Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
Speaker 1: show for everybody today. We have Crystal.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we do many very interesting actually stories in the
Speaker 2: show today. So we're going to start off with Trump
Speaker 2: issuing quite a hawkish statement. You might say it israel
Speaker 2: first statement on true social will break down that for you.
Speaker 2: I've also got a Hamas response to that true social statement.
Speaker 2: We've got some media reactions pulled for you after the
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden pardon that I think you may enjoy.
Speaker 3: We certainly did.
Speaker 2: We've also got some details worry about how retailers are
Speaker 2: planning to respond to potential Trump tariffs, as well as
Speaker 2: some very troubling indicators about the state of the housing
Speaker 2: market and just how difficult it is to get your
Speaker 2: foot on that initial first home buyer ladder. So break
Speaker 2: that down for you something we always want to keep
Speaker 2: our eye on. Saga and I get and get into
Speaker 2: this debate about the UK Assisted Dying Bill. Very interesting
Speaker 2: and fraught conversation that has been going on worldwide. AOC
Speaker 2: is being floated for president.
Speaker 3: What do we think of that idea?
Speaker 2: And excited to have jenk Youeger join me here in
Speaker 2: the studio this morning to talk about how to approach
Speaker 2: this Trump administration this time around. So that should be
Speaker 2: a good conversation. I always enjoy talking to Jank.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's going to be fun, and he will be
Speaker 1: in studio to talk with Crystal. It's always going to
Speaker 1: be exciting. So before we get to that, thank you
Speaker 1: to all of our premium subscribers who submitted questions. As
Speaker 1: we said, Crystal's going to be sitting down with John
Speaker 1: Favreau for a future conversation about the Democratic Party. You
Speaker 1: guys submitted amazing questions that were extremely helpful, and we're
Speaker 1: actually going to ask John some of those in the interviews.
Speaker 1: That's really excited.
Speaker 2: Yeah, genuinely, guys, I read through all the questions last night,
Speaker 2: and you guys impressed the hell out of me. I
Speaker 2: was like, maybe I should just outsource this entire because genuinely,
Speaker 2: really smart, thoughtful question So I'm excited to talk to him.
Speaker 3: Should be really.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, and it's going to be released early for
Speaker 1: our premium subscribers. You guys are gonna have for success
Speaker 1: to that, and it'll come out a little bit later
Speaker 1: for everybody else. But yeah, we're really excited, and thank
Speaker 1: you to all of our premium sscarbs. Make sure you
Speaker 1: sign up for future stuff like that. You guys can
Speaker 1: submit questions continually as we continue Big Book, Big Book,
Speaker 1: Big Book, Big Guests.
Speaker 4: That's a tyfficult one here for the jet lag brain.
Speaker 3: I was going to say, Sagar is still startling jet leg. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I was open the Coffee Wonder.
Speaker 4: One to three am. It's an interesting hour. I don't
Speaker 4: recommend being awake for Yeah, it is so brutal.
Speaker 1: So this is probably the toughest jet leg really well,
Speaker 1: I mean it's the it's the farthest I've ever traveled.
Speaker 3: I was going to say, is that is it the
Speaker 3: most extreme?
Speaker 1: I think so yeah. I mean I can't even think
Speaker 1: what's another country that would be even more so? I think,
Speaker 1: what is Australia? We'll check later.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, we just actually looked. I think it's
Speaker 2: like sixteen. I don't know, it's something like that, but anyway, comparable. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean India I think was my furtherest and what
Speaker 2: is that twelve or third?
Speaker 1: That's about eleven and a half twelve, It depends.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I just remember being in the middle of
Speaker 2: the day and like that feeling of there is no
Speaker 2: way I'm gonna make it to eight pm, nine pm,
Speaker 2: like it's not happening.
Speaker 3: So anyway, but we're glad you're back.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Also, last thing before we jumping into the show, if
Speaker 2: you were not able to become a premium subscriber, which
Speaker 2: we totally get, if you could help us out by liking,
Speaker 2: sharing the leaving us, you know, a five star.
Speaker 3: Review on the podcast.
Speaker 2: All of those things really really help out the show
Speaker 2: a lot. As Soccer mentioned yesterday, you know, of we
Speaker 2: don't do any marketing promotion. It's all word of mouth,
Speaker 2: and you guys are like the essential part of that.
Speaker 2: So if you can help us out there, we really
Speaker 2: appreciate it. All right, let's go and jump into what
Speaker 2: Trump had to say on True Social about Israel and
Speaker 2: Gaza and Hamas and the hostages. Put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen, so he says, everybody is talking about the
Speaker 2: hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanly and against
Speaker 2: the will of the entire world in the Middle least.
Speaker 3: But it's all talk and no action. Okay. Please let
Speaker 3: this truth serve.
Speaker 2: To represent that if the hostages are not released prior
Speaker 2: to January twentieth, twenty twenty five, the date that I
Speaker 2: probably assume office, there will be in all caps, all
Speaker 2: hell to pay in the Middle East and for those
Speaker 2: in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against humanity, those responsible
Speaker 2: will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in
Speaker 2: the long and storied history of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: And an all cap release the hostages. Now we now
Speaker 2: have a response from Hamas from Jeremy Scahill tweeted this
Speaker 2: out and I'll just read it to you, guys. We
Speaker 2: didn't have time to make an an element for it.
Speaker 2: They say the Hamas Political Bureau Number one. Since the
Speaker 2: beginning of this genocide, Hamas has publicly announced and been
Speaker 2: active in seeking permanent ceasefire to enny Israeli aggression against
Speaker 2: our people, a deal which would have included a full
Speaker 2: prisoner's exchange.
Speaker 3: Two.
Speaker 2: However, Netanyahu has sabotaged all these attempts. At many times,
Speaker 2: we were extremely close to signing on a deal, but
Speaker 2: due to his savage act and decisions, these deals broke down.
Speaker 1: Three.
Speaker 2: Therefore, Hamas understands that Trump's message is actually directed first
Speaker 2: towards Netanyahu and his government. They need to end their
Speaker 2: evil game by using negotiations as a cover for their
Speaker 2: personal political ideological interests. For Hamas is committed to immediately
Speaker 2: implementing the Security Council Resolution two seven three five and
Speaker 2: the deals struck on July second, twenty twenty four, that's
Speaker 2: the one that Biden talked about. We are looking forward
Speaker 2: to the daytime seeing an end of this genocide against
Speaker 2: our people, their free returned back to their homes all
Speaker 2: over the Gaza Strip, and our prisoners from both sides
Speaker 2: freed and enjoying living against amongst their families again. And
Speaker 2: number six, our people are eager to secure a better
Speaker 2: future for their children, full of hope, dignity, and prosperity.
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean the absurdity of Trump's statement, Sager
Speaker 2: is as if violence against Hamas has.
Speaker 3: Not yet been tried.
Speaker 2: And you know, he really positioned himself and sent out
Speaker 2: a lot of indicators to the Muslim American, Arab American
Speaker 2: and young community in America that he would be more
Speaker 2: you know, amenable to piece, that he would be less
Speaker 2: hawkish in this region. There was always very little reason
Speaker 2: to believe that it would actually be the case. This
Speaker 2: statement certainly flies in the face of that outreach. But
Speaker 2: Jeremy made an important point as well in this Twitter thread.
Speaker 2: Apparently ceasefire negotiations have restarted, and so he interpreted this
Speaker 2: as a way for Trump to try to claim credit. Yes,
Speaker 2: that's exactly, Oh if those ceasefire negotiations ultimately bear some
Speaker 2: sort of fruit.
Speaker 1: I think Trump is a student of history, and one
Speaker 1: of the things that Republicans always love to hold on
Speaker 1: to is the Iranian hostage crisis. And so in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty a lot of people forget this, but the Iranian
Speaker 1: hostages were actually the American hostages held by iran were
Speaker 1: released on the day of President Reagan's inauguration. That's another
Speaker 1: reason why he was so.
Speaker 2: Reagan people were back channeling with the Iranians in order
Speaker 2: to sort of rig that election in that way.
Speaker 1: All right, that's true, yes, and no, Okay, the Carter
Speaker 1: people look that this is too much of a rabbit
Speaker 1: hole to go down. The point is is that the
Speaker 1: Reagan people have always celebrated the fact that the Iranians
Speaker 1: were so afraid of President Reagan that they were willing
Speaker 1: to release the hostages there on his inauguration day, President
Speaker 1: Carter flew over on Air Force one.
Speaker 4: To go and to pick them up during this said inauguration.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of complicated reasons as to why
Speaker 1: all of that release and all that eventually did happen,
Speaker 1: But the point is is that it was a great
Speaker 1: pr coup for a round rig and that's something that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wants to recreate here. Well as to what exactly,
Speaker 1: what does he say all hell will break loose or
Speaker 1: you know, there will be hell to pay? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was my immediate reaction. I'm like, what exactly has
Speaker 1: Israel not done to the Gaza strip that the United
Speaker 1: States would be able to do. Maybe presumably he means
Speaker 1: going after Hajamas funders or you know, Iran or Hezbola
Speaker 1: or any of those, but even that, you know, of course,
Speaker 1: would be something that it would be diametrically opposed to
Speaker 1: the things he said. It is almost certain what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do is to both signal being pro Israel
Speaker 1: on this by saying all hell will be there to
Speaker 1: pay while the ceasefire negotiations are happening. And we should
Speaker 1: forget that there was that initial backchannel from Donald Trump
Speaker 1: to net and Yahoo where he's like, look, dude, this
Speaker 1: He's like, you do what you need to do. But
Speaker 1: by the time I take office, this shit needs to
Speaker 1: be over. So it could be very much that this
Speaker 1: is a back channel as well, trying to take credit
Speaker 1: for any eventual hostage cease fire negotiation by telling the Israelis, look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to put this out there. I mean, part
Speaker 1: of why this is all so ridiculous too, is that
Speaker 1: you know, these rallies, you know, at least the net
Speaker 1: Yahoo government, they they long since have not cared a
Speaker 1: lot about these.
Speaker 3: They don't even pretend anymore.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's part of what feels sort of like
Speaker 2: quaint about this Trump Well message is.
Speaker 1: Like, because a hostage was confirmed, Dad, yesterday there was
Speaker 1: an America dual citizens.
Speaker 2: So American Israeli hostage who was thought to be held
Speaker 2: captive was actually killed on October seventh, is the news
Speaker 2: that came out. But yeah, I mean that's what felt
Speaker 2: sort of like dissonant, like a throwback in this statement
Speaker 2: is that the nat Yahoo government they don't even pretend
Speaker 2: to care about the hostages anymore. You know, the faction
Speaker 2: you'll love Goalt, who also my opinion, is monster and
Speaker 2: has been also indicted by the International Criminal Court for
Speaker 2: crime skits humanity. He was in the faction that said, Okay,
Speaker 2: we need to prioritize getting the hostagees home. That is
Speaker 2: a signific I don't know if it's a majority position,
Speaker 2: but that is a position that's held by a significant
Speaker 2: amount of the Israeli public. It's not that they care
Speaker 2: about Palestinians, but they were very interested in getting the
Speaker 2: hostages home. That path has been completely for it at
Speaker 2: this point. It's undeniable that you know, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: like Hamas has been great actors here or whatever, but
Speaker 2: the primary roadblock to securing some sort of hostage deal
Speaker 2: has been NETANYAHUO.
Speaker 3: And it really was that moment when.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden goes out gives that big speech, says, Israel
Speaker 2: has agreed to this hostage release deal and now it's
Speaker 2: in Hamas's court for you guys to agree, and Hamas
Speaker 2: is basically like okay, and then Israel was like, wait,
Speaker 2: actually no, we don't like this deal anymore. And it's
Speaker 2: constantly throwing out poison pills and thwarting negotiations however they can,
Speaker 2: and at this point they just don't even really pretend
Speaker 2: that that's going on. So now they're back at the
Speaker 2: seas Far negotiation table. I don't know how realistic it
Speaker 2: is that you know, there's going to be a deal
Speaker 2: struck at this point, but we're also at a point
Speaker 2: of such utter and complete devastation and Gaza it's.
Speaker 3: Like what more are you going to do?
Speaker 2: You know, the number of deaths, the amount of rubble,
Speaker 2: the just sheer devastation. And obviously he has parts of
Speaker 2: his coalition who are very very open and upfront about
Speaker 2: they want to completely take over Gaza, they want to
Speaker 2: resettle Gaza. This is Benkavir and Smotrich and Trumps put
Speaker 2: into his ministration. You know, people like my Kakabee who
Speaker 2: would be very amenable to that direction, who are more
Speaker 2: aligned with that faction, the most extreme faction of an
Speaker 2: already extreme government, than certainly with the U of Gallants
Speaker 2: of the world. So that's kind of the context for
Speaker 2: all of this. And you know, speaking of ceasefires, there's
Speaker 2: also supposedly a ceasefire that was struck with you know,
Speaker 2: the US's negotiating assistance between Israel and Hezbolah. But Israel
Speaker 2: has just continued to strike when and however and whenever
Speaker 2: they want to in the face of this purported ceasefire agreement.
Speaker 2: Even CNN is reporting on exactly this dynamic. Let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: I want to be very clear though, Dana, that there
Speaker 6: have been continuous violations since this ceasfire took effect. Early
Speaker 6: Wednesday morning, CNN spoke to a UN peacekeeping source who
Speaker 6: says that Israel has violated that ceasefire about one hundred times.
Speaker 6: But there are many people on both sides of this
Speaker 6: border who are desperately hoping that this doesn't escalate further
Speaker 6: and that the ceasefire prevails.
Speaker 2: So CNN saying there that and by the way, this
Speaker 2: ceasefire agreement is days old. This is not like it's
Speaker 2: been in place for a month. And already they're reporting
Speaker 2: that there have been some hundred violations of the ceasefire agreement.
