Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, perystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots of interesting stories that are breaking
Speaker 1: this morning. So Mitch McConnell freezing again, what the hell
Speaker 1: is going on here?
Speaker 3: We will show you the video and we will discuss.
Speaker 1: We've also cut a little bit of a pod save
Speaker 1: bro freakout over Biden's pulling numbers and how the hell
Speaker 1: he is tied with a man who has been indicted
Speaker 1: tiny one different charges. Give you their analysis, We'll give
Speaker 1: you our analysis and all of that. Also some new
Speaker 1: data from reporter Ken Clippenstein about how the FBI is
Speaker 1: hoovering up DNA information what that could mean for you.
Speaker 1: We've got some new economic numbers that are looking pretty dire,
Speaker 1: especially for working class Americans racking up tons of credit
Speaker 1: card debt in a very difficult position right now. So
Speaker 1: we'll break those numbers down for you. We've also got
Speaker 1: CNN going back to the big streaming place, Tiger. They're
Speaker 1: giving it another world, and they also have a new
Speaker 1: president of the network that they are bringing in from
Speaker 1: previously from the New York Times, So that is an
Speaker 1: interesting development as well, and we're excited to have on
Speaker 1: the show today a big zoomer debate to young TikTokers,
Speaker 1: one on the right, one on the left, debating you
Speaker 1: know who young people should and could support in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four.
Speaker 3: So that should be a fun one as well.
Speaker 2: I think it'll be enjoyable. I just want to say
Speaker 2: thanks to everybody who's been signing up and been helping
Speaker 2: support us. We've in the latter stages of getting that
Speaker 2: focus group all together, so it's going to be a
Speaker 2: big deal for us to be able to have our
Speaker 2: own polling, our own focus group, and in partnership with
Speaker 2: a big firm here that we as trying to make
Speaker 2: some headways through the United States. So anyway, the point
Speaker 2: is is that you guys are the ones who enable
Speaker 2: all of this work. It is very, very expensive. So
Speaker 2: we appreciate everybody who's been signing up breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: if you are able, and just one programming note, everybody,
Speaker 2: have a good Labor Day weekend. We will have a
Speaker 2: show on Tuesday. We will not be here on Monday
Speaker 2: for us and for all of our crew, So we
Speaker 2: just wanted to flag that for you before we get
Speaker 2: to right now, what is the biggest news? Senator Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 2: the leader of the GOP in the United States Senate,
Speaker 2: freezing on camera once again in the middle of a
Speaker 2: press conference while giving one in Kentucky. Here's what happened center.
Speaker 4: Here for election free short, here's what are.
Speaker 5: Your thoughts on the point?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, I had a hard time here here. That's okay.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts on running for reelections twenty twenty?
Speaker 4: Its what I'm on follog for about what running for
Speaker 4: re elections in twenty six? That's true? Did you hear
Speaker 4: the question?
Speaker 3: Senator running for re election in twenty twenty six? All right,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry you all were gonna need a minute.
Speaker 4: Anyhead's side? Okay? With us? Okay, somebody else have a question,
Speaker 4: please speak up? What efforts is.
Speaker 6: David Camer's gonna have some bait on the campaign trail
Speaker 6: t when Kentuckian's over in November.
Speaker 3: Senator Daniel Cameron, do you have a comment on Daniel Cameron?
Speaker 4: Well, I thank you, element Ris, you join me very close,
Speaker 4: far and away. That that's tenor we could have nominated.
Speaker 7: I've just straded the.
Speaker 4: Goverment, increasing the Republican the government. Calm, my love, confert
Speaker 4: So I'm often this is good, Annie will be. I
Speaker 4: think we can do one more. What did your reaction
Speaker 4: on Trump's leadist and day?
Speaker 6: Because would you support him?
Speaker 3: As it's a question about Trump.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to comment about the presidential race the Republicans.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you all, Okay, thank you, sorry, thank you.
Speaker 2: That was the full exchange there that we decided to
Speaker 2: show everybody Chrystal because it's very important. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it's difficult to watch, there's no question about it. But
Speaker 2: and if he was a privatisen we would have nothing
Speaker 2: to say. But he's the leader of the GOP in
Speaker 2: the entire Senate. He's eighty one years old. This is
Speaker 2: the second time in in the last forty days that
Speaker 2: this has happened. It wasn't that long ago. And I
Speaker 2: mean I posted this and one of the comments that
Speaker 2: really stuck with me was very simple, would you trust
Speaker 2: this person behind the wheel of a car? No? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: And if that's the case, how can you trust that
Speaker 2: person with a senior leadership role in passing loss for
Speaker 2: three hundred and forty million citizens. It really is that basic.
Speaker 2: It's this, it's Diane Feinstein. You also see something pretty
Speaker 2: disgraceful there with that aid, you know, trying to pretend
Speaker 2: everything is fine and just shouting the questions back into
Speaker 2: his ear. Just obviously she's like, I need to minimize
Speaker 2: the damage and all this. You also had one of
Speaker 2: the people who came over that was his Capitol Police
Speaker 2: protection officer, who I mean, for some reason didn't lead
Speaker 2: him away. It's one of those where I just don't
Speaker 2: know the level of deference that we're supposed to have
Speaker 2: at this point. I mean, it seems to me like
Speaker 2: elder abuse, specifically with a Capitol police officer. You're charged
Speaker 2: with his welfare and as well being. You need to
Speaker 2: get this man to a doctor immediately. I mean, I
Speaker 2: just don't know how at this point we're supposed to
Speaker 2: sit here in stomach these incidents again and again and again,
Speaker 2: and then the level of like hand holding that these
Speaker 2: people are getting, and also many of the reporters in
Speaker 2: the room, how's the very first question man who rod you,
Speaker 2: to his credit at the time that the first thing happened,
Speaker 2: the very first questions like are you okay? Exact what
Speaker 2: the hell just happened to you? Right? Why are they
Speaker 2: all sitting there and pretending everything is fine? Yeah immediately?
Speaker 2: Or like what is going on? Are you having health problems?
Speaker 2: Like are you fit to serve?
Speaker 1: The thing that really struck me with the AIDS is
Speaker 1: number one, what you're saying soger of, like, you know,
Speaker 1: the total lack of transparency, their attempt to cover up
Speaker 1: for the American people, the fact that like in Diane
Speaker 1: Feinstein's office, like that lady there, whoever she is, who
Speaker 1: no one voted for or elected, is probably really running
Speaker 1: the show her and who whatever other AIDS surround him
Speaker 1: and try.
Speaker 3: To handle him. But number two, they're not panicked about
Speaker 3: this at.
Speaker 1: All, which tells you that either they're like the most callous,
Speaker 1: unfeeling people on the planet or this happens all the time,
Speaker 1: all the time, and they know exactly what it is,
Speaker 1: and they are not concerned because they know this is routine.
Speaker 1: They know this is just the state of life that
Speaker 1: he's in right now. Because, my god, if this was
Speaker 1: someone you cared about even a little, even if you
Speaker 1: didn't care about them, you'd be like, we're getting you
Speaker 1: to a doctor, We're getting you to a hospital.
Speaker 3: You could be having a stroke right now.
Speaker 1: But both with the previous incident and now with this
Speaker 1: one which is coming what a month later on camera,
Speaker 1: how often is this happening? How often is this just
Speaker 1: the reality and state of affairs in terms of conjecture
Speaker 1: of like, what the hell is going on here? We
Speaker 1: learned last time that he's suffered a number of falls,
Speaker 1: he suffered a concussion.
Speaker 2: We know that as well.
Speaker 1: Could be lingering after effects. I did see Sanjay Goofdan
Speaker 1: CNN was floating. Could be later stages of Parkinson's disease
Speaker 1: can cause these kind of freezes as well. If you're
Speaker 1: like medication is wearing off, you could end up in
Speaker 1: this sort of incident. But the fact that there isn't
Speaker 1: an immediate freak out about it, to me is a
Speaker 1: real tell that this is going on all the time.
Speaker 2: People can't freak out. It's bipartisan problem. You got the
Speaker 2: freaking leader this He's the most powerful Republican elected Republican
Speaker 2: in the entire country right now. It is absent what
Speaker 2: Kevin McCarthy. So I guess number two in some ways
Speaker 2: number one, because everything does move through the Senate, and
Speaker 2: the Democrats can't say anything because the President of the
Speaker 2: United States is just as old and has just as
Speaker 2: frequent like crazy events happened to him. You referenced just earlier,
Speaker 2: the first event, as we said, this was less than
Speaker 2: forty days ago. This was on July twenty six. Let's
Speaker 2: all go and relive that incident, because it is so
Speaker 2: stark exactly how similar this entire thing was. Let's take
Speaker 2: a lesson and a string of exact same situation. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there. Explanation from the senator's office. Here's
Speaker 2: what they had to say, quote justin. Senator McConnell's aide
Speaker 2: says that the Minority leader felt quote momentarily lightheaded and
Speaker 2: paused during a press conference. While he feels fine, he
Speaker 2: will be consulting a physician prior to his next event.
Speaker 2: I mean, what level of gas lighting is this? It's
Speaker 2: outrageous to just say, listen, we've all experienced momentarily momentary lightheadedness. Okay,
Speaker 2: I think most normal people can relate even on one.
Speaker 2: I mean personally, I'm not going to give him a
Speaker 2: pass on the first one, but the second one in
Speaker 2: the span of just a couple of like in less
Speaker 2: than a month, ludicrous. And also what you said, the
Speaker 2: fact the routine nature through which that the guard was
Speaker 2: handling it. Yeah, also the aid You're like, how much
Speaker 2: is this happened? About? How many times in a middle
Speaker 2: of a conversation is a guy freezing? That is the
Speaker 2: type of tactics that you see in which they handle
Speaker 2: folks in a nursing home, and in many ways like
Speaker 2: that is what the Senate is becoming with Diane Feinstein,
Speaker 2: and with him he is almost worse than Feinstein, because
Speaker 2: Finstein is just your normal senator. This is a person
Speaker 2: in the position of immense leadership and say over the country.
Speaker 2: And the even worst part, as you said, is that
Speaker 2: his aids are very clearly running the show. How much
Speaker 2: is even going on? And then you know bears a
Speaker 2: very personal question of like where are this man's kids
Speaker 2: and his way. If you care about this man, If
Speaker 2: his wife, Elaine Chat was an elected official, she's got
Speaker 2: to know more or was appointed official, I'm sorry, was
Speaker 2: somebody who should know more than anyone on the public
Speaker 2: eye of like how this is undermining not only democracy
Speaker 2: but also is just a terrible legacy. Look, I mean
Speaker 2: at a certain point, like where do these people get
Speaker 2: like where are they How do they not step in
Speaker 2: and immediately try to put an end to this. I
Speaker 2: just don't I'm so flabbergasted by it. As I said,
Speaker 2: I would never put this person behind a vehicle if
Speaker 2: this person was driving around it. But you got to
Speaker 2: pull this man's license immediately. And I just the other
Speaker 2: day I think I told you this. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: if I talked about it on the show. I saw
Speaker 2: a very elderly person almost hit somebody in the middle
Speaker 2: of a crosswalk and then started crying afterwards because they
Speaker 2: had clearly they didn't know what was going on. And
Speaker 2: I feel really bad for that person. But she almost
Speaker 2: hit another lady, you know, who was walking with her kid.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where it's like this is
Speaker 2: a public safety concern at a certain point, and now
Speaker 2: that's like that situation times three hundred million. Whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to the adults that he's.
Speaker 1: Here, I mean, I wouldn't trust him with any basic
Speaker 1: intellectual task, let alone, you know, being one of the
Speaker 1: most powerful men in the entire country, if not planet.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a backstory here that's worth remembering as well,
Speaker 1: because it raised a lot of questions about his health
Speaker 1: at the time. Which is previously, in the state of Kentucky,
Speaker 1: the governor gets to a point if for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: a senator has to step down and retire early before
Speaker 1: an election, the governor, who right now in Kentucky is
Speaker 1: a Democrat, gets to appoint their successor. They ushered through
Speaker 1: new legislation recently through the Kentucky Legislature which would change
Speaker 1: it so that it's the Republican held legislature which picks
Speaker 1: the successor.
Speaker 3: And there was a lot that was read into that.
Speaker 1: At the time about, oh, this is the Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: succession plan. They don't want governor Democratic Governor Andy Basheer
Speaker 1: to be able to appoint his successor if he is
Speaker 1: unable to fulfill his whole term.
Speaker 3: I think it's worth remembering that the.
Speaker 1: Other thing i'd say sober is, you know, it would
Speaker 1: be one thing if this was like a beloved person
Speaker 1: with the frickin eighty percent approval rating in his state,
Speaker 1: that people really want to be there as long as
Speaker 1: you possibly can be here.
Speaker 3: That is not the reality, Misch McConnell.
Speaker 1: Even though Kentucky is, you know, a pretty Republican state
Speaker 1: at this point, Miss McConnell has one of the lowest
Speaker 1: approval ratings of any senator with their own constituents in
Speaker 1: the entire country. He is not beloved by his constituents.
Speaker 1: They would love to have a different Republican in that seat.
Speaker 1: And it's not like there's much risk that you're going
Speaker 1: to end up, you know, electing a Democrat at the
Speaker 1: federal level in the state of Kentucky at this point. Yes,
Speaker 1: at the state level, they'll still vote for a Democratic governor,
Speaker 1: but the days of them voting for a Democratic senator
Speaker 1: for now are pretty seems pretty far fetched. So you
Speaker 1: don't even have to worry about the partisan control situation.
Speaker 1: So you're just holding on for the sake of holding on.
Speaker 1: You're holding on for the sake of power when you
Speaker 1: are in no condition to bield that power.
Speaker 3: Effectively. I mean I lived in Kentucky.
Speaker 1: I saw Mitch McConnell up close operate there not very
Speaker 1: long ago, when he still seemed really in command, really
Speaker 1: at the height of his power. The decline seems to
Speaker 1: have come pretty quickly and pretty steeply, but it's impossible
Speaker 1: for them to hide at this point.
Speaker 3: And I do actually think that.
Speaker 1: There's a possibility, just given the frequency now with which
Speaker 1: these events are occurring, and given all of the media
Speaker 1: interest in this, given the fact that there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people who would like him to move aside,
Speaker 1: I do think it's possible that he steps down in
Speaker 1: the not too distant.
Speaker 2: Future, and I would hope so. But the Finestein situation
Speaker 2: was a break glass moment. It's like when you can
Speaker 2: be genuinely senile and still be told on camera how
Speaker 2: to vote and get away with it. What are we
Speaker 2: going to do? And like I said, I mean, it's
Speaker 2: a by Parson. People are too afraid of McConnell, not
Speaker 2: even of mcconald, they're afraid of his staff. Now at
Speaker 2: this point, they can screw you if you're a junior senator.
Speaker 2: I mean on all kinds of little things, like they
Speaker 2: can schedule things so that it makes your life inconvenient.
Speaker 2: They can make sure they don't accommodate you. They can
Speaker 2: give you a basement office. There's all kinds of little
Speaker 2: things they can do to make your life act with hell.
Speaker 1: With Finestein, they've basically, you know, she's become a pawn
Speaker 1: for Nancy Pelosi to try to get her chosen Democratic
Speaker 1: successor Adam Schiff in there. I mean, that's what's going
Speaker 1: on there at this point. And previously Pelosi and Obama
Speaker 1: propped her up when she faced a primary challenge because
Speaker 1: they didn't want someone who was progressive and maybe wasn't
Speaker 1: going to just you know, fall in line on literally
Speaker 1: every single thing that they want her to fall in
Speaker 1: line on.
Speaker 3: So that's why they've propped her up.
Speaker 1: With McConnell, I don't know what the political backstory is,
Speaker 1: who is enabling this, or if it's just all on
Speaker 1: him that he just wants to hold cling to power
Speaker 1: for the sake of clinging to power, or.
Speaker 3: I mean the other thing with find seeing this point, like,
Speaker 3: I don't even think she's.
Speaker 1: Self aware of how far gone she is because the
Speaker 1: brain is just like, I mean, it's sad, but it's
Speaker 1: obvious for everyone to see. With McConnell, I've got to
Speaker 1: think there's still quite a bit of awareness of how
Speaker 1: bad this has gotten and how different he is now
Speaker 1: from even just a few years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, these people are just complete egomaniacs. It's completely insane.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this chart up there, just to
Speaker 2: remind everybody we're currently living in one of the old
Speaker 2: Congress is ever the one hundred and eighteenth Congress only
Speaker 2: slightly less old than one hundred and seventeenth Congress. So
Speaker 2: everybody is wondering only because of a few gen z
Speaker 2: entrants which dropped the overall average. I mean, listen, McConnell
Speaker 2: is the second oldest Republican in the entire chamber, behind
Speaker 2: Chuck Grassley. Senator find Sign and Grassley are both flirting
Speaker 2: there around the ninety years old. We have multiple members
Speaker 2: of the House of Representatives who are pushing eighty five,
Speaker 2: multiple over the age of eighty. It's a bipartisan issue,
Speaker 2: as I said, and one of the I did a
Speaker 2: monologue about this previously, which showed a chart which said
Speaker 2: that it was actually fascinating. I really do think about it.
