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 this 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 access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: So, Jank, you and I just started sort of talking
Speaker 2: about the the they them add that Trump ran and
Speaker 2: a bunch of other stuff, and the conversation just sort
Speaker 2: of unfolded. So you're going to pick up here kind
Speaker 2: of midstream with jenk and I already engaged in a
Speaker 2: conversation about the future of the Democratic Party. So I
Speaker 2: hope you enjoy.
Speaker 1: I don't want progressivism to be known as bane from
Speaker 1: uh from you know Batman series. Yeah, you just we
Speaker 1: let we're known as the guys who let all the
Speaker 1: criminals go right, where's the justice in that.
Speaker 2: My So, my view, which is probably similar to yours,
Speaker 2: is like, right, now, all the litmus tests, and this
Speaker 2: largely comes down of like, actually the Hillary Clinton and
Speaker 2: the neoliberal approach to politics, all the litmus tests are
Speaker 2: around social issues. In the Democratic Party. You can be
Speaker 2: pretty right wing on economic policy, it's not really a problem.
Speaker 2: You know, you can be very pro corporate. I think
Speaker 2: it should be the exact reverse. I think the litmus
Speaker 2: test should be around economic.
Speaker 1: Issues, goddamn right.
Speaker 2: And then you know, personally, I'm like pretty left on
Speaker 2: almost every issue, but I have no problem with having
Speaker 2: people in the tent who are pro life, who are
Speaker 2: pro gun, who have different views on the border crime
Speaker 2: than I do. But the litmus test has to be
Speaker 2: like fuck the billionaires. That's basically my view of the party.
Speaker 2: So where I get frustrated in the conversation is when
Speaker 2: like the selth Moltens of the world are instantly like, well,
Speaker 2: it's trans people, you know. It's like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: if your only assessment from this is to like throw
Speaker 2: trans people under the bus and you don't have that's
Speaker 2: very convenient for the donor class. That's very convenient for
Speaker 2: the powers that be in the Democratic Party that doesn't
Speaker 2: acquire anything of them. So I'm not saying those issues aren't, like,
Speaker 2: you know, challenging for the Democratic Party to deal with.
Speaker 2: But if your only instinct is like to blame the
Speaker 2: left yet again, when the left had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with this campaign, like, I'm very suspicious of that.
Speaker 1: So I actually one hundred percent agree with you. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Mack, thank you. But I don't want
Speaker 1: us to live in non reality. And non reality is
Speaker 1: saying that ad didn't hurt us when both sides said definitively,
Speaker 1: according to our internal numbers, it was fucking devastating, right,
Speaker 1: So like, that's not the number one reason, as I.
Speaker 2: Said, right, I think the thing for me is you
Speaker 2: have to ask the deeper question of like, Okay, why
Speaker 2: do that AD hurt? Because why did that ad heart?
Speaker 2: Because Bernie has the same position on transgender issues, but
Speaker 2: that AD would not work against berniem okay, And the
Speaker 2: reason is because he actually, like, people are not going
Speaker 2: to be confused that Bernie Sanders' top priority is fighting
Speaker 2: against rich people fighting for you. They're not going to
Speaker 2: be confused about that. So you're right, if you're running
Speaker 2: a Kamala Harris that AD's going to be a fucking
Speaker 2: problem for her because she doesn't really stand for anything,
Speaker 2: and so people can be very easily convinced that, like, oh,
Speaker 2: she cares about a bunch of bullshit that I don't
Speaker 2: support and I don't care about. But if you have
Speaker 2: a candidate who has a story that can compete with
Speaker 2: the Trump the left populist story and narrative and credibility
Speaker 2: of actually fighting for those things, then you can carry
Speaker 2: some cultural issues that, yeah, may not be that popular,
Speaker 2: So you could.
Speaker 1: Do the a sound strategy if you uh, And that's
Speaker 1: and I agreed with him, and that's what I would
Speaker 1: have done. Yeah, if you have actual policies, like you're
Speaker 1: that's right, because then you could say, hey, this is
Speaker 1: a distraction from fifteen elementum wage and universal health care,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But Kama couldn't say it's a distraction from
Speaker 1: anything because she doesn't believe in anything that's right. Right.
Speaker 1: So that's why I was saying the AD was a
Speaker 1: perfect combination of what was wrong with the corporate Democrats
Speaker 1: and the extreme left, because the corporate Democrats stripped her
Speaker 1: of any real substance to run on right yeah, so
Speaker 1: then all that was left was this was the extreme
Speaker 1: left positions that she took on into twenty twenty. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's my opinion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I totally agree with that. I totally agree
Speaker 2: with it. I don't think you can say like that
Speaker 2: didn't matter at all, But I think it's important to
Speaker 2: understand why she was vulnerable to that ad and a
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders or an Andy Washer.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you so, I agree with all that.
Speaker 1: I will say that I think Bernie twenty twenty was
Speaker 1: more susceptible to it, yes, than Bernie twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: Agreed, Agreed. So we've been talking here to jenk Yuger
Speaker 2: obviously of TYT and many other wonderful distinctions as well.
Speaker 2: But lucky to have you in studio today and we
Speaker 2: you know, started talking and recording, so we'll just include
Speaker 2: that front part in the conversation as well.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, all right, great to be here.
Speaker 2: I'll give you the official welcome now. So you've been
Speaker 2: making a lot.
Speaker 1: Of waves I love to make.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've been stirring the pot, sir.
Speaker 1: That's what I am almost sure.
Speaker 2: Yes, And I was telling you Kyle and I both
Speaker 2: enjoyed Jinksgiving Thank you, and we're listening to it on
Speaker 2: the way back from New York. One thing I wanted
Speaker 2: to talk to you about is I want to get
Speaker 2: into the stuff with you and Elon and Bernie's chimed
Speaker 2: in there and your sort of general approach to the
Speaker 2: Trump administration, which, tell me, if I'm wrong, feels different
Speaker 2: than how you approach things in twenty sixteen. And we
Speaker 2: can talk a little bit more about that and kind
Speaker 2: of emblematic of that if you guys could put jenks
Speaker 2: tweet up on the screen and we can use this
Speaker 2: as a jumping off point. So you said, I've been
Speaker 2: trying to figure out why I'm more optimistic now than
Speaker 2: I was before the election, even though I was so
Speaker 2: against the guy who won. I know now MAGA is
Speaker 2: not my mortal enemy, and neither is the extreme left.
Speaker 2: My mortal enemy is the establishment, and they have been defeated.
Speaker 2: So there's a few pece of this that I have
Speaker 2: some questions about. But I guess just off the top,
Speaker 2: you know, I think you and I both think that
Speaker 2: Trump is a fascist. In fact, I think we both
Speaker 2: argued with our co hosts about this rather memorably what
Speaker 2: makes you optimistic now that we have the fascists headed
Speaker 2: back to the White House.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a couple of things. So number one, he
Speaker 1: was a Why did I call him a fascist? I'm
Speaker 1: very clear on this, right, because he did a fake
Speaker 1: elector plant to overthrow the democratic elections in twenty twenty, right,
Speaker 1: and he said to terminated the constitution afterwards. A lot
Speaker 1: of right wingers don't know that, Like, when I read
Speaker 1: him that quot they're like, no, really, and then they
Speaker 1: read it and they can't believe it that he be
Speaker 1: gets because he doesn't care about democracy, doesn't care about
Speaker 1: the constitution, et cetera. Right, Right, So I have those
Speaker 1: same exact concerns. Those concerns have not left. But the
Speaker 1: one thing that happened in this election was that he
Speaker 1: won the popular vote. And I noticed the right wingers
Speaker 1: switching from oh, we're not a democracy, we're a republic.
Speaker 1: Right yeah too, Like, yeah, let's.
Speaker 2: Go democracy certainly free and elections exist, right yeah.
Speaker 1: And suddenly they're in favor of democratic elections. So great,
Speaker 1: wonderful because my number one concern is that he's not
Speaker 1: going to leave office. I'm less concerned about that now. Okay,
Speaker 1: so maybe I'm wrong about that, And if I'm naive
Speaker 1: about that, then I I'll you know, own up to it,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: Let me just say though, So for me personally, yes,
Speaker 2: I continue to be somewhat concerned he won't leave office.