Speaker 2: R and Ryan Grimm, as the State Department spokespeople, what
Speaker 2: they what the response to was to this, you know,
Speaker 2: to this result. Can Israel just continued to fire with
Speaker 2: impunity in the face of this negotiated seas our deal
Speaker 2: is take a listen to that response.
Speaker 7: A little bit more background on the side letter that
Speaker 7: the US sent to Israel regarding the ceasefire arrangement with
Speaker 7: Hesbela and Israel. What does it allow Israel to do?
Speaker 8: Look, I don't have anything more I can speak to
Speaker 8: about the ceasefire agreement, but I will say that a
Speaker 8: lot of the reporting around the ceasefire agreement tends to
Speaker 8: treat his news that Israel can exercise what ultimately is
Speaker 8: a right that every country has. Every country has the
Speaker 8: right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. Israel has that right,
Speaker 8: Lebanon has that right. Every country in the world has
Speaker 8: that right.
Speaker 7: The United States often characterizes Israeli attacks as defense France
Speaker 7: says that Israel has violated the ceasefire fifty two times
Speaker 7: at this point. But if they're just recouched as Israel
Speaker 7: defending itself, is Israel allowed to continue to attack Hesbela
Speaker 7: as long as it says that was self defense, that
Speaker 7: was self defense because.
Speaker 8: I said, in response to questions, we have a mechanism
Speaker 8: that we have set up to look at these exact
Speaker 8: questions and to look at reports of ceasefire violations and
Speaker 8: to determine whether in fact they were violations of the ceasefire,
Speaker 8: whether in fact, if an incident was in some way
Speaker 8: justified because somebody had come under the threat of harm.
Speaker 8: And I'm not going to make those judgments from here
Speaker 8: before that group has the opportunity to work through these questions.
Speaker 8: That's why we set it up in the first place.
Speaker 2: Right, They've got a mechanism, sagern here we'll I'll hold
Speaker 2: our breath and waiting for that conclusion and the accountability
Speaker 2: which will come on the other side of that.
Speaker 1: As yeah, man, not much of a surprise. This is
Speaker 1: part of what Donald Trump also will inherit. And then
Speaker 1: it's going to be a very tricky situation because on
Speaker 1: the one side, he's got a very pro Israel coalition.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's got some of the very very hawkish
Speaker 1: pro Israel members who are all part of his national
Speaker 1: security apparatus, who are very would you know, and even
Speaker 1: the Republican celebration I saw. I mean it's online, granted,
Speaker 1: but certainly and amongst a lot of the pros for
Speaker 1: all folks, they are like, we've been waiting for somebody
Speaker 1: to say something like this, and it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: if an American Delta Force soldier gets killed in a
Speaker 1: hostage raid, you know, to free Israelis, like we should
Speaker 1: be asking the question here and like was it worth it?
Speaker 1: You know, how many American lives? Is it worth to
Speaker 1: free a bunch of Israeli hostages? And especially why can
Speaker 1: they accomplish what the IDF, which we're told is such
Speaker 1: a competent and incredible military, what are they supposed to do?
Speaker 1: The Israeli Air Force? I mean, what bombs could we
Speaker 1: drop on Gaza that would compel a Hamas ceasefire or
Speaker 1: compel a Hamas release that the Israelis have not bought
Speaker 1: dropped and we've given them almost everything that we have,
Speaker 1: we don't even we barely have any ammunition left.
Speaker 4: Ourselves, which is the irony of this entire situation.
Speaker 1: So we'll see. And I think he is a certain
Speaker 1: he's set up for it just as difficult as a
Speaker 1: task as Biden, if anything more difficult, because he has
Speaker 1: to please the most pro Israeli factions of the people
Speaker 1: we made promises to and others, and all of that
Speaker 1: is against his goal ultimately of peace. Again, I still
Speaker 1: think that his statement is trying to compel some sort
Speaker 1: of back channel of trying to achieve the cease fire
Speaker 1: and pressure on the Israelis to wind down the conflict,
Speaker 1: because at least we could say this for Trump, what
Speaker 1: is his always criticism of Israel. It's bad pr but
Speaker 1: he knows it's bad for him. You know, he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to deal with this. He really doesn't want to
Speaker 1: deal with a major war in the Middle East because
Speaker 1: he understands too probably that he can get pulled into
Speaker 1: this very quickly, especially with some massive fire, you know,
Speaker 1: with Lebanon, with Syria now that's exploding. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a goddamn mess. It hasn't been like this since twenty fourteen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know, you really this is the worst possible
Speaker 1: situation for an American president to want to walk into
Speaker 1: he should be and wanting to do everything to bring
Speaker 1: this to a close.
Speaker 4: And my hope is that this is part of that.
Speaker 1: Again, knowing him, he just wants to recreate the Reagan magic.
Speaker 1: That's immediately when I saw that, I was like, this
Speaker 1: is a Reagan move. Now can he pull off what
Speaker 1: Reagan did? I mean, that's a more.
Speaker 2: Difficult The only thing that I would say in response
Speaker 2: to that that everything you said is correct. But the
Speaker 2: difference for Trump is that his entire coalition is pretty
Speaker 2: united behind hawkish pro Israel stance. And part of what
Speaker 2: was difficult for Biden to navigate politically, which he did
Speaker 2: a very poor job of, is that Democrats overwhelmingly are
Speaker 2: not in favor of this hawkish uniformly unanimously pro Israel stance,
Speaker 2: and Democratic donors are somewhat divided, most of them are
Speaker 2: pretty pro Israel. But then the base was really on
Speaker 2: board with first the cease fire and certain and then
Speaker 2: you know, very strongly on board with embargoing weapons shipments,
Speaker 2: and so there were and obviously you had this you know,
Speaker 2: very activist movement on college campus and other places from
Speaker 2: the left which is somewhat in the Democratic Party coalition
Speaker 2: that he also.
Speaker 3: Had to contend with.
Speaker 2: You don't have that same push pull, you know, push
Speaker 2: and pull within the Republican coalition. So you know, for
Speaker 2: him to come out with an aggressive statement like this,
Speaker 2: like a few people Dave Smith won't be happy about it.
Speaker 2: You won't be happy like there will be a few people.
Speaker 2: But by and large, overwhelmingly his coalition and his donors
Speaker 2: and his base are good with this. And so that
Speaker 2: pushes all in one direction, which is, you know, consistent aggressive.
Speaker 2: Whatever Israel wants, whatever Miriam wants, they're going to ultimately get.
Speaker 2: And of course you see that in the personnel here.
Speaker 1: You're not incorrect. But and this is when there's a dog,
Speaker 1: what is the dog catches the tail element to this too. Again,
Speaker 1: like let's you want to see what the logical conclusion
Speaker 1: of this. It's Americans dying to free Israeli hostages. If
Speaker 1: maybe you think that's worth it, that's fine, you know,
Speaker 1: you can exercise You're right in your opinion. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's worth it, especially if it comes to actually
Speaker 1: active combat. Let's say that there is some major bombing
Speaker 1: and that invites you know, further attacks on Americans and
Speaker 1: then we end up into some tit for tat with
Speaker 1: Iran again why you know, for what purpose? And that
Speaker 1: is the reality which Donald Trump would have to confront. Now.
Speaker 1: I will have at least some faith that in the
Speaker 1: past he's been afraid of getting into those situations like
Speaker 1: pulling off or calling off the shootdown of that Iranian
Speaker 1: plane in response to shooting down an American on man spyplane,
Speaker 1: and in general has shown an aversion to getting embroiled
Speaker 1: into deep conflict. Now he also can get dragged there
Speaker 1: very easily, considering a lot of the people that he
Speaker 1: has in front, he has behind him who will be
Speaker 1: advising in the interagency process and in terms of the
Speaker 1: options that will be presented to him. So we'll see.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do remember the very first well I
Speaker 1: think it was week one, maybe week two of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, there was an American Navy seal who was
Speaker 1: killed in combat in Yemen, and that was a big deal,
Speaker 1: you know, here in Washington. And actually that was a
Speaker 1: kind of a formative incident as well for Trump because
Speaker 1: the raid had been previously approved by the Obama people
Speaker 1: kind of and then Trump came in and he was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's be hawkish, let's do it, and then he saw
Speaker 1: what a nightmarit. You know, our operation was this guy
Speaker 1: was killed and the helicopter crash, et cetera.
Speaker 3: I mean remember that, very hawkish swords Iran though.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but at the end they we didn't get into
Speaker 1: a war with Ronnie killed. Cost some solamony, okay, yeah, but.
Speaker 2: They did retaliate and they you know, struck our service members.
Speaker 2: A number of them sustained traumatic brain injury. So it's
Speaker 2: not like you're right, we didn't end up in a war.
Speaker 2: But that's the gamble that he's willing to take. So
Speaker 2: you know, this is not just bluster in the past.
Speaker 2: It's been backed up by you know, hawkish actions vis
Speaker 2: are the Iran in the region.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Look, he and the people behind him are united around
Speaker 1: like a confrontation and a hawkish policy towards Iran. Trump himself,
Speaker 1: though it at least says he wants a deal, so
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know whatever, you can take that
Speaker 1: to the bank. He's the one, also only one who
Speaker 1: pulled out of the Iran deal, and the status quo
Speaker 1: basically hasn't changed at all. He has said we don't
Speaker 1: want any regime change. We're all war with Iran. I
Speaker 1: think that's good. I hope that we stick to it.
Speaker 1: But what concerns me the most really is not Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's the inner agency stuff. It's people like Mike Waltz
Speaker 1: and Marco Rubio and all these other people. When I mean,
Speaker 1: if you think about it, there will be one voice
Speaker 1: in the situation room who is not all that hawkish
Speaker 1: on Iran, or at least previously. His name is Jadievans.
Speaker 1: He's the only boy sitting right there, the only person
Speaker 1: who spoke out against the Solimani thing. But he was
Speaker 1: a private citizen. He wasn't an elected official, right and
Speaker 1: didn't have to answer to the the Miriam Adelson's and
Speaker 1: all of them of the world, every single other person
Speaker 1: in the situation room, the generals and.
Speaker 4: All these other they've been itching.
Speaker 1: This is what they love. This the centcom commanders, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You know, Pete Hagsath and all of them. He's very
Speaker 1: pro Israel. So this is the one area where that's
Speaker 1: a major blind spot for any of their anti war positioning.
Speaker 1: And as usual, you know, with ideology, big money and
Speaker 1: all that, it is the easiest way to embroil the
Speaker 1: United States into a major conflict, so watch out. But
Speaker 1: you know, look, this was also a risk that I
Speaker 1: got at least say this. If you voted for Trump
Speaker 1: and you're upset about this, then you just weren't paying
Speaker 1: any of it. No, I think that's right.
Speaker 4: Let's be honest, that's absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: I mean I knew going clear eye into this. I'm like,
Speaker 1: this is gonna be the most proseral administration in American history.
Speaker 1: Didn't love it, but you know, you had a way
Speaker 1: of checks and balances. But anybody who was telling you
Speaker 1: that it was going to be opposite, then honestly you
Speaker 1: got to take.
Speaker 4: It for a rut.
Speaker 2: Yeah, don't believe those people ever. Again, certainly we have
Speaker 2: some other updates we want to get to with regard
Speaker 2: to Israel and the Gaza stripe. We can put this
Speaker 2: up on the screen. So five Palestinians, including three World
Speaker 2: Central Kitchen workers, have been killed after a car belonging
Speaker 2: to the World Central Kitchen was targeted by an Israeli
Speaker 2: drone in Gaza's con Unit City. You may recall this
Speaker 2: is not the first time that Israel has targeted World
Speaker 2: Central Kitchen. Aid workers. This is Jose Andre's outfit. You
Speaker 2: will also recall that the first time this happened, there
Speaker 2: was a large uproar here in DC and across the country,
Speaker 2: I mean really around the globe. But you know, it
Speaker 2: was the first time that people in DC were like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, someone I know is actually connected to
Speaker 2: the slaughter. And so there was a significant amount of
Speaker 2: concern and outrage. But ultimately was there accountability?
Speaker 3: Of course not.
Speaker 2: And so this time when this you know, these aid workers,
Speaker 2: these Palestinian aid workers, including World Central kitchen workers are
Speaker 2: struck and killed, you barely hear anything about it. And
Speaker 2: you know, it's the perfect story of the way that
Speaker 2: lack of accountability breeds impunity.
Speaker 3: And it's the same.
Speaker 2: Story with the you know, repeated violations of the ceasefire
Speaker 2: with Hesbola. They know they can do it, and Matt
Speaker 2: Meller will just get up there and be like, well,
Speaker 2: we have a mechanism and we'll go back to you,
Speaker 2: and they have their right to defend themselves, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Like they know that's going to be the response,
Speaker 2: so they're going to do whatever the hell that they want.
Speaker 2: And it is not only World Central kitchen workers that
Speaker 2: have been killed. Here we can put the next piece
Speaker 2: up on the screen. We also have Save the Children
Speaker 2: AID workers who say they are devastating and outrage of
Speaker 2: the killing of a Save the Children staff member, and
Speaker 2: Israeli are strike in Gaza. Our second colleague killed in Gaza.
Speaker 2: We con ten this attack in the strongest terms and
Speaker 2: demand an investigation. You know, the killing of aid workers,
Speaker 2: of medical professionals, of professors, of all types of people.
Speaker 2: Journalists have been some of the largest targets in terms
Speaker 2: of the Gaza strip. This has been ongoing and it
Speaker 2: continues to be ongoing because again the US has allowed
Speaker 2: them to act with complete immunity and with zero accountability.
