speaker 2: utterly devastated, and you're going to tell me you're not
Speaker 2: going to give them help in this horrible situation, No
Speaker 2: fall to their own because you don't like the way
Speaker 2: that California votes, like that's disgusting, That is just to me,
Speaker 2: that is just an absolutely repellent way to treat your
Speaker 2: fellow human beings, let alone your fellow citizens. And you know, Democrats, certainly,
Speaker 2: they have always consistently voted for the aid for whatever
Speaker 2: state wherever it comes from. But there's nothing that would
Speaker 2: keep that principle in place. If you're going to wage
Speaker 2: war on California that way. Guess what next time there's
Speaker 2: a hurricane that hits Florida, which Lord know is going
Speaker 2: to happen next to hurricane season, suddenly they may have
Speaker 2: some questions about whether they want to vote that aid
Speaker 2: through and help Floridians in their time of need because
Speaker 2: they don't like the way that the state has shifted
Speaker 2: to the right.
Speaker 5: So that's why I say this is, you.
Speaker 2: Know, absolute hell path to go on, as if the
Speaker 2: nation isn't already divided enough.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get to mister beast. This is a
Speaker 3: really fun story. I've been excited to cover it. First
Speaker 3: and foremost is just the fate of TikTok. What the
Speaker 3: hell is going to happen? Literally four days from when
Speaker 3: we're taking this segment, TikTok is set to shut down
Speaker 3: as long as the Supreme Court doesn't issue an opinion,
Speaker 3: and the Supreme Court has already said we're not issuing
Speaker 3: opinions for the next week, So basically it's over as
Speaker 3: of January nineteenth, TikTok's plan is shut it all down.
Speaker 3: Now people have been floating trying to buy it. Mister
Speaker 3: Beast has planned. Nobody really knows if this is a
Speaker 3: bit or not. It's probably both. But mister Beast has
Speaker 3: come out and said that he's met with a bunch
Speaker 3: of billionaires to try and buy TikTok.
Speaker 1: Here's what you have to say.
Speaker 6: Just got out of a meeting with a bunch of billionaires. TikTok.
Speaker 1: We mean business. This is my lawyer right here. We
Speaker 1: have that offer ready for you. We want to buy
Speaker 1: the platform America deserves.
Speaker 5: TikTok. Give me a seat at the table.
Speaker 1: Let me save this platform. TikTok. So that's his lawyer.
Speaker 3: I don't watch enough mister Beast to know the names
Speaker 3: of all the side characters.
Speaker 1: Isn't one of them named Chris or something? Is that
Speaker 1: his name?
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Idea all right, Yeah, but my kid, I do know.
Speaker 3: That there are many people in the Beast universe. He
Speaker 3: may be one of those. I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Speaker 3: Maybe he's the one who they're always making fun of
Speaker 3: his mom. But anyways, that is something on the table.
Speaker 1: We have previously.
Speaker 3: We've previously covered the Chinese Communist Party floating selling it
Speaker 3: to Elon Musk without even the consent of byte edance.
Speaker 3: They didn't even know that that was possible. They have
Speaker 3: also come out and said previously, we're.
Speaker 1: Just gonna shut it down. So we have no idea.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so even if mister even this is real and
Speaker 2: billionaires are backing a mister Beast.
Speaker 5: Purchase may not be TikTok. It may not be for sale.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what TikTok is saying is we are
Speaker 2: not for sale. If this does not get you know, thwarted,
Speaker 2: this ban, uh.
Speaker 5: Like reversed, then we're just going to shut down.
Speaker 2: One update is that Trump is apparently looking at an
Speaker 2: executive order that I mean, he can't reverse the legislation
Speaker 2: without converse exactly, but he could issue an executive order saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: we are going to use our prosecutorial discretion to not
Speaker 2: enforce this ban against TikTok at least for this number
Speaker 2: of days while I try to work out some kind
Speaker 2: of a deal. So that to be the direction that
Speaker 2: they're moving in. Keep in mind, though the band is
Speaker 2: supposed to go in a fact the day before Trump
Speaker 2: is invungarated.
Speaker 3: So whatever we also know that Trump has now invited
Speaker 3: the CEO of TikTok to sit with Mark Zuckerberg and
Speaker 3: Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk at the day.
Speaker 5: How do you feel about that, Sager?
Speaker 1: I'm not happy.
Speaker 3: What did I open the show talking about how Trump
Speaker 3: is a deeply transactional, egomaniacal figure who has to be
Speaker 3: manipulated through the media.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, it's like they succeeded.
Speaker 2: I mean, the Trump became talking popular on TikTok. Yes,
Speaker 2: he has now a warm place in his heart for
Speaker 2: I think he even said something to that effect. He did.
Speaker 1: He literally said that he's like the young people love me.
Speaker 1: The TikTok said.
Speaker 5: Better with young people than he's ever done before.
Speaker 2: And so suddenly he feels and oh and by the way,
Speaker 2: he got a bunch of money from jeff yass That
Speaker 2: never hurts since.
Speaker 1: Oh certainly does.
Speaker 3: He's a Marlago member who's got twenty billion dollar net worth,
Speaker 3: half of it's tied up and by dance, why a
Speaker 3: US billionaire is allowed to have a majority of his
Speaker 3: networth tied up in a Chinese coming very interesting? Anyway,
Speaker 3: we'll continue to move past it. The whole point is
Speaker 3: in all of this, though, is there's also been an
Speaker 3: organic backlash, and this may surprise people, I'm really enjoying it.
