Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: It is a very big and frankly very scary week.
Speaker 1: Today or tomorrow we're going to learn Kamo's VP pick.
Speaker 1: So there's been fevered speculation. We'll tell you what we know.
Speaker 1: Where everybody stands and who is lobbying for who. It's
Speaker 1: gotten very very interesting. We also have some new polls
Speaker 1: revealing the current state of the race that are quite interesting.
Speaker 1: The gender divide actually a little bit smaller than I expected,
Speaker 1: given us just one pole though and very close race.
Speaker 1: I think that's the bottom line. We are in truly
Speaker 1: toss up territory. We also are taking a look at
Speaker 1: what is a terrifying situation in the Middle East. Everybody
Speaker 1: waiting to see what the Iranian response is going to
Speaker 1: be to that assassination that occurred by Israel on their soil.
Speaker 1: Doctor Tree to Parsi is going to join us to
Speaker 1: talk about what we could be facing this week. We
Speaker 1: also have stock markets crashing around the world, a huge
Speaker 1: sell off, Japan's index dropping the largest single drop in
Speaker 1: a day. This comes on the heels of a very
Speaker 1: poor jobs report here in the US and some indications
Speaker 1: that we could be heading into a recession, so very
Speaker 1: scary signs to take a look at their Sacer and
Speaker 1: I are going to dig into this Olympic gender controversy,
Speaker 1: and soccer is very excited to talk about.
Speaker 3: It'll be fun. We'll give everybody the details.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, we'll just you know, break down the
Speaker 1: politics of it, how this whole thing took off, What
Speaker 1: we know, what we don't know, because there is a
Speaker 1: lot of fiction to sort through with regard to this
Speaker 1: boxer in the Olympics. And we also have Jordan Sheridan
Speaker 1: on He wrote a new book about the poisoning of flint,
Speaker 1: which obviously very relevant continues to be with Michigan being
Speaker 1: a battle ground state. And also given the fact that
Speaker 1: you know, this isn't the only place that has been
Speaker 1: poisoned in America with little repercussions and little pay, little
Speaker 1: sort of compensation for the victims of said poisoning, so
Speaker 1: we'll have a look at that as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: Thank you to all of the people who signed up.
Speaker 2: You took advantage of our promotion for a free month
Speaker 2: trial of our pre subscription. We really appreciate all of
Speaker 2: those who did. It was a certainly thank you to
Speaker 2: our tou tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of new
Speaker 2: watchers and listeners, so we really appreciate you. If you
Speaker 2: didn't get to take advantage of that, perhaps we'll bring
Speaker 2: it back. But breakingpoints dot com, if you want to
Speaker 2: check it out, we are going to continue delivering our service.
Speaker 3: To the premium subscription.
Speaker 2: You get to watch everything uncut, you get the AMA
Speaker 2: and all those other benefits. So if you still want
Speaker 2: to take advantage of Breakingpoints dot com, and we will
Speaker 2: certainly bring it back sometime in the future, stay tuned
Speaker 2: for that. Let's go ahead, though, Crystal and begin with
Speaker 2: the VP speculation, which we've only got a limited amount
Speaker 2: of time before we may even learn who it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we actually put this block first in the show
Speaker 1: because this could leak out.
Speaker 4: The news could leak.
Speaker 1: Out at any time, so we wanted to record this
Speaker 1: and get it out before it becomes outdated. Let's put
Speaker 1: this first piece up on the screen so we know
Speaker 1: that she has sort of narrowed her list to six.
Speaker 1: In particular, You've got Governor Andy was Cheer of Kentucky, JB.
Speaker 1: Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Tim Walls of Minnesota,
Speaker 1: Senator Mar Kelly of Arizona, and Transportation Secretary's Pete Budhagic
Speaker 1: appear to be the final six. However, among those six,
Speaker 1: there appear to be three that have the edge that
Speaker 1: Kamala met with personally.
Speaker 4: Yesterday in DC.
Speaker 1: That would be Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, Mark Kelly,
Speaker 1: Senator of Arizona, and Governor Tim Walls of Minnesota. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, Soccer, any sort of wild speculation that
Speaker 1: you want to make here at the top about who
Speaker 1: you think the pick might be.
