Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, Let's get to the show. All right,
Speaker 3: Good morning, and welcome to Counterpoints. Tagger, How you doing.
Speaker 2: It's great to see you, man. People live for the pound.
Speaker 2: It's great to see you. It's great not to have
Speaker 2: to shout my own intro. I'm just here for the ride.
Speaker 3: So Emily is out doing some reporting. She'll actually be
Speaker 3: back for the Friday show. We're going to interview Ezra
Speaker 3: clined for that one. That should be fascinating today. Often
Speaker 3: when you look at the kind of rundown along the
Speaker 3: bottom of the show, can't really necessarily tell what we're
Speaker 3: going to talk about today. You definitely can. Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: and Donald Trump both making the rounds. We're going to
Speaker 3: talk about that. Voting is starting literally already started in
Speaker 3: some stage Georgia setting smashing records, and I think that
Speaker 3: and we'll talk about why that is. I think it's
Speaker 3: because Trump is now telling people you also need to
Speaker 3: vote early. So before it was half half the country
Speaker 3: was voting early. How everybody is now everybody is they're
Speaker 3: they're smashing those records.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: We got a lot of a lot of updates when
Speaker 3: it comes to the Israel Palestine Lemanine situation that we
Speaker 3: will get to, including some news that's breaking just this
Speaker 3: morning about potential US plans for a quote unquote day
Speaker 3: after and then of course we got to talk about
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris's ghostwriter, we should say, getting busted
Speaker 3: with plagiarism, which is much more a media story than
Speaker 3: it is anything else. That's exactly right. Yeah, none of
Speaker 3: us really care. I actually I didn't particularly.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, it's it's like embarrassing, but it's
Speaker 2: one of those where the media reaction to it was interesting.
Speaker 2: You're actually the person who flagged it wasn't me, and
Speaker 2: that's why I wanted to talk about it with you.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's gonna be exciting. Take advantage by the way.
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot com you can become a premium subscriber, you
Speaker 2: get that FRI show early. That's what some of us
Speaker 2: live for over here, especially Ezra Clin. I'm excited to see.
Speaker 3: What you guys do with it, so that'll be fun.
Speaker 2: All right, Let's get to Kamala Harris. As you said,
Speaker 2: she was on Charlemagne the Breakfast Club yesterday and I
Speaker 2: listened to the entire thing. I tortured myself as at
Speaker 2: five pms. I wasn't too happy about it, but it
Speaker 2: is what it is. You got to dig what you
Speaker 2: do for the people. And there were a couple of
Speaker 2: interesting moments that came out of it. First is, and
Speaker 2: you haven't even gotten a chance to react Ryan. This
Speaker 2: whole Obama situation where he's lecturing, hectoring brothers, remember his words,
Speaker 2: not mine, insane in my opinion, being like, I want
Speaker 2: to speak to the brothers out there, like y'all are
Speaker 2: just making up all these excuses, but really you just
Speaker 2: hate women, and you're like, well, maybe there's something else.
Speaker 3: The extra awkward part, and we'll get it. The extra
Speaker 3: awkward part. He's addressing a small room of mostly young
Speaker 3: black men who have taken it upon themselves, who come
Speaker 3: out to a that's political. They're at a campaign, so
Speaker 3: he's not even talking to them. I know it's all
Speaker 3: for the camp. They're all supportive of of Harris, so
Speaker 3: he's using them to speak past they're like props. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's it's disgusting.
Speaker 2: But Kamala was asked a little bit about that by Charlemagne.
Speaker 2: At the very least he did speak up a little
Speaker 2: bit about it. But her response tells you a little bit.
Speaker 2: So let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: I do want to say President Obama was out there
Speaker 5: last week waving his finger at black men. Are Liz
Speaker 5: Cheney and Hillary Clinton going wave their finger at white women?
Speaker 5: Winn Bill Clinton and Joe Biden going wave they finger
Speaker 5: at white men? Because fifty two percent of white women
Speaker 5: voted for Trump in twenty sixteen, fifty five percent voted
Speaker 5: for Trump in twenty twenty, they all voted against their
Speaker 5: own interests. When their finger waving gonna start at them.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you for highlighting that. I do have the
Speaker 4: support of over two hundred Republicans who worked for various administrations,
Speaker 4: including everyone going back to Ronald Reagan to the Bushes,
Speaker 4: to John McCain and Romney, and including Liz Channing. I'm
Speaker 4: very proud to have her support, and I believe that
Speaker 4: they who many of them who may have voted for
Speaker 4: Trump before, are supporting me because they know the stakes
Speaker 4: are so high in terms of our very democracy and
Speaker 4: rule of law.
Speaker 5: And so the finger wagon should start today.
Speaker 4: Atomar Well, I think what is happening is that we
Speaker 4: are all working on reminding people of what is at stake,
Speaker 4: and that is very important.
Speaker 3: So quite a little bit of a dodge there.
Speaker 2: She was also asked by She was asked by Charlotte
Speaker 2: Mane at one point she was like, were you upset
Speaker 2: that Obama did that? Because it seemed like your whole
Speaker 2: blackmail reaction was a result. She's like, Oh, I'm not upset.
Speaker 2: I'm not upset at all. But she will not touch
Speaker 2: it with a tender polly. It seems right, but it
Speaker 2: does seem clear. And this is one of those questions
Speaker 2: has Obama lost it or not?
Speaker 3: Because I don't know. Kristaline were talking about it yesterday.
Speaker 2: I wonder what you think while he was president, you know,
Speaker 2: nobody would even dare call him out for Base to
Speaker 2: be hectoring and lecturing people, especially black people, to come
Speaker 2: out and vote for him, it was just too taboo.
Speaker 2: But now that he's not the president, he's actually doing
Speaker 2: it on behalf of somebody else. Maybe it's just a
Speaker 2: little bit grosser because it's not even about him anymore.
Speaker 2: It's about telling them what to do and go do
Speaker 2: something else. So she is trying to sidestep that very carefully,
Speaker 2: which is smart in my opinion. But why is it
Speaker 2: then that Obama feels the license to just freestyle and
Speaker 2: do all this stuff with basically I mean, and I
Speaker 2: just can't help think that it's not helpful, especially with
Speaker 2: the media reaction to it, and for a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are If you're a.
Speaker 3: Young black guy and you're twenty.
Speaker 2: Two years old, bro, you were like sixteen when Obama
Speaker 2: was president. It's been a long time, you know that.
Speaker 2: You know your parents might remember him fondly. But for you,
Speaker 2: like you were a child during yes we can and
Speaker 2: all that, you were literally a child, you don't remember
Speaker 2: any of that. If anything, you've had a experience since then,
Speaker 2: So why would you want to listen to him?
Speaker 3: And in case Charlemagne's dig there was a little bit
Speaker 3: too subtle for some people, Like what he was saying
Speaker 3: there was that it is unfair and ridiculous to put
Speaker 3: this onus on black men in a way that you
Speaker 3: do not with white men and white women.
Speaker 2: Right well, with any racial women person owes their vote
Speaker 2: to anybody because of their race.
Speaker 3: He's right. So what he's saying there is like, Okay,
Speaker 3: Obama's out there finger wagging black men, why are we
Speaker 3: forgetting the fact that white women need the finger wag,
Speaker 3: like if the way to get and it's absurd, Like
Speaker 3: his question is absurd, and it's deliberately absurd. And in
Speaker 3: the absurdity, you see the problem with Obama's finger wagging,
Speaker 3: because nobody thinks that white women are all of a
Speaker 3: sudden going to start voting completely enmassed for Democrats if
Speaker 3: you just wag your finger at them and tell them
Speaker 3: that they're wrong for the way that they're voting. Certainly
Speaker 3: not the case for white men. And so what Charlomagne
Speaker 3: is saying there is what is it about your relationship
Speaker 3: to black men that makes you think that that is
Speaker 3: actually going to work? Like let alone having those thoughts
Speaker 3: in the beginning, but like your goal is to win votes, yeah,
Speaker 3: and that's not going to work. So what on earth
Speaker 3: are you thinking here? Uh? Obama though, is he just
Speaker 3: he's Obama?
Speaker 2: He feels like Anina Turnery would say that, like he's
Speaker 2: a deity to some people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he really is. And you know, two thousand and eight,
Speaker 3: he didn't he didn't have to do any finger wagging
Speaker 3: what he had to do. And people forget this history
Speaker 3: is proved to the black community that he could win. Yes,
Speaker 3: like his numbers before Iowa.
Speaker 2: I remember South Carolina was pro Hillary up until after
Speaker 2: he won Iowa.
Speaker 3: And what and i and he really benefited from I
Speaker 3: think a lot of people in the country not really
Speaker 3: understanding Iowa's like internal politics. And also so it's a
Speaker 3: caucus system, which means that the most liberal people are
Speaker 3: coming out and people on the East and West coast
Speaker 3: don't realize that Des Moines has a bunch of hipsters
Speaker 3: and coffee shops and liberals and like organics, you know,
Speaker 3: organic food and whole foods and whatever, and so there
Speaker 3: is actually there are a bunch of white people who
Speaker 3: are happy to vote for Barack Obama out in Iowa.
Speaker 3: They thought it was you know, a bunch of corn fed,
Speaker 3: you know, white farmers with you know, cornstalk sticking out
Speaker 3: of their mouth or whatever. The stereotype is they have
Speaker 3: in their minds of who Iowa voters were, so when
Speaker 3: they saw that person in their mind voting for Obama,
Speaker 3: they're like, oh, he can win, now I will support him. Right,
Speaker 3: But it was never a you will support me because
Speaker 3: I'm black. That never would have worked for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he earned it and he actually tried to work
Speaker 2: for it. But now that he's been president and they've
Speaker 2: turned him into a god, now things are a little
Speaker 2: bit different now. While with Kamala there was another Look Charlemagne,
Speaker 2: I'll just say this, it's clearly like he is like
Speaker 2: an MSNBC liberal.
Speaker 3: That's his version of the world that kept coming through.
Speaker 2: We'd be like, why don't liberals make the point that
Speaker 2: Republicans are bad? He's like, why don't people understand that?
Speaker 2: And I'm almost like, well, I think we tried Charle.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like people don't always agree with them.
Speaker 2: But there was sometimes he would poke through with some
Speaker 2: good stuff. So we had two kind of challenging questions.
Speaker 2: One was on him challenging her. He's like, why do
Speaker 2: you seem so scripted all the time? So here's what
Speaker 2: she had to say.
Speaker 3: Now, you know, one thing they've been saying.
Speaker 5: A lot of your press heres get criticized, you know,
Speaker 5: folks that you come off as very scripted. They say
Speaker 5: you like to stick to your talking points, and some
Speaker 5: media says you have.
Speaker 4: That would be called discipline. Oh okay.
Speaker 5: Some people say you have an inability to fearlessly say
Speaker 5: who you are and what you believe. I know that's
Speaker 5: not true. But what do you say to that criticism?
Speaker 5: And is it fair for S and L to make
Speaker 5: fun of it?
Speaker 4: Hasn't Maya Rudolph and wonderful?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: I think I have nothing but admiration for the comedy,
Speaker 4: and I think it's it's important to be able to
Speaker 4: laugh at yourself and each other in the spirit of
Speaker 4: obviously comedy, and not belittling people as my opponent would do.
Speaker 5: But what do you say to people who say you
Speaker 5: stay on the talking points?
Speaker 4: I would say you're welcome. I mean, listen, Here's the thing.
Speaker 4: I love having conversations, which is why I'm so happy
Speaker 4: to be with you this afternoon. And the reality is
Speaker 4: that there are certain things that must be repeated to
Speaker 4: ensure that I have everyone know what I stand for
Speaker 4: and the issues that I think are at stake in
Speaker 4: this election, and so it requires repetition. You know, some
Speaker 4: people say that until someone has heard the same thing
Speaker 4: at least three times, it just doesn't stay with you.
Speaker 4: So repetition is important.
Speaker 3: So what do we all think?
Speaker 2: That's how she's trying to turn being scripted into a superpower.
Speaker 2: I kind of disagree with her. Just tell me what
Speaker 2: you think. I don't think it's that she's too scripted.
Speaker 2: It's that when she's off script, she clearly has not
Speaker 2: thought about literally anything at all, and then reverts back
Speaker 2: to safe territory kind of like she did right there.
Speaker 3: Right, So she has a script and she deploys it
Speaker 3: in different scenarios, no matter what the questioning. Yeah, exactly that,
Speaker 3: that's what it is for me. But what did you
Speaker 3: take away? It's right, So I think scripted. I think
Speaker 3: that's an interesting point. Scripted, it's okay, fine, you got
Speaker 3: your you've got your talking points, you've got your answer.
Speaker 2: Trump for eight years, I can basically predict what he's
Speaker 2: going to say on a wide variety of topics.
Speaker 3: I think what people actually want is more scripts. Like
Speaker 3: there's like three scripts and so, but there are dozens
Speaker 3: of questions that people have. But what she does is
Speaker 3: all the questions on this issue get funneled into this script,
Speaker 3: and all the ones here are this one, and all
Speaker 3: the ones here are that are that script, and so
Speaker 3: then you never actually get an get an answer. That
Speaker 3: SNL you know, has made fun of her for that
Speaker 3: with you know, one of the one of the ways
Speaker 3: they did that was she was in a game show
Speaker 3: and they asked her. They asked her a question and
Speaker 3: she answered, I grew up in a middle class family,
Speaker 3: yes exactly, which is which is not answering the question,
Speaker 3: and it is a script. So yeah, but she's also
Speaker 3: correct that, you know, to politics and discipline is a thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think that look discipline, as you said,
Speaker 2: she's not wrong in the whole, like if you don't
Speaker 2: repeat something, but I think part of the art, you know,
Speaker 2: to the science is you don't have to people.