Speaker 2: We've talked about it since about how after Jim Crow ended,
Speaker 2: you had a new generation of blood all come in
Speaker 2: to the Senate and into the House because a lot
Speaker 2: of different people could vote. And it's one of those
Speaker 2: where I'm just trying to think of or imagine a
Speaker 2: situation where if more young people voted, if more people
Speaker 2: actually got engaged in the political system, we could end this.
Speaker 2: This is both an irresponsibility on their part, but some
Speaker 2: of it is on us too, because McConnell just got reelected.
Speaker 2: He's not uphill twenty twenty six. It's up to him
Speaker 2: to basically write it out until his brain goes to
Speaker 2: complete mush. And then, as we found out, we find
Speaker 2: stein even then, as long as you get reelected and
Speaker 2: the machine bosses push you through, they'll still push yours
Speaker 2: around in a wheelchair. Let me subject you onto everybody.
Speaker 1: Let me draw that on a little bit, because you
Speaker 1: did that monologue on this, and I thought it was
Speaker 1: so good because you got to the point of this
Speaker 1: is not just like about these individual egomaniacs clinging to
Speaker 1: power long past the time when they should have, you know,
Speaker 1: retired with a lot more grace.
Speaker 3: It's really a failure of democracy.
Speaker 1: And so it's not an accident that when you have
Speaker 1: the end of Jim Crow and you have an actual
Speaker 1: rebirth and flourishing of democracy, that you get a lot
Speaker 1: of new life blood in there. It's also not an
Speaker 1: accident that now, when we have so many of our
Speaker 1: democratic institutions completely corroded and completely rigged too, that you
Speaker 1: end up with this state of affairs where you know,
Speaker 1: not just with McConnell, but we're about to have this
Speaker 1: election between Trump and Biden to old men that most
Speaker 1: of the country don't want to have either one of
Speaker 1: them in office?
Speaker 3: How does that happen?
Speaker 1: And what you bring up with the McConnell election is
Speaker 1: actually a really good point. How did it end up
Speaker 1: that Mitch McConnell gets re elected again and again even
Speaker 1: though his approval rating is one of the lowest in
Speaker 1: the entire country. And it's a number of things. I mean,
Speaker 1: one thing that is really clear. Kentucky's republican state. They
Speaker 1: want to have a Republican in charge, and so they're
Speaker 1: more inclined to vote in a Republican partisan direction.
Speaker 3: That's their choice. That's fine, that makes some sense.
Speaker 1: But the other piece is, okay, well, then why doesn't
Speaker 1: he face a primary challenge, Well, anyone would be terrified
Speaker 1: to primary him because of you know, the way money
Speaker 1: and politics works, the way that the heavy hand of
Speaker 1: the party would come down, the way that they wouldquash
Speaker 1: any potential political future for you.
Speaker 3: So that's an impossibility.
Speaker 1: And then even on the Democratic side, why wasn't there
Speaker 1: you know, a better challenger in place to even have
Speaker 1: a shot against him? And it was the same thing
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side, you know, they put their their
Speaker 1: thumb on the scale for Amy McGrath, who was a
Speaker 1: you know, very poor candidate and didn't have a shot whatsoever.
Speaker 3: And so that's how you you the fact that.
Speaker 1: These two parties, you know, prop up these candidates that
Speaker 1: no one likes her wants is part of how you
Speaker 1: end up with this situation as well. So when you
Speaker 1: think about money and politics, when you think about the
Speaker 1: party system and the way that works, when you think
Speaker 1: of you know, the partisan tribal divide, that also leads
Speaker 1: to people just voting for whoever has their partisan affiliation
Speaker 1: alongside them, that's kind of how you end up with
Speaker 1: this very regretful situation.
Speaker 2: That's right, and unfortunately it has another regretful situation, which
Speaker 2: is that we have just as old of a president,
Speaker 2: except this one's actually running for reelection. And funny about
Speaker 2: where even the mainstream media can't deny polls showing that
Speaker 2: seventy some percent of the American people think Biden is
Speaker 2: too old. That's sixty nine percent of Democrats think Biden
Speaker 2: is too old to effectively run for reelection and to
Speaker 2: service president. Just listen again to the spin that his
Speaker 2: aids tried to put on his age. Here was Karine
Speaker 2: Jean Pierre on CNN. Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 6: It is hard for us to keep up with this
Speaker 6: president who is constantly, constantly working every day to get
Speaker 6: things done and making sure that we are delivering for
Speaker 6: the American people.
Speaker 2: And that's what and I think that's what matters. I
Speaker 2: get it, I get what you're asking me. But the
Speaker 2: record matters. To Jake, the record matters too.
Speaker 4: It's hard.
Speaker 2: Where do they get this line from?
Speaker 4: That?
Speaker 2: It's hard to keep up with an eighty one year
Speaker 2: old man? Yeah, where is this coming? I mean, nobody
Speaker 2: win your right mind believes this. By the way, the
Speaker 2: last person who everyone said we couldn't keep up with
Speaker 2: his name was John F. Kennedy. He was our youngest
Speaker 2: president ever, and it also turned out that he was
Speaker 2: taking shots of meth in the back once a week.
Speaker 2: That's hard of the reason why Doctor feel Good was
Speaker 2: literally shooting him up full of straight up met them fhetamine,
Speaker 2: which is why that's where the Kennedy vigor comes from.
Speaker 2: By the way, maybe. And so there's two things. A
Speaker 2: it's not true. If it is true, it is because
Speaker 2: he's definitely on the same thing. That's whatever Kennedy was doing,
Speaker 2: some sort of crazy amphetamine add or all or what
Speaker 2: are these other things. Either is actually quite troubling whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to this date of the president. But it
Speaker 2: tells you a lot that that is the best that
Speaker 2: they can come up with. And Biden too, I mean
Speaker 2: all he's got He's like, just watch me, just watch me.
Speaker 2: It's like, dude, people do watch you. That is why
Speaker 2: they feel the way that they do. Yeah about you.
Speaker 2: It's because we've.
Speaker 3: Watched well and I've said this before, I'll say it again.
Speaker 1: If you're so vigorous and so on top of it,
Speaker 1: yea debate, Yes, prove to go out, do some interviews,
Speaker 1: do some contentious interviews. Go get on a debate stage
Speaker 1: and prove yourself to the American people, but they don't
Speaker 1: want to do that. I mean the part about look
Speaker 1: at the record, I actually think that's probably the best
Speaker 1: thing you can say, because he has accomplished. You know,
Speaker 1: he does have accomplishments that he can point to in office.
Speaker 1: He can point to the Chips Act, he can point
Speaker 1: to the Infrastructure Act, he can point to the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act. You know, he can point to the Packed Act.
Speaker 1: There are things that he can point to that he's accomplished.
Speaker 1: And so you can say, like, listen, whatever his workday is,
Speaker 1: look at the results. That's what really matters. I think
Speaker 1: that's probably their best argument. But to gaslight everyone and
Speaker 1: think we're gonna believe like, oh, we can't even keep
Speaker 1: up with him, please, Like we can see, we're not idiots.
Speaker 1: We can see what's in front of our faces. And
Speaker 1: we also have tons of reporting about how, you know,
Speaker 1: he gets up late and they don't schedule things in
Speaker 1: the morning. But then also they don't schedule things in
Speaker 1: the evening, and we see the vacation schedule, we see
Speaker 1: the beach schedule, we see all of these things. So
Speaker 1: don't just straight up light I mean, this is like
Speaker 1: a Sean Spicer level like, oh no, actually, the crowd
Speaker 1: was way different than what you say. That's like that
Speaker 1: level of live because we can all see the reality
Speaker 1: of what you know, what he is at this age,
Speaker 1: at this point, like you.
Speaker 2: Said on the schedule, I would be willing to forgive
Speaker 2: the nine am, you know, nine thirty ten am start
Speaker 2: times if this was a man like Bill Clinton actually
Speaker 2: famously stayed up until like two or three in the morning,
Speaker 2: used to talk on the phone, and then he wouldn't
Speaker 2: start to stay until like nine or so. But you
Speaker 2: can't have it both man. You can't be starting your
Speaker 2: day at ten and then ending in at four. It's
Speaker 2: one of those where like there are white collar workers
Speaker 2: who are working harder than Joe Biden apparently in terms
Speaker 2: of their hours. And look, all of this would be
Speaker 2: quite reasonable for an eighty one year old private citizen
Speaker 2: who has like a side gig retirement thing going on,
Speaker 2: but it's not whenever you have one of the most
Speaker 2: demanding jobs in the entire on all of planet Earth
Speaker 2: with stress and then all of our fates writing on
Speaker 2: his good judgment. So that's why I thought it was
Speaker 2: important put these two things together, where we are just
Speaker 2: being gas lit and lied to by the a's, by
Speaker 2: the people themselves too, the level of ego that all
Speaker 2: of them have. And you know, we can't let ourselves
Speaker 2: off the hook, like part of it is on us,
Speaker 2: part of it. We're the ones who allow this to
Speaker 2: happen over and over again. We've got it's not you know,
Speaker 2: Trump too, it would be one of the oldest presidential
Speaker 2: candidates ever except save for Biden running against him. I
Speaker 2: don't know what it is. They have this congenital need
Speaker 2: recently to just keep electing these people to office. We
Speaker 2: have no shakeup of the system. And it's not look
Speaker 2: it's it's both. It's bidirectional. It's the establishment.
Speaker 8: Awesome.
Speaker 2: But some of it too, is like if people genuinely
Speaker 2: wanted to change, I think it would happen, and I
Speaker 2: don't know why to so much. So many of us
Speaker 2: just sit back and let it.
Speaker 3: We'll love with no choices.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, think about like the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: that doesn't exist right now, right I just pretend like
Speaker 1: no one's running against him, they don't host debates, and
Speaker 1: then you know it's the fascists are at the door, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean I am very much of
Speaker 1: the opinion that Biden is vastly superior to Trump my
Speaker 1: you know, personal political belief, based on what he's accomplished
Speaker 1: with regard to the economy, based on him getting out
Speaker 1: of Afghanistan, and so you you know, voters are left
Speaker 1: feeling like I got no other option. And that's how
Speaker 1: you end up in this situation. You play that out
Speaker 1: in district, district after district, state after state, level after
Speaker 1: level across the whole country, and yeah, that's how you
Speaker 1: end up with this situation. Well, it's sick, it's not right,
Speaker 1: it is not right, and it is a real sign
Speaker 1: of national decline. Speaking of our current president trying to
Speaker 1: get re elected, there's a bit of a freak out
Speaker 1: happening among the Podsave bros. It's been a lot kind
Speaker 1: of ongoing, but there's a new memo or substack post
Speaker 1: from one of them, Dan Pfeiffer, about the fact that
Speaker 1: right now, even with all the Trump indictments, even with
Speaker 1: this all living through four years of Trump, and even
Speaker 1: with them having a fricking thirty percent.
Speaker 3: Approval rating being hated by like a majority of Americans,
Speaker 3: they're tied. They're tied.
Speaker 1: If you look at the polls Biden Trump tied. So
Speaker 1: he dug into some of the numbers and is like,
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on here, Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen because it was actually very interesting analysis.
Speaker 1: The headline here in his substack is called the message box.
Speaker 1: Why the twenty twenty four race is neck and neck
Speaker 1: right now? Despite ninety one felony charges, Trump is within
Speaker 1: a point of Biden. Here is why, And there were
Speaker 1: really two primary reasons that he points to. One of
Speaker 1: them you can see they're up on the screen. He
Speaker 1: says Trump is holding more of his twenty twenty voters
Speaker 1: than Biden. Trump is holding on to about ninety one
Speaker 1: percent of twenty twenty voters, according to He's using the
Speaker 1: New York Times Siena most recent poll. That's what he
Speaker 1: dug into here for his numbers. So Trump is holding
Speaker 1: on to ninety one percent of his votes from twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Biden is only holding on to eighty seven percent of
Speaker 1: his votes. Now, that may not seem like a big difference,
Speaker 1: but when you remember how close that election was and
Speaker 1: how it came down to, you know, not that many
Speaker 1: votes and just a handful of states, that difference can
Speaker 1: be everything. The second piece that to me is probably
Speaker 1: even more important. For why Trump and Biden are tied
Speaker 1: right now is because of Biden's incredible decline and deterioration.
Speaker 3: In support among young people.
Speaker 1: So he, you know, at the beginning, he won young
Speaker 1: people overwhelmingly in twenty twenty. At the beginning of his presidency,
Speaker 1: he actually had very high approval rating among young voters,
Speaker 1: So it's not like they just you know, have hated
Speaker 1: Biden from the start. On the contrary, at the beginning,
Speaker 1: his highest approval ratings by generation were among young voters.
Speaker 1: That is completely flipped Fifer rights. Young voters are not
Speaker 1: yet as on board with Biden twenty twenty fours they
Speaker 1: were last time around. According to Pew, Biden won voters
Speaker 1: under thirty by twenty four points in twenty twenties. It
Speaker 1: was not close, but he's only winning them now by
Speaker 1: ten according to that New York Times poll. Now, what
Speaker 1: he goes on to say is it's not that a
Speaker 1: bunch of young and youngish people are deciding to support Trump.
Speaker 1: They are just checking out of the election. Nine percent
Speaker 1: of eighteen to twenty nine year olds say they will
Speaker 1: not vote if Biden and Trump are the nominees. Sixteen
Speaker 1: percent of thirty to forty four year olds are either
Speaker 1: planning to vote for a third party candidate or not
Speaker 1: vote at all. Again, it's not that they're you know,
Speaker 1: in love with Trump flocking him and droves. That's not
Speaker 1: what's happening. They're just disgusted with both of their choices,
Speaker 1: and so they're saying, I'm either going to sit it
Speaker 1: out or I'm going to vote third party. And you know,
Speaker 1: Cornell West is running for the Green Party nomination, so
Speaker 1: they're going to have other options there.
Speaker 2: Well, here's the thing, you know when you read it. Actually,
Speaker 2: this is why I thought we really should take some
Speaker 2: dive into this is because not only is it significant,
Speaker 2: but like as cringe as the pot save gros have been,
Speaker 2: these people did win two elections, right. Dan Peiffer was
Speaker 2: a communications director for Obama, and nobody is a bigger
Speaker 2: critic of Obama than me. I could give it to
Speaker 2: you all day, but they got the American people to
Speaker 2: buy what they were selling, you know, sadly for the
Speaker 2: rest of us. And they were good at politics. So
Speaker 2: whenever you listen to their indictment really of the Biden
Speaker 2: campaign and why none of them supported him even in
Speaker 2: the first place. There's a reason nood Obama himself famously said,
Speaker 2: you know, nobody never underestimate Joe's the ability to f
Speaker 2: things up. And in here what they point to specifically
Speaker 2: is Trump's strength, his ability to hold on to many
Speaker 2: of his voters, which always has been his strength, really
Speaker 2: from the beginning of the twenty sixteen primary, but then
Speaker 2: the very tenuous coalition that elected Joe Biden, of which
Speaker 2: we even said and saw very early on in his presidency.
Speaker 2: The slimmest margins deny you victory once again, the suburban
Speaker 2: middle class people. These people are all over the place.
Speaker 2: Sometimes they're amt Romney Republicans, sometimes the Democrats. Depending on
Speaker 2: the vibe, they'll vote Democrats. Sometimes they'll vote for their
Speaker 2: local Republican. But they love Gretchen Whitmer, and they also
Speaker 2: love people like John McCain. Who the hell can them out?
Speaker 2: All right, So let's put them. Those are the people
Speaker 2: who really added into the White House. But then you've
Speaker 2: got the diminishing returns there amongst Latino voters, You've got
Speaker 2: diminishing turnout amongst Black voters, and the young voter piece
Speaker 2: is really key. I think one of the reasons why
Speaker 2: he's pointed the young voters, because the drop off is
Speaker 2: so immense. If you see just a nine percent reduction
Speaker 2: or that that's it. You can kiss Georgia goodbye. You
Speaker 2: could kiss Arizona goodbye. Even in Philly. I mean places
Speaker 2: like Philadelphia, Detroit, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Urban turnout in
Speaker 2: some of these places, which does rely on people who
Speaker 2: are disproportionately younger, that made some major difference. And when
Speaker 2: we're talking about some forty thousand votes across these three states,
Speaker 2: you just lost yourself the election in twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: quite easily. So they are not wrong to point at this.
Speaker 2: And I think that the smarter and the sober ones,
Speaker 2: people like Harry Enton and people like five for who
Speaker 2: can the very least be honest. But like we're in
Speaker 2: real trouble right now. I mean Trump right now, he's
Speaker 2: doing better than he did in twenty twenty against Biden.