Speaker 2: At the same time, Al Jazeera has a deeply disturbing
Speaker 2: report about the way that Israel is using these quad copters,
Speaker 2: and this had been rumored for a long time but
Speaker 2: not fully confirmed, that they use these quad copters. They
Speaker 2: play sounds of crying babies or mothers calling for help
Speaker 2: to lure people out of their or their shelters, and
Speaker 2: then once they are lured out, looking for this desperate baby,
Speaker 2: desperate mom to try to help, then they shoot and
Speaker 2: kill them. Let's take a listen to a little of
Speaker 2: this report from Al Jazeera.
Speaker 9: In mid April, we were informed that Israeli quat captors
Speaker 9: were emitting bizarre sounds, including baby sounds or women's screaming.
Speaker 9: I went personally to Nusairat and I interviewed several Palestinians separately,
Speaker 9: and the testimonies were almost identical. Blood capters were for
Speaker 9: two consecutive nights on the fourteenth and the fifteenth, I
Speaker 9: guess of April, they were emitting baby sounds, playing sounds
Speaker 9: of screaming women. He played these sounds only to lure
Speaker 9: citizens out of their homes and to find someone to shoot.
Speaker 9: And this was confirmed by actually the reports that we
Speaker 9: followed up on at hospitals. There were cases of people
Speaker 9: getting injured by these blood capters after going out to
Speaker 9: figure out what was the sound to try to.
Speaker 2: Help, and then they go on to speak to a
Speaker 2: young man there who one of his family members had
Speaker 2: been killed by one of these quad copters. And you know,
Speaker 2: this just very obviously flies in the face of the
Speaker 2: idea we're doing this targeted hunt for hamas they're trying
Speaker 2: to lure out whoever they can lure out with these
Speaker 2: quad copters and then indiscriminately murdering them. And that is
Speaker 2: what our taxpayer dollars are going to fund. So congratulations everyone.
Speaker 2: Last piece Sager that wanted to get to here, which
Speaker 2: I don't even know what to say about this, put
Speaker 2: this up on the screen, so Biden over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Speaker 2: I think this was actually on Black Friday apparently. I
Speaker 2: think this was the maybe the day before he informed
Speaker 2: Hunter he was going to be pardoning him. He'll see
Speaker 2: Hunter there in the picture. But if you look at
Speaker 2: that book that he's holding as he comes out of
Speaker 2: the bookstore, that is The hundred Years War on Palestine,
Speaker 2: a fantastic book digging into the consistent violent oppression of Palestinians,
Speaker 2: written by a renowned academic, Rashid Khalidi. And now, after
Speaker 2: more than a year of facilitating this genocide, he thought
Speaker 2: maybe he'd read about what's going on in the region.
Speaker 3: I mean, what do you like, what do you even
Speaker 3: say to this?
Speaker 4: I don't know, it's like struggle session ask.
Speaker 2: Like he I guess he wants to know where he
Speaker 2: fits in the one hundred years War on Palestine, Like
Speaker 2: what role he's playing in the you know, renewed aggressive
Speaker 2: Palestinian violent oppression.
Speaker 1: I would just put it in terms of the most
Speaker 1: Biden move of all time. Also, that was on Nantucket,
Speaker 1: just so people don't Yeah, it makes it even more
Speaker 1: perfect case you weren't aware. It is a great bookstore.
Speaker 4: Though we'll say that it is.
Speaker 2: There is something I'm not sure I can totally distill it.
Speaker 2: But it's so perfect about a liberal quote unquote who's
Speaker 2: been facilitating genocide for a year but is going to
Speaker 2: read this book and signal that he, like you know, feels.
Speaker 3: Bad about what's going on.
Speaker 1: I think that's basically on Nantucket. I mean, like all
Speaker 1: of that, Yeah, Brucket the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: It's very much like liberal guilt and like me, at
Speaker 1: least try to understand what the other side is. It's
Speaker 1: actually quite classic.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And it's like doing the reading after after the fact too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's certainly there. I mean, look, let's also do
Speaker 1: the alternative, which he has no idea what he's doing,
Speaker 1: and I just picked it up. Oh, pel's going okay,
Speaker 1: you know, see I'm interested in that or like yeah,
Speaker 1: like I'm involved or after somebody that's probably the most
Speaker 1: likely outcome to be honest, that's somebody his granddaughter or
Speaker 1: his great granddaughter, sorry, his great granddaughter or something like that,
Speaker 1: is the person who.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's so cooked. There's no way you can
Speaker 3: like fully, yeah, you're comprehends.
Speaker 1: He's at the point of his life where somebody's got
Speaker 1: to read to him, like at a nursing home. Like
Speaker 1: that's kind of what we're looking at. Even a lot
Speaker 1: of these interviews and things that we're looking at, they're crazy.
Speaker 1: You know, he's an Angola right now, he's in Africa
Speaker 1: or I think he's either there right now or he's
Speaker 1: on his way. There's no plans to do a press conference. Nothing.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is it's it never happens in a
Speaker 4: foreign trip.
Speaker 1: For the the only time a United States president travels
Speaker 1: abroad and doesn't do a press conference is when they
Speaker 1: go to like China, where they don't have a press well,
Speaker 1: and that's at the request of the Chinese government, not
Speaker 1: because of the US government, the Angola and all that.
Speaker 1: They want to do a press conference. They want to
Speaker 1: publicize that American president is finally visiting Africa, and he's like, no,
Speaker 1: I can't do it.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the last time he did a foreign
Speaker 2: press conference didn't you like wander into the rainforce.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Yeah, I was gone for
Speaker 1: that one. No, he was like, did work out into
Speaker 1: the Amazon rainforest? That's like, dude, you know what's gonna happen,
Speaker 1: asked Teddy. Roosevelt is the last president to drift off
Speaker 1: of the American Amazon rainfores. Didn't work out for it.
Speaker 2: It's a good way for, you know, former presidents to
Speaker 2: end their life just to wander off into the wilderness.
Speaker 1: It does appear that that rainforest trip, unfortunately, is what
Speaker 1: killed Roosevelt, the malaria and all that. They said he
Speaker 1: never recovered from it.
Speaker 3: Wow, there you go.
Speaker 1: At the same time, there's been some amazing media reactions
Speaker 1: to the Hunter Biden parton First is the view which
Speaker 1: we can always count on for cutting age analysis. Here,
Speaker 1: Whoopi Goldberg says it was never a lie from President
Speaker 1: Biden that he had completely ruled out a pardon for
Speaker 1: his son. Let's take a.
Speaker 3: Listener perspect it as a parent.
Speaker 11: I understand why he would do it, but I wanted
Speaker 11: to understand why lie about it for so long?
Speaker 3: And I'd stopped one calling it a lie?
Speaker 11: Okay, why repeatedly say you're not going to when you do.
Speaker 11: And secondarily, for the part of this country, half of
Speaker 11: it that doesn't support Biden, doesn't no one personally doesn't
Speaker 11: get to tab phone calls, and they're just looking at
Speaker 11: a system that seems like it's only benefits the people
Speaker 11: who are a resident.
Speaker 10: Does that sound well, here's what it says. It's a
Speaker 10: president for all of us to open our eyes because
Speaker 10: we've elected someone who is in a similar situation, who
Speaker 10: didn't have a drug problem, who knew what he was doing,
Speaker 10: who clearly was stood and said I can do this,
Speaker 10: and he did it. So I think for many many reasons,
Speaker 10: this is very different than any other situation that we
Speaker 10: have ever out.
Speaker 1: It's actually not. You know, she is correct in one way,
Speaker 1: it is very different. It is the most sweeping presidential
Speaker 1: pardon in American history, so we have that it is
Speaker 1: even more of a sweeping pardon than the part in
Speaker 1: the Gerald Ford delivered President Nixon for any and all
Speaker 1: crimes committed while he's president of the United States. This
Speaker 1: one takes the cake because it's a ten year period
Speaker 1: of twenty fourteen to today. Ironically, also included in the
Speaker 1: pardon was the date of December first, even though it
Speaker 1: was issued on November thirtieth or something like that, and
Speaker 1: so maybe it was December second and September first, and
Speaker 1: so Hunter when it was issued, actually had several hours.
Speaker 4: To continue committing a few more crimes.
Speaker 1: So can you imagine the crack binge that happened in
Speaker 1: that house? I mean that that.
Speaker 3: Would have been an awesome Hunter.
Speaker 1: It probably was an awesome time. You know. There's also
Speaker 1: people are now saying because Hunter no longer can invoke
Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment because of fear of prosecution, he should
Speaker 1: have no fear of going on the Joe Rogan experience
Speaker 1: or justifying for Congress. Now is actually the time to
Speaker 1: tell us Hunter what happened with Bisma and with all
Speaker 1: of this. So, in one sense, Whoopy is correct. This
Speaker 1: is a very different situation.
Speaker 2: The part of that I most subjected to is when
Speaker 2: she was like, don't call it a live Yeah, I know,
Speaker 2: it's like, come on.
Speaker 4: Lady, Like, you know.
Speaker 2: My thing with this is I find it outrageous that
Speaker 2: so many liberal politicians and pundits, so many of them,
Speaker 2: have been outraged by this, and it's been the you
Speaker 2: know the worst thing that the most condemnation that they've
Speaker 2: had for Joe Biden is over this pardon of Hunter,
Speaker 2: and it's like, have you watched what this man has
Speaker 2: been up to his entire miss Have you watched the
Speaker 2: way that he has facilitated this slaughter in Gaza, And
Speaker 2: yet your undies are in a bunch over Hunter Biden, like.
Speaker 3: You know, spare me at this point.
Speaker 2: So that was the sort of tease us up for
Speaker 2: the next thought that we have here. And there were
Speaker 2: a couple of these on CNN where you have Ali
Speaker 2: Honik and then later on you had Manu Raju who
Speaker 2: were like, this is going.
Speaker 3: To harnish Joe Biden's legacy.
Speaker 2: It's like his legacy of genocide and greasing the skids
Speaker 2: back to Donald Trump and his legacy of being so
Speaker 2: arrogant and narcissistic that he was happy to allow his
Speaker 2: party to lose and was happy, apparently to stay in
Speaker 2: the race even when he was being told he was
Speaker 2: going to lose four hundred Electoral College votes to Donald Trump. Like,
Speaker 2: what legacy are we talking about here? In any case?
Speaker 2: Here is Elli Hondig making that point.
Speaker 12: This is as broad as a pardon can possibly be. Ordinarily,
Speaker 12: a pardon will specify a certain case, and that happened here.
Speaker 12: It says, I hereby pardon Hunter Biden on the gun
Speaker 12: case in Delaware and on the tax case in California.
Speaker 12: But what's different about this one is it also says
Speaker 12: this is a full and unconditional pardon for all conduct
Speaker 12: going back to January one of twenty fourteen, which means
Speaker 12: Hunter Biden cannot be federally prosecuted for anything going back
Speaker 12: to twenty fourteen, and really before then, because before then
Speaker 12: is going to be precluded by the Statute of limitations.
Speaker 12: And as you say said before, the only historical president
Speaker 12: the best historical precedent for this is the pardon of
Speaker 12: Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, which has similar language. But
Speaker 12: what I think is not disputable is that this is
Speaker 12: a historic act of political nepotism. This is the granting
Speaker 12: of a pardon by the president to his son. Joe
Speaker 12: Biden even says, if you really parse his statement, he
Speaker 12: acknowledges that a substantial part of this is because Hunter
Speaker 12: Biden is his son, and that will land Joe Biden
Speaker 12: on a historic list that he probably doesn't want to
Speaker 12: be a part of, along with Bill Clinton, who pardoned
Speaker 12: his half brother Roger Clinton, along with Donald Trump, who
Speaker 12: pardoned Charles Kushner, who is the father of his own
Speaker 12: son in law, Jared Kushner. So I'm sure Joe Biden
Speaker 12: understands the historic implications of what he's done, and now
Speaker 12: he's earned his way onto that list.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: And I mean, Nate Silver, he does a silver thing,
Speaker 2: silver thing, a similar thing that the Seppelin screen. I
Speaker 2: don't even have jet leg as an excuse here, guy,
Speaker 2: I'm having like sympathetic jet lag. I guess I discussed
Speaker 2: here how I vote for Harris despite feeling like Democrats
Speaker 2: indulged in a lot of bad behavior that voters were
Speaker 2: rational to publish. After the White House lying about the
Speaker 2: Hunter pardon, I'm not sure how much.
Speaker 3: More I can tolerate.
Speaker 2: And look, I totally get people objecting to the Hunter
Speaker 2: pardon personally, I don't really care one way or another.
Speaker 2: What I am disgusted by is Joe Biden being perfectly
Speaker 2: happy to violate the norms when it serves himself and
Speaker 2: his family, but not one say, it might deliver a
Speaker 2: fifteen dollars minimum wage to workers, or in any other
Speaker 2: way he could violate those norms in this you know,
Speaker 2: last lame duck days, but he chooses to only use
Speaker 2: it to benefit himself. That's my you know, really significant
Speaker 2: objection here. But it's just funny from Nate because I
Speaker 2: mean number one, as others have pointed out, like Trump
Speaker 2: really aggressively abused this pardon Bowers with Kushner and Roger
Speaker 2: Stone and Steve Vann and Denesh Jesuza, like anyone who
Speaker 2: was sympathetic to him whatsoever, or even some people who
Speaker 2: apparently like paid to get their case in front of Trump.
Speaker 2: He just was happy to dule amount. So if this
Speaker 2: is your line with Joe Biden, like where was all
Speaker 2: that concerned with Trump? But also like Joe Biden has
Speaker 2: done so much worse during his administration, and Gaza being
Speaker 2: the obvious example, but I would also put Soger Ukraine
Speaker 2: and thwarting that piece deal and allowing that slaughter to
Speaker 2: go on. And so that's where the DC morality just
Speaker 2: makes no sense to me whatsoever that this would be
Speaker 2: the reason why you think his legacy would be tarnished,
Speaker 2: Like there are eighty five other vastly more important mortal
Speaker 2: failings of Joe Biden before you even start to talk
Speaker 2: about this one.