Speaker 3: Don't want to feel it.
Speaker 2: They don't want to feel it. You took it, and
Speaker 2: she's like, oh, she's like pretending like oh, everything was all.
Speaker 3: Good with Maya Rudolph and all that.
Speaker 2: But the fact that even they can get to it
Speaker 2: this like hyper liberal comedy organization is taking a shot
Speaker 2: at you clearly, like that's something that the most basic
Speaker 2: analysis will lead you to The final thing that we
Speaker 2: pulled was actually on the border. This is again where Charlotne,
Speaker 2: to his credit, actually will hit her a little bit
Speaker 2: and he's like, come on, He's like, because she was
Speaker 2: talking about the border and how she's like, I support
Speaker 2: this new border bill and all of us, and he's like,
Speaker 2: he's like, come on, you guys don't bear any responsibility
Speaker 2: for the last three years.
Speaker 3: So she gets a little bit testy with him. Let's
Speaker 3: take a listen.
Speaker 5: But doesn't the bidy administration have to take some blame
Speaker 5: for the border though a lot of the blame because
Speaker 5: I mean, the first three years, I'll did get a
Speaker 5: lot of things wrong with.
Speaker 4: The boarder Charlamagne. Within hours of being inaugurated, the first
Speaker 4: bill we passed, before we did the Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 4: before we did the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, before we did
Speaker 4: the Safer Communities Act to deal with gun violence, first
Speaker 4: thing we dropped was a bill to fix the broken
Speaker 4: immigration system, which by the way, Trump did not fix
Speaker 4: when he was president, and you can look at every
Speaker 4: step along the way. We then tightened up the asylum
Speaker 4: application process. We then worked with what we needed to
Speaker 4: do to secure ports of entry. We did a number
Speaker 4: of things. Congress has to act to fix the immigration system,
Speaker 4: and it has been broken for a long time. Congress
Speaker 4: has to act. But it does not help. When finally
Speaker 4: a bipartisan group got together to fix it and Donald
Speaker 4: Trump told them, hold on, don't do that because it
Speaker 4: won't it won't help me.
Speaker 3: Come on, man, I mean, it's like, what are we
Speaker 3: doing here?
Speaker 2: It's like the but the Democratic House passed a bill
Speaker 2: that the Republicans then didn't, and that's why things exponentially.
Speaker 3: Exploded the work. Just be real with people.
Speaker 2: Like the idea that this is not as a result,
Speaker 2: at least a very large part some of the delta
Speaker 2: between the Trump administration and the Biden administration is not
Speaker 2: a result of executive action is ludicrous. I mean, in
Speaker 2: some ways it was a skillful answer. Charlemagne, you know,
Speaker 2: God bless, but he's not like deeply familiar with immigration
Speaker 2: law or executive action. But at the very least he
Speaker 2: intuited something. Basically, he's like, yo, some of this is.
Speaker 3: On you, is it not. And the reason that that
Speaker 3: was such a disingenuous answer is that they did, in
Speaker 3: fact send a bill she's misspoke and said pasted, yeah,
Speaker 3: the bill, but then she corrected herself later and said,
Speaker 3: we sent a bill down to Congress. They did January twenty,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty one. They sent down to Congress the US
Speaker 3: Citizenship Act of twenty twenty one. And people can gather
Speaker 3: from a few context clues, one being the name of
Speaker 3: the bill. It's a name, and the other being the timing.
Speaker 3: This is four years after kids in Cages signs in
Speaker 3: every yard saying we welcome immigrants. Democrats were at the
Speaker 3: height of their support for immigrants and immigration reform and
Speaker 3: a pathway to citizenship for people who were here, and
Speaker 3: so they put this all into legislation called the Citizenship
Speaker 3: Act of twenty twenty one. There is no chance on
Speaker 3: earth that Kamala Harris to day supports that bill. And
Speaker 3: that's why I say it's disingenuous. Yeah, that's great, cause
Speaker 3: you can't say, hey, look we tried, we did this
Speaker 3: bill that I no longer support. Yeah, it's in direct
Speaker 3: violation of that Senate bill.
Speaker 2: And this is again one right, it's difficult when people
Speaker 2: who interview were, I mean, look.
Speaker 3: And I wish it would have passed. And here's a
Speaker 3: problem with our system. Yeah, it would be better if
Speaker 3: you could run on a thing, win the election, and
Speaker 3: implement your agenda, and then people then vote on whether
Speaker 3: or not they liked the implementation of your agenda or not. Instead,
Speaker 3: we have this dumb system where we had elect this
Speaker 3: guy Biden. He writes this law, sends it to Congress,
Speaker 3: and then it just the House passes it, but then
Speaker 3: it just sits there and so then then you're left
Speaker 3: with this executive action and a hair brained immigration system
Speaker 3: that falls apart that then lurches back and forth as
Speaker 3: a political football instead of saying, okay, look, Democrats like
Speaker 3: pathways to citizenship. They want a fairly open immigration system.
Speaker 3: It's got billions of for quote unquote root causes in
Speaker 3: this bill. Like try that, let them implement it and
Speaker 3: then see what happens, and then if you don't like it,
Speaker 3: vote them out.
Speaker 2: I think you should move to Europe. Ran This sounds
Speaker 2: like a parliamentary I agree. Yes, I know in Britain
Speaker 2: it sounds great over there, right, they're doing what they're
Speaker 2: doing very well.
Speaker 3: I'm sure they somehow I had figured out.
Speaker 2: I'm sure the parlor military system is directly reflective of
Speaker 2: the needs, the wants of a British working class, and
Speaker 2: it hasn't instead been a one thousand year battle between
Speaker 2: aristocracy and them.
Speaker 3: But they did get national health care, yes, certainly did.
Speaker 2: They also gave up their empire. They also gave up
Speaker 2: to great power status. They decided to have a single
Speaker 2: aircraft carrier and that's basically the only thing that is
Speaker 2: left between them and being just another Norway.
Speaker 3: But you know, look, it's up to them. They decide
Speaker 3: what they wanted. I think had a little bit more
Speaker 3: to do with.
Speaker 2: Certainly certainly did. But they had a choice too. They
Speaker 2: chose one way, and that's fine. You know, London, it's
Speaker 2: a nice place to visit and spend your American dollars.
Speaker 2: But I'll just leave it that. So let's move on.
Speaker 2: What to Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: Trump?
Speaker 2: Okay, so we had to put this in though this
Speaker 2: was really making the rounds on cable. Every liberal I
Speaker 2: know has seen this clip now, and I'm not really
Speaker 2: sure why it really invites I guess there's just a
Speaker 2: lot to say about it. So let's let's get into it. Basically,
Speaker 2: Trump had a rally which was supposed to be a
Speaker 2: Q and A and they think it took like five
Speaker 2: questions and then two people, it appears, collapsed and had
Speaker 2: health events. This is a side note. This always happens
Speaker 2: at political rallies that.
Speaker 3: People not heard of water bottles. Can we all just
Speaker 3: be taking water bottles?
Speaker 2: You know, every auration I've ever attended, every political event,
Speaker 2: people are always collapsing.
Speaker 3: A young people think, don't bring water bottle? What you
Speaker 3: people think like it? Just bring a water bottle and
Speaker 3: stop taxing er resources. Secondary, are they making stick of service,
Speaker 3: making you dump the water out like you're going into
Speaker 3: the airport. I didn't think about that, but I don't
Speaker 3: think so.
Speaker 2: More recently, actually they make people throw away their jewels
Speaker 2: and their vapes, which is kind of funny too. But
Speaker 2: these are all side conversations. Trump is at this rally,
Speaker 2: two people collapse. In the midst of that collapse, they
Speaker 2: stop taking questions and they play a little bit of music.
Speaker 2: But what ends up happening is like a thirty minute
Speaker 2: vibe fest where Trump just plays music and kind of
Speaker 2: vibes on the stage. He doesn't say a word, and
Speaker 2: then it just ends just totally. And so we have
Speaker 2: the introduction to that, and then we could just show
Speaker 2: you guys what it looked like when he was just
Speaker 2: vibing on the stage, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 1: Well, sir, do you want to play your song and
Speaker 1: then great a few people or do you want to.
Speaker 2: Well you had said you wanted to close with a
Speaker 2: specific song. Okay, So yeah, people were watching he's just vibing.
Speaker 2: They're singing like ave Maria, and the crowd is like,
Speaker 2: what's going on here? Exactly?
Speaker 3: Like what do we do? Somebody here? You can see
Speaker 3: how confused some people are. Guys looking straight into the camera.
Speaker 2: Others and there there he's got his eyes are like
Speaker 2: they're just waiting for Trump.
Speaker 3: Some people are leaving. Uh, I don't know.
Speaker 2: My joke was is that Trump ascended to his final form,
Speaker 2: and his final form is he no longer has to speak.
Speaker 2: He's kind of like, uh so, Catholics might get mad
Speaker 2: at me for this, but if I recall, there was
Speaker 2: a time when the Pope like didn't speak in public.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: This is all from my knowledge of that HBO show
Speaker 2: at julaw so just to show but as I understand it,
Speaker 2: that Pope did not speak whenever he was in public.
Speaker 2: The mere gazed upon him was enough to see his
Speaker 2: holiness and actually to hear him speak was like, was
Speaker 2: like blasphemous. And so that's what I think is happening,
Speaker 2: is that the people who are attending to me to
Speaker 2: gaze upon his mere visage is enough to be in
Speaker 2: the presence of the emperor, like in the Chinese system
Speaker 2: of the Imperial time.
Speaker 3: So that's that was how I took it. Is that,
Speaker 3: you know, he.
Speaker 2: Joked, He's like I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue,
Speaker 2: but now it's like he doesn't even need to speak
Speaker 2: to entertain the masses.
Speaker 3: That's how I took it. Uh, it would have been
Speaker 3: better if they were playing like Grateful Dead, of course
Speaker 3: it would for you. Yeah, it looked like, yeah, he'd
Speaker 3: popped a gummy and was just vibe. Yeah, just vibing
Speaker 3: on stage there. That was amazing. Yeah, yeah, I've really
Speaker 3: enjoyed this one. Yeah.
Speaker 2: This was like I said, this is really me. The
Speaker 2: rounds people were like, as Trump lost it, like what
Speaker 2: is he doing? I honestly, I have no earthly explanation.
Speaker 2: That is my The best I can take a stab
Speaker 2: at it is that he was like, hey, I don't
Speaker 2: really feel like talking, and most of these people love
Speaker 2: me enough that they'll just hang out and they'll they'll stay.
Speaker 2: And you know what, he was kind of right, has
Speaker 2: some of them left, but a lot of them stayed.
Speaker 3: And speaking of scripted, yeah, we dinged Kamala for being
Speaker 3: a little scripted. Trum Trump pretty scripted in his dance moves.
Speaker 3: Everybody knows Trump's dance. He's got that and then he's
Speaker 3: Day's got the punch too, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I'm a terrible answer, So I got
Speaker 2: it all right. So you also did an interview with
Speaker 2: Bloomberg I believe this with the Economic Club of Chicago,
Speaker 2: and there was a real clash here on tariffs in particular,
Speaker 2: probably the most viral moment from the interview.
Speaker 3: Let's take a list.
Speaker 6: You're also talking about twenty ten to twenty percent tariffs
Speaker 6: on the rest of the world. That is going to
Speaker 6: have a serious effect on the overall economy. And yes,
Speaker 6: you're going to find some people who were gained from
Speaker 6: individual tariffs. The overall effect could be massive.
Speaker 7: I agree, it's going to have a massive effect. Positive effect.
Speaker 7: It's going to be a positive not a new just
Speaker 7: let me just no, no, let me committed. You are
Speaker 7: to this, and it must be hard for you to
Speaker 7: you know, spend twenty five years talking about tariffs has
Speaker 7: been negative, and then if somebody explained you that you're.
Speaker 3: Totally wrong, it'll have a negative. It will have forty
Speaker 3: million jobs. There's a lot of jobs to rely on.
Speaker 3: There all come back million jobs.
Speaker 6: There are forty million jobs in America that.
Speaker 7: Rely on John Deere, great company. They announced about a
Speaker 7: year ago they're going to build big plants outside of
Speaker 7: the United States. Right, They're going to build them in
Speaker 7: youth thresh and they're also a building still, that's right,
Speaker 7: I said, if John Deere builds those plants, are not
Speaker 7: selling anything into the United States. They just announced yesterday
Speaker 7: they're probably not going to build the plants, Okay, I
Speaker 7: kept the judge.
Speaker 3: I personally really enjoyed that.
Speaker 2: Anytime you see like a rich British guy runs Bloomberg,
Speaker 2: this guy Wharton probably school or London School of Economics
Speaker 2: who's like just talking about how great, you know, neoliberal
Speaker 2: economic theory is, and he's just like, it must be
Speaker 2: hard for you to be wrong and have somebody explain
Speaker 2: it to you you're completely wrong.