Speaker 3: So lots of Americans are now downloading Chinese social media
Speaker 3: apps as a screw you to the government for banning TikTok.
Speaker 3: Some of those apps include and I'm going to butcher
Speaker 3: this in Mandarin, I'm really sorry, is a jijong shu
Speaker 3: or Xiao x hoong shu. That's where we're going to
Speaker 3: go with. And also red Note ja jong Shu. Red
Speaker 3: Note is a Chinese social media kind of TikTok competitor,
Speaker 3: but also has a messaging function on it. The fascinating
Speaker 3: part of this has been Americans interacting with actual Chinese netizens.
Speaker 3: It's the first time in almost twenty years that that
Speaker 3: has happened, which I think is great.
Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and show people some of what
Speaker 1: we have got here.
Speaker 3: We've got some creators just marveling over Chinese infrastructure. She says,
Speaker 3: your mind is about to be blown at what I've
Speaker 3: found on Red Note, and she's showing off that here
Speaker 3: we have created, just reminding all of the new Americans
Speaker 3: that this is a safe Chinese space. We need to
Speaker 3: respect the rules that are on this platform and not
Speaker 3: bring our American bullshit.
Speaker 1: I actually like it. That's how all Americans should act
Speaker 1: whenever they go to Asia.
Speaker 3: Shut your mouth, stop being so loud, eat the food
Speaker 3: that's put in front of you, and observe local customs.
Speaker 1: This was great. I love this.
Speaker 3: I didn't know China was so beautiful. Does China really
Speaker 3: look like this? So this is what I just wanted
Speaker 3: to talk to you about. There seems to be this
Speaker 3: like lib and leftist consideration that Americans have been syoped
Speaker 3: into believing China is like some backwards nation. I don't
Speaker 3: think that that is the case. I think this is
Speaker 3: actually just a matter of people being completely uninformed. Because
Speaker 3: if anybody, if even listening to me at least on
Speaker 3: China and others, what's the number one thing they're getting
Speaker 3: ahead of us?
Speaker 1: I respect them.
Speaker 3: It's not in terms of, oh, there are these backwards,
Speaker 3: horrible people. I'm like, no, no, no, you don't understand. They're
Speaker 3: lapping us on multiple different industries. In many ways. They
Speaker 3: have a better quality of life in some cities and
Speaker 3: others than American citizens do, which also apparently be shocking
Speaker 3: to people.
Speaker 1: So my take on this is it's great.
Speaker 3: I think it's great that Americans are getting to talk
Speaker 3: to Chinese people on their social media apps. The question
Speaker 3: for the Chinese is are they going to continue to
Speaker 3: allow that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it's an interesting question for them because on
Speaker 2: the one hand, you know, it makes it so it's
Speaker 2: harder to control, right, and you have this. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think this sort of cultural exchange is a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's good, and that's most important.
Speaker 2: So I think the more that we interface with people
Speaker 2: from other countries and see them as just human beings,
Speaker 2: absolutely going about their lives and doing their thing with
Speaker 2: personalities and sense of humor and whatever, I think that
Speaker 2: is a beautiful thing. I also think I don't know
Speaker 2: what conceptions people have in their heat about China, but
Speaker 2: I do know that most of the coverage from Western
Speaker 2: media about the country of China is quite negative. So,
Speaker 2: you know, having interface with just regular Chinese people and
Speaker 2: being like, these are nice people. I like this person, like,
Speaker 2: you know, they're just like me in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: I think that is a net positive. You know, for
Speaker 2: the Chinese government. On the one hand, it's kind of
Speaker 2: like tremendous soft power that they're you know, they're having
Speaker 2: access to right now because they are the perception of
Speaker 2: China and what the country is like and what the
Speaker 2: people are like. Among young people in this country who
Speaker 2: have been more willing than other generations. I mean, they're
Speaker 2: just not locked in this like cold war mentality. They're
Speaker 2: not locked in the mentality around Israel. They're not locked
Speaker 2: into some of the previous preconceptions. So minds are a
Speaker 2: bit more open to start with, you know, I think
Speaker 2: that is I think the Chinese government probably sees that
Speaker 2: as a tremendous asset boom. On the other hand, you know,
Speaker 2: they want to control. They have exercised much more tight
Speaker 2: control on their social media than we do, even from
Speaker 2: the perspective of just like they don't like young people
Speaker 2: in their country have the screen time that really have,
Speaker 2: so they they see social media and in some ways
Speaker 2: they're very correct about this, about some of the incredibly
Speaker 2: proletarious effects of social media on our own young people,
Speaker 2: and so they're more like sensitive to those concerns. And
Speaker 2: then also they're obviously like censories in certain ways, and
Speaker 2: there's certain topics they don't want to brusure whatsoever. So
Speaker 2: it is an interesting this.
Speaker 1: Is what a friend of mine, Rush Doshi.
Speaker 2: But I've been loving it. But I would say bottom line,
Speaker 2: i've been loving it. I've been enjoying the exchange, the character.
Speaker 3: If you think China is backwards, you're an idiot, Okay,
Speaker 3: I mean Shenzen is probably one of the world's most
Speaker 3: advanced cities. If I encourage I'm totally blanking on the
Speaker 3: guy's name right now.
Speaker 1: He's a car reviewer. I think his name is Forrest.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go with that.
Speaker 3: He does some of the best car reviews in the business,
Speaker 3: and he does a ton of Chinese. EV's BYD will
Speaker 3: lap a Tesla and any American made EV by a mile.