Speaker 2: Biden has got very very serious work to do.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: I'll give the counter side. I think abortion is still
Speaker 2: the dark horse, and there's a reason why the Biden
Speaker 2: campaign and the DNC beat it to shrey, beat it
Speaker 2: to death. Every word the third word out of their mouth.
Speaker 2: It's like noun verb and abortion. That would be my
Speaker 2: strategy too, That's all I would talk about. It's very,
Speaker 2: very possible there's a silent pro choice vote out there
Speaker 2: that would either keep people at home who are pro
Speaker 2: choice who still can't like Biden, or just fortually come out,
Speaker 2: hold their nose and vote for him. But I honestly
Speaker 2: think that's the only thing that could save him at
Speaker 2: this point.
Speaker 1: Well, if we look at the special elections that have
Speaker 1: happened this year, and I think it was five thirty
Speaker 1: eight that crunch these numbers, Democrats have outperformed the expected
Speaker 1: partisan lean of these districts that have had elections this
Speaker 1: year by ten points, right, And it's basically because of abortion.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see a really clear, you know, in
Speaker 1: Ohio on issue one, even though it wasn't even directly
Speaker 1: about abortion, it became tied up in this you know,
Speaker 1: pro choice pro life debate, and even in a state
Speaker 1: like Ohio that is pretty reliably we're right at this point,
Speaker 1: overwhelming victory for the pro choice side, and turnout through
Speaker 1: the frickin' roof.
Speaker 3: You know, they had turnout that was.
Speaker 1: Like it was a gubernatorial election for this random ballot
Speaker 1: initiative at a random time during the year, because it
Speaker 1: is that energizing and so, yeah, that is what the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is banking on.
Speaker 3: And you know, given the fact that they.
Speaker 1: Aren't really putting for an affirmative agenda, given the fact
Speaker 1: that there were accomplishments I think at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, which by the way, is also why
Speaker 1: young people were happier with him at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the administration. You know, that seems to have been put behind.
Speaker 1: They're not really pushing anything forward right now. They're just
Speaker 1: banking on, Hey, we will make sure that things don't
Speaker 1: get worse in terms of abortion, we will make sure
Speaker 1: that things don't get worse in terms of climate. But
Speaker 1: you know, I think the economic picture right now is
Speaker 1: another undertold story of why young voters are not feeling
Speaker 1: the Biden love. There's a lot of celebration from the
Speaker 1: White House about the low unemployment rate and you know
Speaker 1: about some of the more positive economic numbers, but people
Speaker 1: are not feeling it, especially people just coming out of
Speaker 1: high school or college, trying to get in the workforce,
Speaker 1: trying to get imagine ever being able to own a home.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk some more about the economic numbers
Speaker 1: later in the show. They're not feeling it. They're behind
Speaker 1: where their parents' generation was in terms of like basic
Speaker 1: benchmarks and life milestones, in terms of, you know, getting
Speaker 1: yourself on a pathway to some sort of middle class stability.
Speaker 1: There's also a lot of concern about climate and while
Speaker 1: at the same time as they passed Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 1: which has some positive movement in terms of climate change,
Speaker 1: they also are literally pumping more oil than like we ever.
Speaker 2: Have in history.
Speaker 1: They have just broke what was previously the Obama record,
Speaker 1: by the way for oil drilling. So you know, it's
Speaker 1: not like young people are enamored with the climate agenda.
Speaker 1: But the other thing I would say is even the
Speaker 1: specific policies aside, there has been so much contempt and
Speaker 1: so much disdain for young Americans and their candidates and
Speaker 1: political ideology. I mean, just think of the treatment of
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders supporters in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, like
Speaker 1: how many years can you get away, which is basically
Speaker 1: like constantly shitting on a generation before they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you don't want me here, then I'm
Speaker 1: not going to be here. So I think that level
Speaker 1: of contempt that has come from the White House and
Speaker 1: from the Democratic establishment is taking a toll here as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially amongst young Democrats. It would make the most
Speaker 2: amount of sense. I listen, I mean with the young voters,
Speaker 2: they are going to try and save themselves. Go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Much to my
Speaker 2: own chagrin, it appears that quote Biden administration is moving
Speaker 2: to loosen weed restrictions. They're going to try and deschedule
Speaker 2: marijuana to Schedule three of entirely removing it from the
Speaker 2: Controlled Substance Act. The HHS has apparently made a recommendation
Speaker 2: to the DEA that they move marijuana down to a
Speaker 2: Schedule three substances would change in the way that it
Speaker 2: is federally handled. Schedule three drugs are categorized as quote
Speaker 2: having a moderate to low potential for physical or psychological dependence.
Speaker 2: That includes drugs like ketamine and testosterone. This is after
Speaker 2: a federal review of marijuana research by the HHS. The
Speaker 2: executive action that we'd previously seen about the pardons and
Speaker 2: all that was kind of a prelude to some of this.
Speaker 4: What wasn't it.
Speaker 2: Michael Moore, who would always say that this is one
Speaker 2: of the first things that Biden should do in order
Speaker 2: to reduce turn out.
Speaker 3: That sounds right.
Speaker 2: I believe he was, so. I guess we'll give political
Speaker 2: credit to mister Moore. He has always said that this
Speaker 2: was one of the easier ways in order to get
Speaker 2: younger people to come and vote. But I'm curious what
Speaker 2: you think, Crystal descheduling from one to three doesn't seem
Speaker 2: to ring the same as a legalization for marshaling younger voters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, just to be clear, I mean number one.
Speaker 1: So two things are true. This is a big deal.
Speaker 1: It's one of the most significant changes to drug policy
Speaker 1: that has really happened in our lifetime. So it is
Speaker 1: really significant. The difference between Schedule one and two drugs
Speaker 1: and Schedule three drugs is significant. Now it is still
Speaker 1: considered a controlled substance. It is still illegal, and so
Speaker 1: they're not decriminalizing it. But Schedule one and two drugs
Speaker 1: face really onerous regulations. Schedule one drugs are effectively illegal
Speaker 1: for anything outside of research. Schedule two drugs can be
Speaker 1: used for limited medical purposes with the DEA's approval, for example,
Speaker 1: through a license for prescriptions, and then Schedule three drugs,
Speaker 1: the restrictions around them are a lot more lax. It's
Speaker 1: a lot lower priority in terms of enforcement. And you'll
Speaker 1: recall that Biden had previously pardon a lot of low level,
Speaker 1: basically marijuana drug users as part of this push.
Speaker 4: Because this he.
Speaker 1: Launched this review before the midterms, which also is another
Speaker 1: tell that this is sort of seen in very explicitly
Speaker 1: political lens, which listen, I mean, I certainly support it,
Speaker 1: So whatever if it's a cynical move or not, I
Speaker 1: really don't care.
Speaker 3: I think it's the right move.
Speaker 1: It was insane to have it as a scheduled one truck,
Speaker 1: like you even have to acknowledge, so as a Schedule
Speaker 1: one drug with like you know, the hardest, most addictive
Speaker 1: substances you can imagine, is completely insane. Alcohol and tobacco,
Speaker 1: which are way more addictive than marijuana, aren't part of
Speaker 1: the Controlled Substances Act at all.
Speaker 3: They're not on any of these schedules.
Speaker 1: Now, if you were just to evaluate them based on
Speaker 1: their medicinal purposes and based on their addictive qualities, they
Speaker 1: would probably be Schedule one. But there's specific carve outs
Speaker 1: thanks to you know, cultural standards and industry lobbying for
Speaker 1: those two substances, so it was always insane to have
Speaker 1: marijuana as a Schedule one drug.
Speaker 3: That was completely crazy.
Speaker 1: Activists are really happy, obviously with this move, but it's
Speaker 1: worth remembering that this is not decriminalization. They quoted one
Speaker 1: in this political piece that said rescheduling cannabis from one
Speaker 1: to three does not end criminalization, It just rebrands it.
Speaker 1: People will still be subject to criminal penalties for mere possession,
Speaker 1: regardless of their legal status in a state level medical program.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is something it's not just young
Speaker 1: people at this point, Like the American people are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 3: It's a bipartis issue. It's one of those issues.
Speaker 1: Where the movement on this in my lifetime has been
Speaker 1: really astonishing and quite extraordinary. But it is a particular
Speaker 1: you know, it's seen as a real issue for young people.
Speaker 1: And then the other piece that I would point to
Speaker 1: is the movement on student loan debt. You know the
Speaker 1: fact that there was any effort to cancel student loan
Speaker 1: debt obviously that most directly impacts young voters. Courts struck
Speaker 1: it down, they're trying to do some workarounds, they're taking
Speaker 1: it back to the courts. In the meantime, they've got
Speaker 1: these what is ending up to be actually very complicated,
Speaker 1: but student loan debt repayment plans that are based on
Speaker 1: your income to try to ease the burden and make
Speaker 1: it easier to get forbearans, et cetera, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: that's the other very explicitly aimed at young people. Move
Speaker 1: But you know, does marijuana even rescheduling marijuana and trying
Speaker 1: to do something maybe theoretically possibly in the future on
Speaker 1: student loan debt relief, I don't think it probably up
Speaker 1: for the fact that you have this economic landscape that
Speaker 1: continues to be very difficult for this generation. I think
Speaker 1: that's kind of the key driving factor if I were
Speaker 1: to say, and the evidence I would cite for that
Speaker 1: is the fact that at the beginning of this administration,
Speaker 1: when war was being done and checks were being cut
Speaker 1: and people were you know, benefiting, so hopeful, people felt, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was there was action that actually materially benefited people,
Speaker 1: and all of that has been stripped away, and now
Speaker 1: people are like racking up credit card debt and kind
Speaker 1: of hopeless about how this is all going to work out.
Speaker 3: That's really your biggest problem.
Speaker 1: But you know, rather than changing the substance of that,
Speaker 1: which would be very hard, they're doing other things, which
Speaker 1: again I support, but it's probably not going to be sufficient.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll see. It seems the American people are united
Speaker 2: in ruining concerts and city streets to make it so
Speaker 2: you can't go anywhere without smelling weed. Right here in Washington,
Speaker 2: can see.
Speaker 3: Figer's got a very get off my line.
Speaker 2: I need to. I need to, I honestly, I need
Speaker 2: to move out. I need to just go to some
Speaker 2: like deep red state where there's no weed, because there's
Speaker 2: nothing you can if.
Speaker 1: You move and walk down the Saint George County where
Speaker 1: I live, you'll be fine.
Speaker 2: You will never scof Why do people need to ruined
Speaker 2: public parks with weed? I mean, I realized this is
Speaker 2: a whole other coments.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get took of young voters.
Speaker 1: This is I really enjoyed this so apparently randomly both
Speaker 1: Vi Vike Ramswami and Pete Bodhagic, who some of us
Speaker 1: have sort of compared them politically as like Forvike being
Speaker 1: like the Republican Pete for a variety of reasons. Apparently
Speaker 1: they were both at the same Hardball College Tour event
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four and got selected to ask
Speaker 1: questions when they were, you know, in college or just
Speaker 1: out in college or whatever. This is why the internet
Speaker 1: is so beautiful that these clips just emerged. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to young Vivake and young Pete asking their questions.
Speaker 8: Here refend schrupton.
Speaker 2: Hello, I'm vivic and I want to ask you.
Speaker 9: Last week on the show we had Senator Kerry, and
Speaker 9: this week and the week before we had Senator Edwards.
Speaker 9: And my question for you is, of all the Democratic
Speaker 9: candidates out there, why should I vote for the one
Speaker 9: with the least political experience.
Speaker 7: Well, you shouldn't because I have the most political experience.
Speaker 7: I got involved in the political movement when I was
Speaker 7: twelve years old, and I've been involved in social policy
Speaker 7: for the last thirty years. So don't confuse people that
Speaker 7: have a job with political experience.
Speaker 5: Who else, Congressman, why are you the only presidential candidate
Speaker 5: not attending tomorrow's euth orinswered Rock the vote for him?
Speaker 8: And do you think young people's what's matter in your campaign.
Speaker 2: They matter a lot.
Speaker 4: That's why I'm here tonight.
Speaker 1: So Sager corrected me. They're not literally the same of it.
Speaker 1: They were there a week apart. Okay, one was asking
Speaker 1: Reverend Sharpton. Obviously they're a question. The BIGS question is
Speaker 1: also funny because he's asking why should I vote for
Speaker 1: someone with no political experience?
Speaker 3: He has no elected experience.
Speaker 2: Copy'all show.
Speaker 3: I thought sharpone a good answer there, to be honest
Speaker 3: with it.
Speaker 2: I can't stand Al Sharpton any even that was a
Speaker 2: decent answer.
Speaker 1: Well, now, I am not saying this, yere, but many
Speaker 1: are saying that this is proof that both of them
Speaker 1: are Cia.
Speaker 3: You're saying. I'm not saying it. I'm just reporting to
Speaker 3: you what others on the internet are saying.
Speaker 2: And I'm somewhat more stupithetic because what I read in
Speaker 2: the two of them is that they were deep political nerds.
Speaker 2: And I was a political nerd just like that, who
Speaker 2: also attended said political events when I was twenty one
Speaker 2: years old, So you know, I get it at a
Speaker 2: certain level. It was a crazy time, Crystal. It was
Speaker 2: November two thousand and three. We just invaded Iraq nine
Speaker 2: to eleven. Shit was wild, you know. So it's like
Speaker 2: you want to go to an event and you want
Speaker 2: to make your voice heard. I will say Rock the Vote,
Speaker 2: My god, Like, what a cringe worthy effort in order
Speaker 2: to get young people to vote. If you do, you
Speaker 2: remember that entire remember, Yeah, it was horrible. That's up
Speaker 2: there with like the Dare campaign and stuff that should
Speaker 2: have remained in the two thousands.
Speaker 3: I have an affection for it, nostalgic affection.
Speaker 2: There's like West Wing episodes about how like Rock the Vote,
Speaker 2: like that's how you anyway, there's so much more to
Speaker 2: say about that Rock the Vote. As a former Rock
Speaker 2: the Vote T shirt owner, I don't know exactly where
Speaker 2: that went. Probably should have died. The point is, I
Speaker 2: think with these two is that you can see deep
Speaker 2: political ambition interests in all that very very early on, yeah,
Speaker 2: in their careers. And I think, you know, that's probably
Speaker 2: one of the fairest critiques that always was of Pete
Speaker 2: buddhaj Edge, of Ramaswami and others, is that people find
Speaker 2: those who are so politically ambitious at such an early
Speaker 2: age honestly repellent. I mean I went to George Rushion University.
Speaker 2: Everybody liked that everybody there was like that, including me.
Speaker 2: That's going back and looking back in myself. You know,
Speaker 2: you gotta be honest, you have to be self reflective
Speaker 2: kind of like who you are and where you fall.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where most people don't want
Speaker 2: to most people do not want a politician to be
Speaker 2: the guy who wanted to be student council vice president
Speaker 2: when they were like fourteen years Yeah, and it's just
Speaker 2: very clear like that's what these two guys did. I
Speaker 2: will say it is kind of interesting the two paths
Speaker 2: that they took, because Ramaswami eventually not only went to
Speaker 2: law school but became a biotech entrepreneur and as a
Speaker 2: New Yar billionaire. Where Buddha Jedge took the much more
Speaker 2: like traditional path of the PMC served in Afghanistan, you know,
Speaker 2: like went over there for like six maybe reserves like
Speaker 2: all that other stuff. He did much more of a
Speaker 2: traditional like box check for a democratic politician, moved back
Speaker 2: to a small home in a very benevolent move, became
Speaker 2: the mayor.
Speaker 8: You know, all of that.
Speaker 2: Where Viveg it almost seems like took a u turn.
Speaker 2: He like went into the business world, made more money,
Speaker 2: you know, made enough money for the rest of his
Speaker 2: entire life many other lifetimes, and then came back to politics,
Speaker 2: which seemed to be looks.
Speaker 1: For Republicans that would be more of a traditional But
Speaker 1: I don't know if he went down biotech lank because
Speaker 1: you want to be in politics, he probably is just
Speaker 1: like I mean, you probably just want to make a
Speaker 1: ton of money, which is fine. Clearly, I think clearly
Speaker 1: both a lot of ambition from an early wait your point,
Speaker 1: you know, it reminds me of a comment that Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon actually made I think about Marco Rubio a.
Speaker 3: While ago that I thought was very evocative.
Speaker 1: He's like, you know, Trump is different because he wasn't
Speaker 1: like Marco Rubio with his hair blow dryed in his
Speaker 1: briefcase at the RNC when he's fifteen years old. And
Speaker 1: that's kind of the vibe you get from both of
Speaker 1: these guys at the event.
Speaker 3: It is also interesting to.
Speaker 1: Chart their like political trajectory. Pete, by all accounts, when
Speaker 1: he was young, was actually more of like a Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders social Democrat, and then because of the path of
Speaker 1: ambition within the Democratic Party leads you to being just
Speaker 1: like a died in the Wole neoliberal. That's where he
Speaker 1: ends up. And then favk Is, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what his political.