Speaker 3: I enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: I also enjoyed how he went after the FED. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure if you saw missed that part. Yeah, he
Speaker 2: was like he said something along the lines of he's like,
Speaker 2: it's the greatest job in the world. You go into
Speaker 2: a room, you flip a coin and every but he
Speaker 2: treats you like your genius.
Speaker 3: It's totally right. He's absolutely correct.
Speaker 2: And there's so much like dressing around this, around tariffs
Speaker 2: and about oh economists say x y H. When's the
Speaker 2: last time economists were correct about literally anything or the forecast?
Speaker 2: And if you study economics in school, that's the first
Speaker 2: to tell you, like, hey, look at all these models
Speaker 2: and look how they actually work out in practice. Doesn't
Speaker 2: take a genius to see it. So this actually, look,
Speaker 2: you know, just a little history thing. This takes you
Speaker 2: really back to some like og fights in American history
Speaker 2: around like this about silver, the roles William and Jennings Bryan, like,
Speaker 2: you know, people at one time had massive feelings about
Speaker 2: you know, hard money and gold, the gold standard and
Speaker 2: silver and the famous Sprian speech but mankind will not
Speaker 2: be crucified on a cross of gold and what that
Speaker 2: meant for monetary policy and farmers and so there's some
Speaker 2: of that coming back. But even on tariffs. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's interesting because for him, He's not even making the
Speaker 2: Kamala argument about well, we're gonna have some tar to tariffs.
Speaker 2: He's like, no, tariffs in general.
Speaker 3: Are all bad.
Speaker 2: And that is where you know, Trump politically intuited in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen that that was a position both that he
Speaker 2: thought was overwhelmingly popular, but that you could you could
Speaker 2: implement without subscribing to neoliberal economic theory and taking a
Speaker 2: very different, almost honestly like a mercantilist view of economicis
Speaker 2: which I really appreciate because that's my thing.
Speaker 3: But yeah, and the fights now over the fed are
Speaker 3: really the exact same ones that people were having over
Speaker 3: silver in the nineteenth century. Sager knows this, most of
Speaker 3: the audience probably doesn't, but what he meant by crucifying
Speaker 3: across the gold was that the gold standard was keeping
Speaker 3: the money supply too low, and the silver bugs wanted
Speaker 3: to add silver to the currency, and they said that
Speaker 3: will that will put more currency in the economy, and
Speaker 3: it will allow for economic growth. They didn't win, but
Speaker 3: then it's such The history is so funny. Huge discoveries
Speaker 3: of silver in the West flooded a whole bunch of
Speaker 3: silver into the economy and economists will say like, actually
Speaker 3: that discovery of silver like increased the monetary supply, was
Speaker 3: like going increased the m one and it did the
Speaker 3: right thing, So it was like it was like the
Speaker 3: nature flipped going on nature but genocide. Yeah, there is
Speaker 3: a poster somewhere in the studio.
Speaker 2: I'd have to go find it of William Jennings Bryan
Speaker 2: from his Cross of Gold speech, like a cartoon from
Speaker 2: the eighteen nineties that I picked up in an antique
Speaker 2: store because it is such an important point. And actually,
Speaker 2: I mean, if you want to talk to you about
Speaker 2: like third party and stuff, like, he's one of the
Speaker 2: most successful outsiders to ever get in. He became the
Speaker 2: Secretary of State under Woodrow Well. He was a Titanic
Speaker 2: figure in an American Bran was a Democratic nominee for
Speaker 2: like four times exactly.
Speaker 3: The Populist party basically folded in a deal with the
Speaker 3: Democrats that if you accept our agenda, will go away
Speaker 3: and endorse Democrats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was an interesting dude, very much. So people
Speaker 2: should go and read some books about him. We also
Speaker 2: should get to the next part here with Trump, where
Speaker 2: this is where look, he gives and he takes and
Speaker 2: so I'll give you a good answer on tariffs, you'll
Speaker 2: give you kind of crazy answer about Google.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 6: Justice Department is thinking about breaking up alphabet because Google
Speaker 6: likes to be known.
Speaker 3: Now should Google be breaken up?
Speaker 7: I just haven't gotten over something the Justice Department did
Speaker 7: yesterday where Virginia cleaned up its voter rolls and got
Speaker 7: rid of thousands and thousands of bad votes, and the
Speaker 7: Justice Department sued them that they should be allowed to
Speaker 7: put those bad votes and illegal votes back in and
Speaker 7: let the people vote. So I haven't I haven't gotten
Speaker 7: I haven't gotten over that. A lot of people have
Speaker 7: seen that. They can't even believe it.
Speaker 6: The question is about Google, President Trump.
Speaker 7: Yeah, look, Google's got a lot of power. They're very
Speaker 7: bad to me, very very bad to me. I mean
Speaker 7: I can speak from that standpoint, all right.
Speaker 3: I can speak from that standpoint. It's so perfect. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that is his frame, Yeah, of how he feels about anything. Well,
Speaker 3: we'll speak. How have they treated me? Okay? Google? Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't like them, like.
Speaker 2: I mean, like, I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes he gets those answers and you're like,
Speaker 2: what are you even talking about.
Speaker 3: Dude, he calls it the weave. We'll see, we'll see
Speaker 3: if people are going to take that. By the way,
Speaker 3: I'm curious where you are on that on his tariff answer,
Speaker 3: obviously at least obvious from my perspective, Flat tariffs, even
Speaker 3: on things that we cannot make here, are silly. Well, right,
Speaker 3: like Crystal and I have had this spike before. I mean,
Speaker 3: it depends. And are you saying which is substitute? Let's
Speaker 3: say mangoes. It's again, it's the same type of thing.
Speaker 2: Well, well, first of all, Mexican mangoes are terrible, and
Speaker 2: people should try any So that's just for you know,
Speaker 2: just at a very basic level. Most Americans have never
Speaker 2: had at the taste of a real mango. But second
Speaker 2: to that, mango is really good.
Speaker 3: There are they? Okay, well, it's.
Speaker 2: Probably still of the Mexican variety. There's a whole shoe
Speaker 2: on this. Anyways, this is all again secondary. The point,
Speaker 2: first of all, is that you can't even institute a bank.
Speaker 2: The tariff Congress would have to do it, and it's
Speaker 2: not going to happen. You would literally need some sort
Speaker 2: of smooth holly. So to me, this is very much
Speaker 2: like Trump. Seriously, literally, we had a whole debate about
Speaker 2: it yesterday. You can go and watch that if you
Speaker 2: want to irl.
Speaker 3: What does it look like.
Speaker 2: Well, it looks a lot like it did last time,
Speaker 2: which is the Commerce Department and Section I forget exactly
Speaker 2: the exact provision of law allows for national security declarations
Speaker 2: on certain goods, specifically farming and field implements.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but remember this.
Speaker 2: The tariffs that under the Biden administration are specifically done
Speaker 2: under the same executive authority the Trump used last time.
Speaker 2: Trump basically pushed as much as he could last time.
Speaker 2: In terms of goods. It was a lot of it
Speaker 2: was metals, a lot of it was steel, both with Brazil, Korea, Japan, China.
Speaker 2: I expect a ramp up of that from last time around.
Speaker 2: The truth is is that Congress, even Republicans, is full
Speaker 2: of neoliberals and the corporate lobby. I mean, I can't
Speaker 2: tell you guys from behind the scenes, the amount of
Speaker 2: corporate exceptions that these people try and lobby for is insane.
Speaker 3: They're like, oh please, it's just so impossible for me
Speaker 3: to buy this part from anywhere else.
Speaker 2: And it's like really was like, well, but it would
Speaker 2: cost twenty cents more or something like, yeah, but that
Speaker 2: one's in Pittsburgh and you want to buy it from Shanghai.
Speaker 3: So you know, you don't see a little bit of
Speaker 3: a problem here.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's reality that you could actually impose
Speaker 2: some sort of blanket tariff. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: like listen drastic times sometimes like that's what you need
Speaker 2: to see. I am in general, Like I called Trump
Speaker 2: a mercantilist. People should go and look at that definition.
Speaker 2: Here's another one. You want to google autarchy, the idea
Speaker 2: of economic self sufficiency fundamentally, like that's what he is
Speaker 2: talking about, and he's trying to get to I don't
Speaker 2: even believe a blanket tariff would go into place, and
Speaker 2: even if it did, again, like if you look at
Speaker 2: a lot of the imports and consumption of the overall
Speaker 2: US economy, quite a bit of the stuff that we import,
Speaker 2: not only could it be made here with some limited exceptions,
Speaker 2: but a lot of it is just like cheap crap
Speaker 2: that people don't even necessarily need. Now, it's easy for
Speaker 2: me to say from here, people, I'll be fully admit
Speaker 2: it will raise the price. Absolutely, it's true. Trump's response
Speaker 2: is we would also be taking in a significant amount.
Speaker 2: He had an idea last time around, like with soybean farmers,
Speaker 2: and basically because we took in hundreds of billions from soybeans,
Speaker 2: was to cut checks to a lot of the people
Speaker 2: who worked in the industry. I think it's perfectly fine
Speaker 2: in terms of the distribution, you know, in order to
Speaker 2: offset some of this. So it's a worthy conversation. Is
Speaker 2: that I would much rather have this debate than the
Speaker 2: other one, which is should we have.
Speaker 3: Tariffs or not? I'll put it that way.
Speaker 2: Trump also, at the same time, this has been some
Speaker 2: strange behavior that's happened. So of course he canceled on
Speaker 2: sixty minutes. I mean that one makes sense, sixty minutes
Speaker 2: and him got into a whole tiff last time. But
Speaker 2: he also canceled on Joe over at CNBC, which is
Speaker 2: surprising because that guy is actually very pro Trump, and
Speaker 2: he got really salty about it. So here's what he
Speaker 2: had to say.
Speaker 3: Trump canceled and he was going to come on, so
Speaker 3: and I said, when you come on, we'll be able
Speaker 3: to say you came And I didn't talk to him personally,
Speaker 3: but I.
Speaker 2: Said, so yeah, I mean he canceled on CNBC. I
Speaker 2: was frankly kind of surprised by that. I don't know
Speaker 2: about you, Ryan, that he didn't go on CNBC, because
Speaker 2: it's exactly like the Bloomberg interview that he was doing
Speaker 2: previously at the Economic Club, where he likes to go
Speaker 2: on and spar with the Wall Street guys and all that.
Speaker 2: That one's a much more targeted thing. So for his cancelors,
Speaker 2: people were saying he was scared of it. I'm not
Speaker 2: necessarily sure there might be some personal beef or something
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, but at the least I was like, huh,
Speaker 2: that's kind of interesting.
Speaker 3: Why did he cancel it? Yeah? Yeah, I mean if
Speaker 3: he can do the Bloomberg thing and argue that you
Speaker 3: can do the exact same thing there, and he could
Speaker 3: even go on there and trol about Lena Khan like
Speaker 3: poke pokes the NBC, which hates Lena con almost as
Speaker 3: much as a Wall Street journal and also then poke
Speaker 3: the Harris campaign for being unwilling to stand up for
Speaker 3: Like when Kamala Harris was asked, is there anything you
Speaker 3: would do differently than the Biden administration, she said, I
Speaker 3: can't think of a single thing. The only thing that
Speaker 3: like she hasn't really committed to is that one thing
Speaker 3: is keeping Lena Conn and John's in Canter That is
Speaker 3: a good point.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what Trump would say about Lena Conn.
Speaker 2: Let's say, if we're all being honest, the final thing
Speaker 2: is Trump will have a major campaign event on Sunday.
Speaker 3: Yeah, fair enough, let's put this up there. This will
Speaker 3: be fun to watch.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump will be visiting a McDonald's on Sunday in
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania and he will quote work the fry cooker.
Speaker 3: This is a source familiar with the matter.
Speaker 2: This comes up as Trump has repeatedly claimed Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: never actually worked at McDonald's. So one of my friends,
Speaker 2: Joe Simonson is actually the person who read. He put
Speaker 2: the story out where he was like, I don't think
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris. He's like, there's no evidence Kamala's ever worked
Speaker 2: at McDonald's. Kamala has been asked about this. There was
Speaker 2: an interview that she gave I forget. I think it
Speaker 2: was NBC News with Stephanie Ruhle, and she's like, I
Speaker 2: did the fries. There's something very vague. She has not
Speaker 2: released any photos of her working at McDonald's. I mean
Speaker 2: presumably those would exist. So this is Trump trying to uh,
Speaker 2: not only stoke that, but I mean, look, I hate
Speaker 2: to say, I actually think this is the type of
Speaker 2: thing that so many people will love to watch, like
Speaker 2: this video or whatever of Trump working on the Frenker. Now,
Speaker 2: as I understand, it's that quite a dangerous job. I
Speaker 2: will not pretend I've never worked to McDonald's. I mean,
Speaker 2: it seems scary. Right, we're talking about hot oil. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of orders that you got to get through.
Speaker 2: It's not an easy gig, you know, from what I
Speaker 2: can tell now, You've got automation, all this crazy stuff
Speaker 2: with those order things, and everything seems very regulated in
Speaker 2: terms of how you're measured how much you can do
Speaker 2: back there.
Speaker 3: So it's not it's not the worst thing.