Speaker 2: There's a reason why we have to have protection as
Speaker 2: absolutely because of you. EV's because they're kicking.
Speaker 1: Or I'm getting I'm forgetting.
Speaker 3: The guy's name Warren Buffer, Warren Buffett's billionaire partner who died,
Speaker 3: Charlie's my Kiunger.
Speaker 1: Charlie Munger. Charlie Munger.
Speaker 3: I listened to the last interview he gave before he died,
Speaker 3: and he said that the founder of BYD is the
Speaker 3: single smartest person he ever met, the greatest inventor. He was,
Speaker 3: like I would have put more money into him if
Speaker 3: I possibly could have, just so people know, I have deep,
Speaker 3: deep respect.
Speaker 1: For a lot of these people. I've also been to China.
Speaker 3: I was very young. I was like sixteen, seventeen or
Speaker 3: whatever when I went. It's one of the most beautiful
Speaker 3: places I've ever been. Specifically, the Great Wall of China
Speaker 3: is one of the coolest, one of the coolest things
Speaker 3: I've ever seen in my whole life.
Speaker 1: The Forbidden City, it's incredible. They have an amazing history.
Speaker 3: I have nothing but respect for these people, and in fact,
Speaker 3: it's my respect which makes me fear them. But a
Speaker 3: question here with Rush Doshi, let's put e four pleas
Speaker 3: up on the screen, is Rush makes this point as
Speaker 3: Americans flood Jean Jong Shu, which is what we're going with.
Speaker 3: We're seeing a lot more direct online interaction between the
Speaker 3: US and PRC citizens, but the PRC has not always
Speaker 3: welcomed that, which is partly why it has banned foreign
Speaker 3: social media. So the success of the app is a
Speaker 3: major test for PRC authorities. He follows up candidly, I've
Speaker 3: enjoyed seeing the interaction. It reminds me of an earlier,
Speaker 3: more hopeful era of US China people to people interaction
Speaker 3: on the Internet, which is twenty years old now, And
Speaker 3: that's precisely why I would be nervous if I was
Speaker 3: an executive of that company right now. Previously, we have
Speaker 3: seen this Facebook nuked, Google nuked, and they nuked these
Speaker 3: things early. And when I visited in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 3: I want to say, that's when we were in high
Speaker 3: school and we're very on Facebook.
Speaker 1: There was no Facebook.
Speaker 3: I it was the first time I ever went to
Speaker 3: a country in my cante Facebook. Same with Google. It
Speaker 3: was shocking. I remember even then. I mean what almost
Speaker 3: fifteen years ago or so now, So that's the reality
Speaker 3: of what life is like in China. All of their
Speaker 3: actions around bike Dance have showed us this. Again, people
Speaker 3: don't seem to understand this TikTok. It might be a
Speaker 3: Chinese company, it's not what they use in China. They
Speaker 3: have their own version. I think it's called deuyt and
Speaker 3: Doyen has screen time restrictions one hour a day for
Speaker 3: people who are teenagers. If you're an OnlyFans model, yeah
Speaker 3: good luck, you're getting nuked. If you're like a little
Speaker 3: influencer girl who's promoting consumerism, nuked. If you are promoting
Speaker 3: transgenderism or gender ideology, nuked.
Speaker 1: If you are.
Speaker 3: Promoting hard work and filial piety to the Communist Party, oh,
Speaker 3: all of a sudden, you're a nice little influencer there.
Speaker 3: So just so people know, the difference between actual Chinese
Speaker 3: social media and American social media.
Speaker 1: Is gigantic for what it actually shows.
Speaker 3: But in general, I have been really enjoying this American
Speaker 3: cultural exchange. As people know, I don't like Europe. I
Speaker 3: encourage people, if you're able to visit China, go for it.
Speaker 3: I know a lot of people who did study of
Speaker 3: broad programs there. They absolutely loved it. Immerse yourself in
Speaker 3: the culture.
Speaker 1: It's cool.
Speaker 3: It's like an alien society because they do things totally differently.
Speaker 3: Their evolution of tech is incredible. What they've decided. What
Speaker 3: they did is because they skipped Facebook, Google.
Speaker 1: And everything on the MacBook. Everything in China is on
Speaker 1: the phone.
Speaker 3: They pay for all of their stuff with their phones,
Speaker 3: They all their social media, Uber everything. It's one of
Speaker 3: the world's most like convenience societies now and has some
Speaker 3: downside with.
Speaker 1: Social credit score.
Speaker 3: It also, if you piss off the government, your phone
Speaker 3: stops working, Your payment sports stop working. You need, you know,
Speaker 3: permits to be able to leave your village and like
Speaker 3: to be able to go from one place to another.
Speaker 3: You should ask them about that on Jieshong Shue. But yeah, look,
Speaker 3: I'm enjoying people learning more.
Speaker 1: About the world, and I think it's a good thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's earnest and it's sweet, and I think anytime
Speaker 2: we can break down those human to human barriers is
Speaker 2: a good thing.
Speaker 5: This is also kind of funny.
Speaker 2: Apparently the interest in learning Mandarin has like skyrocketed. That's
Speaker 2: a good duel lingo is you know, seizing on this
Speaker 2: moment as well. I can put this up on this
Speaker 2: courage is kind of funny to say, oh, so now
Speaker 2: you're a learning Mandarin and they've been putting out a
Speaker 2: bunch of tweets about And also I did see a
Speaker 2: graph just showing the tremendous spike in people who are
Speaker 2: trying to learn Mandarin, or at least the basics who've
Speaker 2: had their interest spark by.