Speaker 2: But my issue with the fake Elector's plot and all
Speaker 2: of the things that he tried to pull during that
Speaker 2: time is that it was indicative of, you know, an
Speaker 2: attitude and authoritarian approach to government. Yes, that doesn't just
Speaker 2: apply when he's trying to leave office. So for example,
Speaker 2: he wanted to shoot protesters famously in the leg during
Speaker 2: the Black Lives Matter protests, and he at that time
Speaker 2: had some you know, institutions around him, and I think
Speaker 2: it was Mark Million particular, was like, you can't do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: My fear this time is he doesn't have those people
Speaker 2: around him anymore. And each of the institututions that held
Speaker 2: him back last time, Supreme Court, the Senate, the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice, the Pentagon, all of those, there's been a
Speaker 2: concerted effort to make sure that this time he is
Speaker 2: able to indulge his worst and most fascistic impulses. So
Speaker 2: that's why I almost feel like I've traveled like the
Speaker 2: opposite journey as you were in twenty sixteen hours more like,
Speaker 2: and maybe who knows what we're going to get out
Speaker 2: of this this time. I'm actually more concerned, especially because
Speaker 2: you have that Supreme Court immunity decision which really does
Speaker 2: kind of give him carte blanche.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I'm going to get to the irony here, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: So why am I thinking the other way?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, So but first let me double down on
Speaker 1: what you're saying. Cash Betel's a disaster, Pete Hegsith is
Speaker 1: a disaster. I actually thought Matt Gates was a mixed
Speaker 1: back because he is actually anti war and anti corruption,
Speaker 1: but of course he has a terrible person in life.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, so but him being a mess might have
Speaker 2: actually been a good thing because he probably wouldn't have
Speaker 2: been that effective. But anyway, Right, So.
Speaker 1: The Labor Secretary great, given the Trump administration, given the limitations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then you've got the team Israel, Marco Rubio Staffhanic.
Speaker 1: So I'm not in other than the Labor Secretary, I'm
Speaker 1: not interested in any of this, right, So, and you're right,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has allowed him to be above the
Speaker 1: lung But on top of that, he has no accountability left.
Speaker 1: What are they going to do? Impeach him? What are
Speaker 1: they gonna do? Arrest them? Right, no accountability? The breaks
Speaker 1: are all And I agree with you. The establishment was
Speaker 1: a break in the car. Now that break has been
Speaker 1: taken out. So what in the world am I thinking?
Speaker 1: Being slightly optimistic? Well, there's two parts to it. One
Speaker 1: is the establishment being defeated. We got to come back
Speaker 1: to that because that's so important. But I'm Trump the
Speaker 1: new break in the car. And this is this is
Speaker 1: me out on a limb. Okay, is right wing populous?
Speaker 1: So okay, I see.
Speaker 2: You was I mean, listen, I am you know the
Speaker 2: show I do right and I love soccer, and but
Speaker 2: I am also very skeptical that that movement has significant
Speaker 2: sway or influence with Trump. Go ahead and make your case.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I think I I think that's wrong. So
Speaker 1: number one is a different magabase than in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: The twenty sixteen magabase was Trump is DEMI God. Whatever
Speaker 1: Trump says is by definition brought down to us from
Speaker 1: the heavens and will never be challenged. So I had
Speaker 1: no interest in that base, right, and it was filled
Speaker 1: with old school Republicans, some establishment guys but not that many,
Speaker 1: but still they were hanging in there. Then they had
Speaker 1: the religious guys who were like, yeah, let's go kill
Speaker 1: everyone in the Middle East so Jesus can come back
Speaker 1: and stuff. Yeah, but those guys have lost a lot
Speaker 1: of power within that base. So now within the right wing.
Speaker 2: Base, petegsas sorry, I'll let you finish it. But Pete
Speaker 2: Hegseth my Kakabee.
Speaker 1: Like no, no, I know, like balts. But Crystal Huckaby
Speaker 1: is team Miriam, right, so she's.
Speaker 2: The one time Okay, yeah.
Speaker 1: I know, I know. So Miriam Madelson got Marco Rubio,
Speaker 1: Stefanic Huckabee and Walls in those are all neo Khan's
Speaker 1: war hawks too. Yeah, and Hexath with kill all the Muslims.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not unclear that, yeah, and I know
Speaker 1: that that in a lot of ways, I'm in the crosshairs, right,
Speaker 1: but you're But don't discount the bros. Okay, So the
Speaker 1: bros have brought in a huge new part of his base.
Speaker 1: And don't discount the moderates that are so sick of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party that they flipped over moderates independence to
Speaker 1: Trump and they're not looking to deport every human being
Speaker 1: in America. That isn't you know, evangelical Christian. They're not
Speaker 1: looking The bros don't even agree on abortion with the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, right, So like when you talk about Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan and Portanoy and all those guys, we have our
Speaker 1: disagreements with them, no question, right, Yeah, but those guys
Speaker 1: are breaking the car if if let's say, uh, they
Speaker 1: do what one of Trump's potential picks was threatening to do,
Speaker 1: which is deport and denaturalize and arrest Mehdi Hassan. Right,
Speaker 1: that's a specific threat that one of the potential appointees had, right,
Speaker 1: I think Mike Davis. So he was being considered for
Speaker 1: attorney general, and so, by the way, good news he
Speaker 1: didn't pick him. But but you know, Cash Pttel says
Speaker 1: things like that. He says things like that, I think
Speaker 1: if they go to do that, and this is where
Speaker 1: people can you got me on tape, You'll say, ha ha,
Speaker 1: Jank was so naive. That's when I think the rogans
Speaker 1: of the world will come out and go, what do
Speaker 1: you what are you doing? Really? I thought we were
Speaker 1: for against cancel culture. I thought we were for freedom
Speaker 1: you don't agree with media Assam's position on Israel, So
Speaker 1: we're going to denaturalize him a thing that doesn't even exist. No,
Speaker 1: I think they're gonna say no, okay, And here here's
Speaker 1: the absolutely mistest okay on Israel. So the team Israel,
Speaker 1: team Miriam will drive him towards war. Today, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: said that he's going in that direction. Yeah, he said
Speaker 1: that there's going to be hell to pay for the
Speaker 1: Palestinians and for the entire Middle East if the hostages
Speaker 1: aren't returned. I don't know what more hell they could
Speaker 1: live in, right, But that's Trump saying I will murder
Speaker 1: anyone on behalf of Israel, okay, and it will start
Speaker 1: any war on behalf of Israel. So am I right
Speaker 1: or am I wrong? We might find out instantly because
Speaker 1: for the moment being, they're saying the right wing populace,
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, no, Trump will never do a war
Speaker 1: in the Middle East, No way, no way. But he's
Speaker 1: a tough guy, and he's gonna threaten them, and he's
Speaker 1: gonna get the hostages back. But what I'm trying to
Speaker 1: explain to them is, and I had this conversation with
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliania at the RNC, brother, when you say, oh,
Speaker 1: he's threatening them, so that's good negotiation. But what if
Speaker 1: somebody calls his bluff And in the case of the Palestinians,
Speaker 1: they don't have a choice because what Trump is saying
Speaker 1: is in order to get the hostages back, Israel wants
Speaker 1: to ethnically cleanse and take half of Gaza. No Palacinian
Speaker 1: will ever agree to that, right, right, So we're gonna
Speaker 1: Trump is threatening a giant war in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: If he does it, We're gonna find out if I'm
Speaker 1: right or wrong because that at that point, I think
Speaker 1: the right wing populist and the bros go, oh, brother,
Speaker 1: I didn't elect you to be a worse Neocon than Biden.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, and we'll see. But I'll tell you why.
Speaker 2: I'm very skeptical because we already knew Trump's record from
Speaker 2: his first term, like he was not anti war, and
Speaker 2: he was extremely hawkish towards Iron and he was very
Speaker 2: you know, pro Israel, and so this was already out there, right,
Speaker 2: and you still have people like RFK Junior and Tulci
Speaker 2: Gabbard who were claiming he was anti war, even though
Speaker 2: they had said you know, both of them totally contradictory
Speaker 2: things previously, and also claiming that he's anti censorship and
Speaker 2: pro free speech. I mean, to me, that's just utterly preposterous.