Speaker 2: He could also talk about removing what is taxes on tips,
Speaker 2: not that anybody tips at McDonald's, although they should so anyway,
Speaker 2: what do you think, what do.
Speaker 3: You get water in that? Yeah? In that grease, you're
Speaker 3: the whole thing on fire? Oh god, yeah. And it's flippery.
Speaker 2: Yeah, don't they get they get like burns on their hands.
Speaker 2: It looks scary, man, when you see him dunk them
Speaker 2: here like this is that's the last place you want
Speaker 2: to be actually funny. A friend of mine, I actually
Speaker 2: don't even know his name. He's an anonymous guy on Twitter.
Speaker 2: He's a polling Analyst's name is Ruben Rodriguez've talked about
Speaker 2: him here on the show. He's been suggesting previously. He's like,
Speaker 2: Trump should go work the fry cooker at McDonald's. And
Speaker 2: so maybe somebody at the campaign is reading his tweets.
Speaker 2: He's only got twelve thousand followers, but he's a very
Speaker 2: smart guy. They called every state in the election last
Speaker 2: time around.
Speaker 3: That's why I follow him. And assuming Kamla did work
Speaker 3: at McDonald's, because that would be just an amazing thing
Speaker 3: to make up.
Speaker 2: That would The reason I'm like maybe she did is
Speaker 2: that's a crazy thing to make up.
Speaker 3: That's absolutely insane, But you know, I would. The evidence
Speaker 3: against her that Trump floats around is that there was
Speaker 3: some resume that where she didn't include it. But that
Speaker 3: also is a window into kind of Trump's view of
Speaker 3: the world. That, dude, you don't put McDonald's on your resume.
Speaker 3: Its true. McDonald's is the kind of job that is
Speaker 3: only cool once you've gotten beyond it, like it. And
Speaker 3: that's what's so much of poverty and working class life
Speaker 3: is like actually right that people love to look back
Speaker 3: on it as something that you did, but when you're
Speaker 3: in it, our country imbus it all with shame. So
Speaker 3: and people should not forget that you're not wrong and
Speaker 3: as virtue, there's absolutely nothing wrong.
Speaker 2: We're working at McDonald's, whether you're working there for ten
Speaker 2: years or whether you're working there for a summer.
Speaker 3: So here's what Joe wrote in his article.
Speaker 2: He said Harris works at McDonald's, which allegedly took place
Speaker 2: at a franchise in the California Bay Area. It is
Speaker 2: a recent addition to her crafted life story. For decades,
Speaker 2: she has never mentioned it, not on the campaign trail,
Speaker 2: not in two books. It is absent from a job
Speaker 2: application from the resume that she submitted a year before college.
Speaker 2: Third party biographers have not written about it. It is
Speaker 2: not until Harris ran for president in twenty nineteen and
Speaker 2: spoke to a labor rally in Las Vegas did she
Speaker 2: mention the job, telling the crowd that she quote was
Speaker 2: a student when I was working at McDonald's, and so
Speaker 2: it's one of those where the actual evidence for this
Speaker 2: claim has not there. There is no photo, as I said,
Speaker 2: that exists of her working at McDonald's. I guess at
Speaker 2: the same time, not a lot of people necessarily.
Speaker 3: Want people to take a photo of her.
Speaker 2: Well, she's at McDonald's, but Joe has done the Joe
Speaker 2: is on the leg work, and I got to say,
Speaker 2: there's a there's a decent shot.
Speaker 3: She hasn't worked with McDonald's.
Speaker 2: Just based on that, because why wouldn't you have talked
Speaker 2: about it in two books and the first time I'm
Speaker 2: gonna mention it is twenty nineteen. It's conceivable, don't get
Speaker 2: me wrong, But you've been a politician for this long
Speaker 2: and you've never talked about it.
Speaker 3: I don't know. It's a little bit skeptical. At some point,
Speaker 3: you would think that that would at some point you're
Speaker 3: far enough or moved away from it that you're proud
Speaker 3: of it. Okay, it's before fo Yeah, yeah, so I'm
Speaker 3: agree with you. She's a lawyer right at that point,
Speaker 3: is a multi millionaire. She got married to Doug that say,
Speaker 3: you worked, Yeah, that's good. I'm curious. I'm very very curious. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I went the I went the long form photo Yeah,
Speaker 3: I want the original. We're gonna have to go into
Speaker 3: the photo archives and all of this, we can look
Speaker 3: into it. So, yeah, it's amazing. Should we assign a
Speaker 3: reporter to Joe.
Speaker 2: Even obtained a nineteen eighty seven job application that she
Speaker 2: had for a law clerk in Alameda County whenever she
Speaker 2: was like that summer afterwards, and it's like she does
Speaker 2: not She listed several jobs, including a month long clerical
Speaker 2: job at stock brokerage, but did not mention McDonald.
Speaker 3: But see, that's the one. That's the one where I'm saying,
Speaker 3: I understand why I agree with you. That's what it's
Speaker 3: not necessarily would put the clerical one, right, Yeah, that
Speaker 3: makes sense. You're trying to show that you're like belong
Speaker 3: with these rich white shoe people, that's right.
Speaker 2: Who would look down on somebody who worked with at McDonald's,
Speaker 2: which again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with working at McDonald's.
Speaker 3: I met some funny people work at McDonald's. One other point,
Speaker 3: on this question about whether there's a photo of her,
Speaker 3: I was thinking about this. Yeah, So my first job
Speaker 3: was at the Washington College over on the eastern shore
Speaker 3: of Maryland. Why, I worked in the kitchen in the
Speaker 3: dining hall. Absolutely zero, Chancellor, is a photo of me
Speaker 3: doing any of that work. And none of my friends
Speaker 3: and a lot of my friends worked the same job.
Speaker 3: None of my friends ever would have thought to take
Speaker 3: a picture. And my upbringing, I think and curious for
Speaker 3: your takings. My upbring was closer to hers in the
Speaker 3: sense that there were no self period, let alone cell
Speaker 3: phone cameras. We didn't walk around with cameras. Once in
Speaker 3: a while somebody would bring like a polaroid to us
Speaker 3: party just as a party. You absolutely would not bring
Speaker 3: up camera to work. Okay, why on earth would you.
Speaker 2: Get what we were talking about our first job? So
Speaker 2: my first job was a liquor store. Is a cashier?
Speaker 3: I do think there is a photo of me doing it.
Speaker 2: This was the two thousands, Yeah, no, this was right,
Speaker 2: two two twelve probably, so there's yeah, I mean iPhone.
Speaker 3: I think we all had iPhone fours. So there you go.
Speaker 2: It's not say that was an interesting job, though. You
Speaker 2: learn a lot about people selling liquor here, you do.
Speaker 3: And this was this was DC. Yeah, this is here
Speaker 3: in Washington, DC. You get rich people. I was just
Speaker 3: telling you about homeless people. The great equalizer, the liquor store.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you see everybody from all walks of life. You
Speaker 2: certainly you learn a lot about people. People tell you
Speaker 2: their stories about what they want, why they're buying certain things.
Speaker 2: People make up a lot of stories too, where it's like,
Speaker 2: it's fine, man, I'm just telling It's like, I don't care.
Speaker 3: Kama could actually settle this, not with a photo of her,
Speaker 3: but just talking about it for five minutes. That's right.
Speaker 3: I agree with you. So if I work one of
Speaker 3: these jobs, it is indelible. That's right. She said I
Speaker 3: did the fries. So she needs to give us something
Speaker 3: more detail. Yeah, we need more details, like like you
Speaker 3: just said, in terms of sound like we can get
Speaker 3: into it, you know, in terms.
Speaker 1: Of like.
Speaker 2: When Kamala does her interview here, we'll make sure. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll go into like you need to prove we'll bring
Speaker 2: in a real McDonald's worker. You ask her something of
Speaker 2: that only somebody who quote did the fries and McDonald's
Speaker 2: would know.
Speaker 3: But not even that, Like I think just the experience
Speaker 3: of working in McDonald's, Like hearing her talk about it,
Speaker 3: you'd be able to tell if that was a real
Speaker 3: experience or if she was just relaying something like shit
Speaker 3: for or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was like, oh, I got to put on
Speaker 2: a crappy schedule, or I'll.
Speaker 3: Tell you everything you need to know about the dish
Speaker 3: room and at Washington College. Yes, there you go, all right,
Speaker 3: I like it.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to voting. So, as you said, Ryan,
Speaker 2: there's a lot going on here. Early voting is here,
Speaker 2: but there's also some very interesting developments in those close
Speaker 2: races that we want to watch. Let's put the up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. So we got Osborne is making
Speaker 2: waves here we have this is the Counterpoints bump. Yeah, dude,
Speaker 2: you guys refers to it. So we got to give
Speaker 2: you the credit. An internal poll, now shared with the
Speaker 2: New Jersey Hotline shows Dan Osborne at fifty percent ahead
Speaker 2: of Deb Fisher fifty percent for Osborne, forty four percent
Speaker 2: there for Fisher six percent undecided. Now, obviously that's an
Speaker 2: Osborne internal poll, but you know, they don't match us all.
Speaker 2: They pull out completely. And there have been a lot
Speaker 2: of polls recently that at the very least show it
Speaker 2: leaning away from Deb Fisher so much so that they
Speaker 2: had her tide. In an internal poll leaked by the
Speaker 2: Senate leadership Fund, which is the major superpack that backs
Speaker 2: Republicans who are running for Senate, and now Mitch McConnell
Speaker 2: and his guys are considering having to flood the zone
Speaker 2: and spend millions of dollars actually backing her. Now keep
Speaker 2: in mind, though he's still got forty four percent, so
Speaker 2: six percent is undecided.
Speaker 3: So it's so it could be fifty to fifty.
Speaker 2: You have to bank on a decent amount of Republicans
Speaker 2: who are you know, not even thinking about the race
Speaker 2: in the state of Nebraska just because it's such a
Speaker 2: hard GOP state. But I mean, if we're making the
Speaker 2: bowl case for Osborne, it's not just the positions and
Speaker 2: all those, but having made abortion in such a keystone
Speaker 2: of his campaign, it's not the worst thing because that
Speaker 2: has worked in Kansas, That has worked in Kentucky, right,
Speaker 2: and a lot of these other deeply red states Ohio
Speaker 2: as well for these referendums. So to make it on
Speaker 2: that and also the key part he's independent, he's not
Speaker 2: a Democrat, and he doesn't even say whether he would
Speaker 2: caucus with the Democrats or anything, so you really you
Speaker 2: can't project onto him a lot of this like, oh,
Speaker 2: he would be a vote for you know, Chuck Schumer
Speaker 2: or any of that. He's running really as his own man.
Speaker 2: So I'm very interested to see how he does.
Speaker 3: And if people remember from when he did his interview here,
Speaker 3: he describes himself personally as pro life.
Speaker 2: Yes, he's personally pro life, and he uses the phrase
Speaker 2: pro life right, which is charged and triggering to some
Speaker 2: people on the left.
Speaker 3: Right, But who cares running into Braska? Exactly, he's exactly
Speaker 3: he's So what he's doing is he's signaling that he
Speaker 3: shares kind of the social conservative values that a lot
Speaker 3: of Nebraskans have, but he is fundamentally more libertarian and
Speaker 3: believes that it's not up to him that this is
Speaker 3: his personal opinion, that's not how he's going to legislate.
Speaker 3: And that's a seventy eighty percent position right there, Like
Speaker 3: you're going to capture an overwhelming majority of people. What
Speaker 3: this poll and all the other polls around Dan Olsborn
Speaker 3: also show is the cost of being a Democrat, Like
Speaker 3: this stigma and the stain of the Democratic brand in
Speaker 3: rural America is so profound. Yes, So if you look
Speaker 3: at another statewide race, Pete Ricketts leads Democrat Preston Love
Speaker 3: fifty three to thirty seven, which is that and that's
Speaker 3: how every other statewide in Nebraska is going to go
Speaker 3: when you have a standard Republican and a standard Democrat.
Speaker 3: If Dan Osborne were running as a Democrat, he's done.
Speaker 3: He wouldn't even know his name? Who? Right? Who? It's
Speaker 3: all the union leader, right, you read that led the
Speaker 3: Kellogg strike. This guy sounds cool, but too bad. He's
Speaker 3: gonna lose by twenty points. Yes, yes, So according to
Speaker 3: the numbers here, he's basically outpolling the Democratic average by
Speaker 3: twenty points. So that's the price. So that that is
Speaker 3: the price, at least in Nebraska of being a Democrat.
Speaker 3: Having a D on your name is twenty points makes
Speaker 3: you unviable. And also everything's working out here for him
Speaker 3: in the sense that deb Fisher is like completely replaceable.
Speaker 3: But actually, but it's it's not like he just happened
Speaker 3: to luck on a replacement level Republican. The way that
Speaker 3: the Senate is structured now makes it so it's very
Speaker 3: much like the House. You just do whatever the majority
Speaker 3: leader or the minority leader tells.
Speaker 2: You, don't really do anything. You do a little bit
Speaker 2: of if you're actually decent in your job. You do
Speaker 2: constituent services and that's about it.