Speaker 5: This whole thing.
Speaker 2: So it's just sort of funny and ironic that the
Speaker 2: attempt to ban TikTok over concerns about like Chinese influence
Speaker 2: and infiltration whatever has led to this response of people
Speaker 2: learning on a very visceral human to human basis, way
Speaker 2: more about China than they ever had before.
Speaker 3: So caricatures if people are never accurate. China is a
Speaker 3: country of what one point one billion. Even saying Chinese
Speaker 3: people is insane, right, you have all of these different provinces,
Speaker 3: there are so many different might yeah, which they.
Speaker 1: Don't like to talk about.
Speaker 3: Ask them about that too, you know, ask them about
Speaker 3: Han Chinese domination.
Speaker 1: And how what they feel about that.
Speaker 3: You've got what multiple Well, actually they're on one time zone,
Speaker 3: which is insane. Like people into better are the same
Speaker 3: time zone is in Beijing and have to keep the
Speaker 3: same time.
Speaker 1: But it's a vast country.
Speaker 3: They have everything from like I said, rural to multi
Speaker 3: tech oligarch billionaires. They've got people who don't even drive
Speaker 3: cars to people who take some of the world's most
Speaker 3: advanced transportation.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's interesting.
Speaker 3: I encourage people to learn a ton about it, and
Speaker 3: I think the more that you will learn, you will
Speaker 3: understand exactly how they use their corporations and others to
Speaker 3: try at the detriment, in my opinion of the United States,
Speaker 3: of their competition of their ability to plan long term
Speaker 3: baked in to their government and foreign policy since the
Speaker 3: days of Deng Xiaoping. And I think the most interesting
Speaker 3: thing about them is the duality of China. Like I said,
Speaker 3: the rural and the urban, the communists and the capitalists,
Speaker 3: like the oligarchy but the Communist party. It's a fascinating country.
Speaker 3: And look, we're gonna have to live with them no
Speaker 3: matter what. So it's great learn Mandarin. The more you
Speaker 3: can learn. I wish I knew it. I wish I
Speaker 3: could speak some of it. Learn Cantonese too. It's actually
Speaker 3: one of the coolest sounding languages in my opinion. Hong
Speaker 3: Kong that would be the next one on my list
Speaker 3: if I was able to go.
Speaker 1: So we'll see.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I would love to go to China. That's definitely
Speaker 5: on my list.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and get to Fashakir, who
Speaker 2: has announced a run for DNC party chair. Very interesting
Speaker 2: to hear what he has to say. That's next, So
Speaker 2: you've got a bit of what it's maybe an exclusive,
Speaker 2: I don't know, we're a little unclear on that, but
Speaker 2: a potential first interview on a YouTube channel from fashion here.
Speaker 2: Who you guys probably know was Bernie's twenty twenty campaign chief.
Speaker 2: He's also executive director of more Perfect Union and doing
Speaker 2: fantastic work over there. We rely on the content you
Speaker 2: guys create a lot, so it's been really important.
Speaker 9: And you've been featured in a more Perfect video. That's true,
Speaker 9: that a collaboration.
Speaker 2: I appreciated that and the reason in particular. There are
Speaker 2: many reasons we may want to speak with you, but
Speaker 2: today you've just announced that you are running for DNC chair.
Speaker 2: So welcome fast, great.
Speaker 5: To see you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Chris. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about
Speaker 9: it with you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2: So what made you jump in? It's a little bit
Speaker 2: late in the game. There's already a number of contenders.
Speaker 5: What are they vote?
Speaker 2: They're voting what like early February, so you got about
Speaker 2: two weeks to make your case here. So what made
Speaker 2: you jump in?
Speaker 9: Well, one of the reasons was that, first, I was
Speaker 9: hesitant for a long period time. I've been doing a
Speaker 9: thing with more Perfect Union on a daily basis. No,
Speaker 9: I have no hunger and ambition for the title of
Speaker 9: the job, you know, And I guess what motivated me
Speaker 9: is watching a number of the candidates go out and
Speaker 9: do conversations and be in forums and talk about, oh,
Speaker 9: we're going to appeal to working class people. We need
Speaker 9: to rebuild this party around working class ideas. I'm like, great, well,
Speaker 9: rhetorically we're moving, So give me the next dance er.
Speaker 9: What are you going to do differently? You want to
Speaker 9: make a working class party, what are you going to difference?
Speaker 9: And I just constantly felt let down that the ambition,
Speaker 9: if you're talking sincerely with conviction of changing the party
Speaker 9: to be a working class party, get me something that
Speaker 9: I can believe and make me turn my head and say, oh,
Speaker 9: that's different. And I just didn't see it. And I'm like, well,
Speaker 9: I'm sitting here saying I think I have some ideas,
Speaker 9: and I'm watching the clock run down on the fourth quarter.
Speaker 9: You only live once, Crystal, So I'm like, I'll get in.
Speaker 9: I will make my case. I will try to make
Speaker 9: the argument that if you had a vision and conviction
Speaker 9: around what a working class party of the DNC would
Speaker 9: look like, I'll make it. And so that's the hope
Speaker 9: and the opportunity here, and I'll hopefully present this case
Speaker 9: to all the deligates, talking to all of them and say,
Speaker 9: you know, I'm asking you to make a choice of
Speaker 9: do you really want a working class party you can
Speaker 9: get in the substance of it, of how you change it.