Speaker 2: This is someone who wants to tighten the libel laws,
Speaker 2: who wants to criminalize flag burning. You know, the Republican
Speaker 2: Party has launched a wave of bills across the country
Speaker 2: to crack down protests, et cetera. And so even in
Speaker 2: spite of all of that, they still continue to hold
Speaker 2: him out as some you know, beacon of free speech
Speaker 2: and beacon of anti war dubbishness. And so when I
Speaker 2: see that, and I see there's already been this you know,
Speaker 2: ability to erase all of the things that he's done
Speaker 2: in the past and pretend he is something that he's not,
Speaker 2: it's hard for me to imagine that dynamic changing. But well,
Speaker 2: we can put a pin in that because we are
Speaker 2: going to see, you know, soon enough, what the reaction
Speaker 2: is going to. Because I do want to get to
Speaker 2: this piece about the establishment, because the other part that
Speaker 2: I have a question about here is you say the
Speaker 2: establishment has been defeated, and I just say, like, even
Speaker 2: in the Democratic Party, I think they have been delta blow.
Speaker 2: I think you see that in MSNBC's cratering ratings. I
Speaker 2: think that creates an opportunity, a possibility. But I don't
Speaker 2: think they've been defeated. I think it's very possible we
Speaker 2: end up with Peteon, Gavitt or Gavin you know, next
Speaker 2: time around in the Democratic primary. These people are very resilient.
Speaker 2: I think you have a lot of you know, affluent
Speaker 2: liberals who will think that they could be the answer
Speaker 2: to the problems, et cetera. They still have a lot
Speaker 2: of money power. But on the Republican side too. You know,
Speaker 2: for me, the ultimate like final boss establishment is the
Speaker 2: billionaires who rig the rules for their own benefit. And
Speaker 2: the billionaires have basically never been more blatantly in control
Speaker 2: than right now. Elon Musk is a perfect example of this.
Speaker 2: But we can actually put this next element up on
Speaker 2: the screen. Guys. Trump is the wealthiest cabinet in history.
Speaker 2: I think there are six billionaires so far that he's
Speaker 2: picked to be part of his administration. And so you know,
Speaker 2: to me, again, this is like the ultimate establishment, and
Speaker 2: they are fully in control of what's going to happen
Speaker 2: in the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: So I agree with you on all that. He's been
Speaker 1: hypocritical on every one of those issues, censorship, and he
Speaker 1: said about in this first term, I don't want poor
Speaker 1: people in my cabinet. Yeah right, So he's been trying
Speaker 1: to get into that elite club his whole life. So
Speaker 1: the idea that he's against the elites is kind of funny.
Speaker 1: He is, but only because he's jealous.
Speaker 2: He's against cultural elites, Hollywood, academia. He's not against.
Speaker 1: He's not that's not even true. He'd love to be
Speaker 1: in a home.
Speaker 2: Oh that's true.
Speaker 1: Right, But that's how he started university. So but he
Speaker 1: but is he was he perceived as against establishment? Yes? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so so that's when I so, when is it establishment annihilated? No,
Speaker 1: of course not. Are they going to make a comeback?
Speaker 1: Of course the Empire is going to strike back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. But at the Empire is struck back
Speaker 1: so many times. It's struck back in twenty sixteen, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, and so maybe twenty twenty eight is
Speaker 1: to extend this needless analogy is the return of the Jedi? Right,
Speaker 1: and so so I'm not under any illusion that the
Speaker 1: establishment is gone, right, But did was Kamala Harris the
Speaker 1: more establishment candidate. Yes, of course she was right, and
Speaker 1: so did she lose. Yes, And as I explained in
Speaker 1: another tweet in that thread, it's not just that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris lost a lot of some Hillary Clinton lost, right,
Speaker 1: Biden nearly lost. So it's not that. It's that mainstream media,
Speaker 1: which is the main weapon of the establishment, is now
Speaker 1: greatly reduced in its influence. Before we could not get
Speaker 1: past them in a democratic primary. Bernie almost had it
Speaker 1: in sixteen, but certinly in twenty twenty twenty on the
Speaker 1: first three states, and mainstream media defeated him with their
Speaker 1: lies and propaganda. Right, Oh, he's going to execute people
Speaker 1: in Central Park, He's a Nazi, et cetera. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: the mainstream media guys are the worst liars in the world.
Speaker 1: They lie way worse than even right wing media. There.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Okay, we could have that discussion. I
Speaker 1: think you cannot find two bigger liars in America than
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough and Whoopee Goldberg.
Speaker 2: I mean, but here you, I mean, I hear you.
Speaker 2: But I also have been kind of black piled on
Speaker 2: a lot of independent media because that tenant media situation
Speaker 2: where you know, Timpoole and whoever else were taking random,
Speaker 2: sketchy money to put out whatever propaganda they were told
Speaker 2: to put out. I just, you know, I don't see
Speaker 2: what has grown up on the right in the independent
Speaker 2: media space as actually being better than the mainstream.
Speaker 1: Prop I disagree with you, well, I.
Speaker 2: While I feel like there, you know, what I agree
Speaker 2: with you on is there is a possibility that exists
Speaker 2: now that didn't before, and so I feel sort of
Speaker 2: I guess what I relate to in your tweet, I
Speaker 2: would say I feel energized because there is a possibility
Speaker 2: that wasn't there that is there now. I think the
Speaker 2: most likely outcome is that things continue to get worse.
Speaker 2: That's why, that's why I don't feel like optimistic, because
Speaker 2: what I see over the next four years is you're
Speaker 2: probably going to have, you know, a lot of cruelty
Speaker 2: towards immigrants. You're likely to have you know, another inflationary spiral.
Speaker 2: If he does, you know, half of the tariffs he's
Speaker 2: talking about, you could very easily have more chaos than
Speaker 2: the Middle East. We're already seeing it more brutality in
Speaker 2: the Middle East. That's almost certainly going to happen. You know,
Speaker 2: you could have some like giant crypto bubble, as possible
Speaker 2: avian flu. Like, there's all kinds of things that I
Speaker 2: think could be horrible and brutal over the next four years,
Speaker 2: and I can't look at that. I would love to
Speaker 2: feel optimistic that you know something, there's going to be
Speaker 2: a light at the end of the rainbow. And like
Speaker 2: I said, I do feel energized, but optimistic is just
Speaker 2: not you know, I would love to be there, but
Speaker 2: I'm not.
Speaker 1: So let me agree and disagreeing part. So first all,
Speaker 1: I agree with your facts. So when we're talking about
Speaker 1: online media, are the Russians involved? Are there fracking billionaires
Speaker 1: that are financing shows? Yeah, billionaire acts and billionaire y
Speaker 1: And do some of those shows totally serve those interests.
Speaker 2: Yes, And they're reading the ads themselves, so there's not
Speaker 2: even like, you know, the appearance of an arms length distance. Yeah,
Speaker 2: get alargizers and the money.
Speaker 1: I get all that, and I grant all that. Okay,
Speaker 1: So why then, given those facts and are more optimistic
Speaker 1: about online media than mainstream media Because mainstream media is
Speaker 1: a prison, and it's a prison you can't in the past,
Speaker 1: you could not break out of there's guard rails. You
Speaker 1: are not allowed to say things outside those guardrails. You
Speaker 1: cannot talk about how the donors obviously control all the politicians. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you cannot talk about how Israel obviously controls Washington and
Speaker 1: Washington's occupied territory. It's so obvious. But if you say
Speaker 1: you're fired, you're fired, You're fired. I hate that prison.
Speaker 1: I despise that prison of lies. That is establishment media. Okay.
Speaker 1: So now in online media, yeah, you got the Russians,
Speaker 1: you got this, you got wild and wooly crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: You got people I disagree with on the extream left,
Speaker 1: on the extreme right. It's a mess in online media,
Speaker 1: and I love it. Okay, that's the jungle, But Crystal,
Speaker 1: that's our jungle. Okay. So if we started this jungle
Speaker 1: at the young Turks and breaking points in the young
Speaker 1: Turks are in that are in those same woods, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: in the woods we have to fight off the right,
Speaker 1: the left, the middle of the Russians, the Israelis, the Saudis,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Yeah, that's the woods, baby, right, But we
Speaker 1: were born in those woods.
Speaker 2: I mean, I I don't you jink. I just I've
Speaker 2: seen too much I mean, you know what the incentives are, like,
Speaker 2: the incentives are to feed the algorithm, and incentives are
Speaker 2: to future audience whatever they want to hear. The incentives
Speaker 2: are to be you know, ever more in your own bubble,
Speaker 2: and a lot of the incentives are the same, like
Speaker 2: access driven ones and corruption driven ones as the mainstream press.
Speaker 2: There's a reason why you and I didn't get interviews
Speaker 2: with Kamala Harris because she knows we would ask her
Speaker 2: some tough questions. Of course, there's a reason.