Speaker 3: So that the days where people could you know, you
Speaker 3: have to be an incredibly talented politician at this point
Speaker 3: to break out as a senator, and Deb Fisher was
Speaker 3: just never going to be that. She's just a chamber
Speaker 3: of commerce, like uh, you know, chamber of commerce when
Speaker 3: she got in Trump, Now that Trump's the thing, and
Speaker 3: so voters in Nebraska like, all right, well this other
Speaker 3: guy sounds cooler. Yeah, I like it. Let's see, I
Speaker 3: like to shake things up. So they're still against.
Speaker 2: Him, Polly say, I'll be honest, I think Deb is
Speaker 2: probably gonna win. But winning by two in Nebraska is humiliating.
Speaker 2: And so listen, you know, these things they take some time.
Speaker 2: So maybe somebody learns that and the next thing, you know,
Speaker 2: another union leader and another state tries it, and all
Speaker 2: you need is like what a terrible storm on election day?
Speaker 2: Then shockingly you win. We have a Democrat who represents
Speaker 2: a freaking state of Alaska. Right now, remember remember Doug
Speaker 2: Jones in Alabama? That was I mean, a Democratic senator, Ali,
Speaker 2: it can happen?
Speaker 3: Did happen in my lifetime? It wasn't that long ago,
Speaker 3: did he lose again. Yeah, but you never know, you know.
Speaker 3: Also for people curious, and I'm curious for yoursing on this,
Speaker 3: I am very confident that if it were decisive, he
Speaker 3: would caut us with Democrats, or at least he would,
Speaker 3: well you shouldn't say you shouldn't say that, but job,
Speaker 3: I think he would. But he would extract so many
Speaker 3: different pounds of flesh for Nebraska that everyone in nebrasa
Speaker 3: And I think people in Nebraska understand that he's running
Speaker 3: against the Republican right. Who was the senator?
Speaker 2: Is it Indiana? Who was the Democrat under Obama during
Speaker 2: the two thousand and nine?
Speaker 3: Is that Luger? Is that what I'm thinking of? Dick Luger.
Speaker 3: Dick Luger he was Was he Missouri? Dick Luger in Missouri?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 2: Dick Luger Indiana? Yeah, he was Indiana. And I remember
Speaker 2: him in the uh NO and and Nebraska was it
Speaker 2: Ben Nelson? Nelson, that's it, right, Ben Nelson.
Speaker 3: I remember him voting was it two thousand and nine?
Speaker 2: Like you know, whatever that rescue plan was, and he
Speaker 2: was like, oh, I'll do it, but there's a their
Speaker 2: industry of billion dollars coming Nebraska and he got it too.
Speaker 2: It was actually what they called it, No, I don't
Speaker 2: the corn Husker kickback cornsk.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, for mele mint in politics, this was
Speaker 3: a huge thing.
Speaker 2: What this is what led to Republicans banning ear marks
Speaker 2: in twenty ten, because that was before the Tea Party wave.
Speaker 2: The Cornhuscar kickback became like a massive political discussion. When
Speaker 2: Republicans take control of the House, they then ban they
Speaker 2: ban ear marks, I want to say, for over a
Speaker 2: decade and it became the predominant. I think they just
Speaker 2: brought it back or somebody did or anything. But that's
Speaker 2: what the last thing legacy of what that corn Husker
Speaker 2: kickback was.
Speaker 3: That's what I was thinking. And it got taken out
Speaker 3: because it was so it was it was so dumb.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't care.
Speaker 2: I remember I was reading a story once about LBJ
Speaker 2: and the Civil Rights Act and LBJ just become president
Speaker 2: and he needed some guy to like sign a discharge petition.
Speaker 2: I think the guy was from Purdue. This purdues like
Speaker 2: district in Indiana, and he said something in the long
Speaker 2: lines of it. He's like, listen, NASA, they've got a
Speaker 2: big contract. They could build it in Purdue. They could
Speaker 2: build it somewhere else too. A lot of that depends
Speaker 2: on the signature right now. And he was like, all right,
Speaker 2: you know, and to this day they still have it.
Speaker 3: So Mary Landrew, yeah, got it. She was Louisiana, is right.
Speaker 3: She was the senator from Louisiana. She also got bought
Speaker 3: off for her vote on the Affordable Care Act. Hers
Speaker 3: was called the Louisiana Purchase. I like it, man. Politics
Speaker 3: used to be more fun the back of the day.
Speaker 3: Southern Democrats were.
Speaker 2: It's such an interesting like such an interesting breed that
Speaker 2: unfortunately people who watch politics they just won't even know
Speaker 2: anything about. But let's continue down this road, man, enthusiasm
Speaker 2: right now for early voting crazy, let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. What we have right now is
Speaker 2: that the Georgia early vote has shattered all records. We
Speaker 2: have some two hundred thousand votes that were cast on
Speaker 2: the very first day in Georgia. The previous record for
Speaker 2: early voting was one hundred and twenty thousand.
Speaker 3: I mean, that is just absolutely stunning.
Speaker 2: So actually the total now that they've looked at it
Speaker 2: is three hundred and twenty eight thousand as of late
Speaker 2: last night. So that is one hundred and twenty three
Speaker 2: percent higher than the old record from twenty twenty, when
Speaker 2: a lot of more people were early voting. Now, for
Speaker 2: all the people out there who are like, oh, that's
Speaker 2: good for Democrats, no, Republicans have significantly changed their tune
Speaker 2: on early voting. And in fact, you have Republican activists
Speaker 2: who are just going hardcore, beating down the door getting people.
Speaker 2: You need to go out, you need to bank your vote,
Speaker 2: We need to make sure that it's done right now.
Speaker 2: So that is partially going to explain some of those
Speaker 2: answers what we and I believe George is one of
Speaker 2: those states where the demographic data all of that is
Speaker 2: like hard to capture. I've seen some of this in
Speaker 2: Michigan too. Michigan mail in ballots are crazy, but nobody
Speaker 2: knows who these people are exactly. But from it, what
Speaker 2: we know is that enthusiasm is still very high amongst
Speaker 2: the party faithful. The question is is that it's turnout
Speaker 2: going to come back to twenty twenty. There's really no
Speaker 2: way to know.
Speaker 3: Impossible. How hard was it inside the Republican coalition to
Speaker 3: get Trump to be supportive of it?
Speaker 2: I mean he's still not supportive of it. If you
Speaker 2: ask him about it, we are you still have problems
Speaker 2: with ma'am.
Speaker 3: It's more than he's to get him to the place
Speaker 3: where well he tells people go vote early.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, well okay, Well what happened is is twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two. They were convinced that they were going to
Speaker 2: get a landmark victory in twenty twenty two, and then
Speaker 2: they got blown out.
Speaker 3: And so I saw a lot of them. It's funny
Speaker 3: the language of the US.
Speaker 2: They're like, well, if the left is going to ballot harvest,
Speaker 2: then we need to ballot harvest too. But watching them
Speaker 2: in practice, people like Charlie Kirk or Scott Pressler or
Speaker 2: all these guys, they're just they're like, Okay, this is
Speaker 2: a landscape. Let's register as many people as we can.
Speaker 2: Let's get their damn votes, and let's get them to
Speaker 2: the ballot box. Ultimately, that is the only actual way
Speaker 2: to victory, and if they do win, that will be
Speaker 2: a huge.
Speaker 3: Part of it.
Speaker 2: It was they get out the vote drive by a
Speaker 2: lot of these people instead of having to rely on
Speaker 2: early votes. So with Trump, he's never truly made his
Speaker 2: peace with it. But the people who know and the
Speaker 2: people really running elections and who want the Republicans to win,
Speaker 2: they have very much made their peace.
Speaker 3: They're like, look, this is the system we have. Can't
Speaker 3: change it.
Speaker 2: Literally, Democrats democratic governors rule five out of the seven
Speaker 2: swing states. That's a remarkable statistic. So that tells us
Speaker 2: also that you know, they have no chance at changing
Speaker 2: whatever the ground is there, you have to you have
Speaker 2: to work.
Speaker 3: To make sure that it's redone. So it's up to you.
Speaker 3: And I think we're going to see national voter ID,
Speaker 3: you know, as soon as we have as soon as
Speaker 3: we ever get a functional Congress, it's going to pass something. Again.
Speaker 3: I think we'll get it. And it's because Democrats are
Speaker 3: now becoming more of the upper middle class, middle class party,
Speaker 3: and Republicans are the ones who have more working class support,
Speaker 3: and so voter ID anything you do to you know,
Speaker 3: if you look at the look at the numbers when
Speaker 3: they go from registered voters to likely voters, Like throughout
Speaker 3: my entire lifetime, Democrats did better among registered voters, but
Speaker 3: worse among likely votes. Yes, that's right, because they had
Speaker 3: more they had more working class support. Flipped in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: and so if you make it harder to vote, and
Speaker 3: you have more working class support, your vote share is
Speaker 3: going to go down. There you go. And so that's
Speaker 3: why Democrats fought it and Republicans support it. Now that's flipped,
Speaker 3: you're going to see all of a sudden, the principle
Speaker 3: is going to be reversed. I like it. I can't
Speaker 3: wait until Republicans are like, well, you know what, are
Speaker 3: we sure that let them signistic That actually will be hilarious.
Speaker 3: I did see somebody was what they're going to do
Speaker 3: is make student Republicans will say student ideas don't count,
Speaker 3: like that'll be there, which, look, you know it's a
Speaker 3: state university.
Speaker 2: It is difficult because there is a lot of like
Speaker 2: low key voter fraud that does happen where people who
Speaker 2: don't live in that voter fraud is real.
Speaker 3: No, it's it's true. And by the way, I'm not
Speaker 3: making a stop. This is a decades long weird thing.
Speaker 3: We're at the epicenter of it in DC. Yes, so
Speaker 3: many people who have lived here for years. Yeah, we
Speaker 3: never registered to vote. They just vote back in wherever
Speaker 3: they're from Pennsylvania and they're like, well, that's it's not fair.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be able to have my vote count if
Speaker 3: that actually, no, I don't know if that technically committed
Speaker 3: voter fraud.
Speaker 2: I think I voted, yeah, in Texas twenty sixteen, requested
Speaker 2: a absentee ballot, but I think I qualified because I
Speaker 2: was a student who was out.
Speaker 3: There's something about residency, Laura. But like you just said,
Speaker 3: when people work here for fifteen years, that'll keep voting and.
Speaker 2: You're going to keep requesting mail in balance. That's where
Speaker 2: it gets difficult. Okay, let's continue with the actual polls.
Speaker 2: Just put this up there on the screen from Nate Silver.
Speaker 3: He now has the.
Speaker 2: Race officially fifty to fifty, Harris at fifty point one
Speaker 2: percent chance of winning, and you have Donald Trump at
Speaker 2: forty nine point seven.
Speaker 3: So that's it. I mean, you know what else is
Speaker 3: the saying about it? Right? It got him incredible. It's like,
Speaker 3: come on, Nate Silvi, you got one job. Yeah, you're
Speaker 3: just telling us it's fifty to fifty. That doesn't help us. Well,
Speaker 3: if it is fifty to fifty, that's what he's got.
Speaker 3: I think that's what I actually think it's helpful.
Speaker 2: It's good for me fifty where it's at, and so
Speaker 2: the real thing that has happened is the tipping point states,
Speaker 2: for example, like Pennsylvania. Right now he has Harris at
Speaker 2: a fifty three point five percent chance of winning Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: and Trump at forty six. But the thing is is
Speaker 2: that Trump has gone so much higher in the last
Speaker 2: couple of weeks. So for example, October seventh, just like
Speaker 2: a week or so ago, he had it at forty
Speaker 2: two point four percent chance of Trump and now he's
Speaker 2: up to forty six to five. So a slew of
Speaker 2: polls in the Upper Midwest and then the assumption that
Speaker 2: Trump will overperform in those places is really what is
Speaker 2: ticking him up.
Speaker 3: So yeah, overall in Wisconsin. And this was the huge
Speaker 3: fear of Democrats who have been following Kamala Harris's career
Speaker 3: the whole time, that Okay, there'll be an initial burst
Speaker 3: of enthusiasm, but then she will revert to her more
Speaker 3: centrist instincts and she doesn't necessarily believe anything, but if
Speaker 3: she has a gravitational pull it is it is to
Speaker 3: the center. Yeah, and she has ditched the the one
Speaker 3: thing that the public I think liked about Biden, which
Speaker 3: is his his advisors and his rejection of kind of
Speaker 3: neoliberalism that actually implementing the things that people said they
Speaker 3: liked about Trump's populism, you know, low unemployment. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: they hate the inflation from twenty twenty one that has
Speaker 3: taken like since then to like rattle its way out
Speaker 3: of out of the economy. But in general, the strong
Speaker 3: anti trust stuff, anti corporate stuff, strump pro worker agenda,
Speaker 3: and she just refused to embrace that. It's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really don't know what a lot of it is.
Speaker 2: At the same time, they're going hard on this Cheney
Speaker 2: co oration and instead, yeah, well let's show people that.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is so Tim Walls. He was on
Speaker 2: the campaign trail. He was bragging about it. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen.
Speaker 7: The only thing more amazing is we got Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 7: Dick Cheney, and Taylor Swift all in the.
Speaker 2: Same there you go, all right, So we got Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 2: Dick Cheney, and Taylor Swift all together.
Speaker 3: And I'm like, imagine bragging about that. But they they
Speaker 3: love it. This change love it. It's it's it's uh.