Speaker 3: Path has been.
Speaker 1: It seems like he was kind of a liberal at
Speaker 1: that time and then he becomes a really hard libertarian
Speaker 1: and now he's adopted like social conservatism and as more
Speaker 1: of a traditional conservative, but also still holds these very
Speaker 1: hard libertarian values in terms of economics, especially with regards
Speaker 1: to the Fed and monetary policy and things like that.
Speaker 1: He's very much like a Ron Paul guy with regard
Speaker 1: to the Fed. So in any case, it's funny that
Speaker 1: they were both there.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, yeah, And I really don't know what to
Speaker 2: say other than it's like it's a pretty clear look
Speaker 2: into how a lot of these people are. And you
Speaker 2: know a lot of politicians are like this. Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: you know, is one of those guys always wanted to
Speaker 2: be president. It's like a red flag. And sometimes when
Speaker 2: you look back anyone who's obsessed with student government, Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton was president of I believe it was George Shown
Speaker 2: for freshman class or a student body president. Yeah there,
Speaker 2: So you know, the ambition is deep.
Speaker 1: People really they really prefer candidates that it feels like
Speaker 1: even if It's not true that it feels like.
Speaker 3: They were like dragged to power.
Speaker 1: It is a It is a you know, uncomfortable feeling
Speaker 1: to look at someone and be like, oh, from the
Speaker 1: moment that you were aware, you were like envisioning yourself
Speaker 1: taking the oath of office in the mirror, you know.
Speaker 1: But I think the reality for almost all these people
Speaker 1: is that they've been They've had these ambitions for a
Speaker 1: long time. Every guy navigating to try to figure out
Speaker 1: where they should land to be to get there.
Speaker 2: Every guy thing is so important. That's one of the
Speaker 2: It was a real I think about it a lot
Speaker 2: in terms of the two thousand and four race where
Speaker 2: w famously I'm not sure if you ever won student
Speaker 2: body president, but I think he was the social chair
Speaker 2: of his fraternity at Yale, and it was like the
Speaker 2: social chair versus somebody like Carrie. Who look again, Carrie
Speaker 2: was like lusting after power from very early on. He
Speaker 2: was obsessed with the fact actually had the same letters
Speaker 2: as JFK. You know, turned himself into a Vietnam like
Speaker 2: anti war acted. I'm not putting down his service, but
Speaker 2: he very clearly used it for his political ambition than
Speaker 2: at the time. Afterwards, whenever he returned. And it's like
Speaker 2: that the two contrasts to America, it was very clear
Speaker 2: people like the social chair vibe. Yeah, they liked the
Speaker 2: I want to have a beer vibe.
Speaker 3: I mean, ironically, like George W. Bush was a Bush.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he'd been his family had raised him to try
Speaker 1: to be president.
Speaker 3: It's about it's about yeah, it's but the vibes were
Speaker 3: more like, Oh, I'd like to have a beer with you.
Speaker 1: Even you're the son of like this incredibly wealthy, incredibly
Speaker 1: powerful political family over generations and generations, and you've literally
Speaker 1: been like molded into this little political animal. But because
Speaker 1: he was able to pull off the everyman vibe.
Speaker 2: He you know, I mean Carrier Track vote. It's not
Speaker 2: like Carrie was what like came from nothing. It's like
Speaker 2: he also married into a half a billion dollar Hinz
Speaker 2: fortune and started windsailing and taking up he was. So
Speaker 2: that's the idea that he was JFK. And you know,
Speaker 2: it came to a he did not have even close
Speaker 2: to the gravitas of JFK. But second, it's like when
Speaker 2: you put that up, especially in the modern political environment,
Speaker 2: that stuff is not going to work. So my advice
Speaker 2: to Ramaswami puta jedge and any you know, future kid
Speaker 2: who was like me, was doing cringeworthy stuff like this
Speaker 2: is don't do it. Actually you really don't want to.
Speaker 2: If that's something that you have any if you have
Speaker 2: any hope of going forward.
Speaker 1: In policy, my advice would be it's okay to do it,
Speaker 1: but like have some core of like principles and values
Speaker 1: and ideology that you actually because that's also comes through
Speaker 1: if like I think about Combla where she was changing
Speaker 1: messaging depending on the seasons, trying to like, you know,
Speaker 1: have a brainstorming strategy session about what her core values are.
Speaker 1: Like that comes off where it's one thing to have ambition, Listen,
Speaker 1: we all have ambitions in different directions whatever. It's another
Speaker 1: thing that your only ambition is about your ambition. It's
Speaker 1: not about doing anything. It's not about a greater good,
Speaker 1: it's not about any sort of value you want to
Speaker 1: put forward in the world.
Speaker 3: People can really see that, and it irks them. It
Speaker 3: really irks them.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's go to a next story. This is a
Speaker 2: very important one. Reporter Ken Clippenstein has been staying on
Speaker 2: this and has actually uncovered some really crazy data. Let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The FBI is hoovering up DNA at a pace that
Speaker 2: rivals China and currently owns twenty one million samples and counting.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons I actually found the story especially
Speaker 2: fascinating is it details the byzantine laws which the FBI
Speaker 2: is using both in loopholes and also explicitly to gain
Speaker 2: more DNA samples from American citizens at a faster pace
Speaker 2: than ever before. He writes, quote that the FBI aims
Speaker 2: to nearly double it's currently fifty six million dollar budget
Speaker 2: for dealing with the DNA catalog with an additional fifty
Speaker 2: three million dollars per year for its budget request of
Speaker 2: fiscal year twenty twenty four. In an April twenty three
Speaker 2: statement to Congress, the FBI revealed that the significantly expanded
Speaker 2: DNA processing requirements of the FBI, and we're collecting some
Speaker 2: ninety thousand samples per month. Some of this crystal is
Speaker 2: based upon federal law where there is a database of
Speaker 2: the combined DNA index system that goes across all fifty states,
Speaker 2: which stipulates that originally, just if you were a violent
Speaker 2: or a sexual offender, they were going to take a
Speaker 2: DNA sample for you for reference in the future. That
Speaker 2: eventually was then lay lowered down to like the misdemeanor
Speaker 2: level of crime. It eventually got to the point where
Speaker 2: if you are now even a person of interest in
Speaker 2: a crime, even if you've ever been convicted in a crime,
Speaker 2: that you can have your DNA legally obtained. And is
Speaker 2: now expanding to the point where even in airports and
Speaker 2: in ports of entry, they are hoovering up DNA samples
Speaker 2: and basically through a quasi legal loophole, are expanding this
Speaker 2: with no recourse, no like, no due process about the invasion,
Speaker 2: you know, invasive privacy nature of any of this that
Speaker 2: rapidly expands that they can just do it and do
Speaker 2: with this data for whatever purposes that they want. Don't
Speaker 2: forget there was I forget which it was, the Golden
Speaker 2: State Killer. I want to say, who they the serial killer?
Speaker 2: Who they were able to find him decades after he
Speaker 2: had committed his last crime, and he was a horrible
Speaker 2: serial killer to be clear. Where they checked his past
Speaker 2: DNA against open databases of like ancestry dot com, of
Speaker 2: like people who had submitted samples. They were able to
Speaker 2: obtain like a search warrant or whatever for these and
Speaker 2: were able to connect it back to him via a
Speaker 2: semi distant relative of his who had submitted their DNA
Speaker 2: to one of these ancestry websites, which raised a lot
Speaker 2: of questions. You know, I'm not saying it wasn't good
Speaker 2: that we caught him. I think it's great. You think
Speaker 2: he'll die in jail, and that's good, especially recourse for
Speaker 2: his victims. But it really opened my eyes that particular
Speaker 2: case where I'm like, wow, man, I mean, the the
Speaker 2: way that they are able to use this, It doesn't
Speaker 2: just implicate you. I mean if they even have a
Speaker 2: very distant relative or whatever of yours, they can quite
Speaker 2: easily use that should they ever want to in any
Speaker 2: of these types of scenarios. Very creepy when you start
Speaker 2: to think about it.
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1: First of all, your comments about how where this started
Speaker 1: and where this ended up really illustrates the problem the
Speaker 1: slippery slope with the security state. So it starts in
Speaker 1: a place that basically everyone would support, like sex offenders
Speaker 1: were taking their DNA, right, We're going to track this,
Speaker 1: We're going to keep track.
Speaker 3: Of it to try to protect the public, and it would.
Speaker 1: Be it'd be very hard to find a person who
Speaker 1: could be like, no, you're not going to do that,
Speaker 1: but you start in this place that is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent justifiable, and that would have broad public support.
Speaker 3: And then over the years, it.
Speaker 1: Just expands and it expands, and it expands, and it
Speaker 1: expands and it expands. And another thing that comes out
Speaker 1: of this is part of why their DNA tracking and
Speaker 1: database has really exploded in recent years, not all of
Speaker 1: but part of why is because under Trump, there was
Speaker 1: an order to start collecting the DNA information of undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 1: So this program starts under Trump at the time, because
Speaker 1: it's Trump, it's very controversial. Well guess what now Biden's
Speaker 1: in office, He's kept the same order in place, and
Speaker 1: no one says sit about it. So it just continues
Speaker 1: to expand. The other piece of this is now, obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, the technology has gotten much better. It's become
Speaker 1: much easier and much faster, with a lot less resources
Speaker 1: expended in order to catalog and identify DNA. So as
Speaker 1: the technology actually we have a quote from this article
Speaker 1: that makes this point exactly. They say the database is
Speaker 1: likely to continue proliferating as DNA tech becomes more sophisticated.
Speaker 1: Pointing to the advent of environmental DNA, which allows for
Speaker 1: DNA to be collected for ambient settings like waste water
Speaker 1: or air, goes on to say, just by breathing, you're
Speaker 1: discarding DNA in a way that can be traced back
Speaker 1: to you. So as the technology becomes more sophisticated and
Speaker 1: more seamless, you can expect this program only to expand further.
Speaker 1: There's been an effort to increase the budget around collecting
Speaker 1: and tracking and storing all of this information. And you know,
Speaker 1: on the what people would say on the other side is, hey,
Speaker 1: you pointed to the Golden State serial killer. Isn't it
Speaker 1: good that we were able to identify this person and
Speaker 1: bring them to justice after all of these years?
Speaker 3: Isn't that a good thing? Of course it is.
Speaker 1: But it's also important to keep in mind number one,
Speaker 1: that on the other side of the ledger is the
Speaker 1: millions and millions of completely innocent people who now the
Speaker 1: government has all of this personal, private information about that's
Speaker 1: number one. But number two, DNA hasn't even been that
Speaker 1: effective overall in terms of identifying those who committed crimes
Speaker 1: and prosecuting them. Ken writs in this piece, DNA has
Speaker 1: played an important role, but less than five three percent
Speaker 1: of the profiles have assisted in cases. By comparison, fingerprints
Speaker 1: collected by the FBI from current and former federal employees
Speaker 1: linked them to crimes at a rate of twelve percent
Speaker 1: each year, according to testimony from the Bureau back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and four, when fingerprint technology was far less sophisticated.
Speaker 1: Location being that it probably is an even higher match
Speaker 1: rate at this point.
Speaker 3: So, you know, it's really troubling.
Speaker 1: Our own intelligence agencies raised a lot of justified questions
Speaker 1: and concerns about the rate at which China was hoovering
Speaker 1: up all of and tracking all of this DNA information
Speaker 1: from their own citizens. And it turns out we're doing
Speaker 1: the exact same thing at the exact same pace and
Speaker 1: rate and size.
Speaker 3: And scope and scale.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the creepy part too. About how about the
Speaker 2: way that it's collected. And one of the important things
Speaker 2: to underscore about what we said is, you know, we
Speaker 2: have this idea from TV and from movies that it
Speaker 2: is used, you know, to great effect in many cases,
Speaker 2: and it is in some murder and rape investigations, but
Speaker 2: the vast majority of crimes and stuff don't entail those.
Speaker 2: Those are actually quite rare, you know, on a macro scale.
Speaker 2: So then it comes to the question of like, well,
Speaker 2: what are we going to do with all this, and
Speaker 2: also to what end, you know, in the future. I've
Speaker 2: told the story before about how, you know, I entered
Speaker 2: into the United States from Mexico. I was coming in
Speaker 2: through port of entry, and even though I'd never signed
Speaker 2: up for Global entry and I'd never you know, given
Speaker 2: any facial recognition or whatever, my face was used in
Speaker 2: a pilot program by the CBP or yeah, I think
Speaker 2: it was the CBP when I was re entering the
Speaker 2: United States and I had never consented to any of this,
Speaker 2: and they're just straight up using facial recognition software. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's one of those where like what I'm like, I
Speaker 2: never asked for this. Wait, you know, if they can
Speaker 2: do this here, what is persopping them from doing the
Speaker 2: entire country? The answer is nothing, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of whatever, especially when you're coming back in. This is
Speaker 2: just where it's so direct because you're looking directly into
Speaker 2: the camera. How many times are you on camera? And
Speaker 2: then somebody is scanning your face. Again, Look, you can
Speaker 2: make a reasonable case or like what you don't think
Speaker 2: we should have that for everybody comes to the country.
Speaker 2: I don't know all right, but you know, at the
Speaker 2: very least like there needs to be some actual transparency
Speaker 2: and investigation or oversight into this. Because when you just
Speaker 2: start collecting vast DNA samples of your entire population to
Speaker 2: basically no end, and you have this readily accessible to
Speaker 2: law enforcement, you know, with what they need in order
Speaker 2: to tap it. Are we making sure they're proper safeguards
Speaker 2: and all these things in place? You're real just one
Speaker 2: step away from a very bad situation where this data
Speaker 2: is used for nefarious purposes.
Speaker 3: And it happens, and.
Speaker 1: It expands with no notice, little debate, no explanation to
Speaker 1: the American people of what the pluses and minuses might be,
Speaker 1: what the risks and what the benefits are. It just
Speaker 1: happens and from you know, a small program really targeted
Speaker 1: to you know, basically as much information in data and
Speaker 1: DNA as they can possibly get their hands on over
Speaker 1: the course of you know, several decades.
Speaker 3: That's how we see the size and scope of the.
Speaker 1: Security state just continue to creep and creep and creep
Speaker 1: across administrations.
Speaker 3: This one is truly bipartisan.
Speaker 1: Right, happen under Trump, happened under Bid, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: happened under A. Bombs certainly happened under George W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 1: It's the the uniparty is really involved in this expansion
Speaker 1: and very very little scrutiny of it ever. So you know,
Speaker 1: kudos to Klippenstein for doing this kind of reporting, exposing
Speaker 1: to all of.
Speaker 3: Us what is actually going on here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, So, We've.
Speaker 1: Got some economic numbers that we wanted to bring you
Speaker 1: this morning, starting with the housing market, and let me
Speaker 1: give you a little bit of context here before I
Speaker 1: put the first article up on the screen. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously we all know how expensive homes are, both in
Speaker 1: terms of the sticker price and in terms critically of
Speaker 1: the mortgage interest rate that you have to pay. And
Speaker 1: of course the higher the mortgage rate is, the more
Speaker 1: important it is to have a big down payment, so
Speaker 1: you're paying down some of the principles so that you're
Speaker 1: getting hit with less of that mortgage interest rate, so
Speaker 1: it's less critical, even though it still makes this huge difference. Well,
Speaker 1: in this landscape, if you are a young person trying
Speaker 1: to buy a house, good luck and one of the
Speaker 1: only ways they're able to pull this off and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, because we've got new numbers
Speaker 1: now to back this up. For under thirty homeowners intent,
Speaker 1: so forty percent rely on family money to cover their
Speaker 1: down payment on that property. So basically, if you're under
Speaker 1: thirty and you want to get a house, you got
Speaker 1: to have mommy and daddy with cash in the bank
Speaker 1: ready to pony up your down payment, or you can
Speaker 1: forget about it. Now this obviously has huge implications for
Speaker 1: generational wealth, has huge implications for just like the story
Speaker 1: we tell ourselves in this country about the American dream
Speaker 1: about how anyone can aspire to this level of middle
Speaker 1: class prosperity and with the house and the white picket
Speaker 1: fence and the family, et cetera. I mean, the new
Speaker 1: story of our economy is if mommy and Daddy aren't
Speaker 1: underwriting it, you can forget about it.
Speaker 2: That what really came through from this with the amount
Speaker 2: of people who are doing this is we talked previously
Speaker 2: about the wealth transfer and how a great wealth transfer
Speaker 2: that's happening right now is really from elder from boomers
Speaker 2: who are either aging off and are dying or are
Speaker 2: already preemptively transferring helping out their elder Millennials have entrance
Speaker 2: to the homeowner market or asset ownership. And because asset
Speaker 2: ownership at an earlier point and allowing it to appreciate
Speaker 2: their course of your life is a single best way
Speaker 2: in order to attain wealth in this country, the ability
Speaker 2: then in order to access that tap of wealth is
Speaker 2: so important. And if the only ability is to have
Speaker 2: well off parents, well you're in a real tough situation
Speaker 2: if you don't even have that. And you know, the
Speaker 2: problem is is I was even reading more recently about
Speaker 2: how high interest rates have made it so that people
Speaker 2: are disproportionately finding it harder in order to get a mortgage.