Speaker 2: Going to go Shapiro, I'd probably give it like a
Speaker 2: fifty five percent shot, which shows by the way that
Speaker 2: have not all that confident. I mean, it would perhaps
Speaker 2: behoove Kamala just to pick somebody else, just to try
Speaker 2: and get as big of a media pop but the
Speaker 2: fundamentals of the race are still there. Pennsylvania is the
Speaker 2: most likely tipping point state overwhelmingly popular governor. The other
Speaker 2: two don't necessarily come from states that Kamala's is in
Speaker 2: the same must win category. At the same time, vice
Speaker 2: president usually doesn't matter, as we said here, but you know,
Speaker 2: given his popularity in the state and perhaps in the
Speaker 2: machine and other things that he might be able to
Speaker 2: bring to bear. When we're talking about margins of just
Speaker 2: a couple of ten fifteen thousand votes that have that
Speaker 2: which is really what's happened a couple one hundred thousand
Speaker 2: votes really in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, you need
Speaker 2: all the help that you can get. So just given
Speaker 2: the math and given the way that all the models
Speaker 2: look and how twenty sixteen and twenty twenty played out,
Speaker 2: I think Pennsylvania just seems like.
Speaker 3: The most likely beat.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's probably Shapiro as well, although I'll
Speaker 4: give you a.
Speaker 1: Few reasons in a moment why possibly she would be
Speaker 1: leery of picking the governor of Pennsylvania at this point.
Speaker 1: Now this has developed into a real sort of like
Speaker 1: ideological battle within the left and within the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: You had Joe Scarborough coming out a long tweet thread
Speaker 1: defending Josh Shapiro and advocating for him and of course
Speaker 1: smearing his critics as what else anti semites. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen from Joe Scarborough. He says,
Speaker 1: Josh Shapiro's governor of the most important state in this election.
Speaker 1: That part is true. He's the most experienced leader and
Speaker 1: gifted order of the remaining strong candidate's gifted order. If
Speaker 1: you love a knock off Obama impression, he would present
Speaker 1: voters with the most dynamic tickets since Clinton Gore in
Speaker 1: ninety two. While as dynamicus al Gore soger incredible and
Speaker 1: we'll be ready to serve on day one. He goes
Speaker 1: on from there, he says, the whisper campaigns against Josh
Speaker 1: Shapiro have dark undertones.
Speaker 4: Breaking news He's Jewish.
Speaker 1: But just as Thatcher was identified as a game changing
Speaker 1: force in politics instead of a woman, Josh Shapiro's strengths
Speaker 1: and talents would easily transcend bigotry and identity politics, and
Speaker 1: then he continued on, don't understand the recent attacks on
Speaker 1: the strongest VP contender. Well, it's a toxic mix of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, extremist views on Gaza, and jealous colleagues who
Speaker 1: don't want to be blocked out of the presidential.
Speaker 4: Sweepstakes for the next decade.
Speaker 1: That last part is almost certainly about John Fetterman, who
Speaker 1: interestingly has come out against Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 4: They have a sort of like in state rivalry. I'll
Speaker 4: show you that in a moment.
Speaker 1: You know, Shapiro has become a bit of a lightning
Speaker 1: rod in terms of this VP pick, because ideologically he
Speaker 1: has been the most vocal and the most extreme in
Speaker 1: terms of his rhetoric with regard to Israel and specifically
Speaker 1: with regard to campus protesters. We showed you last week
Speaker 1: him comparing pro Palestine protesters to the KKK. Since then,
Speaker 1: his college writings about Palestinians and how they're too I
Speaker 1: think it was battle minded for peace have come out now.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone should be judged by whatever the
Speaker 1: hell they were saying in college.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's fair whatsoever.
Speaker 1: The problem is there's not a lot of indication that
Speaker 1: he has actually changed his views with regard to this,
Speaker 1: and so, you know, the charge of anti Semitism here,
Speaker 1: first of all, ignores the fact that JB. Pritzker, also
Speaker 1: in the list also Jewish. In addition, the same people
Speaker 1: who are arguing against Josh Shapiro are the people who
Speaker 1: literally lionize Bernie Sanders, who is also Jewish. So it's
Speaker 1: a convenient, you know, scapegoating of the left, attempt to
Speaker 1: dismiss legitimate criticism which isn't only centered around Gaza, but
Speaker 1: also has to do with his support of charter schools.
Speaker 1: That's why the labor movement is not a fan of him.