Speaker 1: On an objective basis politically massive failure. Again, judge him
Speaker 1: by his own rhetoric. He ran to defeat Donald Trump
Speaker 1: forever the dark branded means he was not successful in
Speaker 1: that he was a narcissist all the way through the
Speaker 1: world is on fire. Arguably the destruction of the quote
Speaker 1: unquote rule based international order really was struck under Joe
Speaker 1: far Biden, no doubt about it. Well, it's easy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I read a lot of history, so I'm used to
Speaker 1: thinking about things at like one hundred thousand foot level
Speaker 1: strategy wise, when you write the historical period of the
Speaker 1: Joe Biden presidency, what will they point to? The invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine, the fall withdrawal of Afghanistan, even though I
Speaker 1: supported it. I mean, it's very clear that it was
Speaker 1: executed in such a way that it turned the American
Speaker 1: public away. The Israeli War and the conflagration and explosion
Speaker 1: continuation of American interventionism in the Middle East, and then
Speaker 1: you have that with the political failure of this president.
Speaker 1: On top of the economic trends are arguably worse in
Speaker 1: this country at any time since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: which sounds crazy to say. If you talk to an economist.
Speaker 1: But we're going to talk about a little bit in
Speaker 1: our show about home prices and about inflation. I mean,
Speaker 1: the level of domestic consternation has really no precedent since
Speaker 1: the two thousand and eight period and really more analogous
Speaker 1: to the early nineteen hundred. So Biden will go down
Speaker 1: in history like people who you barely think about, you know,
Speaker 1: from the early nineteen hundreds. Yeah, like Calvin Coolidge, you know,
Speaker 1: silent cow. People don't really think libertarians like him, that's
Speaker 1: about it. You know, he's mostly a footnote. He'll be
Speaker 1: one of those folks.
Speaker 3: I think he'll be.
Speaker 2: I mean, not even as positive as Jimmy Carter, because
Speaker 2: at least with Carter, people feel like, well he's.
Speaker 4: A good guy right himself in his post.
Speaker 3: Service and they're all suching.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, can't David Acord like there are
Speaker 2: things you can point to during the Carter administration. I
Speaker 2: think Biden has a much worse legacy ultimately than Jimmy
Speaker 2: Carter does. And in a sense it's a shame because
Speaker 2: there are things he did that were a break with
Speaker 2: the neoliberal order, that were important, you know, the continuation
Speaker 2: of the China tariff policy important, The implementation of industrial
Speaker 2: policy in a way that we haven't seen in decades
Speaker 2: in this country. Important, The aggressive you know, the antitrust,
Speaker 2: the sort of repositioning and reinvigoration of anti trust policy
Speaker 2: very important, most pro labor present on my life. No
Speaker 2: one's going to remember any of that because of how
Speaker 2: overwhelming the foreign policy devastating failures were.
Speaker 3: You're right Zager about.
Speaker 2: He has done more destruction to the quote unquote rules
Speaker 2: based order than anyone. I mean that Donald Trump could
Speaker 2: have ever dreamed, because he's someone who claimed to believe
Speaker 2: in them exactly and to uphold it, and so he
Speaker 2: was in, you know, a vastly more significant position to
Speaker 2: be able to completely undermine it.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what he does well on institutions and
Speaker 1: rule of law as well. It will find, you know,
Speaker 1: people will always write about the Trump law fair and
Speaker 1: about what happened to him. But now as part of
Speaker 1: that will be you know that Joe Biden, in his
Speaker 1: pardon of his son, used this same rhetoric and justification
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump will to escape his own charges and problems.
Speaker 1: So you know, look, you can't blame Americans for saying
Speaker 1: you all are full of shit and for just pressing
Speaker 1: the red button. Ultimately that was the vote for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And honestly, they America was more red even than I
Speaker 1: thought that they were in terms of They're like, I
Speaker 1: don't want to hear this democracy shit. I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear any of this anymore. I can't deal with this,
Speaker 1: you know. And there's something just so nauseating about Biden
Speaker 1: and the preening and the entire Kamala Harris campaign that
Speaker 1: they just said, I'm done. You know, I'm willing to
Speaker 1: take I'm willing to take a chance, you know, roll
Speaker 1: the dice United ninety three, whatever metaphor that you want
Speaker 1: to have here. And so that is one that will
Speaker 1: be the ultimate legacy of Joseph ar Biden. I honestly
Speaker 1: think he's a much worse president Obama. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, second only to me.
Speaker 2: And before before Gaza on economics, I was one of
Speaker 2: the people out there making the case Joe Biden is
Speaker 2: better than Barack Obama on economics. But you cannot look
Speaker 2: at the totality of this administration and say that he is,
Speaker 2: you know, better in any significant respect. At this point,
Speaker 2: we have gotten far afield. But I have to get
Speaker 2: to this next piece because I demanded that would be
Speaker 2: in the show so that I could gloat a little
Speaker 2: bit about it. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Ton's Desusa, who was himself.
Speaker 1: He was pardoned pardons for straw.
Speaker 2: Donation by Donald Trump. He put out his two thousand
Speaker 2: Mules documentary to great fanfare within MAGA world. He was
Speaker 2: hosted at mar Lago for a film screening. It might
Speaker 2: have even been the premiere sort of down there. He
Speaker 2: is now himself admitting that the central part of this film,
Speaker 2: which I watched, and you guys might remember, I did
Speaker 2: a monologue about it, saying how this was all total
Speaker 2: and complete bullshit. The central part of this film, he
Speaker 2: is now admitting completely false, completely wrong, apologizing to one
Speaker 2: of the people that he smeared as being one of
Speaker 2: these purported quote unquote mules. So let me read you
Speaker 2: this from Rolling Stone, they say. Magafilmmaker Dinesh Jususa issued
Speaker 2: a statement on Sunday admitting his most notorious project, the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election conspiracy film two Thousand Mules, was produced
Speaker 2: quote on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me
Speaker 2: and my team. Includes in a potlogy to a man
Speaker 2: named Mark Andrews, a Georgia man who sued Denish DEESUSA
Speaker 2: and Sale, a media group who were responsible for putting
Speaker 2: out the film, which by the way, they ceased distribution
Speaker 2: of in the wake of these lawsuits and the revelations
Speaker 2: that the film was told him complete bullshit. Profit this
Speaker 2: film certainly did, though politically and financially they say it
Speaker 2: grossed over ten million dollars in revenue. As I mentioned,
Speaker 2: they had a private screening for it at mar A Lago.
Speaker 2: Helped make DENESHJESUSI more influential, He writes in part I
Speaker 2: apologize to mister Andrews. I make this apology not under
Speaker 2: the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but
Speaker 2: because it is the right thing to do given what.
Speaker 3: We have now learned.
Speaker 2: While I do not believe mister Andrews was ever identified
Speaker 2: by the film or book, I am sorry for any
Speaker 2: harm he believes he and his family have suffered as
Speaker 2: a result of two thousand mules. Desusa claims he had
Speaker 2: no idea the data provided by True the Vote was
Speaker 2: faulty at the time the film was released. Quote True
Speaker 2: the Vote provided my team with ballot dropbox surveillance footage
Speaker 2: that had been obtained through open records requests sured that
Speaker 2: the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data,
Speaker 2: such that each video depicted an individual who'd make at
Speaker 2: least ten visits to dropboxes. To SUSA writes, we recently
Speaker 2: learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not
Speaker 2: have actually been correlated with the geolocation data. And listen,
Speaker 2: as someone who did a monologue right at the time,
Speaker 2: it was at the time.
Speaker 3: That this was all total bunk and bullshit.
Speaker 2: This particular man, Mark Andrews, who he's apologizing to, who
Speaker 2: had been portrayed as one of these mules. He just
Speaker 2: was dropping off the ballots for himself and his family,
Speaker 2: which is a perfectly reasonable and legal activity. So you know,
Speaker 2: it's preposterous to imagine that he could not have known
Speaker 2: at the time that this was all completely phony bullshit,
Speaker 2: because if I was able to discern this from the outside,
Speaker 2: surely the person putting the film together and sifting through
Speaker 2: all the data could have discerned that this was all uttering,
Speaker 2: complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: Yeah. If anything, there's been a healing effect on Stop
Speaker 1: the Steel since Trump's victory where we can just admit
Speaker 1: all of these things now out loud and just be
Speaker 1: like okay. And the Republican base has been satiated enough
Speaker 1: from Trump's victory in twenty twenty four that they no
Speaker 1: longer have to claim.
Speaker 3: Some of the elections are free and fair now that
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's won.
Speaker 1: Well, you know that's how it goes for them. Let's
Speaker 1: put this on the screen and love Anne.
Speaker 3: When Anne's right, She's right.
Speaker 1: Ann is the goat. You can at least say this.
Speaker 1: She is a consistent woman, and she says, please think
Speaker 1: back to all the people who told you to watch
Speaker 1: Dinesh's two thousand Mules and never trust them again.
Speaker 2: That would include the incoming president of the United States.
Speaker 4: I believe well, well, Anne and Trump are beefing.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. Ann has always called him, She's called him out.
Speaker 1: They've had a fraught relationship for a long time. So
Speaker 1: she accused him of abandoning what he ran on in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. So that's why I think Anne.
Speaker 2: Is the goat so many Charlotte's seagriftors. And the really
Speaker 2: sad thing is that he will pay zero price in
Speaker 2: terms of his like.
Speaker 1: Who Dudesh I mean, this is pretty bad. I will
Speaker 1: say that like that's uh.
Speaker 2: People go right and whatever his next little project is,
Speaker 2: they'll eat it right up.
Speaker 1: So I think you're right. But I also think that
Speaker 1: there was this mean I mean I encounter this, you
Speaker 1: know with the normal Republicans, you know, every once in
Speaker 1: a while, if you're in an uber or something, and
Speaker 1: they'll just be like, so, do you really think the
Speaker 1: election wasn't stolen? And they'll ask about two thousand mules
Speaker 1: or anything like that. If you calmly discuss, you know,
Speaker 1: with them, I think they'll usually they'll come around to
Speaker 1: it and be like, okay, yeah, that actually sound reasonable.
Speaker 1: But I think outside of the hardcore, you know, this
Speaker 1: stuff will not have as much I think, at least
Speaker 1: as a result of things like this, it will not
Speaker 1: have as much currency in the future. Trump is also
Speaker 1: extraordinarily unique. It's an ability to you know, claim things
Speaker 1: that are stolen to inspire his following. And look at that.
Speaker 1: Who's that guy who ran in Wisconsin? Hovedy? Is that
Speaker 1: his name? Eric Hovdy? He tried to play footseet would
Speaker 1: stop the steal, and he just gave up. It was
Speaker 1: like it's not working, you know, in terms of it
Speaker 1: was I think it was his election against Tammy Baldwin,
Speaker 1: and he was claiming something or whatever.
Speaker 4: It didn't land at.
Speaker 1: All, same with all all of the other Republicans who
Speaker 1: lost in the swing states.
Speaker 2: I just think we're in a place where people's trust
Speaker 2: and institutions has been understandably obliterate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's zero.
Speaker 2: And I think this is happening now on the liberal
Speaker 2: side as well, which is why I'm not like, even
Speaker 2: though the NBC is sort of being destroyed, why I'm
Speaker 2: not that hopeful that what grows in the rubble is
Speaker 2: going to be better, Because when people's trust and institutions
Speaker 2: has been destroyed, it makes it very easy for Charlatan's
Speaker 2: like DESNT just SUSA to come in and say, well,
Speaker 2: I'm telling you the truth that no one else wants
Speaker 2: you to hear, and if it's adversarial to the mainstream media,
Speaker 2: or if the mainstream media is like attacking you over it,
Speaker 2: you use that as proof of your valor and your
Speaker 2: positioning as a truth teller. And there's I mean, there's
Speaker 2: so many people who have profited in exactly this way,
Speaker 2: Like the more shameless you're willing to be, the more successful,
Speaker 2: you're going to be and you know, I it's Dinessha's
Speaker 2: next thing is not going to be about the last conspiracy.
Speaker 2: It's going to be about whatever the conspiracy is. And
Speaker 2: I think, again, I don't think that this will damage
Speaker 2: this credibility at all. And I think most of the
Speaker 2: people who watched two thousand Mules and believed it and
Speaker 2: took it seriously are not even going to see this
Speaker 2: apology and realize that they've been taken for a ride.
Speaker 2: So you know that's it creates a real vulnerability. And
Speaker 2: this is not to defend the quote unquote institutions, like
Speaker 2: they deserve the low level of trust that they have,
Speaker 2: They've earned it, like that's their own fault. But then
Speaker 2: you know, there are so many Charlatans who come in
Speaker 2: and fill the void and to say that the claim
Speaker 2: that they're telling you some secret truth that's being hidden
Speaker 2: from you, it's just it's becomes very easy to manipulate
Speaker 2: people and get this sort of like herd mentality going.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I still think the apology is a good
Speaker 4: first time.
Speaker 2: So no, it's better than no apology. I guess now
Speaker 2: that it doesn't really matter. But whatever, let's get.
Speaker 1: To there's been a real change in consumer behavior as
Speaker 1: a result of Black Friday and a potential preview of
Speaker 1: what's to come with some of the Tariffs's put this
Speaker 1: on the screen for example, just wanted to talk about this.
Speaker 1: It's called shoppers fight back as the retailers cracked down
Speaker 1: on returns. So as retailers are trying to basically increase
Speaker 1: prices and increase their margins, they have been putting a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff in the fine print about charging for
Speaker 1: returns and about making it more difficult to actually achieve
Speaker 1: the return policy which most people are used to. And
Speaker 1: what we have seen is the rise of the informed consumer.