Speaker 2: The reason why is that the bank can earn off
Speaker 2: of straight up deposits five or six percent or whatever
Speaker 2: from the federal reserve or from T bills. So you
Speaker 2: better be a pretty damn good lender or a damn
Speaker 2: good borrower if you are actually going to be an
Speaker 2: attractive asset for them in that way, then it's even
Speaker 2: harder today to actually qualify. Specifically, I was reading for
Speaker 2: a jumbo mortgage because the competition for your business has
Speaker 2: just gone way down in the era of a high
Speaker 2: interest rate environment. On the one hand, that could be
Speaker 2: a good thing. It means that you know, people aren't
Speaker 2: getting access to loans or whatever that they can't pay.
Speaker 2: But it's really difficult if you're a younger person, yeah,
Speaker 2: and you have to prove your ability in order to
Speaker 2: pay in the future, or if they knock you down
Speaker 2: in the price of house and the only way that
Speaker 2: you're even able to come to the price where you're
Speaker 2: living in an urban market or whatever is to have
Speaker 2: the signature of a parent. What if your parent didn't
Speaker 2: do that, well, what if you're self made, what if
Speaker 2: your first generation college graduate, yeah, or any of those,
Speaker 2: It puts you in a very very significant disadvantage for
Speaker 2: your whole yeah, for your whole life.
Speaker 1: And it really creates these hard class lines that it's
Speaker 1: like whatever station you were born into, that's what station
Speaker 1: you are likely to remain, regardless of how you you know,
Speaker 1: how well you do in school and you play by
Speaker 1: the rules and you do all the things that you're
Speaker 1: supposed to do. If you don't have mommy and daddy
Speaker 1: able to stroke you a check for your down payment,
Speaker 1: it will be very hard for you ever to get
Speaker 1: on that home ownership ladder, especially if you live in
Speaker 1: one of these, you know, very expensive metro housing markets.
Speaker 1: Just to give you a little bit more of the
Speaker 1: data here, this was from a survey by Redfinn and
Speaker 1: they found that twenty three percent of homeowners under thirty
Speaker 1: used a cash gift from family members to cover their
Speaker 1: down payment. Another twenty one percent used inheritance money. So
Speaker 1: that's where you add those numbers together, you get forty
Speaker 1: four percent who are using either you know, money from
Speaker 1: family member or some sort of inheritance to be able
Speaker 1: to achieve home ownership. And so you know, it really
Speaker 1: does kind of cut to the core of what we
Speaker 1: think about how this country should work and the upward
Speaker 1: mobility that should.
Speaker 3: Be available to people.
Speaker 1: They've coined this term NEPO home buyers to refer to
Speaker 1: young people who are relying on family money in order.
Speaker 3: To get on this property ladder.
Speaker 1: But increasingly this is the only way that young people
Speaker 1: are able to achieve those milestones. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: there's other numbers that are coming out about how difficult
Speaker 1: that can landscape is for a lot of people. In
Speaker 1: spite of some of the headline numbers that look pretty
Speaker 1: good of low unemployment rate and all of these things.
Speaker 1: But if you dig into those numbers even an inch,
Speaker 1: you see how much pain there is out there in
Speaker 1: the economy. Let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is in some ways one of the most critical
Speaker 1: indicators of how people are actually doing this. From the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, they say, delinquencies rise for credit cards and
Speaker 1: auto loans, and it could get worse with interest rates
Speaker 1: going up, more consumers have misspayments on household debt. Put
Speaker 1: this next graph up on the screen because you can
Speaker 1: see really clearly.
Speaker 3: What's going on here.
Speaker 1: Over the past two years, really, you've seen the number
Speaker 1: of delinquencies for all types of debt, whether it's consumer loans,
Speaker 1: credit cards, or auto loans. You see those numbers significantly
Speaker 1: spiking and heading an upward direction. This track's very closely,
Speaker 1: of course, with the end of the pandemic era programs
Speaker 1: that helped people get through the pandemic, that provided people
Speaker 1: with a little bit of cash in their bank accounts,
Speaker 1: and it coincides with a Federal Reserve policy of hiking
Speaker 1: interest rates that of course makes all of that debt
Speaker 1: so much more expensive and so much more difficult to
Speaker 1: pay off. Let me just read you a little bit
Speaker 1: of this article and then Getsager's reaction. They say, more
Speaker 1: Americans are falling behind on their car loan and credit
Speaker 1: card payments than at any time in more than a decade,
Speaker 1: troubling signal of consumer stress as higher prices and rising
Speaker 1: borrowing costs are squeezing household budgets. The pain, of course,
Speaker 1: they say, is most acute for lower income earners, who
Speaker 1: have largely used whatever they managed to save during the
Speaker 1: pandemic with the help of government stimulus, checks and breaks
Speaker 1: on obligations such as rent and student loans. They've got
Speaker 1: a quote here from Mark Sandy, who's chief economist at
Speaker 1: Moody's Analytics. The increase in delinquencies and defaults is symptomatic
Speaker 1: of the tough decisions these households are having to make
Speaker 1: right now whether pay their credit card bills, their rent,
Speaker 1: or buy groceries. So when you have inflation that has
Speaker 1: cooled some but still has goods, especially like critical things
Speaker 1: that people have to buy much higher prices than they
Speaker 1: were previouate prior to the pandemic, you have the end
Speaker 1: of pandemic era programs, and you have interest rates going up,
Speaker 1: making all of stats so much more expensive. You end
Speaker 1: up with a really dire landscape such as US.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you're looking at it and it's just clear
Speaker 2: that we're going right back to the days of the
Speaker 2: post Great Recession, which was actually some of the worst
Speaker 2: days in modern US economic history. I don't think you
Speaker 2: can really write it off. It was so horrible. It
Speaker 2: was one of those where we didn't realize how bad
Speaker 2: it was at the time because we had just gone
Speaker 2: through the Great Recession. But that is really when people
Speaker 2: got completely wiped out, and it really is reminiscent of
Speaker 2: the Great Depression. The worst of the Great Depression was
Speaker 2: not nineteen twenty nine, it was four It was five
Speaker 2: years in because at that point you have the compounding poverty,
Speaker 2: you have the compounding inability to get housing, compounding inability
Speaker 2: in order to catch up, and that's when stuff really
Speaker 2: just starts to break, and that's when a lot of
Speaker 2: people just gave up the either exited of the workforce,
Speaker 2: became permanent renters. That's also with zero interest rates. When ever,
Speaker 2: the billionaire class and the core corporations really got richer
Speaker 2: than ever and started especially accelerating financialization, So this is
Speaker 2: a really bad place to be to have consumer debt
Speaker 2: and all of that basically return to twenty twelve levels,
Speaker 2: except at that point there was at least some zero
Speaker 2: interest rate stuff going on that was juicing the broader economy.
Speaker 2: Now we don't have either of that. We even have
Speaker 2: a reduction in overall earnings, and our growth is generally anemic. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, this just looks everything just feels very nineteen
Speaker 2: seventies right now.
Speaker 1: I was seeing shocked by the average credit card interest
Speaker 1: rate that they have in here. It's twenty point six percent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what was record high, twenty point six percent. So
Speaker 1: it just shows you when you get behind on those
Speaker 1: credit card bills, or if you're having to rely on
Speaker 1: credit cards in order just to make ends meet, how
Speaker 1: quick you can get behind and you know, basically have
Speaker 1: no prayer of ever paying that off. At twenty point
Speaker 1: six percent, I mean, that is really high, and that's
Speaker 1: just the average. I means a lot of people have
Speaker 1: rates that are a lot higher than that. They also
Speaker 1: point to something we covered before, which is that total
Speaker 1: credit card debt just topped a trillion dollars for the
Speaker 1: first time ever, and I didn't know the statistic. There
Speaker 1: are seventy million more credit card accounts open now than
Speaker 1: just back in twenty nineteen. I mean, that wasn't that
Speaker 1: long ago. Americans have opened up seventy million more credit
Speaker 1: account card accounts in that time with these high interest rates.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing that we're seeing is that,
Speaker 1: you know, we've had the rise of these buy now,
Speaker 1: paid later.
Speaker 3: Services.
Speaker 1: If you go on any basically consumer website, they have
Speaker 1: these options where you can pay for things and installments,
Speaker 1: et cetera. The importance of those services has also been rising.
Speaker 1: They say usage surged forty percent forty percent in the
Speaker 1: first two months of twenty twenty three. So it shows
Speaker 1: you that people are really struggling just to buy things
Speaker 1: like groceries, other necessities, pay their rent, et cetera. They're
Speaker 1: having to lean on debt that has now very high
Speaker 1: interest rates in order to get that done, and they
Speaker 1: are really squeezed in spite of you know, any of
Speaker 1: the celebratory type top line numbers about unemployment being low,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: Yeah, these are the numbers that matter the most. And
Speaker 2: things were better, you know, a couple of years ago,
Speaker 2: and now they're getting bad and they're all on the uptick.
Speaker 2: So this is the single biggest problem crisis facing people,
Speaker 2: the ability to keep up with everyday life. And let
Speaker 2: me just echo away he said, Please do not go
Speaker 2: into a crazy amount of credit card like that debtless
Speaker 2: unless you really are in a bad situation. Twenty percent
Speaker 2: interests that is, you know, that is horrible because that's
Speaker 2: five months and you basically doubled. I mean, what are
Speaker 2: you gonna do? And you know, especially if you can't
Speaker 2: make your minimum payments or any of that. So look,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm not gonna tell anybody how to live.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to beg people. Don't find yourself in
Speaker 2: that situation. I got friends and people in my life
Speaker 2: I know who are in that situation. It becomes overwhelming
Speaker 2: and all encompassing. In you could blink an eye and
Speaker 2: watch it all just quadruple triple or something like that,
Speaker 2: and then you just feel helpless. You don't know what
Speaker 2: to do. So try not to put yourself in that situation.
Speaker 2: People were finding themselves in there in order to make
Speaker 2: general ends meets. I get it. I don't know what
Speaker 2: else you can do. You know, it's a real failure. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go to the final one here, fun stuff CNN Plus.
Speaker 2: Of course, you know we dance on the grave here
Speaker 2: for rightful purposes. We still are, by the way, the
Speaker 2: owners of that proud CNN nft of the first moments
Speaker 2: of CNN plus what they described as the most historic
Speaker 2: moment and seeing in history. Since they're launching their founding,
Speaker 2: and since it failed so miserably the first time three
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars, they've decided to do it again, except
Speaker 2: this time make it way worse and even more annoying.
Speaker 2: So let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: It seems that Warner Brothers Discovery is now going to
Speaker 2: test out CNN news alerts while Max viewers are watching
Speaker 2: TV shows and movies on the platform. So I want
Speaker 2: everybody to think about your favorite show on Max formerly
Speaker 2: known as HBO Max. Let's think about Last of Us,
Speaker 2: The White Lotus, House of the Dragon. It's Sunday night,
Speaker 2: course Monday, whatever. You just got off work, you want
Speaker 2: to catch up. You sit down in order to watch
Speaker 2: your favorite TV show, and you get a notification up
Speaker 2: there on the screen and says, do you want to
Speaker 2: watch Anderson Cooper right now, can't Can you imagine I
Speaker 2: would freak out, and especially if it became some sort
Speaker 2: of picture and picture situation. If you're going to ruin
Speaker 2: my Last of Us time or my House of the
Speaker 2: Dragon time, that's sacred time. That's like me actually checking
Speaker 2: out from the rest of the world and driving in
Speaker 2: to George R. R. Martin. I mean, first CNN to
Speaker 2: invade that, especially after we all had to suffer the
Speaker 2: indignity of having the HBO name taken off. But I said,
Speaker 2: this actually is beginning to make sense because they did
Speaker 2: not want to sully the hallowed HBO brand by turning
Speaker 2: it into CNN Max, which is what this new live
Speaker 2: streaming service will be.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 2: I guess to their credit, they're basically just repurposing current
Speaker 2: content they're going to live stream, like Jake Tapper Show
Speaker 2: or Anderson Cooper Show or any of these on there.
Speaker 2: So it's not like they're hiring Chris Wallace or any
Speaker 2: other jokers. Yeah, that they tried to do last time,
Speaker 2: but I mean it's still this is CNN. Plus, they're
Speaker 2: just they're doing what Peacock is done over on Peacock.
Speaker 1: It is actually offensive, Like the idea of You're sitting
Speaker 1: there watching your show and you get some like news
Speaker 1: alert on your TV that says Trump just called Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniel's space or whatever.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 1: Like, that's going to make me want to call the costs,
Speaker 1: like that is an invasion of my time and space
Speaker 1: and energy there.
Speaker 3: It is wrong, it is horrible. I have to think
Speaker 3: that people are going to be incredibly irritated by it.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's just hilarious to me as well,
Speaker 1: because Zucker expected CNN plus they launched this with so
Speaker 1: much fann there. You guys can go back and watch
Speaker 1: our coverage of it and our predictions that it was
Speaker 1: going to be a total disaster, and of course it
Speaker 1: was because what they were putting out into the digital
Speaker 1: ecosystem was just like a B team version, B rate
Speaker 1: version of the actual CNN channel. Or it was like you,
Speaker 1: I wasn't it going to be like Anderson Cooper on
Speaker 1: Parenting and somebody was having a book Jack Taber was
Speaker 1: having a book club, all this kind of stuff, and like,
Speaker 1: no one wants to pay to watch this, this will
Speaker 1: be a failure, And sure enough it was.
Speaker 3: They pulled the plug.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was the smartest move, honestly, that probably
Speaker 1: conflict made was to immediately pull the plug on CNN Plus,
Speaker 1: which was losing cash handover fist, complete monumental disaster. And
Speaker 1: now they're just going right back to the well with
Speaker 1: It doesn't seem like any real, you know, new insight
Speaker 1: into how this.
Speaker 3: Is gonna work out.
Speaker 1: It's kind of incredible, but they feel like I mean,
Speaker 1: I understand the thinking from the perspective of they're looking
Speaker 1: at NBC slash MSNBC has made some kind of a
Speaker 1: digital play. Fox News has made some kind of a
Speaker 1: digital play. I don't know that any of these are
Speaker 1: really working out all that well, but they're doing it right.
Speaker 1: CNN knows the writings on the wall in terms of
Speaker 1: the normal cable news business. They know that they have
Speaker 1: to do something. That's why Zucher put so many eggs
Speaker 1: in this basket to start with. But they just have
Speaker 1: no understanding of what a successful online streaming business would
Speaker 1: actually look like, and so they're just recreating CNN Plus.
Speaker 1: It's incredible, it's actually incredible.
Speaker 2: They also did it at the same time that they
Speaker 2: are hiring a new chief. Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. Mark Thompson has been
Speaker 2: named the new CNN Chief Executive. According to CNN and
Speaker 2: Mark Thompson is an interesting guy. He actually worked at
Speaker 2: the New York Times. He was one of the CEO
Speaker 2: of the companies that actually brought it out of really
Speaker 2: what was a business crisis for them. But here's the thing.
Speaker 2: This is a newspaper guy. He previously had worked over
Speaker 2: at BBC News. The thing is about the way that
Speaker 2: the Times turned around is the Times currently is not
Speaker 2: a news business. It's a cookbook crossword business with a
Speaker 2: news arm. It's basically a liberal lifestyle brand that also
Speaker 2: has news. And that's traditionally how the news business works.
Speaker 2: People don't really like to pay for news. They pay
Speaker 2: for all this stuff and then it's it's subsidized by
Speaker 2: the news. Well, or the news is subsidized by that
Speaker 2: other stuff. Well, how is cn I gonna operate like that? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, look at the end of the day, they're
Speaker 2: We're fine. They've got these fake cable carriage fees that's
Speaker 2: going to subsist for them for the next couple of years.
Speaker 2: They are still rolled into a multi billion dollar corporation
Speaker 2: like Warner Brothers, Discovery, HBO, Max and all this other
Speaker 2: content can easily subsidize the news arm, but they want
Speaker 2: it to be profitable the way that it is. How though,
Speaker 2: can you turn this around into a sustainable business asset?
Speaker 2: The Thompson strategy for making CNN successful would be to
Speaker 2: resuscitate Bordain from the dead and basically just make it
Speaker 2: so that he's on the air all the time. By
Speaker 2: the way, people forget this, he was the most successful
Speaker 2: thing on all CNN. That's not about strategy, y yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, but I mean he was once in a generation. Like,
Speaker 2: where's it gonna come from? Are you going to find
Speaker 2: another board? Am? Like you basically have to remove all
Speaker 2: the news content and make it so that the only
Speaker 2: profitable part of the network. No more primetime, no more news,
Speaker 2: any of this. You're just running cooking shows all day
Speaker 2: long or the Charles Barkley Galeka, what is it called? King,
Speaker 2: Charles King, Charles King, Charles, Like, that's what you would
Speaker 2: do every single day if you want to turn it
Speaker 2: into a business. But that's not how you run a
Speaker 2: news business. So I really have no idea how he's
Speaker 2: gonna be able to do it.