Speaker 1: And gives it damn about getting in every book.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, oh, I am coming a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in interviewing a corporate robot anyway.
Speaker 2: But Jake, my point is that a lot of people
Speaker 2: do care about that, which is why, I mean, so
Speaker 2: much of right wing media is just like, you know,
Speaker 2: basically sucking off Trump and whatever he says and towing
Speaker 2: the line because they want to maintain that access. They
Speaker 2: want to maintain you know, their funding, funding and their money,
Speaker 2: and they want to feed their audience whatever they want
Speaker 2: to be fed. And so again there's a possibility here,
Speaker 2: and I don't want to squash that. I think it's
Speaker 2: really important and it excites me on the stay in
Speaker 2: the same respects like I'm clear eyed about what assesspool.
Speaker 2: A lot of independent media, frankly is at this point.
Speaker 2: And so I there's I guess a caution that I
Speaker 2: have about it.
Speaker 1: So nobody knows that better than me. Right, We've been doing.
Speaker 2: This for I know, I know, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So I so we started when the Internet was a
Speaker 1: nice place. That's how old we are, so longest running,
Speaker 1: showing internet history, first YouTube partner, you know all that. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So my point is that I have gone through all
Speaker 1: of those different things, and I'm perfectly aware of that.
Speaker 1: I'm not at all naive about it, I know, Right,
Speaker 1: But let me ask you a question back. You and
Speaker 1: I both worked at MSNBC. So we've worked and establishment media,
Speaker 1: we've worked online media. What do you prefer?
Speaker 2: Oh, definitely online media. Then I'll tell you, Jank, We've
Speaker 2: made some very specific decisions here, which is we don't
Speaker 2: do that. We will never talk to an advertiser, you know,
Speaker 2: we don't do adreads. We you know, have tried to
Speaker 2: intentionally create our business to avoid as much as possible,
Speaker 2: and we're still human beings. But as much as possible
Speaker 2: some of the you know, the pressures, the incentives, et cetera,
Speaker 2: that I think have led to, you know, most of
Speaker 2: the media ecosystem being not that great. And I think
Speaker 2: you know that's you know, I know you guys have
Speaker 2: made some of those choices in your own way. Is
Speaker 2: not exactly the same ones that we have. But most
Speaker 2: people like the money's green, and you know, they want
Speaker 2: me to read this ad for like the Bald Coddlers
Speaker 2: or whatever it is, and I'm going to do it,
Speaker 2: and I'm not going to look into that product. And
Speaker 2: if later down the road there's some problem with the product,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to cover it because then I'm going
Speaker 2: to have a problem with my funders. Like I think,
Speaker 2: because we've made some specific decisions here, it has given
Speaker 2: us a lot of freedom. But I don't necessarily see
Speaker 2: those same incentives, you know, playing out across all of
Speaker 2: independent media which is created. So as much as I
Speaker 2: would love for us to be the model for everyone,
Speaker 2: that's not the reality of most of what exists out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but so Crystal, I agree with you on all
Speaker 1: of that. Again, stimulate to all the facts, right, But
Speaker 1: at least we've got a fighter's chance at online media.
Speaker 1: And what has our perseverance shown tyt as a network. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's shown that when you buck all the tides and
Speaker 1: you don't take the obvious money, you don't serve those
Speaker 1: corporate interests, and you get attacked by every side, imaginable, right, establishment,
Speaker 1: right wing, left wing, everyone has attacked us. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: yet we're still the largest. So now that's not to
Speaker 1: just a brag or anything. There's a real point in there,
Speaker 1: which is, yes, but the audience values the truth and
Speaker 1: so as difficult as it is day to day, Oh,
Speaker 1: somebody lined about you, you lost a part of your audience.
Speaker 1: So someone else lined about you, you lost a part of
Speaker 1: your audience. But you still keep going and going and going.
Speaker 1: And those guys they all fall off, they all fall off.
Speaker 2: Daily Wire is way bigger than us, and they are
Speaker 2: you know, they're propagandists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Daily Wire has gotten an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: money from corporate interests right now. But that's in the run.
Speaker 2: The new establishment media, you know, it's I mean, they're
Speaker 2: not bucking the system, right, they're they're just a new
Speaker 2: version on a different platform of effectively Fox News, I know.
Speaker 1: But Chrysal. I'm a business person, and I can see
Speaker 1: that those models are unworkable in the long run. Basically,
Speaker 1: what the right wing billionaires are doing is they have
Speaker 1: a marketing budget, right, and their marketing budget goes to
Speaker 1: things like other right wing media, right online, right wing media,
Speaker 1: And I get it. And that's a big reservoir of
Speaker 1: money that the left doesn't have at all, right, Right,
Speaker 1: And so it's so ironic when they're like Soros controls everything.
Speaker 1: Have you guys checked into how right media against financed? Okay,
Speaker 1: let alone the fact that Soros hasn't helped us a dime, right,
Speaker 1: as far as I don't know about you guys are
Speaker 1: not definitely, and so I get all that, But they
Speaker 1: don't have margins. It's not a real business. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: not a real business if you have to rely on,
Speaker 1: as Dennis Prager does, twenty three million dollars a year
Speaker 1: from right wing billionaires, right, that's just a marketing, short
Speaker 1: term marketing operation. Whereas building a real business where people
Speaker 1: actually value what you're doing, value the truth, that is
Speaker 1: sustainable in the long run. And we've proven that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So look last thing on Trump in terms of why then.
Speaker 2: I want to talk and then I want to talk
Speaker 2: to them about elon.
Speaker 1: If you don't know, I don't mind at all, but
Speaker 1: like on why I'm not despondent as I was in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Okay, okay, So there's the right wing base.
Speaker 1: But there's one of the thing with Trump. He loves
Speaker 1: being popular. So you got to get one decent person
Speaker 1: in the room to show him how to be popular,
Speaker 1: because I don't think he knows how. He's just grasping
Speaker 1: a straws He's blind, right, he keeps doing ab testing.
Speaker 1: He's like, okay, what's more popular, being pro immigrant or
Speaker 1: anti immigrant? He did that, like back in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: He went on a radio tour and he's like pro emigrant, No,
Speaker 1: that's not anti immigrant. Oh yeah, okay, people like that, right. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: but paid family leave is popular, healthcare is popular, higher
Speaker 1: wages as popular, and the right wing populist like all that.
Speaker 1: Anti war, anti corruption, those are all popular, and the
Speaker 1: right wing populist agree with the left wing populist. So
Speaker 1: there is an area of possible agreement there that could
Speaker 1: get something done that the establishment would never do. The
Speaker 1: establishment would never be anti war, they would never be
Speaker 1: anti corruption, they would be never anything positive. So like,
Speaker 1: we've broken out of that prison, and that prison was
Speaker 1: the worst place in the world and it was filled
Speaker 1: with nothing but gas lighting about the American people's suck,
Speaker 1: and the donors are the greatest. The politicians are honest.
Speaker 2: I just don't know who is going to be that
Speaker 2: voice number one, because his administration has largely been filled with,
Speaker 2: you know, almost with a few exclusions. You know, I
Speaker 2: think the Labor Secretary is a notable one, but with
Speaker 2: almost all like sort of right wing ideo logs. And
Speaker 2: number two. I guess part of what I'm grappling with
Speaker 2: as well is if you go down the list of issues,
Speaker 2: I'm all for a horseshoe, and I think there are
Speaker 2: some areas there, you know, to work with Josh Holly
Speaker 2: or work with that used to be Marco Ruby actually
Speaker 2: was kind of interesting on some of the economic stuff,
Speaker 2: like Matt Gates also was interesting on the economics. All
Speaker 2: for horseshoe, working with elected representatives, et cetera. But if
Speaker 2: you go down the list, I think you and I
Speaker 2: are mostly ideologically in the same place. I'm sure we
Speaker 2: have some differences, but I think we're buying large ideologically
Speaker 2: in the same place. If I go down a list,
Speaker 2: I am on almost every issue closer to the common
Speaker 2: Harris Democrat than I am to the Donald Trump Republican,
Speaker 2: whether it's healthcare or wages or labor or any of
Speaker 2: these things. And so that's what's kind of That's what's
Speaker 2: a little bit like dissonant for me, is you know,
Speaker 2: if we're caring about the policy outcomes, I think I'm
Speaker 2: much more likely to get improvement, not the things we
Speaker 2: would want, like Medicare for all, but much more likely
Speaker 2: to get improvement on the policy outcomes that I would
Speaker 2: want to see from a Kamala Harris. So react to that,
Speaker 2: but also like, are you saying that you're actively happy
Speaker 2: that Trump beat her at this point?