Speaker 1: He's called for corporate taxes to be cut. And the
Speaker 1: reason I think the two reasons why I think she
Speaker 1: could could potentially pass on Shapiro at number one. You know,
Speaker 1: this has opened up one of the fishers within the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that Kamala Harris had a chance to somewhat
Speaker 1: move past right. A lot of people on the left
Speaker 1: who were not going to vote for genocide Joe are
Speaker 1: a little bit open to Kamala Harris because she doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like so much of an id law on Israel,
Speaker 1: and that's the best you're going to get in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is someone who is not an ideological Zionist
Speaker 1: who's willing to pay a political price in service of
Speaker 1: that ideological position. The best you can hope for is
Speaker 1: someone who is malleable. And that's why there's a little
Speaker 1: bit more openness to Kamala Harris. Josh Shapiro seems to
Speaker 1: fit much more in the Biden model, where he is
Speaker 1: actually ideologically committed to the cause. And so you know,
Speaker 1: she could just from a risk aversion standpoint, not want
Speaker 1: to open up those rifts in the Democratic Party when
Speaker 1: so much of her bump in the polls actually comes
Speaker 1: from reconsolidating a Democratic base among young people and others
Speaker 1: that had drifted away.
Speaker 4: That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, there are a couple of things that could
Speaker 1: come up in the VET that are potentially problematic.
Speaker 4: One of them has.
Speaker 1: To do with this old case where a woman's death
Speaker 1: was ruled a suicide even though she had ten to
Speaker 1: fifteen stab wounds, and Shapiro's accused of having so sat
Speaker 1: on this case, and he had a campaign contribution from
Speaker 1: the individual who could be a murder suspect in that case.
Speaker 1: You know, it's the type of thing that you could see,
Speaker 1: you know, an ad maker really picking up and running
Speaker 1: wild with So there's that, and there's also the allegations
Speaker 1: of cover up of sexual harassment within his office, so
Speaker 1: it's possible. And then the last thing, I guess there
Speaker 1: is one other thing, which is he does read is
Speaker 1: very ambitious, right, and his people around him have really
Speaker 1: tried to create this aura of inevitability to his pick
Speaker 1: as the VP, And it's possible that she doesn't like
Speaker 1: the vibe of that, feels that he's going to you know,
Speaker 1: overshadow her, feels that he's not going to be a
Speaker 1: team player, really be interested, you know, primarily in his
Speaker 1: own advancement. Like I said, I still think it's most
Speaker 1: likely that Shapiro is chosen, But if he's not, I
Speaker 1: think it would be more likely one of those reasons
Speaker 1: than like, you know, that she actually has an ideological
Speaker 1: issue with him or wants to please the left because
Speaker 1: nobody at the top of the Democratic Party wants to
Speaker 1: do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well.
Speaker 2: And look, let's be honest, you know, other contenders also
Speaker 2: have significant basis. So we've been covering here Organized Labor
Speaker 2: UAW president Sean Fain, who endorsed Kamala Harris, has come
Speaker 2: out in favor of other candidates, So why don't we
Speaker 2: take a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 5: We've really broken down these candidates, really looked at him,
Speaker 5: and I'll tell you my favorite, Andy but Sheer from Kentucky.
Speaker 5: I mean, the man stood with us, you know, on
Speaker 5: the picket line. You know, he's been there for workers
Speaker 5: throughout every bit of our walk. And you know he's
Speaker 5: won in a state where Mitch McConnell's from. I mean,
Speaker 5: it's been a red state traditionally. He's won twice there
Speaker 5: and I just believe he brings a huge dynamic and
Speaker 5: I believe the Harris the Sheer ticket would be unbeatable.
Speaker 5: I believe both of them would just be such dynamic candidates.
Speaker 5: But we really like Tim Wallas from Minnesota also, thank
Speaker 5: he's an awesome guy for labor, one hundred percent behind labor,
Speaker 5: And those would be our top two if we had
Speaker 5: to pick any.
Speaker 3: So I think that's significant, you know.
Speaker 2: Nonetheless, with the auto workers specifically, if we think about
Speaker 2: Michigan and the industrial Midwest, that could certainly come down
Speaker 2: at the same time, he did endorse Kamala Harris already,
Speaker 2: so it's already on board with the ticket. Nonetheless, you know,
Speaker 2: certainly something that we should look to, especially with some
Speaker 2: of the war between who she is going to pick.
Speaker 2: I still think though, my foremost point stands whenever we
Speaker 2: just look at Pennsylvania, the tipping point status and just
Speaker 2: what he potentially could bring to that ticket, and just
Speaker 2: all you have to do is drive out you know,
Speaker 2: zero point five percent more of the vote, and in
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania you so much more have an outsized influence. That's
Speaker 2: why I just think the fundamentals are really strong there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes sense that Sean Fain would be a
Speaker 1: big fan of Annie Basher because the state of Kentucky
Speaker 1: there's quite a bit of auto manufacturing. They have a
Speaker 1: large Ford truck assembly plant there that they've got a
Speaker 1: lot of UAW members. They were involved in that stand
Speaker 1: up strike that was so successful. There's also been part
Speaker 1: of why Andysheer is so popular in the state of
Speaker 1: Kentucky is he's brought a lot of manufacturing jobs into
Speaker 1: the state, including union battery EV.