Speaker 3: I don't either, but I do think it's smart.
Speaker 1: Higher and AlSi has a track record of taking a
Speaker 1: news operation and expanding it and getting people to pay
Speaker 1: for subscriptions in a way that you know, was sustainable.
Speaker 1: Like we've provided this contrast before, but at the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: you know, they saw subscriptions skyrocket during the Trump era.
Speaker 1: They bet the whole farm on Trump coverage. You know,
Speaker 1: democracy dies in darkness whatever, and so they went all
Speaker 1: in on that. And then the moment that Trump is
Speaker 1: out of office and political interest wanes a bit, then
Speaker 1: their revenue is falling off a cliff.
Speaker 3: They just went through another round of layoffs. You know,
Speaker 3: they're in a lot of trouble.
Speaker 1: New York Times of course, also got that Trump coverage bump,
Speaker 1: but they didn't.
Speaker 3: Rest on their laurels with that.
Speaker 1: They also, you know, they acquired the Wirecutter, they launched
Speaker 1: NYT Cooking, They made it an audio destination with podcasts
Speaker 1: like The Daily that have been really really successful. And
Speaker 1: so they use the momentum from Trump to actually build
Speaker 1: out their business in a way that would be more sustainable.
Speaker 1: And that turned out and the games, like you talked
Speaker 1: about in sports and all sorts of things, so that
Speaker 1: turned out to be extremely intelligent. Now, can you translate
Speaker 1: that into CNN. What would that look like? Of course,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't look exactly like the playbook that they ran
Speaker 1: at the New York Times, because print is different than
Speaker 1: you know, is different than cable news. But at least
Speaker 1: they brought in someone who has some track record of
Speaker 1: success that I can imagine maybe having some ideas here.
Speaker 1: I have no idea how it works out though, or
Speaker 1: what it looks like.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, good luck, good luck to our colleagues. I
Speaker 2: guess over at CNN, I guess we wish you nothing
Speaker 2: about the best. Yeah, I appreciate.
Speaker 1: I appreciate having another go at CNN plus to keep an.
Speaker 2: Eye on here. First though, I get interrupted. Oh man,
Speaker 2: I can't even tell you how angry it's going to
Speaker 2: make me. Crystal, What do you take a look at?
Speaker 1: One of the dumbest fights ever has broken out between Democrats, Republicans,
Speaker 1: big pharma, and corporate media, which perfectly encapsulates the dynamic
Speaker 1: between the two parties, the pitfalls of our political system.
Speaker 3: And basically why we can't have nice things. So here
Speaker 3: is the backstory.
Speaker 1: As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden the Democrats
Speaker 1: passed some incredibly modest reforms to lower prescription drug costs.
Speaker 1: Under pressure from pharma lobbyists and their own corporate sold
Speaker 1: out caucus, they settled for allowing Maticare to negotiate prices
Speaker 1: on just ten drugs, with the new pricing not even
Speaker 1: said to kick in until twenty twenty six. So, for
Speaker 1: those who are keeping score at home, by focusing just
Speaker 1: on seniors, you're already limiting the impact. By only negotiating
Speaker 1: prices on ten drugs, you are further limiting the impact.
Speaker 1: And by inexplicably pushing it out for three years, you
Speaker 1: are guaranteeing that no one will see any benefit whatsoever
Speaker 1: for the next two elections and cycles, curb stomping the
Speaker 1: possible political benefits as well.
Speaker 3: In spite of this.
Speaker 1: Modest, delayed, neutered impact, Democrats and Biden of course running
Speaker 1: around pounding their chest like they just slaid some sort
Speaker 1: of dragon. They know that, of course, we pay astronomically
Speaker 1: high drug prices as compared to every other country on
Speaker 1: the planet. They know this is a massive pain point
Speaker 1: for tens of millions of Americans, and they know that
Speaker 1: doing anything about this insanity inducing, unconscionable state of affairs
Speaker 1: is extremely popular so Biden is leading into these wins
Speaker 1: on prescription drug pricing as part of his re election campaign,
Speaker 1: wildly overselling the benefits in an attempt to convince Americans
Speaker 1: that he has done a lot more than what he
Speaker 1: has actually accomplished.
Speaker 10: So, since we took office, President Biden and I in
Speaker 10: our administration has taken extoric historic action to cut the
Speaker 10: cost of prescription medication for our seniors. We capped the
Speaker 10: cost of insulin at thirty five dollars a month. Now
Speaker 10: we will cap the total cost of prescription drugs at
Speaker 10: two thousand dollars a year. And we have made vaccines
Speaker 10: free of charge, which will save seniors hundreds of dollars
Speaker 10: every year. Yes, and we finally allowed Medicare to negotiate
Speaker 10: the price of medications with big pharma companies to the
Speaker 10: benefit of sixty five million Americans.
Speaker 3: At least historic action.
Speaker 1: I guess it is a low bar when the recent
Speaker 1: history is just giving away the stored pig pharma and
Speaker 1: allowing them to steal from our tax offers and from
Speaker 1: our citizens. This is such, though a pristine example of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party under neoliberalism, engineer some overly complicated water
Speaker 1: down reform voters should fall to their knees in gratitude
Speaker 1: for a modest and possibly imperceptible improvement, but still, in fairness,
Speaker 1: it is at least an improvement. On the other side,
Speaker 1: if you listen to how the drug companies and the
Speaker 1: Republican elected media allies are talking about this, you would
Speaker 1: think Biden just engineered an entire government takeover a big pharma, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, is what they actually should have done Pharma,
Speaker 1: after likely being instrumental and making these reforms so pathetic
Speaker 1: to start with, Howled threatened to withhold key life saving drugs,
Speaker 1: spent tens of millions in negative ads against the reforms,
Speaker 1: and ran to the courts crying that the price negotiations
Speaker 1: were unconstitutional and that every dollar cut into their profit
Speaker 1: margins was basically theft. As Merks legal filing pouted, this
Speaker 1: is not negotiation, it is tantamount to extortion. The Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal editorial board they just weighed in with their
Speaker 1: own hysterical gas lighting, describing these tiny Biden baby steps
Speaker 1: as command and control drug price controls I wish, and
Speaker 1: claiming that modest price cuts on ten total drugs coming
Speaker 1: in three years time would devastate research and development, depriving
Speaker 1: the public of critical life saving medications. Now, this complaint
Speaker 1: might be worth considering if big pharma was really in
Speaker 1: the business of inventing life saving medications. In reality, every
Speaker 1: new FDA approved drug in recent history was initially developed
Speaker 1: using taxpayer dollars. Pharma spends much more of their time
Speaker 1: and their money focusing on how they can use patent
Speaker 1: lawfare to maintain their price gouging monopolies.
Speaker 3: That's really the business they're in.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Elected Republicans are joining the fray, carrying water for their
Speaker 1: pharma donors and using pharma talking points to fear monger
Speaker 1: about these very modest proposals which just passed per Politico.
Speaker 1: Congressional Republicans slammed Biden's Tuesday drug price announcement, saying they
Speaker 1: will impose crippling price controls.
Speaker 8: Quote.
Speaker 1: I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the
Speaker 1: aisle can come together to mitigate these devastating effects that
Speaker 1: advance consensus based, market driven solutions to access A four
Speaker 1: ability challenges, said Senator Mike Krappo, the top Republican on
Speaker 1: the Senate Finance Committee. Meanwhile, Trump at least has enough
Speaker 1: brain cells to realize this is the dumbest attack from
Speaker 1: Republicans of all time, so he staying his usual approach
Speaker 1: of vaguely posturing like he might do something on prescription
Speaker 1: drug prices, when, of course we all know the real truth.
Speaker 1: In a video on his website, he said, we've been
Speaker 1: ripped off by everybody for so many decades. We are
Speaker 1: tired of it not going to happen. Of course, it
Speaker 1: did happen under his administration for four years with next
Speaker 1: to no action, and his proposed solution now is just
Speaker 1: to revive an executive order that has already been killed
Speaker 1: in the courts. Ironically, the massive freak out from Republicans,
Speaker 1: Pharma and their media allies might actually help to convince
Speaker 1: the public that the Biden administration must have really done something.
Speaker 1: Given all the outcry, surely they wouldn't protest some so
Speaker 1: much over something so small.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The lesson I wish Democrats would learn is that since
Speaker 1: FARMA is going to have a next level meltdown over
Speaker 1: even the smallest threat to their profit margins, you might
Speaker 1: as well give them something to really melt down about.
Speaker 1: But instead we'll just continue in this psych Democrats will
Speaker 1: make things three percent better wildly oversell it, expect the
Speaker 1: public to express their undying gratitude always and forever. Republicans
Speaker 1: will then march in to declare that this very mild
Speaker 1: improvement is actually an unconstitutional attack in America which will
Speaker 1: destroy the whole country. And meanwhile, the American people will
Speaker 1: continue to get absolutely screwed with no end in sight,
Speaker 1: just another day in our nation's capital. This whole thing
Speaker 1: has been so absurd to me.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, sorry, we're looking at We often hear.
Speaker 2: A lot from the nations of Eastern Europe about the
Speaker 2: war in Ukraine. The prime ministers of the Baltic nations,
Speaker 2: as well as Finland and Sweden are always salivating to
Speaker 2: push the US into war with Russia and to beat
Speaker 2: the war drum harder than anybody else in the NATO alliance.
Speaker 2: They want to give away the entire US store to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: But often a nord in the view of the Ukraine
Speaker 2: conflict is Hungary, which, unlike any of those states, actually
Speaker 2: shares a land border with Ukraine, and of course also
Speaker 2: shares the long history of Soviet and Russian imperialism. The
Speaker 2: reason Hungary is ignored is because it explicitly has a
Speaker 2: different view of the Ukraine conflict than every other nation
Speaker 2: inside of NATO. These views are inconvenient, and thus you
Speaker 2: never hear about them. And no matter what you think
Speaker 2: about Hungary the nation, you still cannot be arrogant enough
Speaker 2: to dismiss the view then of a NATO member, a
Speaker 2: former victim of Russian imperialism, and a literal border state
Speaker 2: to the war in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson sat down recently
Speaker 2: with Victor orbat and he's the leader of Hungary for
Speaker 2: his view of the Ukraine conflict, and some parts of
Speaker 2: this are vital for everyone to hear in America. Let's
Speaker 2: take a listen to the first part.
Speaker 8: The view is that Ukraine is winning this war. It
Speaker 8: doesn't sound like that's true.
Speaker 9: It's a lie.
Speaker 11: It's not just to be understanding, it's a lie.
Speaker 8: It's impossible.
Speaker 11: Everybody who's in politics and understand the logic, the figures
Speaker 11: of the data low way.
Speaker 8: Why is it impossible.
Speaker 11: Because that way, the Ukrainian, the pore, Ukraine's die every day, Yes,
Speaker 11: hundreds and thousands. You know, my heart is with them.
Speaker 8: So it's it's studged.
Speaker 11: Before Ukraine run out earlier from the soldier's number of
Speaker 11: than the Russians. What finally, your count is boots on
Speaker 11: the ground, and the Russians are fastronger, fun, numerous, more
Speaker 11: numerous there anymore. So so the strategy but we are
Speaker 11: just supporting is a bad engineering of the strategy.
Speaker 2: Okay, stark wards there to start us off, The narrative
Speaker 2: that Ukraine is winning is a lie, according to Orbon.
Speaker 2: Orbon says that the number of troops expended by Ukraine
Speaker 2: versus Russia, and he notes that the Russian colossus is
Speaker 2: ability to endlessly throw poor conscripts into the fray. The
Speaker 2: counterpoint to this, then is that the West must make
Speaker 2: it so that the war in Ukraine is so painful
Speaker 2: for Russia that they sue for peace or withdraw because
Speaker 2: the population doesn't want to pay the price anymore. Here's
Speaker 2: what Orbon specifically had to say about that strategy.
Speaker 11: To understand the Russians, it's a difficult thing, especially if
Speaker 11: you have an ocean between you and Russia. So when
Speaker 11: we speak about politics, I mean investorners. What is the
Speaker 11: focus point about conversation. The focus point is freedom. How
Speaker 11: to provide more and more to the people. Yes, when
Speaker 11: you speak on politics in Russia, this is not the
Speaker 11: number one issue. The number one issue how to keep
Speaker 11: together the country because the country is very big and
Speaker 11: there's a privilege of the question how to keep together
Speaker 11: the country and not freedom. Freedom is just another issue, second, third, whatever. First,
Speaker 11: keep the country together, and that's generate a different kind
Speaker 11: of culture and understanding of politics. That's creating a kind
Speaker 11: of military approach like they have always on security, safety,
Speaker 11: offer on geopolitical approaches. It's not our cultures a different approach.
Speaker 11: It's legitimate to have that because it's their history. But
Speaker 11: we have to understand that we cannot beat them as
Speaker 11: we do just now. It's impossible. They will not kill
Speaker 11: their leader, they will never give it up. They will
Speaker 11: keep together the country and they will defend it. We
Speaker 11: find once more, they will invest more if we send
Speaker 11: more technically, if as they will produce more. So don't
Speaker 11: misunderstand the Russians.
Speaker 8: So they're not going to get sick, ad pertinent and
Speaker 8: fro Now, come on, it's a joke.
Speaker 2: Come on, it's a joke. Strong words again, what is
Speaker 2: very important though about what Orbon said is our conception
Speaker 2: of how our population or some other Western nation may
Speaker 2: respond to saying and death is not the Russian view
Speaker 2: at all, both at a population level and a governmental level.
Speaker 2: Perhaps his most important insight there is the preservation of
Speaker 2: Russian territory and a broader conception of greater Russia historically
Speaker 2: is a vital national security interest to the Russian regime
Speaker 2: for all time. Thus, when something is vital, you are
Speaker 2: willing to expend significant military resources, population, and endure pain
Speaker 2: to accomplish it. That has frequently been comparison of turning
Speaker 2: Ukraine into Russia's Vietnam. First of all, that's dumb, because
Speaker 2: Russia already had its Vietnam, it was called Afghanistan. But
Speaker 2: the reason why our Vietnam was Vietnam and theirs was
Speaker 2: Afghanistan was that it was arrogant military adventurism focused on
Speaker 2: territory far away from the core security interests of both regimes.
Speaker 2: The populations of the US and the USSR saw clearly
Speaker 2: that the immense cost of said wars in far from
Speaker 2: places was not worth any notional benefit of continuing with Ukraine.
Speaker 2: It is a very different story First of all, the
Speaker 2: West has basically given the Russians no option right now
Speaker 2: but capitulation. And second, it is literally next door for them,
Speaker 2: it's not far away. It is considered a core part
Speaker 2: of their sphere in their minds. And fighting and escalating
Speaker 2: there has a different cost benefit analysis for the Russian
Speaker 2: people and the Russian regime.
Speaker 4: So what do we do?
Speaker 2: We have a precipice. The current plan by Washington is simple,
Speaker 2: pour as much money into Ukraine politically and bleed the
Speaker 2: Russians dry with the hope that they eventually just fold
Speaker 2: one day. All of this is done with the Biden
Speaker 2: edict of nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine here too, Orbon
Speaker 2: popped the thought bubble of those in Washington, DC, making
Speaker 2: it clear the power behind this conflict is not Kiev,
Speaker 2: it is right here in Washington. Take a listen.
Speaker 11: First, you should admit, probably publicly acknowledging, that the keys
Speaker 11: in your hand. So if you United States would like
Speaker 11: to have a piece next morning, there is a peace.
Speaker 11: Because it's obvious that the Ukrainians, the poor Ukrainians on
Speaker 11: their own, they're not competitive in this world. So if
Speaker 11: there is no money and there is no equipments, from
Speaker 11: the best time, especially from United States.
Speaker 4: The word is over.
Speaker 11: Yes, the solution is in your hand, is in the
Speaker 11: hand of the your president. The president followed the future one.
Speaker 2: But you be solved.
Speaker 11: The United States can do it, nobody else. It's not
Speaker 11: the solution for the Ukrainians. Of course, it's about Ukrainians.
Speaker 11: They cannot be neglected. They must be involved. But the
Speaker 11: rieof factor is not Ukraine. The reof factory is intention
Speaker 11: of the United States.
Speaker 2: Yes, if our president wants peace, there will be peace.
Speaker 2: That's according to Orbon. This too is obvious looking at
Speaker 2: a basic chart of weapons and material going to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: We contribute more than the rest of the entire world combined,
Speaker 2: including the great powers of Europe. So obviously then we
Speaker 2: get the most.
Speaker 5: Say.