Speaker 9: But that's the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I've had a similar frustration. I talked to
Speaker 2: Mary and Williamson last week, who also is running. I
Speaker 2: think she'd acknowledge is you know, a pretty long shot
Speaker 2: because she comes in as a as a total outsider,
Speaker 2: and I think she has that larger vision. But the
Speaker 2: top contenders, I agree with you, it feels like shifting
Speaker 2: deck chairs around out the Titanic. So the rhetoric might
Speaker 2: be good about it. We got to be a working
Speaker 2: class party, and it's like, okay, well, how are you
Speaker 2: going to do well? I think we should allocate a
Speaker 2: little more money to this you know, this state or
Speaker 2: that state or whatever. It's like, well, I don't think
Speaker 2: that's really going to get the job done. So what
Speaker 2: is your broader vision for how the Democratic Party turns
Speaker 2: around what has come to be an utter catastrophe among
Speaker 2: working class Americans?
Speaker 9: So you start with the problem. What is the problem
Speaker 9: right now? We are losing alignment with working class people.
Speaker 9: We saw an election and people setting out, So you say, okay,
Speaker 9: well you need that. That is the north star. Everyone
Speaker 9: acknowledged that's the north star. And so how do you
Speaker 9: solve it? What's the problem? And I look at like
Speaker 9: the grassroots nature of this party as having been dilapidated.
Speaker 9: There's no conception of using organizing to say we need
Speaker 9: to reconnect with people and make ourselves a healthy list,
Speaker 9: a healthy convening body. How would you do that if
Speaker 9: you really cared about working class people? Well, when Boeing
Speaker 9: workers go on strike, Crystal, do you think the DNC
Speaker 9: should play a role and letting people know that the DNC,
Speaker 9: that the Boeing workers are out there, that we could
Speaker 9: go and stand with them, that we could get pizza
Speaker 9: to the strike line. When the UAW is organizing, do
Speaker 9: you think the DNC could mobilize a community and say, hey,
Speaker 9: we stand with you. When people are fighting intendant unions,
Speaker 9: trying to advocate against evictions and trying to stop on
Speaker 9: reasonable rate hikes, can we do something about that. It's
Speaker 9: thinking substantively what you are, a working class person living
Speaker 9: a life, you are struggling. I at the DNC have
Speaker 9: some authority. I don't have full authority. I don't run
Speaker 9: the world. But I have some ability to say I
Speaker 9: stand with you, to do something to move the dial
Speaker 9: on your behalf. That's a reconception not only of organizing
Speaker 9: capacity in the state, capacity to stand with working class people.
Speaker 9: But then I think you broaden that out to say, well,
Speaker 9: people are not always thinking about politics, you and I
Speaker 9: know Cristal, like they're thinking about let's say football. Could
Speaker 9: we hold Super Bowl watch parties together, convene people together
Speaker 9: as a place. Here's beer, and here's a nice place
Speaker 9: to hang out. Come and come and hang out with
Speaker 9: a Democratic Party to watch the super Bowl? Why not
Speaker 9: tell me I'd love to hear any example. Why why
Speaker 9: can we not do these things? It's just a lack
Speaker 9: of ambition. If you spend some money and say this
Speaker 9: is what I care about. Because the Democratic Party in
Speaker 9: this day and age, where there's loneliness, there's more isolation,
Speaker 9: more people not talking to each other. That heart, the
Speaker 9: beating heart of being a party is that there's people
Speaker 9: you are associated with, the working man and woman. You
Speaker 9: are caring about their lives, and you want to be
Speaker 9: in league with them. You want to be talking to
Speaker 9: them on a constant basis. You know this to me
Speaker 9: just bothers me because it's become a kind of this
Speaker 9: clubby you know, top down approach to the DNC that
Speaker 9: we talked about contracts and vendor contracts and you know
Speaker 9: who sits on what coming where like no, no, no, no,
Speaker 9: they're the people, Like especially this day and age where
Speaker 9: the r Silicon Swamp is about to come in and
Speaker 9: run the government, the biggest merger and acquisition in history.
Speaker 9: They're going to by by the government. So what are
Speaker 9: we doing in an age of great wealth and income
Speaker 9: inequality to say, hey, we stand with people to fight
Speaker 9: on their behalf.
Speaker 5: What does the DNC primarily do? Now? How does it
Speaker 5: operate primarily?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 2: For people who were I mean even I I'm not
Speaker 2: sure I could fully answer that question.
Speaker 9: I worked at the DNC building. So you say, DNC
Speaker 9: headquarters is my first political job actually as an opposition researcher.
Speaker 9: And so you have departments who do a variety of
Speaker 9: different things, communications, digital, party affairs, and so at the
Speaker 9: headquarters you're kind of figuring out how to help, you know,
Speaker 9: build state parties, give them some direction, but mostly letting.