Speaker 4: Battery jobs of the state.
Speaker 1: So that's why he's got a close partnership and comfort
Speaker 1: with Andy Basheer, and but Sheer also came in in
Speaker 1: the wake of the teacher strike wave, and that was
Speaker 1: very important to his election. So, you know, in the
Speaker 1: state of Kentucky, even though it's a red state, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: very pro union, very pro labor, and Andy Bisheer has
Speaker 1: been very consistently pro union and pro labor. The other
Speaker 1: candidate that he says he likes is Tim Wall's former
Speaker 1: high school teacher, who has also been really consistently pro
Speaker 1: labor and has become a real favorite of the progressive
Speaker 1: wing of the Democratic Party because of how strong his
Speaker 1: record has been in the state. And also I think
Speaker 1: he's really won people over with how effective he is
Speaker 1: in terms of his communication. Let's go ahead and skip
Speaker 1: ahead to a five, because this was something that gave
Speaker 1: the Walls heads out there a lot of hope. Apparently
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is leaning in Tim Walls's favor. He's a
Speaker 1: former in addition being the governor of Minnesota, actually served
Speaker 1: in the House for quite a while. And this was
Speaker 1: an article from The Hill that quoted hers, quoted those
Speaker 1: around her as saying she's always especially fond of former
Speaker 1: House colleagues, when asked about Harris's running, made a nod
Speaker 1: to Walls, and other members of the House who had
Speaker 1: served with him also were sort of like, you know,
Speaker 1: pushing him and in favor of him as well. Apparently
Speaker 1: Joe Biden really likes him because he just thought he
Speaker 1: was fun to be around and for whatever that's worth.
Speaker 1: So everyone's hoping that Nancy's gonna pull off another coup
Speaker 1: here and get Walls on the ticket. If anyone could
Speaker 1: do it, I guess it would be her. The other thing,
Speaker 1: Sager go back to a four guys. This is the
Speaker 1: Fetterman thing that I was talking about, which is kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, this interra state party rivalry situation. Betterman has
Speaker 1: concerns about Shapiro for VP. The bottom line here is
Speaker 1: he is privately relayed that he Shapiro is sort of
Speaker 1: overly ambitious, and there was a civic rub between the
Speaker 1: two of them about the commutations board. There were two
Speaker 1: prisoners being held in the state who were convicted always
Speaker 1: maintained their innocence. There was a dispute over whether they
Speaker 1: should be released or not. Fetterman thought that Shapir resisted
Speaker 1: releasing them initially because of his own political personal ambition.
Speaker 1: Later they did, you know, make it through that commutation
Speaker 1: board and were released. So in any case, his bottom
Speaker 1: line is sort of like, I guess they've never liked
Speaker 1: each other. There's a sort of in state rivalry, and
Speaker 1: he's telling the Harris team that he thinks this guy
Speaker 1: is overly ambitious and more interested in his own political
Speaker 1: prospects than anything else.
Speaker 6: Hey.
Speaker 2: Yeah, reading it, I was like, well, the fact that
Speaker 2: they got commuted anyway tells me a little bit that
Speaker 2: I don't think you really care. And that's just some
Speaker 2: you know, like leak the best that you could possibly get.
Speaker 2: It does sound more like he doesn't want to be
Speaker 2: overshadowed in his own home state, just given what we
Speaker 2: know a little bit about John Fetterman. Also, you know,
Speaker 2: in the wake of the last you know, year or so,
Speaker 2: in the way that he has comported himself, so he
Speaker 2: wants to be the star. He really enjoys the national profile,
Speaker 2: and it's not good whenever somebody else in your state
Speaker 2: is going to do upstate. You you know, he probably
Speaker 2: was the foremost national Pennsylvania politician and now Josh Shapiro
Speaker 2: certainly would overtake. So I always describe the cynicism whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to those people's That's what I make of
Speaker 2: the Fetterman situation at least.
Speaker 4: Yeah fair.
Speaker 1: I mean, even though Fetterman in this instance happened to
Speaker 1: come out on the same side of this issue as
Speaker 1: I do, I agree with you wholeheartedly about what his
Speaker 1: motivations are here. So moving on, let's put a seven
Speaker 1: up on the screen here. This is about Andy Basheer.
Speaker 1: He's apparently cleared his Tuesday calendar. Now, the reason that
Speaker 1: this is significant is because we know Tuesday, Kamala is
Speaker 1: going to do a rally in Philadelphia, which again made
Speaker 1: people think, oh, which Shapiro is definitely Shapiro, but it's
Speaker 1: going to be.