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna end with this. I'm not claiming whatsoever
Speaker 2: Orbon is the majority of view within NATO or even
Speaker 2: amongst former socialist republics. Obviously he is not. But it
Speaker 2: is vital to hear what he has to say, specifically
Speaker 2: because it allows for dissenting views and debates, descending views
Speaker 2: and debates, which did not happen when we lost our
Speaker 2: senses and we let every tiny nation of all of
Speaker 2: Eastern Europe into NATO without a single regard for the
Speaker 2: consequence of the future. Our current policy in Ukraine is
Speaker 2: signing us up for never ending bills, never ending military supply,
Speaker 2: and never ending diplomatic problems at a time when our
Speaker 2: attention in a different region of the world has never
Speaker 2: been more important. So I was really struck by what
Speaker 2: he had to say. And listen, I get it. I
Speaker 2: know everybody hates Hungary whatever. Okay, their Christian nation, Yes,
Speaker 2: they don't like immigrants, etc. Put that aside. We're not
Speaker 2: talking about that right now. We're talking about how do
Speaker 2: we see other how do other NATO Alliance members and
Speaker 2: people who were former socialist republics view the conflict, and
Speaker 2: where are we being honest about what the future looks like.
Speaker 2: That is probably the most stark admission that I have
Speaker 2: heard yet from an actual leader of NATO military state
Speaker 2: and who shares a massive land border with Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, I have no problem with Hungary.
Speaker 1: I do have some issues with Orbond, But I mean
Speaker 1: I think on this he's being way more honest than
Speaker 1: the thing I've heard from it. Yeah, American policy to
Speaker 1: be totally frank with you and you know, the part
Speaker 1: that really discussed me is we're effectively because he's obviously
Speaker 1: correct that the US is driving this train. That the
Speaker 1: fact that, you know, the way the war has been conducted,
Speaker 1: the you know, continued effort to push on, the continued
Speaker 1: effort to thwart any sort of peace talks or diplomatic
Speaker 1: negotiations that are like that is coming from Washington.
Speaker 3: We are driving this train.
Speaker 1: That has always been really clear, and when you really
Speaker 1: think about that, you come to realize we're using the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians as pawns.
Speaker 3: And it is a devastating tragedy in.
Speaker 1: That country, the number of people who are being killed
Speaker 1: and maimed and the whole nation upended and destroyed.
Speaker 3: And what is the plan, Like, what is the plan
Speaker 3: at this point?
Speaker 1: Because even the thing that's articulated like, well, I guess
Speaker 1: we're just going to keep doing I mean, that's keep
Speaker 1: doing this forever, Like even though that doesn't really make sense,
Speaker 1: do we really?
Speaker 3: How does that serve our interest? To anyone's interest?
Speaker 1: So the clarity of saying yes, it's the US has
Speaker 1: driving the train, and stop with the learned helplessness too,
Speaker 1: of pretending like, oh, Ukraine's doing these drone strikes, you know,
Speaker 1: look for the deepest into Russian territory, and we wish they.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't, but what can we. Of course you can do something.
Speaker 3: Of course you are not helpless in this situation.
Speaker 1: So to hear someone, even someone that I'm not a
Speaker 1: fan of, laying out there what feels to me like
Speaker 1: some real, unvarnished truths, I think is very worthwhile to
Speaker 1: listen to it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and that's what really just comes across
Speaker 2: is where he's like, look, this is on you. He's like,
Speaker 2: you guys are the ones.
Speaker 8: Who do it.
Speaker 2: I also really enjoyed. There's some different moments where he
Speaker 2: goes at us arrogance. He's like, oh, you guys fought
Speaker 2: the Cold War and you think you know something about Russia.
Speaker 2: He's like, why don't you ask people like us who
Speaker 2: are actually ruled by the Russians. He's like, we understand them.
Speaker 2: He you know, he was arrested actually for protesting against
Speaker 2: the Soviet regime. This isn't somebody who is pro Russian
Speaker 2: or whatever in any aspect of the world. He's just
Speaker 2: different in terms of his view of how they should
Speaker 2: conduct themselves in the Alliance. So anyway, but yeah, the
Speaker 2: other thing with that is.
Speaker 1: He was explained, you know, he was explaining, like you
Speaker 1: have to understand how the Russians think. But I don't
Speaker 1: think the way that they view this is so different
Speaker 1: from how we were Like the sanctions for example, you know,
Speaker 1: we had this idea that, oh, the sanctions will make
Speaker 1: life hard and they'll fold whatever. You know, first of
Speaker 1: all our own experience of trying to use sanctions, it
Speaker 1: has never worked out that way. But you know, even
Speaker 1: with the Ukrainian expectation that attacks on Russian soil would
Speaker 1: also weaken their resolve. I mean, historically it has had
Speaker 1: the exact opposite impact. If that happened to us, it
Speaker 1: would have the exact opposite impact. So I don't know
Speaker 1: that the Russian people, they you know, they've been propagandized
Speaker 1: and they're invested in this what is, you know, legal
Speaker 1: insane imperial project of putn that I don't support whatsoever.
Speaker 3: But I'm not sure that the way.
Speaker 1: That they view things is so different from how an
Speaker 1: American would view things if you put them in the
Speaker 1: same situation, the same protect that I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: All, Okay, We've got a great debate for everybody the
Speaker 2: TikTok kids versus each other. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Obviously, young voters are going to be really key in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, so we thought we would convene a
Speaker 1: big zoomer TikTok panel. We're very excited to have us
Speaker 1: joining this morning. We've got Harry Sisson. He is a
Speaker 1: very enthusiastic and outspoken Biden supporter. And we also have
Speaker 1: Link Lauren, who is a conservative, a little bit vivg curious,
Speaker 1: but I think still keeping his options open in terms
Speaker 1: of the GOP prime or fair to say Link, well.
Speaker 5: I'm wait, wait, wait, whoa, I'm an independent Okay, okay,
Speaker 5: very common sense.
Speaker 1: Moderate, Okay, all right, well we'll see about that as
Speaker 1: we get into the.
Speaker 4: Conversation anti Biden. I'm anti Biden for sure.
Speaker 1: Well that's gooreat Okay, Well we can get into all
Speaker 1: of that. Gentlemen, we're really glad to have both of you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for taking the time, Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1: Of course, so I wanted to start and Harry, I'll
Speaker 1: start with you, but I'll give you the same question
Speaker 1: to Link. You know, voters of your generation are basically
Speaker 1: not really feeling.
Speaker 3: Either party so much.
Speaker 1: And we've got some approval ratings of the leaders of
Speaker 1: the two parties we can put up on the screen here.
Speaker 1: So let's start with Joe Biden. I think he sits
Speaker 1: in this particular survey at thirty seven percent, and then
Speaker 1: Donald Trump very similar thirty seven percent, and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: sits at about the same percentage point right in the
Speaker 1: thirties thirty seven percent. So overwhelmingly unfavorable opinion of both
Speaker 1: of these two individuals among young voters. So Harry from
Speaker 1: your perspective as a Biden supporter, what are your peers
Speaker 1: getting wrong?
Speaker 5: I'm not necessarily sure it's what my peers are getting wrong.
Speaker 5: I think it's it possibly might be what the administration
Speaker 5: is doing wrong when it comes to messaging. Okay, I
Speaker 5: think that the admit the Biden administration has done so
Speaker 5: much for young people, you know, whether it's on climate
Speaker 5: change or historic investments in infrastructure or even education investments.
Speaker 5: There's a lot there that young people should be excited about.
Speaker 5: I mean, the largest investment in fighting climate change ever
Speaker 5: is something that we can all be really happy about,
Speaker 5: really excited about. But I think that on the occasion
Speaker 5: the administration does a poor job of kind of pitching
Speaker 5: these things to young people, which is of understandable giving
Speaker 5: the error we're in right now with social media and technology.
Speaker 5: I don't think anybody has really perfected how we get
Speaker 5: the message through social media. Like in terms of politics,
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people on social media have
Speaker 5: but not necessarily politics. So I think once we get
Speaker 5: that message out more, once we start saying, hey, look
Speaker 5: at all these amazing things that the Biden administration has
Speaker 5: done for young people, especially as we get close to
Speaker 5: the election, more money is involved in politics, opinions at
Speaker 5: least on favorability will start to shift.
Speaker 2: Okay, I love, go ahead.
Speaker 5: I love when the Biden administration says it's the messaging.
Speaker 5: They're like, people don't know how well we're doing for them.
Speaker 5: They just don't know how good they have it. It's
Speaker 5: almost like this cultural gas slighting, Like they think if
Speaker 5: they keep repeating Bidenomics, Bidenomics, Bidenomics over and over and over,
Speaker 5: young people are just going to have more money in
Speaker 5: their bank account. So it's not really translating. And I
Speaker 5: don't know if it's the messaging, because young people are
Speaker 5: just stressed financially. That's what I read every week and
Speaker 5: thousands of comments and messages.
Speaker 4: Link.
Speaker 3: Let me just link to follow up on that.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like the Republicans have offered an agenda
Speaker 1: that's resonating with young people or that you expect would
Speaker 1: resonate with young people. I do have some numbers I
Speaker 1: can put up on the screen for this as well. Sure,
Speaker 1: let's see gun put the third graphic up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This was some polling of how young people feel on
Speaker 1: a variety of issues. Is eighteen to twenty nine year olds.
Speaker 1: Over time, we've seen them getting increasingly progressive on a
Speaker 1: variety of issues. Here you've got on stricter gun laws,
Speaker 1: wanting action on climate change, on same sex relationships, on
Speaker 1: food and shelter being a basic right. So do you
Speaker 1: feel I know you've got a critique of Biden here,
Speaker 1: and frankly it's one that you know I partially share,
Speaker 1: But do you think that the Republicans are offering something
Speaker 1: that could really fill that void?
Speaker 5: Well, what I see from young people is they're much
Speaker 5: more beholden to policy than they are to political parties.
Speaker 5: So young people, they don't really care as much about
Speaker 5: Republican or Democrat. They want to vote for someone who's
Speaker 5: a transformational leader and who's actually going to help them.
Speaker 5: And I think young people really want someone who's closer
Speaker 5: to their age. To be honest, I'm not agis if
Speaker 5: Biden was some spry, whipper snapper, I'd say, go ahead,
Speaker 5: run for a second term. But the guy's pretty much incoherent,
Speaker 5: works two hours a day in a stumbling and falling down,
Speaker 5: so most people do not want him to seek reelection.
Speaker 2: So, Harry, you've been a pretty vociferous see laughing there
Speaker 2: about Biden's age. But I think it's a legitimate concern.
Speaker 2: So something percent of the American people agree, sixty nine
Speaker 2: percent of Democrats. Actually the vast majority of the people
Speaker 2: in your age group specifically, I guess kind of mine
Speaker 2: as well, also think that Biden is far too old
Speaker 2: to run for president. So whenever you're engaging, you know,
Speaker 2: with your audience, people who are you know, how do
Speaker 2: you try and convince them? What's the response here to
Speaker 2: the critique?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, look, I don't think that talking about
Speaker 5: his age is wrong. I don't think that it's an
Speaker 5: unfair critique. And I understand why, you know, some people
Speaker 5: might be concerned about his age, right, I get it,
Speaker 5: But I think that when we're talking about age, policy
Speaker 5: and accomplishments matter more. And the fact of the matter
Speaker 5: is this president has been one of the most accomplished,
Speaker 5: in my view, one of the best presidents in mind.
Speaker 5: And I'm happy to explain why just hold on the
Speaker 5: American Rescue Plan, the Byparsion Infrastructure Deal, a Bipartison, Savor
Speaker 5: Communities Act, the Packed Act, the Chips Act, rejoining the WHO,
Speaker 5: the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 8: I mean, list goes on, right.
Speaker 5: I think that when you're looking at this president, look
Speaker 5: at the policy, look at the productivity of this administration
Speaker 5: as opposed to, Oh, let's just talk about his age, which,
Speaker 5: as I said, a fair concern, but in my view,
Speaker 5: what we get done is more important than the age
Speaker 5: of the candidate.
Speaker 2: Okay, and then link you know what Chris Will asked
Speaker 2: you about policy and all of that. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: you went to NYU, both of you, gentlemen. Actually it's
Speaker 2: kind of interesting in order to think about two different
Speaker 2: trajectories crossing paths. I guess in the night, whenever we
Speaker 2: talk here about younger Republicans or even independent non democratic voters,
Speaker 2: do you actually see a more policy concern because mostly
Speaker 2: from what I could tell and from peers as well.
Speaker 2: A lot of it is around cultural concern and there's
Speaker 2: nothing wrong with that, but I do think that that
Speaker 2: is a major animating factor. I'm curious how you square
Speaker 2: your answer with kind of that observation that we've generally
Speaker 2: seen as dissonance to like what the overall cultural left
Speaker 2: is doing well.
Speaker 5: I definitely think the mainstream media is profiting heavy off
Speaker 5: of these culture war issues. And I knew Harry was
Speaker 5: going to have his DNC talking points. Who is going
Speaker 5: to list the chips at the inflation reduction as good stuff? No, no,
Speaker 5: I'm totally good for you. But I've been traveling across
Speaker 5: this country the past year, and when you go talk
Speaker 5: to maybe a rural voter in Iowa and a small
Speaker 5: town who owns a small business, they're not feeling the
Speaker 5: effects of those things. So in a New York Manhattan
Speaker 5: liberal elite bubble, you can list all of those accomplishments,
Speaker 5: but when you go out into the real world, people
Speaker 5: just aren't feeling it. They want someone new, they want
Speaker 5: someone different. So I'm not taking away that he's got
Speaker 5: these things past and the debt ceiling and all of
Speaker 5: that but people still want someone new.
Speaker 4: And I'll also point this out.
Speaker 5: If he has all of these accomplishments, why is he
Speaker 5: still neck and neck with Trump in the polls. Wouldn't
Speaker 5: there be a massive margin why I said, always one
Speaker 5: point here, one point here, half a point here.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't he just be winning by a landside.
Speaker 5: If they say Trump's a criminal and Trump's been indicted
Speaker 5: a thousand times and Biden is so great, clearly it's
Speaker 5: not sticking. Yeah, except you know, when we look at
Speaker 5: poles at this time, at different elections, they were never
Speaker 5: right right, like Rudy Giuliani was leading at this point.
Speaker 5: And I find the point of, you know, the liberal
Speaker 5: talking point in Manhattan to be interesting because it's not
Speaker 5: just you know, me going to NYU saying all these
Speaker 5: policies are great. It's like, no, the American people are
Speaker 5: really feeling this. Like the veterans who were exposed to
Speaker 5: talks of burn pits. Do you want to tell them that,
Speaker 5: you know, they're not actually feeling the benefits. The people
Speaker 5: who've had their kids lost to terrible mass shootings. Do
Speaker 5: you want to go tell them that the Byparts and
Speaker 5: Safer Communities Act, which expands red flag laws, background checks
Speaker 5: are not significant. Do you want to go tell the
Speaker 5: record low unemployment, the people who now have jobs, the
Speaker 5: more jobs that buy like thirteen million jobs and buyd
Speaker 5: administration would go tell those people that this administration is
Speaker 5: not working for them.
Speaker 8: I mean, or how about the people who were just
Speaker 8: coming out of COVID.
Speaker 5: President Biden inherited a constitutional crisis from Donald Trump in
Speaker 5: citing an insurrection action. You know, people are not vaccinated,
Speaker 5: Unemployment still high, nobody's making any money. Then President byen
Speaker 5: comes in, buys a lot of vaccines, get this market,
Speaker 5: gets the job market back open by making crucial investments.
Speaker 5: I mean, if you'd like to go tell those people
Speaker 5: that what they experienced was fake, then by all means,
Speaker 5: But I think we're going to listen to the American
Speaker 5: people especially. I mean, we can go into the women
Speaker 5: and their reproductive freedoms who are being stripped. I mean,
Speaker 5: how about that thirteen year old girl in Mississippi recently.
Speaker 8: Who's now a mother.
Speaker 5: I mean, do you want to go tell her that
Speaker 5: the Republican policy is working with this administration is fighting
Speaker 5: for when it comes to reproductive freedom is not real?
Speaker 5: I mean I think that sounds more like a conservative
Speaker 5: talking point and wherever you might be living right now,
Speaker 5: then you know the liberal Manhattan are combating like you know,
Speaker 5: average Americans or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Link.
Speaker 1: I did want to get your thoughts specifically on abortion,
Speaker 1: if you could respond on that piece, because obviously in
Speaker 1: elections this year and going back to the mid terms,
Speaker 1: it has been a.
Speaker 3: Big issue for Republicans.
Speaker 1: We just had an Ohio issue one which was very
Speaker 1: much a cro choice versus pro life. Even a red
Speaker 1: state like Ohio, overwhelmingly the pro choice side wins. So
Speaker 1: how do you think Republicans should be talking about that
Speaker 1: issue and how much do you think that that matters
Speaker 1: in terms of young people.
Speaker 5: Well, I would say a ton of Republicans are pro life,
Speaker 5: so they're totally fine with everything.