Speaker 9: I would say, you know, opposition to Republicans and opposition
Speaker 9: to Trump. Right now, at this current moment guide the
Speaker 9: daily you know, here's here's a message that we have
Speaker 9: to send out and then stay parties are going to say, well,
Speaker 9: we're mobilizing in Virginia for the upcoming elections. Can we
Speaker 9: send some money over there to get the state party
Speaker 9: some resources on the ground and build up some staff
Speaker 9: that all is fine and good, right, and so in
Speaker 9: that way, Ken Martin Ben Wickler, people who have been
Speaker 9: running the state committees of Minnesota and Wisconsin successfully are
Speaker 9: well positioned say hey, Boom, you know this is tactically
Speaker 9: what you need to do to move money around, move
Speaker 9: committee assignments, restructure. The problem in the challenge I see
Speaker 9: is like, well, Donald Trump is president United States? Who
Speaker 9: speaks for Democrats right now? Honestly, like Biden leaving, there's
Speaker 9: no presumptive leader of a Democratic party. Youah Schumer and
Speaker 9: Jefferies over there, minority, and I think you've got to
Speaker 9: be more ambitious with the power. We don't have much power.
Speaker 9: What are the places is the Democrat National Committee to
Speaker 9: the chairperson needs to be a bold public messenger. But
Speaker 9: what is the brand of this freaking party? What do
Speaker 9: we stand for? That historically has not been a major role.
Speaker 9: There were moments. You remember Howard Dean when he ran
Speaker 9: it was kind of he's he had a bit of
Speaker 9: a stature of being a national spokesperson for a brand.
Speaker 9: But for the most part, you think of people most
Speaker 9: people don't even know who a Democrat National Committee chairperson
Speaker 9: or chairman is. I mean, you know, how many people
Speaker 9: know who Jamie Harrison is or you know Tim Kaine
Speaker 9: at one point was and Terry mccalliff.
Speaker 5: Back and then forgot to be honest with.
Speaker 9: You, Terry mccalliff back in the day.
Speaker 2: You know, McCalls was kind of a larger than life figure,
Speaker 2: but maybe not necessarily a beneficial way.
Speaker 9: Gregary is that he was always a Gregary as a.
Speaker 5: Person, but large personality.
Speaker 9: There and a big fundraiser was well, that was his thing.
Speaker 2: And that's why I say, maybe this was not necessarily
Speaker 2: advantageous to the Democratic Party brand. I mean, that is
Speaker 2: one of the things that has been important to me
Speaker 2: is that, listen, we can't change the whole landscape of
Speaker 2: money in politics without probably you know, a Supreme Court decision.
Speaker 2: But Democrats can run the way that they police their
Speaker 2: own primaries, their own intra party contest. So is one
Speaker 2: of the things that you would be looking at, getting
Speaker 2: big money super pac money out of that intra party
Speaker 2: democratic primary process, because right now the Democratic Party has
Speaker 2: no credibility to say that we're any different from the
Speaker 2: Republicans when it comes to the courting and the obsession
Speaker 2: with big money politics.
Speaker 9: Well, that's an obvious that's a slam donka. The question
Speaker 9: then is like to get money out of polics, how
Speaker 9: do you wield power? And you know, I've heard a
Speaker 9: lot of the canis and they say, well, you know,
Speaker 9: there's not much she can do as Democratic National Committee chair. Now, Like,
Speaker 9: it's true that legally, right we are in a different
Speaker 9: legal regime and people can spend money and you can't
Speaker 9: necessarily stop them. You could sanction, you know, state parties,
Speaker 9: you could sanction use your bully pulpit, and I feel
Speaker 9: like as a Democratic Party, we're not as comfortable using
Speaker 9: the bully pulpit, right Just like, get out there and
Speaker 9: make a stand and say something bold about your values.
Speaker 9: If you look at there's just a certain muscularity of saying, hey,
Speaker 9: that is wrong and maybe yeah, sure you could spend
Speaker 9: money as a super pac diving into this race. We
Speaker 9: as a state party as a Democrat National committee abhor
Speaker 9: and reject influence and make you by using the bully
Speaker 9: pulpit whatever scale you can't to uh attack outside spending.
Speaker 9: You're also elevating the issue in the race. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 9: and you have to make I think one of the
Speaker 9: challenges we often face is sometimes voters in these districts
Speaker 9: and elections may not always know of the great presence
Speaker 9: of big money in the elections. They see TV ads,
Speaker 9: they see APAC come in and spend whatever money, and
Speaker 9: you know Quary's or Jamal's race, and it's not always
Speaker 9: clear to the ton of voters you know who's doing this,
Speaker 9: why the crypto people spending money here and there? They
Speaker 9: might not always know. We could write like if you
Speaker 9: spend some time using a national chairmanship in the brand
Speaker 9: and say, hey, that what, here's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 9: Here's what why it's wrong. Corporate purchase of this party
Speaker 9: will not be allowed. It's not, it's not I'm not
Speaker 9: going to tell you that you have the legal authority
Speaker 9: to stop them, right right. But this is where Trump
Speaker 9: to some degree has brought to the Republican Party successfully
Speaker 9: is use your use your bully pulpit he gets in there.
Speaker 9: I mean, if you look at the Middle East situation, right,
Speaker 9: he says, all hell will break loose if this isn't
Speaker 9: done by the first day in miamis And how many
Speaker 9: times you get out you use his rhetoric to and
Speaker 9: say with some conviction back by But people have to
Speaker 9: kind of believe that it's it's consistent with your values
Speaker 9: when you say this is wrong, this is upsetting. But
Speaker 9: when for a democratic party, when we say things, sometimes
Speaker 9: it's not always the case that it's backed by a conviction.