Speaker 4: With whoever her VP pick is.
Speaker 1: And so Andy Basheer is apparently cleared his Tuesday calendar,
Speaker 1: which made people think, oh, maybe there's something going on here.
Speaker 4: Who knows.
Speaker 1: Everybody's just trying to read that he leaves at this point.
Speaker 1: Who knows if that means anything at all. The case
Speaker 1: for Andy, I think is sort of like a moderate
Speaker 1: pick that won't piss off.
Speaker 4: Anyone in the party, right. You know, he's obviously.
Speaker 1: Got a great track record running and winning in a
Speaker 1: very difficult state twice and having a very high popularity,
Speaker 1: highest popularity of any Democratic governor in the entire country.
Speaker 1: He's proven himself to be an able communicator in his
Speaker 1: little cable news audition that all of these guys did
Speaker 1: as part of this VP process, which has been kind
Speaker 1: of funny to behold. But I sort of feel like
Speaker 1: he's like the low risk option. You know, she doesn't
Speaker 1: want to ruffle feathers by picking Shapiro and opening up
Speaker 1: that rift. But she doesn't want to, you know, throw
Speaker 1: the left a bone here with Tim Walls and all
Speaker 1: of his progressive bona fides in terms of his record
Speaker 1: in Minnesota. Perhaps Andy Basheer ends up being kind of
Speaker 1: the safe, don't walk the boat, do no harm pick.
Speaker 1: And like I said, he does bring assets to the
Speaker 1: table in terms of being able to effectively communicate. Has
Speaker 1: got a great Southern accent, you know, Democrats or suckers
Speaker 1: for people who kind of play against type, and he's
Speaker 1: got that going for him. So that would be kind
Speaker 1: of the case for Annie Basher getting the nod here.
Speaker 3: I could see.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, I can make a jiu jitsu case.
Speaker 2: I think for all of these he's not terrible. He's
Speaker 2: very popular Democratic governor. But I just don't see the
Speaker 2: electoral calculus at the end of the day. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is somebody who is from a R plus three
Speaker 2: state and he's a very unique person. That's part of
Speaker 2: the reason why these types of candidates very rarely do
Speaker 2: well in the National Democratic Party because their uniqueness doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily suit to the overall ticket. Now, their argument could
Speaker 2: be made he could help with Appalachian voters, but I
Speaker 2: don't see that same case happening here because a lot
Speaker 2: of those people are already just pro Trump. You know,
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, they're not swing state
Speaker 2: in the way they used to be. Really, the people
Speaker 2: the vote that it's all going to come down to
Speaker 2: is white, working class but older voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Speaker 2: and Wisconsin. And that's not necessarily the same graphic that
Speaker 2: might have been up for grabs, let's say in twenty
Speaker 2: and sixteen. So anyway, the way that I kind of
Speaker 2: have been looking at each individual characteristic electorally just again
Speaker 2: seems to come back to Shapiro. But and I think
Speaker 2: this is one thing that you can't underestimate, and you've
Speaker 2: been highlighting you also need to get along with the person.
Speaker 2: Perhaps if you're a Kamala, she had a terrible time
Speaker 2: as vice president. That is not abnormal historically. Usually vice
Speaker 2: presidents are marginalized. They're very very rarely brought into the
Speaker 2: inner circle. They're usually very ambitious, and that always sets
Speaker 2: up like a loggerheads type of strategy. But you also
Speaker 2: know that you're kind of picking your anointed successor in
Speaker 2: a certain case. You know, if Shapiro remains to be
Speaker 2: seen whether he knows how to be the number two
Speaker 2: and basically just ate it for potentially four to eight
Speaker 2: years before he could run. At the same time, you know,
Speaker 2: he's a young man, so perhaps he could make that calculus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I do think that the VP pick here
Speaker 1: is very consequential.
Speaker 4: Oh goodness, the dog has showed up.