Speaker 1: And I actually think inflation has prompted a lot of
Speaker 1: people to read fine print, actually look at some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that they're buying, their ability to return, and
Speaker 1: also about the way that they're really getting screwed by
Speaker 1: a lot of these retailers. So what they point to
Speaker 1: inside of this article is basically about a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are really going down inside the fine print
Speaker 1: for returns and others and are stopping buying from those
Speaker 1: who are trying to crack down. Now, in some sense,
Speaker 1: I am sympathetic. You know, there are people out there
Speaker 1: who will buy like ten items with the tension to
Speaker 1: return nine. But you know, what we have seen as
Speaker 1: well is that this is largely a result, not necessarily
Speaker 1: of the not of the retailers, but it's largely a
Speaker 1: result of consumers who continually feel like they're getting ripped
Speaker 1: off because of increasing prices, and that those increasing prices
Speaker 1: that informed consumer has changed dramatically. Like in terms of
Speaker 1: the grocery store, there's been a reported massive increase in
Speaker 1: the number of people who do couponing. Like, you know,
Speaker 1: people make fun of extreme couponing, but like most people
Speaker 1: in the lower inflation times, they weren't really paying attention.
Speaker 1: But there's been a lot of increase in that, in
Speaker 1: bargain hunting, in the rise of a discount, you know,
Speaker 1: grocery store and all. That is a bad thing, by
Speaker 1: the way, because it means that people are spending too
Speaker 1: much money. But I thought it was an interesting development,
Speaker 1: and since it pairs well before we were about to
Speaker 1: get to a terrorist.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm almost such an aggressive coupon.
Speaker 2: Or what not. Really, that's a good that's all like
Speaker 2: binder when we go into the grocery store. But with
Speaker 2: regard to this story, there's kind of an arms race
Speaker 2: going on between the retailers and the shoppers effectively, and
Speaker 2: you know this is also just online shopping is fully
Speaker 2: mature now, and shoppers are fully mature and fully schooled
Speaker 2: in the best ways of going about online shopping. So
Speaker 2: especially if you're shopping for clothes and you're not sure
Speaker 2: what size you are, Like, one thing people do is
Speaker 2: called bracketing, is they'll buy like size up the size
Speaker 2: they think they are, and size down, and then they'll
Speaker 2: just return so that they can you know, try them
Speaker 2: on at home and then just return whichever pieces don't fit,
Speaker 2: which seems to be entirely reasonable behavior, honestly, because if
Speaker 2: you're not going to be in the store, then that's
Speaker 2: a good way to figure out what size you actually want.
Speaker 2: And as long as you're doing it kind of good faith,
Speaker 2: I don't see that as like, you know, abusive or
Speaker 2: nefarious behavior. But the next part of this arms race
Speaker 2: is apparently they're now developing AI to give you a
Speaker 2: sort of like social trust score when it comes to
Speaker 2: your return behavior. So if you're a frequent returner, they're
Speaker 2: going to start charging you more for shipping and you
Speaker 2: more for returns, where someone else who has a different
Speaker 2: social trust return score doesn't get charged in that way.
Speaker 2: And so you know, I mean this is the way
Speaker 2: that AI rather than what we would like to see,
Speaker 2: which is when new technology comes online which has the
Speaker 2: potential to like profoundly transform the way humanity behaves, and
Speaker 2: that it would be used in service of humanity.
Speaker 3: But instead, frequently.
Speaker 2: What we see, because it's used solely for profit is
Speaker 2: companies almost like weaponizing it against We see this with
Speaker 2: the spot pricing as well, similar thing where it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: you can afford this, so I'm going to gouge you specifically,
Speaker 2: I'm going to use a deal with you to lure
Speaker 2: you in because I know your vulnerabilities. Once you're in
Speaker 2: the store, then you're going to buy other stuff and
Speaker 2: you know, so this is somewhat dystopian use of AI.
Speaker 2: Think that's being deployed here, and we know one more
Speaker 2: way that everything we do, all of our behavior is
Speaker 2: just being like tracked and weaponized against us. But the
Speaker 2: other piece I think that's really important is that retailers
Speaker 2: are already signaling that they are going, whether they have
Speaker 2: increased costs or not, they're going to use the excuse
Speaker 2: of any teriffs that Trump puts into place to jack
Speaker 2: up prices, and they know they can get away with
Speaker 2: it because they did the same thing during COVID. Those
Speaker 2: of us like you and I who were saying, hey,
Speaker 2: you know, one part of this inflation we're seeing is
Speaker 2: not just the cost It is a greedflation where retailer,
Speaker 2: where any sort of company sees they can get away
Speaker 2: with hiking prices, and so they're just doing it aggressively,
Speaker 2: way beyond their costs, and they're bragging about it on
Speaker 2: earnings calls. By the way, so this is not theoretical.
Speaker 2: They're already saying basically, we're going to do the same
Speaker 2: thing this time around. Has put this up on the
Speaker 2: screen from the Wall Street Journal. You also have a
Speaker 2: lot of retailers who are basically like using the threat
Speaker 2: of teriffs to get people to buy stuff now. There's
Speaker 2: this company called Finally Home Furnishings. They put on their
Speaker 2: Facebook they say pre teariff sale. This is not a
Speaker 2: drill urging customers to order now before prices double. That's
Speaker 2: an online furniture retailer.
Speaker 3: They say.
Speaker 2: It's one of many businesses urging customers to buy now
Speaker 2: before President like Trump's proposed tariffs potentially.
Speaker 3: Raise costs and prices.
Speaker 2: Others banging the tariff drum include companies selling outdoor gear, stickers, beauty.
Speaker 3: Products, and more.
Speaker 2: Companies are pouncing in a moment when fe're an uncertainty,
Speaker 2: you're on the rise, and consumer spending and showing signs
Speaker 2: of weakness. Best Buy warned of software demand, Coals and
Speaker 2: Target report lower apparel sales in the latest quarter. Another
Speaker 2: example here, beauty brand Joe Lee's Skin urged customers by
Speaker 2: email to quote to lock in our current prices before
Speaker 2: potential tariffs push them higher. And apparently this is also
Speaker 2: kind of taken off online. There's a lot of like
Speaker 2: TikTok discourse.
Speaker 1: We're about to get to that, but just listen to
Speaker 1: this dishonesty the very saying this is finally home furnishings,
Speaker 1: the very same items you are seeing now will double
Speaker 1: the price once the carrots kick in. Tariff's kick in
Speaker 1: double the price. Interesting, I thought it was a twenty
Speaker 1: five percent tariff. So even if you do assume that
Speaker 1: all of the costs gets passed on the consumer, where
Speaker 1: the extra seventy five percent go. So everyone should just
Speaker 1: get ready that there will be a lot of Chikanery
Speaker 1: that is happening here. But also this is a perfect
Speaker 1: preview into why we need tariffs in the first place.
Speaker 1: What exactly is final final home furnishings or a wayfare
Speaker 1: or any of these other places they buy. It's cheap
Speaker 1: cardboard shit from China. If you will continue, you can
Speaker 1: see in sporting goods and they talk about fishing rods,
Speaker 1: pieces of metal, all these other things which we don't
Speaker 1: make here, not even here, we don't even make it
Speaker 1: in the northern hemisphere or in an Allied nation like Vietnam,
Speaker 1: target coals. Where do you think all that shit's coming from?
Speaker 1: Not America, not Mexico, same thing. It's all from China.
Speaker 1: At best, it's from Vietnam. And so what you can
Speaker 1: see inside of this is exactly the problem with cheap
Speaker 1: consumer goods. It's all crap. It just breeds more consumption.
Speaker 1: A lot of it is cheap that just is recycled,
Speaker 1: and you just keep going back and buying new stuff
Speaker 1: every one or two years. I mean, look, I understand
Speaker 1: like it is a bedrock of the American experience. This
Speaker 1: is a little bit prechy, so you know, sorry, but
Speaker 1: this is the fundamental problem with our economy. So look
Speaker 1: inside of this, you can see clearly that they are
Speaker 1: prepped and they are ready to make sure that they
Speaker 1: will use the tariffs as an excuse. I think I
Speaker 1: said yesterday that the funniest possible outcome will be major
Speaker 1: tariffs and then price controls from Donald Trump. But honestly, though,
Speaker 1: anybody who is you know, artificially increasing prices because of
Speaker 1: tariffs which are imposed for national security purposes, I would
Speaker 1: personally say that is an active treason. But you know,
Speaker 1: we'll see how the government decides to treat them, because
Speaker 1: I don't think it's right, especially if we're talking about
Speaker 1: I mean like best Buy. Best Buy says, oh, the
Speaker 1: demand for consumer electronics is going to go down. It's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's think about what this race for consumer electronics has happened.
Speaker 1: We've had a one thousand percent decrease in the price
Speaker 1: of a television. Is your life better off? Are you
Speaker 1: good for that?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 1: Has that been a great outcome for America? I don't
Speaker 1: think so. You know, it's like we got to we actually,
Speaker 1: at the very least, I hope it prompts like a
Speaker 1: real honest conversation about what all this stuff is about
Speaker 1: why do we need all this new stuff on Black Friday? Anyways?
Speaker 1: Like what is exactly all of it doing? And at
Speaker 1: the very least, like I think it should show people
Speaker 1: as well the same greedflation problems that we had during
Speaker 1: COVID that this is all fake. I mean, why, what's
Speaker 1: a Chipotle bowl cost these days? Fifteen bucks? You know,
Speaker 1: you really want me to believe one hundred percent increases
Speaker 1: happened when I was in college.
Speaker 4: I think it was eight dollars for I think, so one.
Speaker 1: Hundred percent increase over the last ten years. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not buying it, you know, and most.
Speaker 2: People understand that they know you're speaking to something that
Speaker 2: is really important and quite deep, which.
Speaker 3: Is we have had a.
Speaker 2: Social contract that has been built around consumption. That is
Speaker 2: the America And basically, and I mean this goes back
Speaker 2: even to the conception of like what a monopoly is,
Speaker 2: which you know, work sort of famously changed to just like,
Speaker 2: you know, if prices aren't going up for consumers, it's
Speaker 2: not a monopoly. And the entire benefit of a company
Speaker 2: was effectively assessed by how cheap can the prices possibly be?
Speaker 2: And you know, as labor protections were away, and the
Speaker 2: minimum wage hasn't even come close to keeping up with inflation,
Speaker 2: and the core elements of a stable middle class lifestyle,
Speaker 2: namely house, education and healthcare, have skyrocketed and skyrocketed.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's easier to get a lot of cheap
Speaker 3: consumer goods.
Speaker 2: And I mean that really is the sort of foundation
Speaker 2: of the neoliberal era social contract. Now, you know, I
Speaker 2: think across the board tariffs is crazy. I think certain
Speaker 2: things that doesn't make any sense to make here, and
Speaker 2: you are just driving up prices for really no good reason.
Speaker 2: But too, if you are actually thinking about shifting the
Speaker 2: American public away from seeing themselves not as citizens, not
Speaker 2: as family members, but first and foremost as consumers, which
Speaker 2: is what people have been trained to do, that is
Speaker 2: actually like a sort of revolutionary shift in the American mindset.
Speaker 2: Now do I think that people are prepared for that.
Speaker 2: I think that this is going to be backed by
Speaker 2: any sort of like other policy that can help us
Speaker 2: realize some other national or personal identity. No, I think
Speaker 2: it's mostly just gonna amount to people being pissed off
Speaker 2: that prices are a lot higher than they used to be.
Speaker 2: Oh and by the way, you haven't done anything to
Speaker 2: deal with my housing costs. You haven't done anything to
Speaker 2: deal with my healthcare costs, you haven't done anything to
Speaker 2: deal with my education costs. So it's just like pain
Speaker 2: with nothing to balance it out on the other side.
Speaker 2: But if you had that broader program, that would be
Speaker 2: something that I would be interested.
Speaker 1: It'd be amazing. Look, I just I know I've been
Speaker 1: talking a lot about how great Japan is, but you
Speaker 1: know what they lose in Japan. They buy quality goods.
Speaker 1: They are also you know, when you buy clothing, there's
Speaker 1: an entire neighborhood called Shimo Tikozawa which is just vintage clothing.
Speaker 1: I mean, get I know thrifting is becoming popular and
Speaker 1: all that stuff here, but it is amazing just be
Speaker 1: in a country where things are made well and they
Speaker 1: are built to last. Their bullet trains are from the nineties.
Speaker 1: You don't need to you know, when people are respectful
Speaker 1: and they don't trash the train, and there's not much
Speaker 1: a crime, and the stuff is actually well made and
Speaker 1: good turns out. You can use that shit for thirty
Speaker 1: years and it doesn't break. It was a shocking transformative
Speaker 1: experience for me to be in a first world country
Speaker 1: which is not built on the bedrock of like cheap
Speaker 1: bullshit and consumption.
Speaker 4: It's amazing, you know, to see it for what it happens.
Speaker 2: And the Chinese have been very concerned, is like saying,
Speaker 2: we don't want to be just like consumption.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what they do the US. They're fashion influencers.
Speaker 1: They're like, no, we don't allow this. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of the you know, the oligarchs and all these
Speaker 1: other people, they have to leave the country to practice
Speaker 1: their conspicuous consumption. They can't do it back in China,
Speaker 1: and they can't brag about it on weed chat, you know,
Speaker 1: or whatever. But anyways, this look as you said, Do
Speaker 1: I think America is ready to sacrifice its obsession with
Speaker 1: credit card debt and with target Black Friday sales?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: But the more important and we can skip the TikTok
Speaker 2: influence the We're going to show you a video just
Speaker 2: of this lady who's like it got a stock up
Speaker 2: before the Trump terir just to show you.
Speaker 3: This as like paraded the culture.
Speaker 2: But the problem is you can't just raise prices and
Speaker 2: then not deal with the you know, core issues of
Speaker 2: like housing, wages, healthcare, education. And let's go and transition
Speaker 2: to this next part. Because while certain prices like consumer electronics,
Speaker 2: perfect example, the prices continue to go down and down
Speaker 2: and down. And this is sort of like the deal
Speaker 2: that's been offered to people is you can have a
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff like that, but you cannot own a home.