Speaker 9: So if you say, oh, you know, dog, Trump is X,
Speaker 9: Y and Z the worst, you know whatever, and then
Speaker 9: you are going out there and want to be treating
Speaker 9: him as if you know it's fine, then that that
Speaker 9: conviction orientation say say what you mean and act like
Speaker 9: you mean it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's I mean, seems simple, but apparently apparently this
Speaker 2: is difficult to do. I did want to get your
Speaker 2: take on some of the election post mortem. You know,
Speaker 2: there was the infamous Podsave America interview with the top
Speaker 2: Kamala Aids. Did you watch that who were basically like, Oh,
Speaker 2: we did everything right, it was fine. We just couldn't
Speaker 2: have possibly won and you know, we checked the boxes
Speaker 2: and we ran the data, and this was the best
Speaker 2: possible campaign we could run, and.
Speaker 9: Then no one else could have won. Like basically that's
Speaker 9: kind of the argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was it was impossible. So it's not our fault.
Speaker 2: So zero self reflection there. You've also had you know,
Speaker 2: you've had some there were My sense, and I'm curious
Speaker 2: of your sense, is that there was an initial shock,
Speaker 2: Oh my god.
Speaker 5: This guy's going back to the White House. This is
Speaker 5: a disaster.
Speaker 2: We are in the minority, both the House and the Senate.
Speaker 2: Working class voters are fleeing us. So even though okay,
Speaker 2: sure he only won the popular vote by a point
Speaker 2: and a half or something like that.
Speaker 5: If you're on this trajectory, this is a trajectory of death.
Speaker 2: If this really realignment continues in this direction, you're talking
Speaker 2: about permanent minority like small minority status, or just being
Speaker 2: effectively subsumed into Trumpism, which is another direction that some
Speaker 2: Democrats seem to be going in. And now I sort
Speaker 2: of feel this life level of listlessness, Like I mean,
Speaker 2: I feel like that's what you're kind of responding to,
Speaker 2: jumping in this race of like, well, it wasn't that bad,
Speaker 2: and we'll get them next time, and maybe our messaging
Speaker 2: was a little bit off. We'll just tweak that and
Speaker 2: we should be fine. And I find that sort of
Speaker 2: I find it sort of insane not to mention obviously
Speaker 2: incredibly frustrating, incredibly disturbing when we see the direction that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is going and we see this, you know,
Speaker 2: obviously money and politics and nothing new, and it's a
Speaker 2: bipartisan problem, but the level of consolidated oligarchy that we're
Speaker 2: seeing under Trump and Elon Musk and these characters is
Speaker 2: deeply disturbing. And I don't really see a Democratic Party
Speaker 2: that is standing up to forcefully oppose that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, just to add to what you're saying, I'm not
Speaker 9: going to dispute that certain people would say correctly that
Speaker 9: there's a chance we'd get back the House in two years.
Speaker 9: It's possible, right, But why, Crystal, I'll be if we
Speaker 9: flesh that out for people. It's because, to your point,
Speaker 9: the voting base of the Democratic Party is changing, and
Speaker 9: so if you get into a midterm election where fewer
Speaker 9: people vote higher educated, more college degree circuit, we might win,
Speaker 9: and we might get back the House and I think
Speaker 9: in that situation, if you back this out into twenty
Speaker 9: twenty two, right where you Democrats kind of maintained better
Speaker 9: than they thought some degree of the seats and that election,
Speaker 9: John Ferriman wins, and you know Joshapiro and Gretchen Whitmer,
Speaker 9: and you know, we defeated Kerry Lake in Arizona. There
Speaker 9: were some successes, right right, Well, but I'm just saying
Speaker 9: that the outcome demographs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Democrats.
Speaker 9: That's the point. So then you go into twenty twenty four,
Speaker 9: where tons more people vote and with the Democratic brand
Speaker 9: is losing steam and interaction with working class people. To
Speaker 9: your point, could we get through the next two years
Speaker 9: and find that we might get back the House to
Speaker 9: probably maybe not the Senate, and then think, oh, well,
Speaker 9: we're on a track to win back the presidency, only
Speaker 9: to find that in twenty twenty eight jd Events or
Speaker 9: whomever's on the ticket, and we lose even further because
Speaker 9: we aren't having been challenged or learning the lessons of
Speaker 9: where is our weakness? Where is the brand of the
Speaker 9: Democratic Party hurting? And I mean, just that's a political analysis,
Speaker 9: but you know what bothers me and I know bothers.
Speaker 9: You is just a values orientation, like your party, like
Speaker 9: your ft heart. What is it that defines you? It
Speaker 9: is a fight for the common man woman. It has
Speaker 9: always been the lineage. So it's fine, we can have
Speaker 9: this local conversation, but it's supposed to be tied to values,
Speaker 9: because when you come into office, you have a mandate
Speaker 9: of saying, I'm going to do something in this Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think that that is the goal in the mission
Speaker 9: of saying, create a working class coalition so that they
Speaker 9: compel us in the right direction for the policy changes
Speaker 9: that we need.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't really care about the Democrats winning back
Speaker 2: the House or winning back the presidency if they're not
Speaker 2: going to do anything beneficial for working class people with
Speaker 2: that power. Ultimately, the last thing I wanted to get
Speaker 2: your thoughts on, Faz, because I've sort of complicated feelings
Speaker 2: about it, is what have you made made of all
Speaker 2: of the you know, James Carvill and David from some
Speaker 2: of these characters.
Speaker 5: Now that Bernie.
Speaker 2: Sanders is never going to run for president again, Like
Speaker 2: you know that Bernie Sanders guy, Well, he wasn't so bad.
Speaker 2: He he kind of had a point.