Speaker 1: I think it's consequential Number one, because Kamala is even
Speaker 1: though she's been on the national stage for a while
Speaker 1: and now she's been untested. Number two, because this is
Speaker 1: very likely if Kamala and this person whoever they are,
Speaker 1: lose this time around, is very likely your democratic nominee
Speaker 1: next time. And if it's not next time, if they
Speaker 1: do win, and then it'll you know, very likely the
Speaker 1: time after that. So that's why the stakes in terms
Speaker 1: of the direction of the Democratic Party are very high
Speaker 1: with this pick, and so I think that's why the
Speaker 1: battles of in fierce. It's also been funny to watch
Speaker 1: it play out, just because it's such a condensed timeline,
Speaker 1: like everyone dispensed with the sort of niceties of pretending
Speaker 1: and just were like out there making the case for
Speaker 1: themselves and different coalitions. There were a bunch of progressives
Speaker 1: who put on a like a memo about the case
Speaker 1: for Walls, and you got union leaders like Sean Fain
Speaker 1: going out and making the case and Joe Scarborough making
Speaker 1: the case.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: So it's been the most direct jockeying for this position
Speaker 1: that I've ever seen, which I actually kind of appreciate,
Speaker 1: Like why beat around the bush. You want the position, like,
Speaker 1: go out there and make your case for it. And
Speaker 1: you know, the last thing I'll say in regard to
Speaker 1: Andy Wassheer, they could really like the way that he
Speaker 1: was very effective in his campaign running on abortion right.
Speaker 3: That's true in.
Speaker 1: The state of Kentucky. And with regards to Tim Walls,
Speaker 1: they could really like the fact that I mean, his
Speaker 1: like weird characterization of the Republican Party really became instantly
Speaker 1: central to the Kamlayeras campaign. So he definitely proved himself
Speaker 1: in terms of his communication abilities. We'll see what the
Speaker 1: personal fit is like.
Speaker 4: And who she ends up going with. At the end
Speaker 4: of the day.
Speaker 1: I think it's still very much, very much open it. Listen,
Speaker 1: it could be one of the ones we talked about
Speaker 1: a little bit less to like a Pete boota judge,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So a lot of things, a lot of
Speaker 1: possibilities still on the table here.
Speaker 2: Well, remain stay tuned and we of course bringing the
Speaker 2: breaking news here at breaking points, so for all of
Speaker 2: our Pream subscribers and others, you can keep your eyes
Speaker 2: glued to the channel.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to the polls.
Speaker 2: There has been significant movement in the polls, just dramatically
Speaker 2: shifting the race.
Speaker 3: We all just have to sit and meditate.
Speaker 2: It's only been like fifteen days since Commwa actually became
Speaker 2: the Democratic nominee, and yet in that time we have
Speaker 2: seen a complete reversal of many of the games that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump had made against Joe Biden. Let's start with
Speaker 2: the first one, perhaps the most significant let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Nate Silver's now election model
Speaker 2: shows Kamala Harris with a fifty point five percent chance
Speaker 2: of winning the presidential election, with Donald Trump dropping to
Speaker 2: forty eight point eight. What's especially amazing is you can
Speaker 2: watch the narrowing of the gap there from July twenty ninth,
Speaker 2: the day then that Joe Biden drops out of the
Speaker 2: race on July thirtieth, and now we see exactly what
Speaker 2: has happened since or sorry, since the day that Nate's
Speaker 2: silverturn on his model, and since then July thirtieth, you've
Speaker 2: seen the streams the so called blue line and the
Speaker 2: red line actually cross. Now, nobody should delude themselves because
Speaker 2: fifty point five is still quite literally a toss up,
Speaker 2: and there is still some you know, ninety some days
Speaker 2: to go till election day. But a lot of the
Speaker 2: movement in that direction should have the Trump campaign really
Speaker 2: question their strategy. Now, so far, let's put this up here,
Speaker 2: please on the screen.
Speaker 3: What we have here.
Speaker 2: You know, Kamala Harris has now taken the slight lead
Speaker 2: in the RCP five way average. This might actually be
Speaker 2: even more significant to me, Crystal, because it shows Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris with one point two percent edge in the recent
Speaker 2: average of poles. Now, the reason why I say it's
Speaker 2: more significant is that OURCP does not do waiting in
Speaker 2: their polling average, while five point thirty eight and Nate
Speaker 2: Silver's model does. Nate Silver's model takes past performance of
Speaker 2: polls and incorporates them, whereas the RCP is the raw
Speaker 2: average perhaps of even junkie polls that are not particularly good.
Speaker 3: And so when we even have ras musen.
Speaker 2: For example, let's say a polster generally been favorable to
Speaker 2: Trump in the past and perhaps even accurate, you know,
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen, if they're only Trump plus one, and
Speaker 2: then you take the average of the others and you
Speaker 2: take it together at point two. This is again just
Speaker 2: shows up in a toss up territory where previously Donald
Speaker 2: Trump just had such a significant advantage in the polls,
Speaker 2: where you know, Republicans already have some two percent edge
Speaker 2: in the popular vote whenever it comes to a national
Speaker 2: election because of the way that the electoral college works.