Speaker 2: And let's put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: Washington Post has new really extraordinary numbers about what's going
Speaker 2: on in the housing market. So first of all, the
Speaker 2: share of homes that are bought with all cash now
Speaker 2: a third, yep, a third of the market. And if
Speaker 2: you look they had a map in here too. If
Speaker 2: you look at them, there are certain places where it's
Speaker 2: like a majority of the home purchases.
Speaker 3: Are all cash.
Speaker 2: Like if you're a young person with you know, a
Speaker 2: decent career, college educator, whatever, a professional, white collar and
Speaker 2: you are trying to buy a home, like, who's going
Speaker 2: to have six hundred thousand dollars just sitting in.
Speaker 3: Oh, in the bank.
Speaker 1: I just looked at my neighborhood. Forty five percent all cash,
Speaker 1: and that is that this is a place where you know,
Speaker 1: you can't even buy anything for less than like eight
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. Who has one point two million sitting around?
Speaker 1: I mean, look, in reality, the way this stuff usually
Speaker 1: works is they don't have one point two million, but
Speaker 1: they have a huge amount of stock assets and they
Speaker 1: borrow against that or whatever and use margin loan. This
Speaker 1: is all like stuff that very very rich people do
Speaker 1: all the time. But the point is is that they
Speaker 1: have an extraordinarily extraordinary net worth to draw upon. And
Speaker 1: what's actually crazier about the cash is not the is
Speaker 1: not that, it's the effect that it has had on
Speaker 1: the average home buyer in the United States. So we
Speaker 1: have this graph that's included here, which is very important.
Speaker 1: So in two thousand and seven, the average home buyer
Speaker 1: in the United States was thirty nine years old. So
Speaker 1: by twenty eleven, after the new housing REGs kick in,
Speaker 1: the average home price takes up to forty five. Things
Speaker 1: start to stabilize around then and they start to climb
Speaker 1: twenty right before the pandemic, it hits a record of
Speaker 1: forty seven. But then by twenty twenty two, after the
Speaker 1: massive increase in home prices, it jumps from forty five
Speaker 1: to fifty three, and in twenty twenty four, the average
Speaker 1: home buyer in the United States is now fifty six
Speaker 1: years old. What's even more shocking about that, and this
Speaker 1: is a primary residence by the way, primary residence. Is
Speaker 1: that the average home buyer who is a first time
Speaker 1: buyer has now risen to thirty eight years old. That's
Speaker 1: from thirty five just last year, so aggurate increase of
Speaker 1: three years. That is three years of delayed life in
Speaker 1: just three Now consider that this is again primary residences.
Speaker 1: So you have boomers here amassing huge amounts of cash,
Speaker 1: using that cash to be able to put average you know,
Speaker 1: to be able to put all cash offers on houses,
Speaker 1: meaning anybody he's got a mortgage. Why would anybody even
Speaker 1: look at you? Right, somebody can just send me a
Speaker 1: wire transfer, easy, Right, I'm buying the house. But then
Speaker 1: the other problem with this is we see already is
Speaker 1: that millennial wealth has actually increased over the last few years,
Speaker 1: and it's from people who are able to buy homes. Now,
Speaker 1: what we see though, inside of that is that while
Speaker 1: some of those people were able to buy it of
Speaker 1: their own accord, many of them were helped by their parents.
Speaker 1: That's great, I think there's nothing wrong with that, But
Speaker 1: what it does mean is that if you're not lucky
Speaker 1: enough to have and to come from some generational wealth,
Speaker 1: you're screwed. And so when we're in an age of
Speaker 1: an average age of fifty six years old, that is
Speaker 1: late stage republic shit. Fifty six years old. If you're
Speaker 1: fifty six, you're three years away from being able to
Speaker 1: withdraw from your freaking rat IRA. That's like, you know,
Speaker 1: when you're thirty eight. I mean, the average thirty eight
Speaker 1: year old in the United States has like two children,
Speaker 1: and you know, it is married, like that's well into life,
Speaker 1: maybe like a ten year old or a twelve year
Speaker 1: old or something like that. You're renting that entire time
Speaker 1: and amassing zero equity and then now with a mortgage
Speaker 1: rate around seven percent. I mean, this is the most
Speaker 1: stark stat that I've seen in a long time. When
Speaker 1: I read it, I honestly couldn't believe it. I go,
Speaker 1: fifty six years old, your life is mostly over at
Speaker 1: fifty six years old. Yeah, when you're in the average
Speaker 1: home buyer stat should be reversed. It should be thirty
Speaker 1: years old something like that for the average first time buyer.
Speaker 1: And then you know, we look, there's so many different
Speaker 1: policies in different areas. But this, by the way, will
Speaker 1: be a major test for the Trump administration because if
Speaker 1: this does increase, you are going to see some crazy
Speaker 1: shit happen in four years. I just do not think
Speaker 1: that this is sustainable. We've had an exponential increase in
Speaker 1: the average age for the home buyer, in the average
Speaker 1: age for the first time and if you keep things
Speaker 1: this successible, if you think about that thirty five year
Speaker 1: old and you know now it's currently the thirty eight,
Speaker 1: they're going to be like in their mid forties at
Speaker 1: the end of the Trump administration and they're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm still not being able to afford a house. What
Speaker 1: are we doing here? You know, I'm ten years away
Speaker 1: from retirement. Yeah, or at least retirement age allegedly. That's crazy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: This is where the abundance agenda people have a point.
Speaker 2: Is like you, because you need a variety of solutions.
Speaker 2: You need you do need a massive surge in building
Speaker 2: and you know of housing into the market. You need
Speaker 2: the government to be involved in that because oftentimes, you know,
Speaker 2: the housing units that are built are not geared towards
Speaker 2: affordability or even you know, first time home buyers. So
Speaker 2: you need government involved in that potentially also something like
Speaker 2: what Kamlo is proposing assistance with that down payment for
Speaker 2: first time home buyers, because that also is a real
Speaker 2: sumbling block for a lot of people. And you got
Speaker 2: to get you got to get permanent capital out of
Speaker 2: these markets, like it needs to go to human beings first.
Speaker 2: And that's not the only thing that's going on here,
Speaker 2: but the dramatic introduction of permanent capital into these markets
Speaker 2: where they're buying up entire trailer parks, they're buying up
Speaker 2: entire neighborhoods and pushing out regular homeowners and then renting
Speaker 2: them back to them. That also has to be dealt with.
Speaker 2: And then you've got the rental side of this too,
Speaker 2: with the collusion that has significantly raised rental prices that
Speaker 2: you know, continues to basically rob people. That's got to
Speaker 2: be dealt with as well. So there's a lot that
Speaker 2: needs to be done. But you know, just so I
Speaker 2: think we have one more graphic we can show you guys,
Speaker 2: to show the increase over time of homes bought all cash.
Speaker 2: And you can see in every single market that they
Speaker 2: list here, over time, more and more and more.
Speaker 3: Of the sales are all cash.
Speaker 2: So Number one, Naples, Florida, now sixty percent, sixty percent
Speaker 2: of that market is all cash if you don't have
Speaker 2: the money sitting in your bank account or able to
Speaker 2: obtain with a loan against your stock market holdings or
Speaker 2: whatever for mom and dad. For yet about it just crazy.
Speaker 2: Look at Augusta, Georgia. There went from twenty three percent
Speaker 2: all cash just in twenty eighteen. We're not talking about
Speaker 2: decades ago.
Speaker 3: Twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: That feels like a blink of an eye ago to
Speaker 2: forty two percent now, you know, heading up towards a
Speaker 2: majority of the market. It's that's wild to see the
Speaker 2: way that trend has unfolded.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is crazy. And if you look at
Speaker 1: all these places, unfortunately, these are a lot of places
Speaker 1: where a lot of Americans want to move too, right,
Speaker 1: So new people who are coming in are having a
Speaker 1: lot of difficulty. I just checked Naples, Florida. You can
Speaker 1: have a house anywhere from what four million into four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand, But that's that's a lot of money, no
Speaker 1: matter what. In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, they have Winston,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, they're on the list. New Orleans they have
Speaker 1: there on the list, Miami, Jacksonville, Augusta. All of these
Speaker 1: are places with huge net in migration from across the country.
Speaker 1: It makes me also feel for.
Speaker 2: That property insurance situation down in Florida. Maybe changing the
Speaker 2: game there, certainly true Miami in particular.
Speaker 1: But you know, I mean, even looking around this, you know,
Speaker 1: here in Washington, d C. In the Georgetown neighborhood, one
Speaker 1: of the richest neighborhoods here in Washington, sixty seven percent
Speaker 1: of houses are being bought with all cash. You can't
Speaker 1: even buy a house there for less than two million dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just that's outrageous to me. I honestly
Speaker 1: can't believe it. You know, even looking at it. Some
Speaker 1: of the places that I've lived in the past here
Speaker 1: in Washington are looking around forty six, forty seven, fifty
Speaker 1: sixty percent. You know, it's like, what what are people
Speaker 1: supposed to You might as well be you better be
Speaker 1: a damn good defense contractor.
Speaker 3: To be you better be selling your soul for really.
Speaker 1: I mean, And that's the other thing is the reality
Speaker 1: has major implications in terms of this has major implications
Speaker 1: too for choices that people make. So everyone's always talking
Speaker 1: about like, why don't the elite members of society pursue
Speaker 1: public service? It's like, well, debt is a huge part
Speaker 1: of it. I mean, I went to school with a
Speaker 1: lot of people who wanted to work in public service,
Speaker 1: and by and large almost all of them are now
Speaker 1: corporate lawyers. And they it's not because they want to,
Speaker 1: but you know, you get to rock up two hundred
Speaker 1: grand in debt two fifty three hundred, you don't have
Speaker 1: a lot of choice. They don't even want to do it,
Speaker 1: but they have to, and that story goes on forever.
Speaker 1: This is the same case with a lot of people
Speaker 1: who attend Harvard or Yale. You know, if you do so,
Speaker 1: you're looking at roughly one hundred thousand dollars probably or
Speaker 1: so in student debt with no financial assistance. I think
Speaker 1: that's on the lower end. But again, like it makes
Speaker 1: sense why you go to McKinsey. Same with doctors. This
Speaker 1: is a major conversation in medicine. Everyone's decrying the fall
Speaker 1: of the family practice of the people with a small
Speaker 1: practice and less patients. The reason why they go work
Speaker 1: at hospital will guarantee you cut paycheck four hundred grand
Speaker 1: a year. Boom. I've got three hundred grand in debt.
Speaker 1: I'm not taking a risk. I'm doing a small business.
Speaker 1: Maybe when I'm fifty. You know, it's one of those
Speaker 1: where all of these things have cascading effects throughout the
Speaker 1: US economy, and it's it's genuinely devastating for a lot
Speaker 1: of people out there. So if you were the thirty
Speaker 1: eight year old and you still can't buy I feel free,
Speaker 1: Man's that's devastating. I don't know how it feels. Because
Speaker 1: you're the first generation to know with absolute certainty as
Speaker 1: an American citizen that you are worse off than your
Speaker 1: parents and even your grandparents who grew up in the boomerage.
Speaker 1: It's just crazy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so true, Yeah, sad.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to the assisted dying conversation. This
Speaker 1: is very interesting actually, and so there has been a
Speaker 1: major consternation, I guess you could say, debate, debate, debate
Speaker 1: over the quote unquote assistant dying bill in the UK.
Speaker 1: This is kind of becoming a trend in Western Anglo
Speaker 1: nations or not the United States, and I'm sure it
Speaker 1: will come here soon at a federal level after our
Speaker 1: own experiments in Oregon and a few other places. So
Speaker 1: here we have an interview of the lawmaker who's explaining
Speaker 1: the bill, which did eventually pass through the UK Parliament.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: I think for me as a parliamentarian, we have a
Speaker 5: duty to fix things that aren't right. And if I
Speaker 5: look at the status quo in terms of the law
Speaker 5: around end of life choices for people, it's not.
Speaker 1: Fit for purpose.
Speaker 5: We've got people who are having harrowing, horrible deaths because
Speaker 5: even with in some cases the very best palliative care, their.
Speaker 3: Needs cannot be met.
Speaker 5: We've also got people who are taking their own lives
Speaker 5: in really tragic circumstances. And we've got people who do
Speaker 5: have the choice ofness is to death, but only in
Speaker 5: a different country. So if they can afford to spend
Speaker 5: thousands of pounds traveling and also doing so often prematurely,
Speaker 5: while they're still well enough to do so. So if
Speaker 5: we look at that situation, of which there is no
Speaker 5: real legal framework around it, that can't be right. And
Speaker 5: I think we have got a duty as legislators to
Speaker 5: fix that situation. And we have consult widely on the bill,
Speaker 5: whether that's legal professionals, whether that's medical people, paliative care experts,
Speaker 5: disability activists, but speaking to the British Medical Association and
Speaker 5: speaking to doctors with experience at the end of life,
Speaker 5: it's easier to define that period the closest someone is
Speaker 5: to death. So there are people who would want the
Speaker 5: bill to go further and look at conditions without an
Speaker 5: actual diagnosis, and I understand their frustration that the bill
Speaker 5: doesn't do that, but actually that six month period is
Speaker 5: much easier for medical practitioners to know when someone is
Speaker 5: approaching those final few months.
Speaker 1: So that's what's in the bill. According to her, let's
Speaker 1: put this on the screen from the BBC in terms
Speaker 1: of what is actually again, here's the requirements. To be
Speaker 1: able to take part in the Terminally Ill End of
Speaker 1: Life Bill. It be the resident of England registered with
Speaker 1: the GP for twelve months. They must have the mental
Speaker 1: capacity to make the choice and deemed to have expressed
Speaker 1: a clear, settled and informed wish free from coercion or pressure.