Speaker 9: I would be lying to you if part of that
Speaker 9: isn't what's driving me here, right, That's what I see
Speaker 9: people saying and becoming more aware that, oh Bernie when
Speaker 9: he ran in twenty fifteen, twenty sixty, maybe he was
Speaker 9: onto something. Maybe we do need a grassroots party. Maybe
Speaker 9: the oligarchs have too much power in American society. Maybe
Speaker 9: we do need to talk about Manicare for all. Maybe
Speaker 9: we do need to address a corporate corruption of our
Speaker 9: campaign finance system. All of those things. Now, well, we're
Speaker 9: coming around and you even watch on MSNBC in other places,
Speaker 9: people like, we're railing against the oligarchs.
Speaker 2: And right, okay, well Joe Biden reallys holigarchs now.
Speaker 9: And you're like, Okay, Rhetorically I appreciate it, I do.
Speaker 9: I mean, the job of politics is persuasion. So we're
Speaker 9: moving towards more awareness and understanding. And part of that, Crystal,
Speaker 9: as you know, well, as we live in a society
Speaker 9: a great income and wealth inequality, we're seeing the downstream
Speaker 9: effects of it. When you're seeing the Great Musk and
Speaker 9: David Sachs and a bunch of billion taking over the government,
Speaker 9: we should rightly as the Democratic Party, be concerned and
Speaker 9: express anger at what the hell is going on with
Speaker 9: the purchase of our government, the looting and the great heist.
Speaker 9: But the question at this point isn't just rhetorically. Can
Speaker 9: you see the problem and understand the problem? Great? What
Speaker 9: do you want to do of that wield some authority
Speaker 9: and power? Tell me that you're thinking about the construction
Speaker 9: of this party differently than you ever had before. Convince me,
Speaker 9: because I don't think you can crubt me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 9: I think most working class people have checked out, don't
Speaker 9: believe in government, don't have faith in institutions. And I
Speaker 9: would argue to those people if they're watching at the
Speaker 9: end of the day, and I believe it's about unions,
Speaker 9: I believe it's about a lot of institutions. This is
Speaker 9: a representative democracy in a world of great wealth and inequality.
Speaker 9: The way you challenge it is with some solidarity, where
Speaker 9: you have people who lead people like you need someone
Speaker 9: to lead institutions with authority, with power to do something
Speaker 9: on behalf of all of us and the people at
Speaker 9: the top. You know, we have to pick them who
Speaker 9: have a gumption and a desire conviction to fight. But
Speaker 9: there I understand people are getting concerned that the institutions
Speaker 9: are fading and that, but I'm trusting them.
Speaker 1: And as that.
Speaker 9: Devolution occurs, right, power gets to spread out. You know
Speaker 9: who wins billionaires because they can purchase into a devolution. Right,
Speaker 9: They're like, okay, you don't have a party anymore. Well,
Speaker 9: I got the super pack that I run, So your
Speaker 9: party is weak. I can go run my own thing
Speaker 9: with money. That's what happened to the And so I
Speaker 9: would urge people, you know, you're trying to take on
Speaker 9: power in a world of great wealth and inequality to
Speaker 9: care about institutions, find people to run them with conviction
Speaker 9: unions and Democratic national committees, you name them across the board. Obviously,
Speaker 9: that's one of the reasons I started More Perfect Union.
Speaker 9: You've got to have an institution that's that's starting to
Speaker 9: build power for working people in order to take this on.
Speaker 2: All right, I let I do have one last question,
Speaker 2: which is you got a shot in this thing? Because
Speaker 2: you're getting in a little late. I know it's an
Speaker 2: insider game. You know, as much as our audience or
Speaker 2: others out there may want you to be, they don't
Speaker 2: get a vote.
Speaker 5: So what does what does this look like? What does
Speaker 5: the past to victory.
Speaker 9: Well, what I'm promising is I'm going to hustle and
Speaker 9: do the things that you have to do internally. I mean,
Speaker 9: when we leave this at I'm gonna I'm continuing to
Speaker 9: call members and say give me a chance. I know
Speaker 9: that some of them. I still think at this moment,
Speaker 9: the plurality is undecided, uncommitted. You know, my sense is
Speaker 9: Ken Martin is somebody who's been kind of involved running
Speaker 9: this is probably a bit in the lead at the moment.
Speaker 9: But I don't think everyone's made up their minds. And
Speaker 9: I'll say right, because we haven't forced the question, So
Speaker 9: I'll just just I'm not asking you to endorse. I'm
Speaker 9: just asking you not to endorse. Right, Like, just let
Speaker 9: let's play this out. Let me make a case. I
Speaker 9: got two weeks here, just time left on the fourth quarter.
Speaker 9: I don't believe on kneeling it down. Let's try to run.
Speaker 9: Let's try to run this through, get to the vote
Speaker 9: on February first, and make a judgment about what direction
Speaker 9: of the Democratic Party can go and who can best
Speaker 9: do it with some conviction and orientation and change what
Speaker 9: change the way we operate.
Speaker 2: Well, I really appreciate you being out there making the
Speaker 2: case and we, as I told you, really appreciated value
Speaker 2: the work that you're doing.
Speaker 5: I'm more perfect unit.
Speaker 2: I think it has filled an incredibly important role in
Speaker 2: the sort of journalists and cultural landscape.
Speaker 5: So FAZ always great to see you.
Speaker 9: I compliment from you, Christal, You've been doing it well
Speaker 9: for a long period of time. So thank you, thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 3: We will see you on Monday for our inaugural coverage
Speaker 3: and so we'll see then.