Speaker 4: But I'd like to point out I'm a gay guy.
Speaker 5: I don't have kids, I don't even date women, so
Speaker 5: me opining on abortion probably not the best person.
Speaker 3: An opinion life as I've for sure.
Speaker 5: But when I talk to people, I do realize tons
Speaker 5: of this country they are pro life, and you're gonna
Speaker 5: have people who are pro choice.
Speaker 4: So I'm not here to tell people who to vote
Speaker 4: for when they go to the ballot box.
Speaker 5: I'm just here to represent the thousands of comments and
Speaker 5: messages I read every week from people across this country.
Speaker 8: Oh, I will, I will, Yeah.
Speaker 5: Republicans across the country are trying to take women's reproductive freedoms.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's that's it's that simple. We don't have
Speaker 5: to dodge the question. We can just be honest about it.
Speaker 5: Republicans across this country are trying to take women's reproductive freedoms.
Speaker 5: We saw it on the debate stage, asked the Hutchinson
Speaker 5: bragging about all the pro life legislation is signed, Ronda
Speaker 5: Santis bragging about his heart built Tim Scott saying that
Speaker 5: he'll sign the most conservative pro life legislation of elected
Speaker 5: Donald Trump, saying that women should face women should face
Speaker 5: punishment if they get there an abortion.
Speaker 8: We have Alabama now suing.
Speaker 5: We're threatening to jail people who even assist women to
Speaker 5: get abortions. Not you know, the doctor, not the women,
Speaker 5: but even people who assist. This is the cris one
Speaker 5: of the biggest crisis of our times where we have
Speaker 5: Republicans directly infringing on the rights of women across this
Speaker 5: country and it's disgusting. So when you're looking at twenty
Speaker 5: twenty four, You're thinking, man, how do we get back
Speaker 5: to a time where women can actually choose what they
Speaker 5: want to do with their body? You look at President Biden,
Speaker 5: You look at the Democrats who have a record of
Speaker 5: putting on pro choice judges to different courts, and even
Speaker 5: the Department of Justice right now under President Biden, under
Speaker 5: Attorney General Merrick Garland have sued consistently in these Republican states.
Speaker 8: To get these bands over turned.
Speaker 5: Now, sorry, I don't want to take up too much time,
Speaker 5: but this is a very important issue.
Speaker 1: Well, Harry, how come Democrats didn't codify Roe versus Way
Speaker 1: when they could have? And how come, you know, even
Speaker 1: moving forward into this election, Because I'm on the same
Speaker 1: page as you are, I'm pro choice, you know, I
Speaker 1: would like to see Roe versus Wade at the very
Speaker 1: least be codified and put back into place. That's actually
Speaker 1: not the message, that's not actually what they're pushing for.
Speaker 1: What they are saying is we just won't do the
Speaker 1: bad things that the Republicans are doing. Don't Democrats owe women,
Speaker 1: young people, people across this country more of an affirmative
Speaker 1: agenda to restore the rights that were lost.
Speaker 3: Given that you do have these.
Speaker 1: At what are, in my opinion or a chrocist situations
Speaker 1: of you know, thirteen year olds being forced to bear
Speaker 1: their rapist babies. Don't they have a responsibility to go
Speaker 1: further than just saying we're better than the bad guys.
Speaker 8: Christ Like, I couldn't agree more, Right, I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 5: I think that in my view, though the administration has
Speaker 5: laid out, especially President Biden, how they intend to reinstate
Speaker 5: these rights, whether it be through judicial nominees. President Biden
Speaker 5: has always said, I will appoint pro choice justices if
Speaker 5: there's no opening on the Supreme Court, if Clarence Thompson
Speaker 5: the seventies, Alito in the seventies, Robert who served for
Speaker 5: fifteen years, President Biden has always said that. However, also
Speaker 5: President Biden said that he endorses removing the filibuster for
Speaker 5: codifying Robi Wade. Now, if we can get the Democratic
Speaker 5: senators that we need in the next election and retake
Speaker 5: the House, we'll do it.
Speaker 8: I'm so confident that it will get done.
Speaker 5: Now as to why it hasn't happened previously, you know,
Speaker 5: under President Obama had some super majorities, but a lot
Speaker 5: of those senators were from a lot more conservative states.
Speaker 5: The national sentiment on abortion wasn't the same. So do
Speaker 5: I blame those those southern or maybe not Southern Democrats,
Speaker 5: but those Democrats who were in those more conservative states
Speaker 5: for not using their power then and codifying it. Absolutely,
Speaker 5: But the political kind of landscape was just a little
Speaker 5: bit different then. But it's still a missed opportunity, and
Speaker 5: I think if we get that opportunity again, we will
Speaker 5: take it.
Speaker 2: Link Young voters number one issue at the polls. You
Speaker 2: said you're an independent, you're anti Biden. If you're young,
Speaker 2: why should you not vote for Biden? Well, I'm not
Speaker 2: here to tell anybody who to vote.
Speaker 4: For, right, Okay, Why to make their own decision.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Honestly, the biggest issue for me with Biden is
Speaker 5: the censorship on social media. I mean going back to
Speaker 5: court to try and overturn the lower court's ruling to
Speaker 5: censor social media content and steer the narrative. That's just
Speaker 5: never going to sit well with me. I think his
Speaker 5: calamitous trip to Maui last week really solidified it for me.
Speaker 5: I mean, you go to Maui and give a speech
Speaker 5: about almost losing your corvette and a small kitchen fire
Speaker 5: and making lib jokes and comments when people have lost everything,
Speaker 5: they've been torched to the ground. They can't find their families,
Speaker 5: they can't find their kids. He's cracking jokes. Then he
Speaker 5: hops on a plane to go back to his eighteen
Speaker 5: million dollar mansion in Lake Tahoe and take Pilate's classes
Speaker 5: and walk around a parking lot with a smoothie. I
Speaker 5: want a transformational new leader in this country to sit
Speaker 5: in the Oval office and really in that change. People
Speaker 5: need to see strength and see a real leader. And
Speaker 5: Joe Biden isn't giving me that, not giving young people that.
Speaker 1: But link it's not just about what you're against, it's
Speaker 1: also got to be what you're for. Very likely, the
Speaker 1: publican nominee is going to be Donald Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: Trump also censored on social media.
Speaker 3: You can see that, and you can see that.
Speaker 1: You can go and read the Twitter and you'll see
Speaker 1: his administration doing a lot of the same stuff that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration was doing. In fact, I mean the
Speaker 1: hunter Byden laptop thing happened while Trump was still president,
Speaker 1: So let's keep that in mind.
Speaker 3: That's number one. Number two.
Speaker 1: I mean, in terms of hurricane response. He was, you know,
Speaker 1: very late in terms of response to hurricane.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he took thirteen days. He showed up for two hours.
Speaker 3: Go back and look out, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Question, my question to you, my question to you directly,
Speaker 1: and then I'll get Harry in. My question directly is
Speaker 1: is Trump better than Biden? You know, would you if
Speaker 1: that's your choice, Trump v Biden or would you vote
Speaker 1: third party?
Speaker 8: Like?
Speaker 3: What would be your choice in that situation?
Speaker 4: And why? For sure?
Speaker 5: So the thing about American politics is you never know
Speaker 5: who's going to emerge.
Speaker 4: I mean, look at how many candidates were on.
Speaker 5: The stage last week, right, So I'm going to keep
Speaker 5: my options open and see who I feel in November
Speaker 5: of twenty Listen.
Speaker 3: But let's be real. This is what it's likely coming
Speaker 3: down to.
Speaker 1: Trump is like fifty percent ahead of everybody else. You know,
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley gained like three points after this debate. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to overcome.
Speaker 5: But if you get very like the Coffins, if you
Speaker 5: have the trial.
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to figure out where do you actually stand, Like,
Speaker 1: do you actually think Trump is better than Biden if
Speaker 1: that's your choice? Are you a Trump guy or are
Speaker 1: you on the fence. Are you looking at a third
Speaker 1: party candidates?
Speaker 2: I've never said anything about nails in the coppin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's yeah, No said definitely. So anyway, you know
Speaker 1: where that's your choice. Where do you stand, that's your choice?
Speaker 4: Honestly, traveling getting to know these candidates.
Speaker 5: I really like some other candidates, and I'm looking to
Speaker 5: see who's going to emerge in November of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Okay, see, but see.
Speaker 4: That. I'd also like to point out.
Speaker 2: Once we'll get to you, go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm an independent new media journalist, so I report
Speaker 5: on culture war stories. I follow politics very closely. It's
Speaker 5: not my place to tell people how to vote or
Speaker 5: exactly who I'm going to vote for. Harry obviously he
Speaker 5: made the decision to totally endorse Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: And if they were paying for my flights and hotels, maybe.
Speaker 8: I just hotels were paid for.
Speaker 5: Please put me in contact with who's going I would
Speaker 5: love to make a decision.
Speaker 4: I'm from a place of an influencer, so that's the difference.
Speaker 2: He respond, Go ahead, and respond, go ahead, sorry, guys,
Speaker 2: I apologize a crystal crystal sacres.
Speaker 5: So what we we just heard from my counterpart on
Speaker 5: the right is what we call a non answer. You
Speaker 5: you asked him a question, are you going to support Trump?
Speaker 5: He couldn't bring himself to support the four time indeted,
Speaker 5: disgrace warm president who's now a proven sexual abuse or
Speaker 5: rapist wait journalists.
Speaker 8: Or or you know, rapists as deemed in courts in
Speaker 8: New York.
Speaker 5: Right, couldn't just couldn't give you a determination there, but
Speaker 5: just to respond to what he said earlier, I mean,
Speaker 5: I think I think it's just when you asked him, like,
Speaker 5: why would he support Trump over Biden?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 5: Why why is he voting for Trump? He then cited
Speaker 5: President Biden going to Maui is one of his big reasons,
Speaker 5: and he's like, oh, he took her, sure, and the
Speaker 5: grand But he wasn't clamoring. I don't think he's brought
Speaker 5: up the fact that Donald Trump took fifteen days to
Speaker 5: go to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Mario, which killed thousands, Right,
Speaker 5: there's no there's no criticism there.
Speaker 8: He's like, oh, Biden took thirteen days.
Speaker 5: And the reason that Biden took thirteen days is because
Speaker 5: now he was on fire, like it's on safe for
Speaker 5: the president and the Secret Service to travel there. Along
Speaker 5: with the federal response going on, and the and the
Speaker 5: governor there was like, yeah, within six hours, the President
Speaker 5: met our needs. On the tenth, President Biden signed an emergence.
Speaker 4: Wasn't Tulci Gabert.
Speaker 5: The next day, on the tenth, President Biden signed an
Speaker 5: emergency declaration. So look, you can clamor in with Toulci
Speaker 5: Gabbert this or that or President Biden, but you know,
Speaker 5: the people who are actually in Hawaii are saying, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 5: President Biden met all our needs within hours. Like he's
Speaker 5: been great. The federal response has been fantastic. I don't know,
Speaker 5: because I've.
Speaker 2: Seen complicated Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 8: I've seen people.
Speaker 5: I've seen people in Maui on their local news station
Speaker 5: saying screw Joe Biden. They put up a sign over
Speaker 5: their businesses saying We're sorry you lost your corvette in
Speaker 5: the fire. You know, like I don't know if the
Speaker 5: people in Maui were still but you know, God bless.
Speaker 5: I'm just saying, can.
Speaker 4: Ike real quick?
Speaker 3: Yeah go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yes, this comparison between me and Harry, I feel it's
Speaker 5: a false comparison. Harry is an influencer who's decided to
Speaker 5: totally endorse Joe Biden, which is his prerogative right. I'm
Speaker 5: a new media journalist. My medium happens to be TikTok, right.
Speaker 5: It's not my place to opine or tell people who
Speaker 5: to vote vote for. I'm not owned by a political party.
Speaker 5: I'm not owned by media conglomerate. I cover the news.
Speaker 4: I look at a lot of information and I give
Speaker 4: you my take.
Speaker 3: That's it, Okay, So let's close.
Speaker 1: Let's close by forcing each of you to sort of
Speaker 1: steal man the other one's position. So link what, in
Speaker 1: your opinion, is the best thing that Joe Biden has
Speaker 1: done and potentially the best reason for young people who
Speaker 1: are considering voting for him to vote for him.
Speaker 5: Honestly, I can't think of one reason to vote for
Speaker 5: Joe Biden. I would say, if you're pro choice, you're
Speaker 5: definitely going to lean toward Biden, and I think that's
Speaker 5: up to a woman to make that decision. But for
Speaker 5: me personally, I'm not going to list all the accomplishments.
Speaker 5: We just heard Harry list fifty different things.
Speaker 3: So one thing he gave, not one thing that you
Speaker 3: think that he did that was like, all right, that
Speaker 3: was okay?
Speaker 5: I The thing is also, you guys, like I said,
Speaker 5: I'm not telling people to vote for Trump for Biden.
Speaker 5: I'm keeping options open. I really want a transformational, younger leader.
Speaker 5: I mean, look what happened with Mitch McConnell yesterday. Look
Speaker 5: at Diane Einstein, look at Joe Biden. Is it crazy
Speaker 5: to say, hey, can we have someone maybe in their
Speaker 5: sixties or fifties, someone who really speaks to us and
Speaker 5: understands the twenty first century issues we have with cybersecurity
Speaker 5: and so many other things. Also, I don't really want
Speaker 5: a president pushing us deeper deeper, deeper into conflict with Ukraine, Russia,
Speaker 5: et cetera, just to be honest.
Speaker 4: And we didn't even touch on that.
Speaker 3: Okay, Harry, what about for you?
Speaker 1: What do you think is the biggest mistake or disappointment
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration?
Speaker 8: Wow?
Speaker 5: The biggest mistake or disappointment the cocaine in the White House,
Speaker 5: the granddaughter, and.
Speaker 4: The border O.
Speaker 2: The border.
Speaker 8: No, not at all.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm from Texas, so I'm just saying, oh, you're
Speaker 5: from Texas. Yeah, so I'm saying open border is not
Speaker 5: really my thing. I'd like to well, listen, I'll try
Speaker 5: to answer the question. But if you were, if you
Speaker 5: had say no cards, if he wasn't answering, if you were,
Speaker 5: of course, of course, if he was honest and not disingenuous,
Speaker 5: he wouldn't be talking about an open border.
Speaker 8: But in terms of.
Speaker 5: Administration one failure. I think that the build back better.
Speaker 5: We had something great there and past was unfortunate. And
Speaker 5: I wish that child the child tax credit would have
Speaker 5: been longer. And I understand that politics Scott in the way,
Speaker 5: and maybe it wasn't it was was I'm possible with
Speaker 5: mansion in cinema, but I wouldn't necessarily call it failure,
Speaker 5: but something I wish it would have happened under.
Speaker 2: His first child tax credit. Okay, gentlemen, each of you,
Speaker 2: this is a lot of fun. But link tell people
Speaker 2: where they can find you, and then Harry.
Speaker 5: You can find me at It's link Lauren on TikTok
Speaker 5: and Twitter. And I also want to say thank you
Speaker 5: guys for having me and also for Harry. I really
Speaker 5: do wish you the best. I went to n Yu
Speaker 5: also and I do like your content. I like seeing
Speaker 5: young people involved in politics for sure, and as a
Speaker 5: big brother, I just want to say I'm so excited
Speaker 5: to see you travel across the country and meet more
Speaker 5: voters in different areas and hear their needs and their concerns,
Speaker 5: because I do think your content will become more nuance, nuanced,
Speaker 5: and you'll have more empathy for other people.
Speaker 4: Sure, but.
Speaker 8: Listen, I won't.
Speaker 5: I won't.
Speaker 8: I won't throw the low blow. I want to throw
Speaker 8: the low blow. Listen.
Speaker 4: I'm seriously wish. They have a show to do.
Speaker 8: They have a show to do. They have a show
Speaker 8: to do.
Speaker 5: All right, anyways, Sorry, guys, you can find me on
Speaker 5: every every platform. Harry Jasis and likewise Chris appreciate you
Speaker 5: guys so much.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: There you go, okays, go by you guys. Right? Is
Speaker 2: that the is that the right one?
Speaker 4: Harry is at the violet of the bobcat? I don't know.
Speaker 5: Whatever.
Speaker 3: All right, gentlemen, that was fun.
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed that. For people who are just listening,
Speaker 2: you got to watch that man that was There was
Speaker 2: a lot of motive you have for which that was
Speaker 2: musty content. Thank you very much. For our producer Griffin,
Speaker 2: it was his idea in order to get this done,
Speaker 2: and he wrangled all the scheduling for that so We
Speaker 2: appreciate everybody who watches the show and it helps us
Speaker 2: out here Breakingpoints dot com. Everyone have a fantastic Labor
Speaker 2: Day weekend. Everybody check out, have a great time. We
Speaker 2: will be back here on Tuesday and we'll see you
Speaker 2: then