Speaker 1: They must be expected to die within six months. They
Speaker 1: must take two separate declarations witnessed and signed by them
Speaker 1: or a proxy on their behalf, but their wish to die.
Speaker 1: Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person as eligible.
Speaker 1: There must be at least seven days between the doctor's assessments,
Speaker 1: and a High Court judge must hear from any at
Speaker 1: least one doctor and question the dying person or anyone
Speaker 1: else they consider appropriate. Further fourteen days after the judges
Speaker 1: made the ruling. All this can be shortened two forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. In some circumstances. Under the bill, the doctor
Speaker 1: can prepare the quote unquote approved substance, but the person
Speaker 1: themselves must take the dose, and you commit suicide. It
Speaker 1: has to be self administered. So what's interesting about it
Speaker 1: is that it has there's that kind of a horseshoe
Speaker 1: theory about people who opposed it. One of them was
Speaker 1: Jeremy Corbin, the former leader of the Labor Party. Let's
Speaker 1: put this on the screen. For example, He says, thank
Speaker 1: you to all of those who have written to me
Speaker 1: about the terminally ill end of life bill. I want
Speaker 1: to take the time to explain why I'm voting against
Speaker 1: the legislation. I understand why people feel so passionately, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But choice at the end of life can only be
Speaker 1: meaningful in a system where everybody has access to the
Speaker 1: best palliaty of care possible. But chronic underfunding has left
Speaker 1: many of those suffering from eternal illness without the support
Speaker 1: they need. Without addressing these deficiencies, the legislation puts the poorest,
Speaker 1: the elderly, and the disabled people at risk of serious
Speaker 1: neglect and discrimination. He says, we urgently need to address
Speaker 1: the appalling state of palliative care by reversing years of
Speaker 1: austerity and privatization. This could be part of a broader
Speaker 1: imperative to build a national care service freely available to
Speaker 1: all of those who need it. So that was from
Speaker 1: the left. From the right. We also had somebody like
Speaker 1: Nigel Faraj from the Reform Party speak out against it.
Speaker 1: He says, I voted against the assisted Dying Bill not
Speaker 1: out of lack of compassion, but because I fear the
Speaker 1: law will widen in scope. If that happens, the right
Speaker 1: to die may become the obligation to die. And so
Speaker 1: that is of course the you know, like a slippery
Speaker 1: slope argument. I'll tell you this. I think I agree
Speaker 1: with Nigel, and it's because of the results out of Canada,
Speaker 1: which we'll get to in a little bit, you know.
Speaker 1: On its face and by the way, keep in mind,
Speaker 1: I'm not Christian. I know there's a whole that's a
Speaker 1: whole other level of discourse around suicide et cetera. So
Speaker 1: if you're looking for that, go to Rostouthat or somebody
Speaker 1: else about civilization, Christianity, and the spiritual arguments against this.
Speaker 1: On a basic level, I think most people can understand
Speaker 1: and empathize with the idea of wanting to end your
Speaker 1: life about quote unquote six months. But the results out
Speaker 1: of Canada do show that there are cases, and I
Speaker 1: think the case should it's not a lot, probably five percent,
Speaker 1: but it's still there are some five percent of cases
Speaker 1: that in an expanded law and regime of assisted suicide
Speaker 1: do take place where they're poor or they're depressed, and
Speaker 1: I just think that any legal regime which allows for
Speaker 1: that is just deeply grotesque, especially in a system of
Speaker 1: what we have right now, So outside of the realm
Speaker 1: of quote unquot assistant suicide, et cetera, even in a
Speaker 1: spiritual level, I do think opening this up as Canada
Speaker 1: has done is a very cautionary tale about and this
Speaker 1: is kind of what Corbin gets to as well, is
Speaker 1: you know, if you think about even even in a
Speaker 1: system like the UK, being poor in the UK, it's
Speaker 1: still worse than being rich, as people see people who
Speaker 1: are rich in the UK, it's still live long even
Speaker 1: when you have universal health care. Why they have access
Speaker 1: to better healthcare. It's like, well, when you have access
Speaker 1: to worse health care and then you have worse health outcomes,
Speaker 1: then you're more likely to take place and to get
Speaker 1: into a place where you need to quote unquote to
Speaker 1: commit assisted suicide. So I think it really does show
Speaker 1: the starkest and the most grotesque parts the underbelly of
Speaker 1: what the reality of the system looks like, even in
Speaker 1: a place with universal health care. And if something like
Speaker 1: this would ever come to the United States, you can
Speaker 1: just imagine what the uptook, what it would be. It
Speaker 1: would be people on Medicaid, it'd be you know, the uninsured,
Speaker 1: it would be predominantly the people the worst health outcomes
Speaker 1: in the US are all the poorest, you know, all
Speaker 1: rates of cancer, obesity, et cetera. So I just think
Speaker 1: it's a very very cautionary tale. But I understand it's
Speaker 1: very frog conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hear all those arguments. I mean, the two
Speaker 2: major ones are the ones that Nigel Farrage and Jeremy
Speaker 2: Corbyn offered. So Farage is basically like it's a slippery slope,
Speaker 2: so he doesn't even object to the bill as it is,
Speaker 2: which just to reiterate, this b bill in which will
Speaker 2: apply to England and Wales to start with, is just
Speaker 2: for terminally ill patients, and it's patients who have had
Speaker 2: a you have six months or less to live diagnosis.
Speaker 2: There is a significantly onerous process that you have to
Speaker 2: get to in order to you know, get this determination
Speaker 2: and allow you to avail yourself of the rights in
Speaker 2: this bill. To me, that strikes the right balance. You know,
Speaker 2: I guess I'm sort of like a centrist on this
Speaker 2: issue because what has made the Canada example fraud is
Speaker 2: they have opened it up to people who also have
Speaker 2: mental illness, and that to me is a bridge too
Speaker 2: far because within the UK, what you're talking about is
Speaker 2: people who are they're already going to die, So it's
Speaker 2: not like they're choosing death. Death has already nature has
Speaker 2: already chosen death for them. They're choosing how to do
Speaker 2: it on their own terms. And you know, I have
Speaker 2: personally known people who have struggled with this at the
Speaker 2: end of their life and do not want to suffer
Speaker 2: and for months on and in excruciating pain and in
Speaker 2: miserable circumstances and want to have the right to die
Speaker 2: with dignity.
Speaker 3: I fully support that.
Speaker 2: So you know, I don't really buy the slippery slope
Speaker 2: argument because look, we're voting, they're voting on this particular
Speaker 2: law at this particular time. The debate down the road.
Speaker 2: If someone tries to push it to the next level,
Speaker 2: then you can oppose that at that time. So I
Speaker 2: don't really buy the slippery slope argument. And then I
Speaker 2: even though you know, I respect Jeremy Corbyn and his
Speaker 2: analysis here, I also think it's one of these situations
Speaker 2: where with all policy, you kind of have to deal
Speaker 2: with the system as it exists currently. You're not going
Speaker 2: to get to some time or you have the socialist
Speaker 2: utopia and all of the social ills are solved. You
Speaker 2: have to deal with the reality as it exists. So
Speaker 2: while of course they should continue to fight for better
Speaker 2: palliative care, I guarantee they have better palliative care there
Speaker 2: than we do here, in better healthcare system in general
Speaker 2: than we do here, etc. So while you continue that fight,
Speaker 2: you also have to give people the right to have
Speaker 2: that dignity and choice at their end of their life,
Speaker 2: and I'll give you another you know, an example here
Speaker 2: that maybe Sager you'll respond to is there are a
Speaker 2: lot of lefties who argue, like, you cannot crack down
Speaker 2: on crime because we have all of these social ills,
Speaker 2: and so it's like, okay, so we have to be
Speaker 2: able to achieve the grand socialist utopia before we're able
Speaker 2: to penalize people who are genuinely harming others and creating victims.
Speaker 2: And I don't, you know, I don't really buy that.
Speaker 2: We have to live in the system as it exists.
Speaker 2: And yes, we continue to fight for anti poverty programs
Speaker 2: and continue to fight for you know, all of those
Speaker 2: like labor rights and all of those things, but you
Speaker 2: also have to make sure that people are able to
Speaker 2: exist and there's some level of order in the system
Speaker 2: that we have right now. Same thing with abortion. You know,
Speaker 2: this would be an argument you can make against abortion
Speaker 2: rights of like, well, some women are poor, and maybe
Speaker 2: if they weren't poor, maybe they wouldn't choose this for themselves.
Speaker 2: Right now, that's absolutely the case. But again, we can't
Speaker 2: wait for some potentially never coming day when we have
Speaker 2: some glorious utopia where all social ills are dealt with.
Speaker 2: You have to deal with society as it exists and
Speaker 2: try to improve people's lives in the best way that
Speaker 2: you possibly can't think.
Speaker 3: So that's that's where I come from.
Speaker 1: I think it's all very well taken and it's one
Speaker 1: of those though I want us all to just acknowledge
Speaker 1: the reality sometimes of what this stuff means, because unfortunately,
Speaker 1: you know, we cherry pick examples. But I remember once
Speaker 1: you know this, people were talking about the topic of
Speaker 1: abortion and they were like, in Iceland or I think
Speaker 1: it was Denmark, I forget which nation it is, They're like,
Speaker 1: we have eradicated Down syndrome and I was like, well,
Speaker 1: what does that mean. It means you have a one
Speaker 1: hundred percent abortion rate for people who have Down syndrome
Speaker 1: in the womb. I mean, let's all be honest, you
Speaker 1: know about what that is. It's sick, right, it's sick,
Speaker 1: and like that's that's eugenics. Like, let's be honest. A
Speaker 1: lot of people make that choice. It's a free country.
Speaker 1: You don't understand it. But it's one of those where
Speaker 1: we should acknowledge what that means, the reality of you know,
Speaker 1: we try to paper over this stuff, you know, Ross
Speaker 1: actually put it really well in his he was talking
Speaker 1: about Canada. He says, it is barbaric to establish a
Speaker 1: bureaucratic system that offers death as a reliable treatment for
Speaker 1: suffering and enlists the healing profession in delivering this cure.
Speaker 1: And while there may be worse evils ahead, this is
Speaker 1: in a slippery slope argument. When ten thousand people are
Speaker 1: availing themselves of your euthanasia system every year, you have
Speaker 1: already entered the dystopia. And so that gets to the
Speaker 1: Canadian figures.
Speaker 2: What I disagree with there in the narrow confines of
Speaker 2: what we're talking about in the UK, which is significantly
Speaker 2: different than the Canadian context. What has just passed into
Speaker 2: law here is that people aren't choosing death. They are
Speaker 2: going to die well, but they're given this allows them
Speaker 2: to go out on their own terms. And that is
Speaker 2: the narrow confines within which I am okay with it,
Speaker 2: not only okay with where I actively support it. I
Speaker 2: think it is the right and more moral position to
Speaker 2: give people that opportunity to go out with dignity and
Speaker 2: with vastly less pain at the end of their lives.
Speaker 2: So to me, that distinction is really important and that's
Speaker 2: why you know again, And I guess I'm sort of
Speaker 2: like a centrist on this issue. Why I don't think
Speaker 2: expanding it to people who are mentally ill, who may
Speaker 2: be in I'm not diminishing their pain and suffering like
Speaker 2: they may be an extraordinary psychological and sometimes also physical pain.
Speaker 2: But psychologists have a very difficult time determining, even in
Speaker 2: cases of so called treatment resistant depression, yes, exactly whether
Speaker 2: people are going to be permanently afflicted with this or
Speaker 2: if there may be some life change or just as
Speaker 2: you get older, or some new treatment. But psychologists are
Speaker 2: very bad at predicting whether this is going to be
Speaker 2: a permanent state of psychological distress for any given individual.
Speaker 3: And so in that.
Speaker 2: Case, I do feel that the moral calculus is quite different,
Speaker 2: and to offer people rather than we're going to keep trying,
Speaker 2: we're going to keep fighting, we're going to get you
Speaker 2: through this, like we want you here with us and
Speaker 2: among us, and we value you, instead of that being
Speaker 2: the message, having even the possibility that the message would be,
Speaker 2: like you know, we could help you off yourself. I
Speaker 2: think that's horrible. I genuinely think that's horrible. But that's
Speaker 2: not what's being contemplated in the UK. And so that's
Speaker 2: why I feel like they have drawn the boundaries in
Speaker 2: a way that is, you know, basically correct and with
Speaker 2: a lot of thought towards like the morals and ethics
Speaker 2: of the situation.
Speaker 1: I think, well, look, America is becoming much more secular.
Speaker 1: We're the most secular country that we've ever been, you know,
Speaker 1: in our modern history. This is gonna come just I
Speaker 1: can guarantee you. You know, even outside of the Oregon context,
Speaker 1: that was a big what was in the nineties, maybe
Speaker 1: the two thousands, it was a big culture war. But
Speaker 1: I can see it in a federal level for somebody
Speaker 1: at least at somebody's going to propose this legislation or something.
Speaker 1: So that's why I wanted to talk about this because
Speaker 1: across the anglosphere this is happening now, this is going
Speaker 1: to be policy, and actually thinking about the reality of
Speaker 1: what it looks like in practice, etc. What the rules
Speaker 1: and the confines and all that stuff should be. It's
Speaker 1: really important because otherwise, you know, look like the candid
Speaker 1: thing I just keep coming back to because it started
Speaker 1: off exactly like what we're talking about here, and then
Speaker 1: a couple of years later, four percent of all debts
Speaker 1: in Canada are assistant suicide. And you're like, whoa, what, Yeah,
Speaker 1: like I said, ninety six percent are terminally ill. Great,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess within the context of that.