Speaker 2: We first heard it and appears he got it from
Speaker 2: Amy Klobachar, who also made this joke previously.
Speaker 3: Take a listen to that she.
Speaker 4: Has brought with her independence and modern Republicans. Right, you
Speaker 4: saw the event with with Cheney, you know, and it's
Speaker 4: only a matter of time where we're going to see
Speaker 4: like a bush going through western Wisconsin.
Speaker 3: I want you to picture this Bernie Sanders and Dick
Speaker 3: Cheney together holding aside. That says Brant Paul.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that's that they like it, Ryan, They love
Speaker 2: having Dick Cheney.
Speaker 3: I will never understand that one. I don't know. Also,
Speaker 3: there's no way Bernie Sanders is doing that, but the
Speaker 3: fact that Democrats are floating that fantasy too. I mean,
Speaker 3: he has, he has, he has, he has said like
Speaker 3: Dick Cheney's a war criminal, and I don't support being
Speaker 3: involved with dic Chane. Guess what, Bernie, you are, and
Speaker 3: they're going to keep reminding people that you are. The
Speaker 3: Only way that this is exciting for you is if
Speaker 3: you simply believe in taking power for power's sake, because
Speaker 3: then yeah, of course, if you have everything from Dick
Speaker 3: Cheney to Bernie Sanders, then that would that would suggest
Speaker 3: in the old world that you've got everything like you're
Speaker 3: going to I mean in the Democrats old understanding of
Speaker 3: the world. You're going to win with one hundred percent
Speaker 3: of the vote then, because that's far left to far right.
Speaker 3: What they're missing is that so many in the middle
Speaker 3: don't see themselves on that spectrum anymore. Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I think it's an excellent point, and
Speaker 2: it's one that is genuinely concerning for what the future
Speaker 2: of Polo. And look, it's you know, you could say
Speaker 2: it's terrifying if Trump wins, right, he's got this coalition
Speaker 2: and that he's abandoned a lot of stuff they used
Speaker 2: to run on and it'll just be pure culture.
Speaker 3: But like, isn't it equally terrifying that it's like, oh,
Speaker 3: Dick change. And I think it's honestly, I'm scared. And
Speaker 3: for for so long, to those of us who were
Speaker 3: recoiling at Liz Cheney being embraced by the Democrats, they
Speaker 3: would say to us, look, it's just Liz Cheney. It's
Speaker 3: not Dick change. Yeah, And we would say, yeah, but Liz,
Speaker 3: lizten they have the same politics. She didn't wage the
Speaker 3: Iraq War, but she has the same politics. As they say, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: but it's not Dick Cheney. And now it's actually Dick Cheney. Yeah,
Speaker 3: who is somehow still alive?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 2: Okay, test out this theory on you. I think she
Speaker 2: gets secked out for sex State.
Speaker 3: What do you think? No? No, why not? Everyone says
Speaker 3: she won't get confirmed. I don't buy it. Why wouldn't
Speaker 3: Lindsay Grahmble for Dick Chan for Liz Cheney. Of course
Speaker 3: she would. I mean they're not. Democrats have been praising
Speaker 3: her for the last like three years. She's a hero.
Speaker 3: I think she keeps saying shes gonna put her repub
Speaker 3: in her cabinet. What do you think she might? I
Speaker 3: think the reason I say no so quickly is that
Speaker 3: I refuse to believe that I live in that world,
Speaker 3: but gave it out. Do you not see it? But
Speaker 3: I might? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Which Democrat realistically is going to vote against Dick Change?
Speaker 3: Change? I think Bernie sure, I think she would get confirmed.
Speaker 3: I think why she says I want to republican my cabinet.
Speaker 2: When Kamala has asked what do you agree with on
Speaker 2: Liz Chaney, she says Ukraine. Okay, so that's flagship policy.
Speaker 2: What's the real distance between them on foreign policy?
Speaker 3: Not very much?
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, Kamala's in the posty Rock era.
Speaker 2: She's never had to answer or vote for the Iraq war.
Speaker 3: So on Gaza, I mean.
Speaker 2: Like realistically, but they semi the same policy. Kamala says,
Speaker 2: what's the last show we did?
Speaker 3: Iran?
Speaker 2: Kamala says, Iran is our greatest officer. That's an answer
Speaker 2: straight out of a Cheney's mouth. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 2: seeing that much distance.
Speaker 3: You know. What they keep saying quietly to the people
Speaker 3: who are critical of this whole thing is that we
Speaker 3: have not moved to accept Liz Cheney. You know, it's
Speaker 3: the Republicans who changed, and Liz change just supports us
Speaker 3: because we defend democracy. The second that you're like, hey,
Speaker 3: you want to be Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, Yeah,
Speaker 3: then either you have moved or you have always been
Speaker 3: a warmonger party. Look, and I think that both are true.
Speaker 3: Both in some ways are true, but they don't want
Speaker 3: to necessarily admit that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm curious just to see how it plays out
Speaker 2: if she does win, because I mean that that would
Speaker 2: really give away everything. And like I said, I really
Speaker 2: do believe she would get confirmed. Everyone seems to think
Speaker 2: it would be a fight how they've been calling her
Speaker 2: a hero for four years. And when they say you
Speaker 2: would have a Republican in your you know, a Republican
Speaker 2: in your cabinet. I don't think she means Secretary of Transportation.
Speaker 3: I just maybe I'm wrong. RelA Hoods still alive. I'm
Speaker 3: not sure, but Obama named Rayla Hood, a moderate Republican,
Speaker 3: as Transportation secretary.
Speaker 2: The other thing I kept thinking about is what did
Speaker 2: Obama do whenever he comes in? Who does he keep
Speaker 2: as the SEC deaf Robert Gates? And remember how much
Speaker 2: they touted that bipartisanship. They're like, look, we've got a
Speaker 2: Republican who runs the Secretary of Defense? And then who
Speaker 2: else did he pick? Ryan Chuck Hagel, who was a
Speaker 2: Republican senator. So the president is there for some Liz Cheney,
Speaker 2: you know type figure to be the SEC daff By
Speaker 2: the way, she could be like, oh, her father he
Speaker 2: was a SEC deaf under I think it was under Reagan.
Speaker 3: You know, he had a long time experience. She grew
Speaker 3: up around it. So I'm just telling people the case
Speaker 3: is there. You heard it here first. I think it's
Speaker 3: going to happen. I could be totally wrong. But I
Speaker 3: see it the Yes, staffing, The best thing about a
Speaker 3: Harris administration would be the war over staffing it because
Speaker 3: that would be the that would be this, that would
Speaker 3: be the civil war that we've been seeing over the
Speaker 3: last fifteen years, Yes, playing out in miniature in just
Speaker 3: a couple of months at drop site. We're actually going
Speaker 3: to basically we've got we're putting budgets side just just
Speaker 3: for the transit, just transition, welding on the transition in others.
Speaker 3: And it'll be interesting if it's Trump, So yeah, well
Speaker 3: it will be a fascinating dynamic either way. With Harris.
Speaker 2: Something I keep thinking about is if the likelihood is
Speaker 2: you're gonna have a GOP Senate, so are they even
Speaker 2: going to confirm a single one of her people?
Speaker 3: Right? I mean for reals, touch to acting people.
Speaker 2: Legally, what would happen is that she would almost be
Speaker 2: forced to keep the Biden cabinet because they have been
Speaker 2: in uh, they've already been confirmed, and she could bring
Speaker 2: them over. That could create its own really, yeah exactly,
Speaker 2: or you could have just actings, but that's really difficult
Speaker 2: for security clearance wise and all that.
Speaker 3: So anyway, we're getting in the weeds.
Speaker 2: But listen, folks, you know, preview of the show for
Speaker 2: two months from now, because that's what hopefully we'll be
Speaker 2: talking about either either direction. Staffing is so interesting about
Speaker 2: who they pick and what's going to happen. All right,
Speaker 2: Ryan break Israel down force, what's going on?
Speaker 3: The reporter who's been breaking basically all of the news
Speaker 3: from either the White House or out of the Knesset
Speaker 3: or out of news camp buacra v over at Axiosis,
Speaker 3: the receptacle for all the leaks from both sides, has
Speaker 3: a news story that is kind of reshaping the politics.
Speaker 3: There is Palise and we put his piece up here.
Speaker 3: So basically what happened is over the weekend, the US
Speaker 3: finally sent a sternly worded letter to Israel, which then
Speaker 3: it appears quite clearly that Israel then leaked to Barak Ravid.
Speaker 3: I want to read some of this just so people
Speaker 3: can get a flavor for it. They write, the humanitarian
Speaker 3: situation for over two million civilians in Gaza is increasingly dire.
Speaker 3: This is supposed to be a private letter. Despite the
Speaker 3: July transition from combat operations to special counter terrorism operations
Speaker 3: in the Gaza Strip, multiple evacuation orders have forced one
Speaker 3: point seven million people into a narrow coastal zone from
Speaker 3: Muwassee to dary Bala. Extreme overcrowding has put these civilians
Speaker 3: at high risk of lethal content. Humanitarian implementers report they
Speaker 3: are unable to meet essential survival needs of aid dependent civilians.
Speaker 3: Trucks carrying humanitarian commodities, including perishable goods funded by the
Speaker 3: United States, are delayed at crossing platforms. I would encourage
Speaker 3: people to go and read this entire letter. It reads
Speaker 3: like some type of left wing screed that you would
Speaker 3: find me penning somewhere, but it is just fact after
Speaker 3: fact after fact that says that. And it says that
Speaker 3: September was the worst month on records since this assault
Speaker 3: began a year ago for humanitarian aid getting in. And
Speaker 3: we also know that October has been worse than September.
Speaker 3: The situation is completely out of control. And they highlight
Speaker 3: the plight of four hundred thousand people, so you're talking
Speaker 3: two point seven million people tucked into this little, tiny enclave.
Speaker 3: They highlight the plight of four hundred thousand people in
Speaker 3: North Gaza, that the IDF is ordering to leave North
Speaker 3: Gaza or be considered combatants and has completely cut off
Speaker 3: from water and humanitarian aid and starving, starving them to death,
Speaker 3: and the US is saying you can't do this, like
Speaker 3: there is no military justification for this. And these four
Speaker 3: hundred thousand people, most of them are refusing to leave,
Speaker 3: first of all, and we have some reporting on this
Speaker 3: at Dropsite people who are who do try to leave
Speaker 3: or then shot at, many of them killed. But many
Speaker 3: others are saying, we're not leaving because we have been
Speaker 3: through this rodeo. We do not believe that there is
Speaker 3: anywhere else in Gaza to go that is safe. So
Speaker 3: we're stuck here. This is part of and we can
Speaker 3: put up this next this next tweet, which is kind
Speaker 3: of a summary from the Israeli perspective of what's been
Speaker 3: going on lately. So this letter comes at the same time.
Speaker 3: And so if you're listening to this, this is somebody
Speaker 3: who's doing a rundout, says, so a rundown of kind
Speaker 3: of the international pressure Israel is under. One Italian prime
Speaker 3: minister says that they're no longer supplying Israel with any weapons.
Speaker 3: You know, Germany is refusing to supply weapons since March
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four. Some of this is like slightly exaggeration,
Speaker 3: but this is the way it feels from the Israeli perspective.
Speaker 3: United Kingdom canceled around thirty licenses to supply weapons for
Speaker 3: France and Spain advocate for full weapon embargo. Five Canada
Speaker 3: suspended thirty permits for arm sales, and then six is
Speaker 3: this latest. USA threatens to halt weapons supply amid its
Speaker 3: flight admit its fight with HESWELA. Then they quote allies
Speaker 3: with Ironcloud support unquote, Israel will prevail, prevail with or
Speaker 3: without you. So on the one hand, from the left,
Speaker 3: we see this letter going to Israel as what took
Speaker 3: you so long? Is a year in You're not serious,
Speaker 3: You're not actually going to do any of this. From
Speaker 3: Israel's perspective, they see themselves completely isolated. The left wing
Speaker 3: perspective or not the I should it's not the left
Speaker 3: wings my perspective, The question of what took you so
Speaker 3: long made up most of the press briefing, like at
Speaker 3: the well, that's the question is how real is this?
Speaker 2: And also if you put them on deadline, that's after
Speaker 2: the election, right, because we're twenty days to the elections.
Speaker 2: So reality is you're not doing anything until exactly the election.
Speaker 3: And it seems to be right. And what that thing is,
Speaker 3: I think it's starting to become clear. But your question
Speaker 3: is the one that everybody who read this letter immediately asked,
Speaker 3: was what took you so long? And this was also
Speaker 3: asked of Matt Miller. We can we can roll this
Speaker 3: from the State Department.
Speaker 1: The Foreign Assistant Act says when it's made known to
Speaker 1: the President that the government of such country prohibits or
Speaker 1: otherwise restricts directly or indirectly the transport of delivery of
Speaker 1: the United States mentor assistance. It does not have arbitrarily. So,
Speaker 1: given you are already saying humanitarian assistance is very low
Speaker 1: and putting in front of Israel a bunch of concrete
Speaker 1: measures on how to improve it, why are you waiting
Speaker 1: for another thirty days to implement the law?