Speaker 1: No, So this is what I was going to say,
Speaker 1: is since I agree with you ideologically that I'm closer
Speaker 1: to the theoretical Kamala Harris potations, right, That's why I
Speaker 1: voted for Kamlaris donald Trump. And I'm worried to Donald Trump. Again.
Speaker 1: Never called them a Nazi, never called him Hitler, but
Speaker 1: fascist is another word for authoritarian, right, And so yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm worried that Donald Trump's an authoritarian. So that's why
Speaker 1: I vote and he said to terminate the consolation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why I voted for Kamala Harris. Okay, So now
Speaker 1: having said that, now that he is one, right, I
Speaker 1: would have preferred an actual populace instead of I you
Speaker 1: to be a fake populist. Right, But now that he
Speaker 1: is won, there is a tiny ray of hope that
Speaker 1: did not exist in the establishment prison.
Speaker 2: Okay, I hear that.
Speaker 1: So last thing on that is, I'll give you a
Speaker 1: specific example paid family leaf. Is Trump likely to do it? No?
Speaker 1: Of course not right? So and was Kamala Harris going
Speaker 1: to do it? No? Of course not. Okay, No, there's
Speaker 1: a chance with her that No, that I totally disagree.
Speaker 1: That's where I disagree. The establishment never waivers. They will
Speaker 1: do what corporate donors tell them. Not ninety nine percent
Speaker 1: of the time, one hundred percent of not true, it
Speaker 1: is one hundred anything.
Speaker 2: I'll give you some specific examples from the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: which is anti trust. Lena Khan, right, the Lall Street
Speaker 2: Journal hated him for that, The billionaires hated him for that.
Speaker 2: I mean this is that was a big pressure campaign
Speaker 2: they put on Kamala Harris to make sure she got
Speaker 2: rid of Lena Khan has her so that he was
Speaker 2: the most pro labor president we have had in our lifetimes.
Speaker 1: That is, of.
Speaker 2: Course, but these are two areas where the donors did
Speaker 2: not want this right and his National Labor Relations Board,
Speaker 2: you know, the General Counsel Jennifer brusso genuinely sort of
Speaker 2: revolutionary in her approach, and they ended captive audience meetings
Speaker 2: for one example. A lot of the decisions she made
Speaker 2: helped to enable this grassroots labor organizing search, and so
Speaker 2: you know that was that was a break from neoliberalism.
Speaker 2: Now he has destroyed any possible positive legacy with genocide
Speaker 2: and Gaza and all kinds of other things besides and
Speaker 2: being so arrogant and not getting out of the way,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But he did break with what the billionaires
Speaker 2: wanted and what the donors wanted in a few key areas,
Speaker 2: and I think we are very like that is not
Speaker 2: going to happen with Trump. Trump is already handed so
Speaker 2: much government pound. This will help us transition into Elon
Speaker 2: to Elon Musk with this doge thing. I mean, Elon
Speaker 2: is not only the richest man on the planet, but
Speaker 2: he also has massive multi billions of dollars in government contracts.
Speaker 2: He's one of the Pentagon's largest contractors. And whether it's
Speaker 2: Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or whoever,
Speaker 2: I as a matter of principle, object to like rule
Speaker 2: by billionaires, rule by unelected billionaires. And that is this
Speaker 2: is like the most clear manifestation of that that I've
Speaker 2: ever seen.
Speaker 1: So for Biden and Obama, what they do is a
Speaker 1: release valve. Right, so they'll give you five to ten
Speaker 1: percent change, sure, And I would argue that Biden at
Speaker 1: his height, actually did fifteen percent of his agenda. So
Speaker 1: for Democrats, that's like record break and we're only lying
Speaker 1: eighty five percent of the time.
Speaker 2: No, I agree with Okay, So.
Speaker 1: They say, well, well, look, we gave you a little
Speaker 1: release valve so you don't do a revolution. We gave
Speaker 1: you Lena Khan, we gave you a decent National Labor
Speaker 1: Relations Board. Now, of course we didn't give you the
Speaker 1: pro Act. Don't be ridiculous. We're not going to actually
Speaker 1: promise me.
Speaker 2: But how many supported the pro Act and how many Republicans? No?
Speaker 1: But that's my point, that's my point, Crystal. Those Democrats
Speaker 1: are liars. They don't actually support the pro act. They
Speaker 1: don't actually support any of those policy positions. Giant, enormous liars.
Speaker 1: So you saw it on fifteen dollar minum wage. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're for fifteen dollar minute wage. Joe Biden's like, get
Speaker 1: it out of goddamn bill, right, he said in the
Speaker 1: first interview in the Super Bowl, he said, Oh no,
Speaker 1: we can't do fifteen domenu in wage. Why And I
Speaker 1: remember talking to people in Congress saying, oh, Jang, what
Speaker 1: are you worried about. It's guaranteed, it's guaranteed. Nancy PELUSI
Speaker 1: told us it's guaranteed, right, And what did we do?
Speaker 1: We forced a vote on it. And what happened? Eight
Speaker 1: sellout Democratic senators voted against the fifteen dolarmeters, which including
Speaker 1: the two Biden.
Speaker 2: Senator How many Republicans voted? Again?
Speaker 1: No, no, But Crystal, I stipulate that the Republicans are
Speaker 1: totally corrupt.
Speaker 2: But are you? Because it seems like you're saying that
Speaker 2: you're more likely to get like something real out of
Speaker 2: them than you are on of the Democrats. And look,
Speaker 2: I'm clear eyed about the Democrats. You know, I've been
Speaker 2: plenty critical of them in their many failings, but I
Speaker 2: just don't think that's true. And you know, part of
Speaker 2: it is that Democrats get significant funding from labor unions
Speaker 2: and that's a part of their coalition, and so that's
Speaker 2: part of why they're that's part of why that's part
Speaker 2: of why they have been more. I mean they have
Speaker 2: just the Biden administration in particular was pretty consistently pro labor,
Speaker 2: and I think they deserve you know, I think they
Speaker 2: deserve some credit for that.
Speaker 1: And dragged to the picone's like, oh my god, a
Speaker 1: Democrat didn't like.
Speaker 2: The Democrats are perfect, but Donald Trump is a strike
Speaker 2: breaker like he and was like, isn't that awesome how
Speaker 2: you fired these striking workers? But he has been a
Speaker 2: union buster his entire career. His first NLRB and lay
Speaker 2: secretary work horrendous. So it kind of feels.
Speaker 1: Like you are no, no, no, no, Look, let's so
Speaker 1: let's be super clear about it. So if you say
Speaker 1: to me, establishment Republicans suck, I agree. But the Republican
Speaker 1: populace base that elected Trump did a revolution against Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: did a revolution.
Speaker 2: Against that Trump, not because of his like corporate whatever
Speaker 2: trumps the.
Speaker 1: Biggest Nevertheless, Nevertheless, establishment Republicans are defeated and humiliated, and
Speaker 1: I love it. Okay, they are.
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio is Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: But let's see what happens with the right wing base
Speaker 1: when he goes to start that war. We're going to
Speaker 1: find out. So no, here, I'll give you two specific examples.
Speaker 1: Number one, on paid family leave. Neither one of them
Speaker 1: is likely to do it. And and no, I'm not
Speaker 1: thinking that everything is rainbows and sunshine and oh my god,
Speaker 1: Trump's going to be amazing. No, he is more likely
Speaker 1: to do what he has done in the past, and
Speaker 1: what he has done in the past is bad, bad,
Speaker 1: to terrible. Okay, yes, so I've got that at about
Speaker 1: seventy five percent. Everyone else has it at ninety nine
Speaker 1: or one hundred percent. That is on our side, right,
Speaker 1: And I think that that is wrong. I think there's
Speaker 1: a twenty five percent chance that that right wing base
Speaker 1: and his desire for popularity makes a difference. I think
Speaker 1: with corporate Democrats, you would have never ever gotten paid
Speaker 1: family leave, even though it polls at eighty four percent.
Speaker 1: They're enormous liars. All they have to do is introducing it.
Speaker 1: It passes right. So the fact that they know that
Speaker 1: they could just introduce it and have it pass, and
Speaker 1: they won't do it anyway shows you they are hopeless.