Speaker 2: But when you take the point too, it erases some
Speaker 2: of that previous benefit that you had and lets things
Speaker 2: move to the complete margin. Literally day of turnout territory
Speaker 2: for deciding the presidential election.
Speaker 4: I mean, clearly, where we are today is as toss
Speaker 4: up a toss up race could possibly be I saw.
Speaker 1: I think Nate Silver tweeted about this result that if
Speaker 1: you take a performance that's a little better than Hillary
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, a little worse than Joe Biden in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, you end up with a true electoral college
Speaker 1: toss up, which is what you're looking at in his model,
Speaker 1: And I think that probably fits where we are right now.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: The question is does the trend continue? Is this a
Speaker 1: honeymoon phase for Kamala Harris and she comes back down
Speaker 1: to earth. Her skyrocketing favorability has been wild to behold.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've seen some of the numbers
Speaker 1: among young people in particular, just in terms of how
Speaker 1: they feel abou Kamala Harris herself. The swing has been,
Speaker 1: like I'm talking a thirty point swing in terms of
Speaker 1: favorability ratings of Kamala Harris among young voters.
Speaker 4: So is she able to maintain that?
Speaker 1: Does the trend continue where she just continues to gain
Speaker 1: ground as Republicans continue to sort of spin their wheels
Speaker 1: and failed to make an effective argument, you know, is
Speaker 1: she able to with her VP pick and then you
Speaker 1: head into the DNC continue to pick up momentum. I
Speaker 1: think those are the real questions for the future in
Speaker 1: terms of where this race is headed. But as you said,
Speaker 1: Zagernau and should delude themselves. You know, it's because the
Speaker 1: polls have moved so quickly. It's easy to feel like
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has a huge edge. Now she does not.
Speaker 1: You know, if you look at the battleground pulling, it's
Speaker 1: still really really close. In plenty of battleground states. You
Speaker 1: still have Trump coming in with a bit of an edge.
Speaker 1: I think this race is just about as razor thin
Speaker 1: margin as it could possibly be right at the moment.
Speaker 1: And the big question is just what's the trajectory from here?
Speaker 2: Yeah, two months from now, we could say this was
Speaker 2: the top. This was as good as it got. She
Speaker 2: does a couple interviews is a disaster. On the other hand,
Speaker 2: she just continue this. She's getting a free pass. She's
Speaker 2: going to get probably a ton of media coverage whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to the VP pick. It's been fifteen days,
Speaker 2: she hasn't done any interviews. Maybe she can go a
Speaker 2: month with no interview, so I could really see it
Speaker 2: either way. Let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: CBS News with a very very good poll likely voter
Speaker 2: polled nationally from yugov Nationally, you see.
Speaker 3: Exactly what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: You have fifty percent national, fifty percent Kamala forty nine
Speaker 2: percent Donald Trump. This is a plus or minus two
Speaker 2: percent in the margin of error in the battleground states.
Speaker 2: They quite literally have it tied at fifty fifty. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part, please, because this also breaks
Speaker 2: down the gender gap choice for president amongst men forty
Speaker 2: five percent Kamala Harris fifty four percent Donald Trump. Basically
Speaker 2: exactly even fifty four percent there for women, and then
Speaker 2: forty five percent for Donald Trump. Not as big of
Speaker 2: a gap as previously we have seen in American politics.
Speaker 2: If we go to the next part, we again start
Speaker 2: to see where the breakdown happens.
Speaker 3: Would their policies help women?
Speaker 2: And this is perhaps where I think Kamala has got
Speaker 2: the bigest edge, because Harris's policies amongst female registered voters,
Speaker 2: they say seventy percent yes, forty three percent yes for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, but with no on Harris's policies only thirty
Speaker 2: percent fifty seven percent there So the enthusiasm amongst women voters,
Speaker 2: I think is one that we will have to grapple
Speaker 2: with if a Kamala does end up winning just because abortion.
Speaker 2: Again comes back to Salient's next part. Please and continue
Speaker 2: with the demographics. This isn't amongst black registered voters. Would
Speaker 2: their policies help black people? Harris's policies is eighty yes,
Speaker 2: Trump's policies twenty no no for Harris twenty and eighty
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump. So you could see there's a high
Speaker 2: level of polarization. Although you know, historically Democrats do win
Speaker 2: ninety percent of the Black vote, so if twenty percent
Speaker 2: actually does vote for Donald Trump or says favorable things
Speaker 2: about Donald Trump, that actually still would be quite a
Speaker 2: historic result if that were to materialize. That's kind of
Speaker 2: how I'm looking at those two things. Nonetheless, the comparison
Speaker 2: to Joe Biden is the one that really matters, and
Speaker 2: the comparison to Joe and Crystal is where she clearly
Speaker 2: shines with these suburban women voters on abortion and amongst
Speaker 2: black voters, which means a higher edgent turnout. And of
Speaker 2: course it all comes down to turnout, as the meme literally.