Speaker 8: Because we believe it's appropriate to give them a chance
Speaker 8: to cure the problem, and international humanitarian law does make
Speaker 8: exceptions for certain I give you an example. Dual use
Speaker 8: items is a good example. If there are the dual
Speaker 8: use items that legitimately could use could be used as
Speaker 8: a military purpose. Of course, governments are required to let
Speaker 8: those dual use items in which is not to say
Speaker 8: that they can use that exception as a blanket restriction
Speaker 8: on anything that could be used as a dual use item.
Speaker 3: So there was a lot of talking around in circles
Speaker 3: at the press briefing, which you know, which was which
Speaker 3: combined like some stern words like yes, like right now,
Speaker 3: Israel we do believe is in violation of six to
Speaker 3: twenty II, this thing that says you can't send a
Speaker 3: military aid to a country that is blocking US humanitarian
Speaker 3: aid at the same but they say, wait, we want
Speaker 3: to give them a moment to cure this. The context
Speaker 3: for this, like you said, is okay, thirty days is
Speaker 3: after the election. What's going to happen after the election?
Speaker 3: And I think we're starting to see that, So Control Room, Sorry,
Speaker 3: we'll skip me for now. I had a couple questions
Speaker 3: that I think are interesting but are not exactly on
Speaker 3: this particular topics. Finished this topic first, if we could
Speaker 3: jump to D five. This is Senator Lindsay Graham talking
Speaker 3: about a quote unquote day after plan that is starting
Speaker 3: to be developed kind of absent the Palestinians between the
Speaker 3: US Israelis and some of their golf partners over there.
Speaker 3: And I think you're going to start to see this
Speaker 3: coming too focus, got it?
Speaker 9: How's the time if you're ever going to do it
Speaker 9: to start a dialogue with Saudi Arabia about the day after, right.
Speaker 6: But the Saudis have also been very care that what
Speaker 6: they want in return that there needs to be a viable, sovereign,
Speaker 6: independent palace then the state which the israetis recognized.
Speaker 9: They want two things for them to recognize the state
Speaker 9: of Israel. They want a defensive agreement with the United States.
Speaker 9: Saudi Arabia and the United States would have a mutual
Speaker 9: defense agreement like we have with Japan and Australia. In
Speaker 9: other words, the United States would go to war for
Speaker 9: Saudi Arabia. That requires sixty seven votes in the US
Speaker 9: Senate Center. Blumenthal is a democract trying to get the votes.
Speaker 9: I told NBS a year and a half.
Speaker 3: Ago that will be a heavy lift, but I will try.
Speaker 6: But these Radis also have to want to recognize an
Speaker 6: independent palaicy in state.
Speaker 3: They're not going to do that.
Speaker 9: An independent sovereign nation called Palestine with security guarantees for
Speaker 9: Israel to make sure there's no future October seventh, It
Speaker 9: will be more like an emirate than it will be
Speaker 9: a democracy. NBS and NBZ at the UEE will come
Speaker 9: in and rebuild Gaza, they will reform the PA. They
Speaker 9: will create an enclave in the Palestine that can live
Speaker 9: in peace and harmony with Israel. They will stop teaching
Speaker 9: their children to kill the Jews. I deradicalized, I demoted how.
Speaker 4: They teach it.
Speaker 3: Yes, literally, So what's going on there? Yeah, So the
Speaker 3: key phrase there is from from Graham if you pick
Speaker 3: this up, was quote called Palestine. So this morning Barack
Speaker 3: revived had another piece and this this goes into the
Speaker 3: the the context of what we're talking about here. Basically,
Speaker 3: Ron Drmer who is UH and some top officials over
Speaker 3: at the UAE met with Anthony Blincoln and presented him
Speaker 3: with a with the proposal that you basically just heard
Speaker 3: Lindsey Graham layout. That was Lindsay Grahams was about a
Speaker 3: week ago. This is this. This is putting it down
Speaker 3: in pay per form. And what they what they asked
Speaker 3: Lincoln to do was perhaps after the election, to present
Speaker 3: it as a US plan that the US has decided
Speaker 3: that this is the way to go forward. And the
Speaker 3: plan sidesteps the idea of Palestinian statehood because as as
Speaker 3: the report lays out, Yahoo is stridently opposed to any
Speaker 3: mention of a two state solution, that any any idea
Speaker 3: that Palestinians would get any version of statehood in this
Speaker 3: plan is something that net Yahu rejects. Yet he is
Speaker 3: still working with the UAE on moving forward with this plan.
Speaker 3: And so that's where it goes back to Lindsey Graham's
Speaker 3: idea of quote unquote called Palestine. So what that means, basically,
Speaker 3: as he said, it would be an emirate, so it
Speaker 3: would be something under the UAE. Is that Yes, So basically,
Speaker 3: the US, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, who knows who else
Speaker 3: would get in would get in and they'd say, okay,
Speaker 3: we are we're getting rid of a boss and we're
Speaker 3: getting rid of the because Israel wants the Israel doesn't
Speaker 3: want to even approve of the Palestine authority being involved
Speaker 3: in this, and they will create some other mechanism that
Speaker 3: they will call independent. They will call Palestine and the
Speaker 3: UA and Saudi Arabia will offer the guarantee, the security guarantees,
Speaker 3: and then they'll be They'll they'll offer the funding. The
Speaker 3: US will fund it as well. Uh, and Israel then
Speaker 3: have to withdraw, but it will not be remotely sovereign. Uh,
Speaker 3: and it will will be the sovereign u AE. Well,
Speaker 3: the whole thing's fake. Yeah, yeah, that's the I think.
Speaker 3: I think I'm just trying to get so you're trying.
Speaker 3: So basically the way for the way for Israel to
Speaker 3: agree to it is that it would have to have
Speaker 3: no real sovereignty, but it would have to be called sovereign.
Speaker 2: Look, this is nation building at it's absolute worse, trying
Speaker 2: to impose. First of all, I've lived and notice what
Speaker 2: we haven't talked about, Yeah, Palasini, Yeah, that's what I
Speaker 2: was going to say. I've lived in the golf. The golf,
Speaker 2: they don't care about Palestine. Okay, now, the people, but
Speaker 2: the leaders themselves they don't care at all.
Speaker 3: Period. They've gave up a long time ago. They wouldn't
Speaker 3: even open their mouths that they have to deal with it.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, you know the actual people there who live,
Speaker 2: they definitely do. But the actual leadership they care less that.
Speaker 2: They just want to be rich, live in London. That's
Speaker 2: all they care about. But so this is like a
Speaker 2: thorny problem for them for them to if you have
Speaker 2: to consider this, to impose like the rule from the
Speaker 2: UAE onto people of whom they have like no relation to.
Speaker 3: Both.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they may speak the same language, that's about it.
Speaker 2: They frankly like disdain and already look down upon that's
Speaker 2: a recipe for disaster. What do you think is going
Speaker 2: to happen. You're gonna have massive insurgency, You're going to
Speaker 2: have like the funding for it. It will be like
Speaker 2: Afghanistan two point zero in terms of trying to impose
Speaker 2: this like fake form of government with allies, partners and
Speaker 2: all of this other onto for And if you were Hama,
Speaker 2: like why would you even accept that? You would just
Speaker 2: fight against now this new and curtain. The only things
Speaker 2: that would do is bail out Israel because they're the
Speaker 2: other ones who don't want.
Speaker 3: To be the auto and Isue won't even accept this right,
Speaker 3: which is which is well, Yeah, what's delusional about it
Speaker 3: is that they still have this idea that it's the
Speaker 3: textbooks that is that's creating like the hostility and the conflict.
Speaker 3: Every school in Gaza has been destroyed by Israel's assault
Speaker 3: on Gaza. What you're talking about textbooks? They're blowing up
Speaker 3: all of the schools. If you talk to Palestinians live
Speaker 3: in Gaza and ask them about the textbooks, some will say, yeah,
Speaker 3: there actually is some like cringe worthy stuff in there
Speaker 3: that should be like edited out. But the idea that
Speaker 3: the resentment is of Jewish Israelis comes from the textbooks
Speaker 3: ignores the fact that they've been getting bombed for a
Speaker 3: year and starved to death and that and pushed into
Speaker 3: an enclay where they're like infectious disease is like spreading
Speaker 3: out of control, Like the material conditions are creating the resentment.
Speaker 3: And if you print a new textbook that is filled
Speaker 3: with propaganda about the virtues of the Israeli state, you
Speaker 3: don't even have a school left standing where you can
Speaker 3: hand that textbook out to students. Like it's so utterly
Speaker 3: divorced from the reality on the ground that you wonder,
Speaker 3: you know, when when is this going to when is
Speaker 3: this going to actually clash? Yeah, and we really let
Speaker 3: alone the fact that you know, so many bombs have
Speaker 3: been dropped on kaza Uh that the unexploded ordinance itself
Speaker 3: will take decades to remove before you can even do
Speaker 3: the reconstruction.
Speaker 2: What this just reeks of me is like imperial you know,
Speaker 2: agenda right, like imposing rule, drawing state line, all these
Speaker 2: things we use. Supposed guess this is some and it
Speaker 2: might actually even be worse because this is it doesn't
Speaker 2: even involve any of the people who supposedly.
Speaker 3: Would rule over. And my guess is we will see
Speaker 3: something like this.
Speaker 2: Absolutely I agree with you, this is a most likely outcome.
Speaker 2: But the point is is that in the twenty first
Speaker 2: century it's not going to last. As in the power
Speaker 2: the only the amount of force it would take to
Speaker 2: enforce something like this is not I mean, it is
Speaker 2: within the realm of.
Speaker 3: Possibility for the US.
Speaker 2: It shouldn't shouldn't be that we have no interest in
Speaker 2: doing this doesn't mean I guess that we wouldn't get
Speaker 2: locked into it, but it's it would turn into a
Speaker 2: multi decade quagmire. The current it would just be completely unsustainable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they basically it would just have to shrink
Speaker 3: the population down to which was what they're ultimately trying
Speaker 3: to do. Shrink the population down to a quote unquote
Speaker 3: manageable size. I think we can if people want to
Speaker 3: see my exchanges. You are with the States right now,
Speaker 3: we can say tomorrow it's like we're running a long time.
Speaker 3: People can check out the drop side of twitter feed.
Speaker 3: Check out the dropside twitter Feed. It's there. Okay, plagiarism
Speaker 3: set it up for us. What happened? Ryan Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: wrote a book when she was a district attorney called
Speaker 3: Smart on Crime. Yes, she had had a co author
Speaker 3: on it. I can't remember the see something. I can't
Speaker 3: even remember the guy, the guy's name or the person's name.
Speaker 3: So Chris Ruffo ran basically the book through plagiarism defection
Speaker 3: and also gave it to like the guy who's known
Speaker 3: as like the Plagiarism Hunter and an Australian guy. He
Speaker 3: found a bunch of we can put this first element
Speaker 3: up the scround. He found, you know a ton of
Speaker 3: evidence of plagiarism. Yeah, what we'd understand is plagiarism. Like
Speaker 3: some of the most hilarious examples would come from John Jay.
Speaker 3: So John Jay College put out a press release about
Speaker 3: a program that they were doing. It's like a two
Speaker 3: or three hundred, two hundred word press release, and the
Speaker 3: guy or the person the author clearly just copied and
Speaker 3: pasted the press release, dropped it into the text and
Speaker 3: did not put it in quotes. Sometimes. What happened in
Speaker 3: a lot of these examples there was a citation like
Speaker 3: according to John Jay cop or according to whatever, you're
Speaker 3: still supposed to rewrite the words.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly that for anybody who's ever been through
Speaker 2: a college. What's crazy to me is quote sole long
Speaker 2: passages directly from Wikipedia not only assumes the online accuracy,
Speaker 2: but copies its language quote newly, verbatim without citing a source.
Speaker 2: That's pretty bad. That's like as if any college freshman
Speaker 2: you're I wouldn't know if you get expelled over that,
Speaker 2: but like you're gonna get it. You're gonna have a problem.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have a little talking to from profess.
Speaker 3: The other bad stuff is that they noticed that a
Speaker 3: lot of the plagiarism that the book does comes from
Speaker 3: the Wikipedia footnotes. So it's either Wikipedia itself. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: so you can just tell how you know the research
Speaker 3: is being done all right reading here, Oh, I don't
Speaker 3: want a copy from Wikipedia. Let me let me click
Speaker 3: on the foot.
Speaker 2: Somewhat related and then right, it's anybody out there's ever
Speaker 2: had to do it. But look, it's obviously a terrible look.
Speaker 3: And even in terms. Yeah, go ahead. No, I was
Speaker 3: just gonna say, like fundamentally, substantially, like, do either of
Speaker 3: us care that a ghost written book was plagiarized? I
Speaker 3: think we probably don't. Like we don't. We have probably
Speaker 3: such a low opinion of our politicians. Correct that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you and I know the inside process. I
Speaker 2: know multiple politicians. I also I know the people who
Speaker 2: actually wrote their books. Those people I have a little
Speaker 2: bit of familiarity with. I literally have friends who have
Speaker 2: written politicians books. It's kind of funny.
Speaker 3: And most politicians I don't know about. Most lots of
Speaker 3: politicians don't even read. Oh yeah, absolutely the book let
Speaker 3: alone having had a hand in actually writing it. Now
Speaker 3: it's still Kamala Harris's response, that's true. Thing, she put
Speaker 3: her name on the book, and she did not put
Speaker 3: the fear of God into the ghost writer to say,
Speaker 3: don't plagiarize any of this and get me in trouble
Speaker 3: twenty years later when I'm running for running for president.