Speaker 1: They are one hundred percent donor driven. And every once
Speaker 1: in a while, I release valve, release valve. Okay, so
Speaker 1: on the pressure, but on the on the Republican side,
Speaker 1: if you convince Donald Trump that paid family leave will
Speaker 1: make him more popular, he'll do it overnight. He doesn't have.
Speaker 2: About Mitch McConnell wing ideologs around it. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is the thing, But then what are you going to
Speaker 2: do give up home? You just can't. You just can't know.
Speaker 1: But you then let's talk about the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: No, but you, let's talk about the Pentagon, because I
Speaker 2: do think that's an interesting point of conversation. If I
Speaker 2: look at how many Democrats support the Proact and how
Speaker 2: many Republicans. If I look at how many Democrats support
Speaker 2: paid family leave and how many Republicans, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: the Democrats are great, but I am saying that that
Speaker 2: release valve is vastly superior to you know, with Trump,
Speaker 2: you're going to get some level of extremely cruel border
Speaker 2: policy which is going to cause unbelievable pain to a
Speaker 2: number of people. You are going to probably get West
Speaker 2: Bank annexation and more brutality in the Middle East, and
Speaker 2: so I just can't sort of you know, while yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, I'll have a hope in a prayer that
Speaker 2: maybe something positive will come out somewhere, Like I'm just
Speaker 2: clear eyed about I think there's going to be a
Speaker 2: lot of pain and cruelty and unnecessary suffering caused by
Speaker 2: this administration. So that's why it's hard for me to
Speaker 2: relate to like a sense of optimism about the possibility,
Speaker 2: even as again I'm all for a good horseshoe if
Speaker 2: there's an issue. You know, Bernie Sanders has done this
Speaker 2: also working with I think Josh Holly on stimulus check.
Speaker 2: We like, do it great, get what you can. But also,
Speaker 2: like like I said before, I think what's likely to happen,
Speaker 2: the most likely outcome is just things are going to
Speaker 2: get overall worse than That's yeah.
Speaker 1: Where I am looking like a repeat it before people
Speaker 1: believe me. I know Donald Trump has done terrible things
Speaker 1: in the past. That's why I fought tooth and nail
Speaker 1: against them in all of the elections. Yeah, I know
Speaker 1: what is more likely. I know how awful the Republicans
Speaker 1: have been in the past, right, Okay. The only point
Speaker 1: of disagreement is I think some of those right wing
Speaker 1: voters are not as horrific as you think they are.
Speaker 2: Oh, I don't think the voters are horrific. I don't
Speaker 2: think that at all. I think that they there is
Speaker 2: no track record of them, you know, constraining Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: holding him to account. He has become the central figure
Speaker 2: in the Republican Party. And you know, however, he wants
Speaker 2: to spend things, whatever case he wants to make. What
Speaker 2: I have seen is people consistently, even in this era,
Speaker 2: even with new parts of the coalition, et cetera, I
Speaker 2: have seen them fall in line. And that's where the
Speaker 2: RFK Junior and the Tulsi example, I get it.
Speaker 1: So if I said to you, who is more likely
Speaker 1: to cut the Pentagon Joe Biden, Kama harris Er, Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: None, Okay, I mean Donald Donald Trump increased the defense
Speaker 2: budget every year that he was in.
Speaker 1: There, of course, and he bragged about it. Okay, So
Speaker 1: I agree that none of them are likely to cut it.
Speaker 1: But with Trump, because of his right wing base and
Speaker 1: his desire for popularity, I have it at possible. With
Speaker 1: Biden and Harris, it had a zero percent chance because
Speaker 1: they work for the goddamn donors. They would never cut
Speaker 1: the military.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean he went to oil, Give me a
Speaker 2: billion dollars, whatever you want me to do, Crypto, you
Speaker 2: know he.
Speaker 1: Was going to be a disaster. You don't have to
Speaker 1: convince me of that. But here's let me see if
Speaker 1: I could break through one last time. So if Biden said,
Speaker 1: if Kamala Harris had won and she developed a conscience,
Speaker 1: which is nearly impossible, and said, you know what, this
Speaker 1: Pentagon is bloated. Look at all this fraud and abuse.
Speaker 1: They can't find four hundred million dollars. That said, I'm
Speaker 1: cutting two hundred billion dollars from the Pentagon. Even if
Speaker 1: she had done that, which you had a zero percent chance,
Speaker 1: the Democrats would have, not just the Republicans, but the
Speaker 1: Democrats would have found a way to stop her and
Speaker 1: not allow her to cut the Pentagon. So there was
Speaker 1: no hope at all, black hole of hope. Okay, with Trump,
Speaker 1: if the Republicans go to stop him, if he goes
Speaker 1: to cut the Pentagon, they won't be able to. If
Speaker 1: Mitch mcconnoughll goes and Rick cargles, you won't cut the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: Trump like, what did you say, bitch? Okay, I mean
Speaker 1: Mitch okay, right, and Mitch Mcca. I'm so sorry. I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry. We're cutting the Pagan everybody, We're cutting the
Speaker 1: Pentagon because Trump has them bullied. That is another advantage
Speaker 1: of Trump that he could bully the establishment, his grotesque
Speaker 1: establishment authoritarian tendencies.
Speaker 2: Jiu jitsu move jiu jitsu end up being a benefit.
Speaker 2: Take your position. I do want to just quickly, because
Speaker 2: we've already gone on a long time. I don't want
Speaker 2: to keep you too long, but I do want to
Speaker 2: talk a little bit about the Elon thing, and we
Speaker 2: can put up the Bernie Sanders tweet you had done.
Speaker 2: You would like reach out to Elon like, hey, you know,
Speaker 2: I'll help you cut the Pentagon budget if series about this.
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders says something similar. Elon Musk is right, the
Speaker 2: Pentagon just failed as haven't thought it. That must change,
Speaker 2: blah blah blah. Obviously I would like to see the
Speaker 2: Pentagon's budget cut. I will tell you, like I said,
Speaker 2: I am all for working for the with the elected representatives,
Speaker 2: as Bernie has done in the past with Josh Holly
Speaker 2: and others on areas of agreement, totally fine with my
Speaker 2: problem maybe my core litmus tests. And you and I
Speaker 2: were talking about this before, like if I was to
Speaker 2: design the Democratic Party from scratch, the litmus test would
Speaker 2: all be around economics and there would be a larger
Speaker 2: tent around cultural issues, even as I know personally have
Speaker 2: mostly lefty issues on positions on cultural issues. But pretty
Speaker 2: core litmus test for me is we shouldn't be allowing
Speaker 2: unelected billionaires to effectively run the government, and so on
Speaker 2: this particular issue, I do come down in a different
Speaker 2: place than you because I think this project of giving
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, richest man on the planet, one of the
Speaker 2: Pentagon's largest contractors, who's in Brown all sorts of regulatory
Speaker 2: disputes around labor violations and environmental degcorty and SEC violations,
Speaker 2: giving him carte blanche to remake the government. However he
Speaker 2: wants to like just down a principle, I think that's
Speaker 2: a project overall that should be a post.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So totally agree, but that's not where we are.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about the agreement and then let's talk
Speaker 1: about what to do going forward. Okay, So this is
Speaker 1: what I told the Republicans and the right wing voters
Speaker 1: and the independence before the election. Look, Donald Trump openly
Speaker 1: brags about his corruption. He goes, I used to be
Speaker 1: against electric vehicles, but then Elon gave me a very
Speaker 1: strong endorsement.
Speaker 2: Right now here we are. Yeah, I'm like, you.
Speaker 1: Just admitted that you are the swamp right and so,
Speaker 1: and he brags about, oh, Sheldon Aedelson gave me a
Speaker 1: strong endorsement back in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. That
Speaker 1: means one hundred million dollars in both races, right, So
Speaker 1: he said, so I moved the embassy for you just
Speaker 1: admitted that you gave us foreign policy to a donor.
Speaker 1: And he's now done that with Miriam Adolson. You know,
Speaker 1: he's saying, oh, yeah, I'll start any war Israel wants,
Speaker 1: because Miriam gave me one hundred and thirty seven million
Speaker 1: dollars on TikTok. He was even more brazen. He was like,
Speaker 1: I was against TikTok, try to get a band, but
Speaker 1: Jeff Yas give me a strong.