Speaker 2: But if you could feel comfortable it would stay with
Speaker 2: terminally ill people, would you support them?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, the problem is just that
Speaker 1: with all government policy, it's just you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of the rules and like you just said about the definition.
Speaker 1: And then here's the crazy part too, it's like, what
Speaker 1: about you know, advances in medical science. I mean, already
Speaker 1: there are certain types of cancers which have effectively been
Speaker 1: eradicated or are completely you know, able to treat just
Speaker 1: in the last five ten years, or if you're going.
Speaker 3: To die in six months. It's not very vanishing.
Speaker 1: People say that, but there are a lot of there
Speaker 1: are cases of people who beat the odds, you know,
Speaker 1: And so you're like, well, what if you make a
Speaker 1: dec is their misdiagnosis you know that happens. What if
Speaker 1: somebody does kill themselves based on upon a misdiagnosis? There
Speaker 1: are enough cases on the edges and all that that
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just think this is a this
Speaker 1: is a really a gray area quote unquote. There's also
Speaker 1: you know the question of Alzheimer's right, you know, and
Speaker 1: the informed consent, your ability to even make a decision,
Speaker 1: like are you lucid when you make that decision? Are
Speaker 1: you not? You know, especially if you look at the
Speaker 1: death numbers for cancers and a lot of they're afflicting
Speaker 1: people well into their eighties. Who determines whether they're of
Speaker 1: a sound mind. Maybe when they're in a lucid state,
Speaker 1: they don't want to die, when they're in a lot
Speaker 1: of pain, they do, you know. So, I mean the
Speaker 1: edge cases in that moral quality.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's why they built into this a lot
Speaker 2: of like time and constraints and checks to make sure
Speaker 2: that you don't have, you know, a flippant decision made
Speaker 2: and next thing, you know, someone who may not have
Speaker 2: really wanted to die has died. And I mean, just
Speaker 2: you know, it's kind of similar to how I feel
Speaker 2: about the issue of choice. I do think these issues
Speaker 2: are extremely fraud. I think they're morally fraud. I think
Speaker 2: they're you know, personally fraud.
Speaker 3: I think they're very.
Speaker 2: Difficult, and that's why I feel like the person themselves
Speaker 2: and their families at the you know, in these narrow
Speaker 2: circumstances where you have received a clear cut terminally ill
Speaker 2: you're going to be dead within six months diagnosis, leaving
Speaker 2: it up to the individual and their families rather than
Speaker 2: like government legislation. In my opinion, that is the best
Speaker 2: way to deal with situations that are inherently morally and
Speaker 2: ethically and personally fraud.
Speaker 1: Yeah, makes sense. All right, let's get to AOC.
Speaker 2: So there has been a lot of chatter about potential
Speaker 2: AOC twenty twenty eight. Bid I have to say, a
Speaker 2: lot of the chatter so I like to put this
Speaker 2: tear sheet up on the screen seem to assert that
Speaker 2: AOC herself had floated this idea that she would run
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight. But that doesn't I mean, at
Speaker 2: least publicly, we don't have any reporting to confirm that.
Speaker 2: But anyway, here's an article from the Hill basically saying
Speaker 2: that people are talking about not underestimating her, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera.
Speaker 3: So it does spark an interesting discussion about.
Speaker 2: Whether she would be an effective messenger and national standard
Speaker 2: bearer for the Democratic Party. We do have a little
Speaker 2: way too premature pulling up a potential twenty twenty eight
Speaker 2: Democratic primary field. Let's put this up on the screen,
Speaker 2: and you got Kamala Harris coming in at forty one percent.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of gross to see that they're
Speaker 2: given that she just failed. But it's also just like
Speaker 2: me mighty, you know, like people are like, oh, I
Speaker 2: don't know the last lady.
Speaker 3: I guess her eight percent.
Speaker 2: You got Gavin seven percent, Josh Shapiro six percent, Pee
Speaker 2: bootageje Tim Walls, and AOC coming in at four percent.
Speaker 2: I also want to put in a note here that
Speaker 2: John Fetterman does not even achieve one percent, So I
Speaker 2: was kind of happy to see that. But in any case,
Speaker 2: four percent, you know, it's not nothing, but it's also
Speaker 2: not exactly where you'd want to start on. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: I don't have AOC arrangements the like I think AOC
Speaker 2: on a lot of issues is aligned with me. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, I think it's better she's in the house
Speaker 2: versus Joseph Crowley. I don't think she would be an
Speaker 2: effective national messenger because she just she has done too
Speaker 2: much of this. She's too much associated with this like identitarian,
Speaker 2: woke academic language, and I think it would be very
Speaker 2: hard for her to shake that off at this point
Speaker 2: because it has been such a central part of the brain.
Speaker 2: I mean, she when Bernie went on Rogan, she was
Speaker 2: one of those I have said about it, so hear
Speaker 2: from you know again, I appreciated her, and I do
Speaker 2: think she has done a better job messaging recently and
Speaker 2: has sort of adjusted her approach. And that's great. And
Speaker 2: obviously she did very well in her district. She actually
Speaker 2: there were a lot of people we interviewed who were
Speaker 2: AOC Trump voters. Will get to that in a moment,
Speaker 2: but for me, I would like to see someone who
Speaker 2: was more clearly grounded in a left populist economic message,
Speaker 2: like a Sean Fain who's the president of the UAW,
Speaker 2: who I think is kind of like the ideal messenger,
Speaker 2: who has so much credibility about working people of all
Speaker 2: stripes and universal programs and being able to speak to
Speaker 2: people in rural and urban and suburban areas.
Speaker 3: To me, that's really the model.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean my take, which is consistent now
Speaker 1: across is I don't think that the Democratic nominee will
Speaker 1: be any of these people. So even looking at Kamala Gavin,
Speaker 1: Josh Shapiro, beat Boodo, Judge Tim Walls, aoc Wretchen, Whitmer,
Speaker 1: jab Pritzker.
Speaker 3: You have more hope for the Democratic Party than I do.
Speaker 1: So I just think that at a basic level, what will,
Speaker 1: what has to happen, is that out of chaos love
Speaker 1: you know, chaos loves a vacuum. And if we look
Speaker 1: at all precedents, twenty twelve, the Republican Party has no
Speaker 1: idea what to do. Mitt Romney loses and the base
Speaker 1: loses it over immigration. In twenty fourteen, no establishment Republican
Speaker 1: is capable of filling that void. Donald Trump comes down
Speaker 1: the escalator blows it out. Nineteen ninety two. Again, if
Speaker 1: you look at the polling going into ninety one, of
Speaker 1: all of the people that they thought were going to win,
Speaker 1: it was Jerry Brown. I don't even remember the guy
Speaker 1: from Massachusetts, whoever the senator was at that time. After
Speaker 1: the devastating loss of Ducaucus, Bill Clinton is like number
Speaker 1: ten on the list. You can go and look at
Speaker 1: the debates on the debate stage, it's hilarious. He's like
Speaker 1: off to the side somewhere, and he wins in ninety two.
Speaker 1: The point is is that coming out of those it's
Speaker 1: always somebody who you don't expect, and it's somebody who
Speaker 1: can fill in a vacuum which the current establishment is
Speaker 1: not able to do. The Democratic Party is back to
Speaker 1: that level where their leadership has no credibility. And I've
Speaker 1: said this too. Who is the base of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party today? It's rich white people. The one thing you
Speaker 1: can give rich white people, they want to win, So
Speaker 1: whoever they think is going to win, they will vote
Speaker 1: for them.
Speaker 3: I think these people can win those us. That's my
Speaker 3: thing is.
Speaker 1: Like, oh, you think Gavin Newsom is gonna win? I
Speaker 1: don't think no.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, I kind of do. I mean, I
Speaker 3: hope you're right.
Speaker 2: I want to be wrong, trust me, And I think
Speaker 2: there's a possibility for it because I do think that
Speaker 2: the kind of liberal establishment approach the Trump era has
Speaker 2: been thoroughly slayed. And I think next time that you
Speaker 2: have a left populace who runs, I think they can
Speaker 2: relentlessly say that the neoliberals like Gavin Newsom and Pete
Speaker 2: Boudaget Gratcha, like the standard issue people, these are the people.
Speaker 3: Who are not electable.
Speaker 2: Yes, right, That was wielded so effectively against Bernie in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, and especially in twenty twenty, it was wielded
Speaker 2: so effectively. Now I think the tables have turned where
Speaker 2: you do have a chance to make that argument that
Speaker 2: like no, no, no, the left popular, We're not the
Speaker 2: unelected you people, you're the unelectable one. And I do
Speaker 2: think it will carry more weight. And the institutions like
Speaker 2: MSNBC that carried the narrative of no, only establishment democrats
Speaker 2: who we personally like those are the only people who
Speaker 2: can get elected. So there's a chance. There's a chance. However,
Speaker 2: I do think that there are a lot of affluent
Speaker 2: liberals who do largely make.
Speaker 3: Up the base of the party, who feel.
Speaker 2: Like they love Pete Bootage going on Fox News and
Speaker 2: giving them the business and these other like very highly educated,
Speaker 2: technocratic vibe people who are you know, more much more
Speaker 2: verbally sort of capable than Kamala Harris, but by and
Speaker 2: large are basically the same politician as she is. Like,
Speaker 2: I think that they think those sorts of people can
Speaker 2: be an answer, and so anyway, there's a chance. But
Speaker 2: I'm not as convinced as you are that it won't
Speaker 2: be one of the people.
Speaker 1: Honestly, you certainly could be. I mean Look, the case
Speaker 1: for why it would be one of these people is
Speaker 1: if Trump does an effective repeat of last time around,
Speaker 1: where you drop to a thirty percent approval rating and
Speaker 1: you get blown out in the midterms, and now you're
Speaker 1: George W. Bush type figure, and you know, you've got
Speaker 1: JD who basically doesn't have a chance in hell of
Speaker 1: trying to run on anything that's positive previously right, and
Speaker 1: you just have a consensus anti Trump can.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and democraps easy, you know, do great in the midterms,
Speaker 2: so they feel like we've solved their problems, we have
Speaker 2: no problems.
Speaker 1: That's a very keep going with the standard program easy
Speaker 1: way for these So for NEWSIM and all of them
Speaker 1: need to pray. What happens is that Trump repeats the
Speaker 1: mistakes of the first term just basically, you know, chaos,
Speaker 1: tax bill and all of that, something unpopular like the
Speaker 1: ACA repeal again and then they can just run on
Speaker 1: that and that's the simplest campaign in the world. I
Speaker 1: don't think it will happen again. I genuinely don't. I
Speaker 1: think that the Trump people have at least learned some
Speaker 1: lessons and they're going to try and govern in a
Speaker 1: different direction. And I would say there's a fifty percent
Speaker 1: chance wherea last time it was one hundred percent chance
Speaker 1: of what happened. Let's say things do turn out a
Speaker 1: little bit differently. Let's say Trump is sitting around forty
Speaker 1: five maybe forty six approval, right around where Obama is.
Speaker 1: He loses a little bit in the midterms, one a lot.
Speaker 1: Now you have a real chaotic situation. I mean, the
Speaker 1: craziest situation would be one that happened to Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: where what if the Republicans win in the midterm election.
Speaker 1: That would be devastating, I think to the current party
Speaker 1: because that would mean jakeem and all these people and Schumer,
Speaker 1: I mean, they are done. I think that's probably honestly,
Speaker 1: if you if you want the chaos situation, you should
Speaker 1: hope for that because that would mean a total reassessment
Speaker 1: at the top to the bottom of the DNC for
Speaker 1: who you are. And I think that's you know, I
Speaker 1: would get it a ten percent chance, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you know what there was I think polymarket had a
Speaker 1: five percent chance of Donald Trump winning with the popular
Speaker 1: vote margin that he eventually did win, So crazy things
Speaker 1: can happen.
Speaker 2: I think it would be interesting if AOC ran for
Speaker 2: governor of New York.
Speaker 4: I think she would get blown out if she had.
Speaker 2: I think she'd have more of a chance there. You know,
Speaker 2: she has so much name recognition. So much of our politics,
Speaker 2: so much of our politics is just I mean that
Speaker 2: really comes through with the AOC Trump voters. So much
Speaker 2: of it was just like these two are both sort
Speaker 2: of like celebrities and controversial and people are talking about them,
Speaker 2: so there must be something there, And you know, she
Speaker 2: does have that factor, and I think it would be
Speaker 2: really interesting to see if someone with her politics could
Speaker 2: govern at an executive level and state level. We don't
Speaker 2: really have any model of that. So to me, that
Speaker 2: would be more interesting for AOC than jumping from the
Speaker 2: House to the presidency, which even I mean that is
Speaker 2: also very difficult to accomplish.
Speaker 3: Who has that? Has anyone ever accomplished.
Speaker 1: Our House to presidency? Gerald Ford? I want to Ford
Speaker 1: was the leader, but he was I guess he was
Speaker 1: vice president. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's one. I don't know if anyway,
Speaker 3: if it's happened, it's been rare.
Speaker 4: There's only rare that.
Speaker 3: Even our history buff over years.
Speaker 1: I'm going over it in my head I can't think
Speaker 1: of a single person who from the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: to President of the United States. They're either total outsider,
Speaker 1: a general, senator, secretary of State. I honestly think Ford
Speaker 1: might be the last person, but again, he technically was
Speaker 1: the vice president, that's what eventually, but he was never
Speaker 1: really elected either.
Speaker 3: Garfield elected when an incumbent congressman.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: Only person according to core.
Speaker 1: Garfield been a while, that's anyway. I don't know a
Speaker 1: lot about Garfield.
Speaker 4: I do have an autobiography or a biography of them.
Speaker 1: On my shelf, though, which is interesting. All Right, we
Speaker 1: got chank to Yuger standing by. Chrystal and him are
Speaker 1: going to have a long discussion. I'll be stepping out,
Speaker 1: but we'll see you all later