Speaker 3: So therefore, like she is responsible, I also don't care.
Speaker 3: What I do care about is the media's response that's
Speaker 3: for thisarticularly the New York Times, which has been the
Speaker 3: worst offender response to it. So notice the headline conservative
Speaker 3: activist seizes on passages from Harris' book. So the story, well,
Speaker 3: you know you got to be the subhead too. Yeah.
Speaker 3: A report by Christopher Rufo says the Democratic presidential nominee
Speaker 3: copied five short passages for her two thousand and nine
Speaker 3: book on crime. A plagiarism expert said the lapses were
Speaker 3: not serious. So starting with the headline, they what they
Speaker 3: focus on is what Chris Rufo is doing, which isn't
Speaker 3: the point. Who cares? Like, who cares what Chris Rufo
Speaker 3: is doing? I don't care what Chris Rufo does all
Speaker 3: day long. It only matters if he gets something right.
Speaker 3: Chris Rufo sezes on lots of things. Should it be
Speaker 3: a headline in the New York Times? Every time Chris
Speaker 3: Rufo seizes on something absolutely insane, So it's already slanted
Speaker 3: to begin with, like either either the Time should write
Speaker 3: an artic about it or not, and if they decide
Speaker 3: to write an article about it, the article should be
Speaker 3: that you know whether or not it is their plagiarism
Speaker 3: in the book. The subhead, which you're picking up on,
Speaker 3: to me is just it's offensive. Clearly they're trying to
Speaker 3: minimize in that subhead five short passages. So by saying five,
Speaker 3: that's already wildly wrong, Like there's a whole bunch more
Speaker 3: passages that they found. By five, they're trying to narrow
Speaker 3: it to one little thing. By short, they're trying to
Speaker 3: minimize the kind of intellectual crime committed there. And then
Speaker 3: a plagiarism expert said the lapses were not serious. That
Speaker 3: plagiarism expert has now come under fire and has said
Speaker 3: that The New York Times only shared with them a
Speaker 3: couple of the excerpts, not all of them, and so
Speaker 3: they cannot be they should not. They're saying, look, don't
Speaker 3: use me as a shield here. Yes, what's so stupid
Speaker 3: about that.
Speaker 2: We had a joke back in my Daily caller days
Speaker 2: about any time that we would report something, the headline
Speaker 2: would just be conservatives on X, Y and Z, and
Speaker 2: you're on. It'd be like conservative pounds on Harris plagiarism accusations. Whereas,
Speaker 2: let's say it came from like where you used to
Speaker 2: work at the Hoffington Post, they'd be like, huff Po
Speaker 2: reveals Harris plagiary right, and it's like, look, it's a
Speaker 2: very subtle form of media like bias. But it's also
Speaker 2: a little bit ridiculous because, as you just said, Ryan,
Speaker 2: you and I work in the news business. The headline
Speaker 2: here is Harris plagiarism revealed in two thousand and nine book,
Speaker 2: and then you cite where it came from. You can
Speaker 2: even add all this bs about some plagiarism exports, just
Speaker 2: that it's not that bad. Fine, you know all of
Speaker 2: that is color and that you should be filling out
Speaker 2: the rest of your paragraphs. But at a very basic level,
Speaker 2: it's just very telling that their news judgment is conservative
Speaker 2: activists seizes on passages from Harris book. It's like out
Speaker 2: of a meme of what the what the actual thing is.
Speaker 2: And then if you read that subhead, it says copy
Speaker 2: five short passages or two thousand and nine book, A
Speaker 2: plagiari and expert said the lapses. We're not serious. What
Speaker 2: do you take away from it? It's a conservative hip
Speaker 2: piece and it's actually not that bad. How many people
Speaker 2: actually read the story very few, So the headline stuff
Speaker 2: had you know, in the news business, that's just kind
Speaker 2: of how it works. Is all designed to convey fundamentally
Speaker 2: a partison message and what is supposed to be a
Speaker 2: news story. That's the problem. That's media bias in a nutshell,
Speaker 2: that's how it works.
Speaker 3: But if you read the story, even they can they
Speaker 3: continue to sort of basically play defense for for Harris.
Speaker 3: They like, they say, the passages called into question by
Speaker 3: mister Rufo on his substack platform, which is a little
Speaker 3: dig substance. Yeah, substack, Yeah, I like that. It involve
Speaker 3: about five hundred words in the approximately sixty five thousand word,
Speaker 3: two hundred page books. So what they're trying to say
Speaker 3: is like it's tiny dot, don't worry about it now,
Speaker 3: Like we're up to like a dozen or so. It's
Speaker 3: like the five isn't even even right. Five hundred words
Speaker 3: of plagiarism is it's several pages? Like that's an action.
Speaker 3: It's like it's like a decent amount of plagiarism. And
Speaker 3: then they say then they say that she wrote the
Speaker 3: book with another author. Fair, that's that's like, that's her
Speaker 3: best defense. And in a review of the book, The
Speaker 3: Times found that none of the passages in question took
Speaker 3: the ideas or thoughts of another writer, which is considered
Speaker 3: the most serious form of plagiarism. Instead, the sentences copy
Speaker 3: descriptions of programs or statistical information that appear elsewhere. So okay, fine, yeah,
Speaker 3: but just say that like instead of this, like this
Speaker 3: relentless kind of minimizing and defense of it, or just
Speaker 3: don't write the article. I don't understand what the why
Speaker 3: the New York Times feels like they have to write
Speaker 3: the I guess they felt like there's under so much
Speaker 3: pressure they have to write the article. Yeah, but then.
Speaker 2: No, I agree with you, why even cover it? That's
Speaker 2: just news judgment. At that point, they had three reporters
Speaker 2: on the byline. One of them is the college and
Speaker 2: that's you know, look at structural level, it's kind of
Speaker 2: sad because you have the college and university journalist correspondent
Speaker 2: for the New York Times, who is now underplaying plagiarism.
Speaker 3: So is that really who you want.
Speaker 2: Covering college and university issues. This is why they shoot
Speaker 2: themselves in the foot when they try and go in
Speaker 2: some half direction and why everyone is better off, which
Speaker 2: is straight up news from these outlets.
Speaker 3: Just report it.
Speaker 2: But as you just said, most Democrats are just going
Speaker 2: to ignore it. It will be a talking point by
Speaker 2: Trump or jd Vance. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: is the election going to turn on this. No, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean it is like sometimes when
Speaker 2: you think about it, Biden's nineteen eighty eight campaign was
Speaker 2: sunk on plagiarism accusations from when was it his law
Speaker 2: school days or something?
Speaker 3: No, well, well I forget it was even better. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so he was plagiarizing his stump speech, that's why, and
Speaker 3: his bio. Yes, that's why. That's why Jammy was this
Speaker 3: Neil Kinnock, the Scottish populous politician. Huh, and Biden was
Speaker 3: stole the Scottish politician's backstory. Yeah. There were a couple
Speaker 3: of times where Biden like accidentally said that his family
Speaker 3: had been like working these hill for thousands of years.
Speaker 3: It's like, wait a minute, hold on, we're pretty sure,
Speaker 3: pretty sure that or maybe it was hundreds of years.
Speaker 3: Whatever it was, it was hilariously impossible for this irishman
Speaker 3: to talk about Scranton that way you have or delaware
Speaker 3: like you haven't been there for that long. Then it
Speaker 3: turned out that he cheated into college and lied and
Speaker 3: it was about a pattern. Yeah, but it was. It
Speaker 3: was his stump speech and his bio. If it wasn't,
Speaker 3: it's like, okay, you plagiarize how John Jay describes a program.
Speaker 3: It's funny you plagiarize somebody else's bio and apply it
Speaker 3: to yourself. That's absolutely hilariously ridiculous. But for me, the
Speaker 3: New York Times should just take the l Times.
Speaker 2: You didn't, Yeah, exactly, it's not an eld on a team.
Speaker 3: You're supposed to cover their campaign. It's dumb. Her her
Speaker 3: co author screwed up. She never read the book. Rufo
Speaker 3: caught him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just you got them. You get to write Le's over. Yeah,
Speaker 2: just write the story and move on.
Speaker 3: Now you extend it and and you make and you
Speaker 3: make it actually interesting to people.
Speaker 2: Like me, yes, who are like, wait, why is it
Speaker 2: in k Why are you incapable of saying yes, this
Speaker 2: is obviously.
Speaker 3: And then the right, which is already skeptical of The
Speaker 3: New York Times. And while we're on this, control rooms
Speaker 3: the I think it was it's d six. Oh yeah,
Speaker 3: can you pull that over, which is actually more relevant
Speaker 3: to this this block. So The Times is involved in
Speaker 3: this other uh kind of scandal here, which is a
Speaker 3: completely manufactured scandal. So basically they ran they ran an
Speaker 3: opinion essay from sixty five doctors who had who have
Speaker 3: served time at medical facilities in Gaza, saying that they
Speaker 3: observed a pattern of the I d F sniping children
Speaker 3: in the heart and in the head, and they included
Speaker 3: three x raised cat scans that immediately sleuths on Twitter
Speaker 3: used their armchair expertise to say, we're incorrect. The Times
Speaker 3: then reinvestigated everything that they'd been given by these doctors
Speaker 3: and put out a very strong statement that said, we
Speaker 3: have we checked the metadata. We gave these x raisins
Speaker 3: cat scans to new independent doctors. We also have photos
Speaker 3: of these children in question that match the cat scans.
Speaker 3: We are not publishing the photos because the photos are
Speaker 3: too gruesome of these children. And also people forgot people
Speaker 3: are like a bullet hitting ahead, it would have shattered
Speaker 3: the skull all over the place. Like these are children
Speaker 3: who lived, Like that's why they're in the hospital. Like
Speaker 3: stop with your armchair.
Speaker 2: Oh, like I can see some of this. There was
Speaker 2: some like listen, I never know. I don't know enough
Speaker 2: about bulleticks, right, bullets or any.
Speaker 3: Of this other you know enough to get Yeah. I'm like,
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe I saw somebody who was like,
Speaker 3: oh it doesn't comport.
Speaker 2: Maybe you know, doctor says this and that, and then
Speaker 2: you know I saw that and I'm like, okay, well
Speaker 2: but another doctor, a bunch of the people who signed
Speaker 2: it were like, no, this is actually a systematic thing.
Speaker 3: I was assuming to get published in the Times, that
Speaker 3: there was at some level.
Speaker 2: Hue of due diligence amount of facts, especially for something
Speaker 2: like this right which you know is going to ignite
Speaker 2: a firestorm.
Speaker 3: And then they came out and they're like, no, we
Speaker 3: think it's true. And so what's what's interesting to me
Speaker 3: about this is who the Times feels compelled to respond to.
Speaker 3: Uh So, for whatever reason, they felt the need to
Speaker 3: write this weird story about the plagiarism and allegations and
Speaker 3: then write it in the way that they did. Then,
Speaker 3: when it comes to some Twitter cranks who were calling
Speaker 3: into question this article that they thoroughly vetted, they feel
Speaker 3: the need to do it like quick independence see what
Speaker 3: you're saying, investigation always re yeah, exactly. Frozer lobby comes
Speaker 3: at them, they feel the need that they they better
Speaker 3: defend their stuff, and immediately they're out with this very
Speaker 3: thorough statement. You know what, Good for them, But I
Speaker 3: wish they would do that all the time. I see
Speaker 3: what you're saying with their infamous Screams without Words investigation
Speaker 3: that came out December twenty eighth of last year, which
Speaker 3: was alleging that they had uncovered systematic use of sexual
Speaker 3: violence by Hamas on October seventh, extraordinary claim. Within hours,
Speaker 3: people were casting doubt on that and finding that, like
Speaker 3: people in the story, had contradicted themselves in previous ways.
Speaker 3: Within days there were articles written about that report. They
Speaker 3: didn't feel the need to respond to that at all.
Speaker 3: It was only until months later, you know, when when
Speaker 3: the Intercept came in and did much more thorough not
Speaker 3: more thorough, but did invest our own investigation and eventually
Speaker 3: got a spokesperson for one of the kip A team
Speaker 3: on the record that then like okay, and and they
Speaker 3: gently update their piece to say, okay, this part isn't true.
Speaker 3: Just incredible. But it felt no need to respond the
Speaker 3: same way that they did to these Twitter cranks who
Speaker 3: are doing trutherism around cat scans. So just New York
Speaker 3: Times is such a mess, it's the point, well said Ryan,
Speaker 3: all Right, thank you guys for watching, Thank you for
Speaker 3: having me. Ryan. I enjoyed being here. It was fun.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys are having a great job, and I'm
Speaker 3: not leaving this seat when Emily gets back.
Speaker 2: And okay, hey Chrystal, I switched side. People freaked out
Speaker 2: about it. Honestly, get over yourselves. Okay, sometimes more comfortable,
Speaker 2: sometimes fun. Maybe we'll switch sides.
Speaker 3: Again, you know, do whatever we want to round, sit
Speaker 3: where we want. Yeah, exactly. What's the point of being
Speaker 3: your own boss? We can't do it.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point, all right, guys, I love you,
Speaker 2: appreciate you, and I will see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 3: M