Speaker 2: Endorsement Crypto the same deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so now I'm for TikTok. Right. So he
Speaker 1: admits his corruption in spectacular fashion. It's unbelievable. Would I
Speaker 1: allow Elon Musk, in an ideal world to basically have
Speaker 1: power over at least half the government just because he's
Speaker 1: one of the top donors to Donald Trump? No, I
Speaker 1: don't want billionaire donors in charge of the government, right,
Speaker 1: So that is clear and obvious. And I hope one
Speaker 1: day right wing populace finally realize, oh, maybe billionaire donors
Speaker 1: aren't our friends, maybe that they're ringing the rules not
Speaker 1: to our benefit but to their benefit. Right, So I
Speaker 1: understand and stipulate to all that. But nevertheless, Trump won,
Speaker 1: and here's Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami. Who are going
Speaker 1: to be in charge of this Yeah, who are going
Speaker 1: to be in charge of this department? Whatever the hell
Speaker 1: this department is, which is really the whole government, right, right?
Speaker 1: And so I say half the government, but it's not,
Speaker 1: it's the whole government. And so how do I make
Speaker 1: the best of it? Well, we've always wanted to cut
Speaker 1: the Pentagon, right, So if they're looking to make cuts,
Speaker 1: I suggest the idea of cutting the Pentagon. Now, normally
Speaker 1: that's where it would end, especially with if I said
Speaker 1: that to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, they'd be like, get
Speaker 1: out of here, you loser, online media populous losers.
Speaker 2: No way, right, Biden doesn't know how to log into Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so they'd be like, no way. They'd go
Speaker 1: and you know, give a general a handy, that's you know,
Speaker 1: and be like, oh no, don't don't worry, don't worry.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's here to protect you. Right, and so would
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell's. So would every dirt bag Republican. Right. So,
Speaker 1: but here Elon Musk and Donald Trump Junior said maybe
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we do that, right, maybe we do. Then
Speaker 1: I suggested a conflict of interest rule where the generals
Speaker 1: can't be go work for defense contractors afterwards. Right, And
Speaker 1: why did Elon This is the important part I'm trying
Speaker 1: to get through to you. Yeah, why did Elon and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior go all right, Jank ada boy? Not
Speaker 1: a thing they would normally say.
Speaker 2: Because they like saying even lefty Jank Huger no agrees
Speaker 2: the Department of Government efficiency. That's why.
Speaker 1: And so Crystal, I totally get that, Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: understand that that's part of their motivation. Yeah, But the
Speaker 1: main motivation was not that the main motivation is because
Speaker 1: on X they could see all of their base going yes, yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: yes yes.
Speaker 2: Because they're based Also like even Jank, you Lefty Jank
Speaker 2: Huger is on board with the Department Government efficiency, Like
Speaker 2: I understand where I'm coming from. I understand where Bernie's
Speaker 2: coming from. Of like, listen, this is the world and
Speaker 2: we have to deal with it, and we're going to
Speaker 2: get what we can get. If you're talking about elective
Speaker 2: representative I am one hundred percent on board with all
Speaker 2: of that. With this specific project, I think it's dangerous
Speaker 2: to normal normalize giving billionaires this level of control over
Speaker 2: the government. And you're, you know, your willingness to engage
Speaker 2: with it, which again I understand where you're coming from.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying like you're bad or evil or like
Speaker 2: whatever for doing it, but I think this level of
Speaker 2: engagement gives this project of total billionaire control over the
Speaker 2: federal government a sense of bipartisan legitimacy and creates the
Speaker 2: appearance that genuinely beneficial things are going to come out
Speaker 2: of it, when I do not think that genuinely beneficial
Speaker 2: things are going to come out of it overall, even
Speaker 2: if there are things that they cut that you and
Speaker 2: I both be like, Okay, that's fine that they cut that,
Speaker 2: because look, Elon Musk, he is himself one of the
Speaker 2: largest Pentagon contractors. He has all of these massive conflicts
Speaker 2: of interest. This is a project, like any normal like
Speaker 2: Koch Brothers type right wing project, to strip the capability
Speaker 2: of the government so it's less able to regulate and
Speaker 2: constrain Robert barons like Elon Musk or any other of
Speaker 2: the billionaire class that has rigged the economy. And so
Speaker 2: that's why, in this specific instance, I think it's more
Speaker 2: important to just oppose the project outright and try to
Speaker 2: explain to people why this is a really perditious development
Speaker 2: in our nation's history, versus giving it some credibility by
Speaker 2: being like, oh, look, they might do some good things
Speaker 2: and they might work with me on this or that proposal.
Speaker 1: So totally agree, totally disagree, Okay, the part I agree
Speaker 1: on is, yeah, it's a pernacious project. I don't want
Speaker 1: to validate billionaires running the government, donors running the government.
Speaker 1: That was the problem with the establishment in the first place. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: And yes, Elon Musk has enormous conflicts of interest, not
Speaker 1: just with the Pentagon. He wants to get rid of
Speaker 1: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why because they're the cops.
Speaker 2: On Wall Street and the NLRB.
Speaker 1: And why do they want to get rid of that
Speaker 1: because it serves as billionaire interests. Right. So I'm trying
Speaker 1: to I hope to god. I know it's a tough,
Speaker 1: tough task. Yeah, but get the right wing populace to
Speaker 1: realize he's another donor. Wake up, wake up, he's a
Speaker 1: donor and he wants to get rid of the cops
Speaker 1: that are regulating him, right, and so he wants.
Speaker 2: To defund the police, just the white collar police.
Speaker 1: That's literally the analogy I use. He wants to defund
Speaker 1: the police on Wall Street, right, and so so and
Speaker 1: then some people online thinking, oh, jag, are you going
Speaker 1: to call them out on the Consumer Financial Protection Buah?
Speaker 1: Of course, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau saves twenty dollars for
Speaker 1: every dollar we spend on it. They get back twenty
Speaker 1: billion dollars for every one billion we spend. But not
Speaker 1: only that, the twenty billion is money that the bankers
Speaker 1: stole from us, right, And they admit that they stolen,
Speaker 1: and that's why they pay those fines et cetera. So
Speaker 1: it's actually the best part of the government. I agree
Speaker 1: with all of that, but they are in charge. We
Speaker 1: did lose, so like on immigration, I agree with you,
Speaker 1: they're going to do some awful things on immigration that
Speaker 1: I don't agree with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the.
Speaker 1: Voters did kind of vote for that, Okay, and we
Speaker 1: have to be cognizant of them. Right, But the voters
Speaker 1: didn't want vote for a giant war in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: They didn't. They voted against that, not for that, right,
Speaker 1: The voters did vote against corruption at large. Yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: they got misdirected by Trump, right, but they still hate
Speaker 1: corruption at their core. So if you can make them
Speaker 1: see the corruption now in the midst of all of that. Though,
Speaker 1: if you say me, Rocanna and Bernie Sanders shouldn't legitimize
Speaker 1: this and instead should go, hey, you know what, cut
Speaker 1: Medicare and Medicaid first, don't worry about the Pentagon, don't
Speaker 1: worry about the conflicts of interest, don't worrybout cutting the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: Cut the best parts of the budget first. No.
Speaker 2: No, I guess where you and I disagree is I
Speaker 2: just do not believe that they actually are serious about
Speaker 2: like any positive intel, like I don't believe they're going
Speaker 2: to cut the Pentagon, period, and so that I think
Speaker 2: that maybe partly why come down in a different place.
Speaker 2: But also my position really is that with this particular project,
Speaker 2: because it is so pernicious to just give carte blanche
Speaker 2: to a group of billionaires with massive conflicts of interest,
Speaker 2: like some of the largest conflicts of interests you can imagine,
Speaker 2: I think to me, the most important approach to that
Speaker 2: is just to oppose it. But I understand where you're going.
Speaker 2: I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 1: Toy, and I want to address something to those Yes,
Speaker 1: can I sure this is my camera here? Okay? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So right wing populous, it is now your job to
Speaker 1: prove Chris wrong.
Speaker 2: Go out and do it, y'all.
Speaker 1: So she doesn't believe you. And by the way, almost
Speaker 1: no one on the left other than me and Anna
Speaker 1: believe you guys that you actually want to cut the
Speaker 1: Pentagon and that you could pressure Elon Musk and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to cut the Pentagon. So are you going to
Speaker 1: prove the left wrong? Or are you going to prove
Speaker 1: them spectacularly? Right? Am? I gonna have to come on
Speaker 1: here and apologize to Crystal forever believing in any right
Speaker 1: wing populist and say, oh, I was a sucker. Those
Speaker 1: guys are liars. They all they want to do was
Speaker 1: increase the Pentagon, have more wars, more corruption, and they
Speaker 1: never held Trump accountable. We waited four long years for
Speaker 1: them to hold them accountable, and all they did was
Speaker 1: kiss his ass and show that they don't really believe
Speaker 1: in freedom. They said all this stuff about freedom, but
Speaker 1: they never meant it. They said all this stuff about
Speaker 1: drain the swamp, but they never meant it. They said
Speaker 1: all this anti war stuff, but they never meant it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna come back on here in one year, two years,
Speaker 1: four years, and we're gonna keep doing a check. So
Speaker 1: if right wing populists are frauds, I'm gonna say, Crystal,
Speaker 1: you were right. There were frauds all along. Okay, let
Speaker 1: me but I don't think so. I think they are.
Speaker 2: Saying, let me just say we we already have some examples,
Speaker 2: so I'll give you one and then we can we
Speaker 2: can wrap things. I'll give you the final word and
Speaker 2: we can wrap things up here. But you know, r
Speaker 2: K Junior put in at HHS or nominated to be
Speaker 2: put in at HHS, talking a big game about getting
Speaker 2: bad stuff out of the food system. Migree you agree
Speaker 2: with that, you know, taking on big Ag et cetera.
Speaker 2: Trump just put in at the FDA for the USDA,
Speaker 2: and at the f DA the A Brooke Rawlins, who
Speaker 2: is a total like corporate you know, big egg shall
Speaker 2: be ag secretary, Big AG shill. Now RFK had come
Speaker 2: with a list of like, here's who I want to
Speaker 2: help me in my project, and he's like, now I'm
Speaker 2: gonna go with the lady who's going to be friendly
Speaker 2: to like big ag interest. Have you heard a word?
Speaker 2: Have you heard our K Junior come out? Have you
Speaker 2: heard any of his followers come out and be like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, like they're going back on Maha already.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: And so that's why I am highly skeptical that you're
Speaker 2: going to see any level of like expectant, like consistent
Speaker 2: adherence to principle and holding of account of Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: because I just have never never seen that before. I remember,
Speaker 2: in the before he ran in twenty sixty, he said
Speaker 2: he was going to give everybody health care and then
Speaker 2: he didn't, and everyone was just like, yeah, that's fine.
Speaker 2: So I just I see no indication that it will
Speaker 2: be at all different this time around, and I see
Speaker 2: a lot of indications that will actually be worse because
Speaker 2: he will be more unchained and given more freedom to
Speaker 2: pursue his absolute worst and most authoritarian instincts thanks to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court's decision. And you know, the effort that
Speaker 2: was engaged in in the off season to get the
Speaker 2: most ideological sickophants put into positions of power and to
Speaker 2: bring everybody to heal.
Speaker 1: This time around, yeah, I see the same indication as
Speaker 1: you do of the bad impulses. Yeah, but I see
Speaker 1: an indication of good impulses from the right wing voters
Speaker 1: that you do not see. So, for example, on Team Israel,
Speaker 1: Rubio stuff, like, I just think they're you.
Speaker 2: Know, they're busy, and they've decided to trust this guy,
Speaker 2: and they're just gonna trust this guy.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's what I'm saying. I think you're wrong. What
Speaker 1: I have seen is they don't like Team Israel because
Speaker 1: Team Israel is team war, team Neocon, et cetera.
Speaker 2: That's just not what the polling se So most Republicans
Speaker 2: are Team Israel.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Republican base, we're going to find out.
Speaker 2: If you look at the polling Democrats overwhelmingly were in
Speaker 2: favor of a ceasefire and in favor of an arms embargo.
Speaker 2: Republicans are, I think, in favor of a ceaspire, but
Speaker 2: they are not in favor of an arms embargo. They
Speaker 2: are much more favorable as a group, there are some exceptions,
Speaker 2: but as a group towards Israel. And so I'm anyway,
Speaker 2: I you know, I don't want to belabor that point
Speaker 2: in particular because I know you're making a broader point
Speaker 2: about a variety of issues.
Speaker 1: And on besent the Treasury Secretary, I've seen pushback on that.
Speaker 1: I've seen pushback on some candidate, on some nominees that
Speaker 1: I've never seen among Republicans before. So you know, maybe
Speaker 1: that pushback is a mirage and so, and I'm not
Speaker 1: expecting it right out of the gate. Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm not expecting right wing populist to rise up and
Speaker 1: go cash. Betel's a lunatic and we're not. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: love him, Yeah, I get it. I get that. So
Speaker 1: those are the bad impulses, I see it. I'm not
Speaker 1: unaware of it. But I'm also seeing actual anti corruption,
Speaker 1: anti war impulses, and I would rather feed those good
Speaker 1: impulses than to say we hate you all. I never
Speaker 1: want to talk to you guys. I don't trust you
Speaker 1: and I think you're only going to do evil in
Speaker 1: the world. I don't think that's productive. I just want
Speaker 1: to I don't think it's true.
Speaker 2: I just want to say, just to make it really clear,
Speaker 2: when I'm being critical, I'm being critical of the elites,
Speaker 2: the Trump's, the Elon Musk, the vag Ramaswami's. This is
Speaker 2: not meant to slime you know, everybody who voted for
Speaker 2: And that's something I've really tried to be consistent about
Speaker 2: throughout the Trump era. And you know something Sober and
Speaker 2: I have really tried to engage with. I'm just you know,
Speaker 2: I think what we've seen in the past is likely
Speaker 2: to be what we see in the future.
Speaker 1: So let's see if the right wing bros, the right
Speaker 1: wing populist, the you know, the rogans of the world,
Speaker 1: if they have any integrity at all. We're going to
Speaker 1: find out, right and are they going to hold Trump
Speaker 1: accountable or are you right and the rest of the
Speaker 1: left right that they're not going to hold them accountable
Speaker 1: at all, and they're going to let him be a
Speaker 1: runaway freight.
Speaker 2: Rogan is supposedly going to go do some shows in
Speaker 2: mar A Lago. So we'll see if he asks any
Speaker 2: challenging questions the principles there so, but we may find
Speaker 2: out pretty quickly or jank.
Speaker 1: Okay, So last thing I'll say on the Democrats. Yes,
Speaker 1: so you're right, the establishment is going to strike back. Right.
Speaker 1: So if there's one takeaway from this, it's not from
Speaker 1: this whole conversation, it's not about Trump, it's not about
Speaker 1: the right wing populace. It's that for Democrats, do not
Speaker 1: let your guard down. They're going to bring back Avenusom
Speaker 1: and Pete Blutagig and all the corporate robots. Absolutely, okay,
Speaker 1: we need the only thing that could defeat right wing
Speaker 1: populism is left wing populism, okay. Or we joined forces
Speaker 1: on some issues, great, wonderful, right, But if you go
Speaker 1: back to the establishment route, that is a dead end.
Speaker 1: It has no forget whether you're progressive or you're more
Speaker 1: conservative Democrat or more corporate demographer, forget. Put that aside.
Speaker 1: They have no chance of winning. It's over. It's over.
Speaker 1: They're going to run into that brick wall one hundred times.
Speaker 1: The Scarborough and the viewer going to lie to you
Speaker 1: every time. Oh, you got to pick the corporate guy.
Speaker 1: The corporate guy is the one who's the only one
Speaker 1: who can win, right, Do not let them lie to
Speaker 1: you in that twenty twenty eight primary. It is imperative
Speaker 1: that we pick a populous left winger in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we have no chance of retaking the White House.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and not even just no chance of retaking
Speaker 2: the White House, but no chance of really delivering for people.
Speaker 2: And ultimately, I don't give a shit whether the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party wins or loses. That's you know. I think what
Speaker 2: you and I where we find common ground is I
Speaker 2: actually want to make life easier and better for people
Speaker 2: in this country. So Jank, love you brother. Always great
Speaker 2: to see you. Glad to see you in town here,
Speaker 2: although I do feel bad for you. What is LA
Speaker 2: is probably like in the seventies right now? As fucking
Speaker 2: cold as hell here right now, So I don't know
Speaker 2: what you're thinking about.
Speaker 1: I'm going to Florida next to do Patrick Bedday. All right,
Speaker 1: all right there, I'm going to get I'm going to
Speaker 1: relax for two days before heading back to LA. But
Speaker 1: it's freezing out here, but I'm warmed by our conversation
Speaker 1: and the love industry.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you Jank, and thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for watching, and I will see you. Counterpoints will
Speaker 2: be in tomorrow and we'll see you back here on Thursday.