Speaker 1: Says, yeah, that's right, and who prioritizes what Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: we saw an election in twenty twenty two that people
Speaker 1: are very upset about the economy. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: later in the show. Economic numbers looking really bad right now,
Speaker 1: taking a turn for the worst. That could be really
Speaker 1: a huge drag in Kamala Harris is that becomes more salient,
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump continues to have an edge in terms
Speaker 1: of his economic policies, so that could be incredibly salient.
Speaker 1: You could see abortion rights being incredibly salient. You could
Speaker 1: see just you know, vibes like I don't like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't really want to go back to the time
Speaker 1: when he was president. I think in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: not only abortion but the sense of sort of fringe
Speaker 1: extremism were incredibly important to the result. But of course,
Speaker 1: Tolan Trump wasn't actually on the ballot in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: And I think one thing that we've seen is no
Speaker 1: one really pulls off trump Ism except Trump. So it
Speaker 1: is a very different deal when he's on the ballot.
Speaker 1: But it's difficult to predict which issue typically say, oh,
Speaker 1: it'll be the economics that'll control, but I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be more complicated calculus given how much people
Speaker 1: have reacted to this sense of their rights being taken away.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump was the guy who put those people
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. And it's very clear in the
Speaker 1: numbers about women voters how they feel about how he
Speaker 1: would be for women versus how Kamala Harris would be here.
Speaker 1: I think her gender is a tremendous asset and the
Speaker 1: fact that she has more credibility on the issue not
Speaker 1: only just because of her gender, but also because of
Speaker 1: her ideological positioning over the years Versus Joe Biden. She
Speaker 1: is a much better messenger on that issue than he was.
Speaker 1: And I fully expect that whether it's Shapiro or Walls
Speaker 1: or Kelly or Sheer or whoever it is, they're also.
Speaker 4: Are going to be very effective messengers on this issue too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no question.
Speaker 2: I mean all Democrats have basically learned how to speak
Speaker 2: the language of that. And you know, I think I
Speaker 2: said this before. If you go to Jos Shapiro's TikTok account,
Speaker 2: basically every single post is just about abortions.
Speaker 3: So these people know where their bread is buttered. Politically.
Speaker 2: Let's put this last part up here on the screen.
Speaker 2: This shows personal finances, and this highlights what you were saying.
Speaker 2: If Harris wins, people registered voters say that they would
Speaker 2: only twenty five percent think they would be financially better
Speaker 2: off forty five percent.
Speaker 3: If Donald Trump wins financially worse off.
Speaker 2: You actually have forty four percent you say yes for Harris,
Speaker 2: thirty eight percent for Donald Trump, and stay about the
Speaker 2: same is thirty one percent for Kamala, seventeen percent for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. So clearly there is at least a slight,
Speaker 2: you know, plurality of people who believe they're going to
Speaker 2: be financially better off if Donald Trump wins. I will
Speaker 2: remind everyone that in twenty twenty, the trust on the
Speaker 2: economy percentage ended up being far more predictive than any
Speaker 2: of the national polling. Donald Trump still continues to show
Speaker 2: a major edge whenever it comes to handling of the
Speaker 2: economy and this question of financially better off. Now, let's remember,
Speaker 2: though the economy was not a predictor of the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two outcome, all economic predictions weighted to poles would
Speaker 2: have said that there would have been a large Republican gain.
Speaker 2: So this can be overcome when social issues become very
Speaker 2: very hot button. But the question is exactly as you said,
Speaker 2: what are people going to be feeling on election day?
Speaker 2: So we have some signs of a slowing down economy,
Speaker 2: of reducing stock market people's retirement, people are going to
Speaker 2: start getting jumpy. Now that's a very very different situation
Speaker 2: than where we've been previously, where yes, inflation is horrible
Speaker 2: and bad, but it's been more of a slow decline
Speaker 2: rather than a rapid one. So if we do have
Speaker 2: a rapid downturn in the US economy, I actually do
Speaker 2: think the race could significantly shift and perhaps in Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's favor. And then finally, if we put this up here,
Speaker 2: what we see is the Trump campaign polling analysis though,
Speaker 2: is they are now trying to play the quote unskew
Speaker 2: the polls game. And basically anytime somebody puts out a
Speaker 2: statement like this where the Trump campaign is calling the
Speaker 2: CBS poll, you know, a manipulated result and saying that
Speaker 2: they're over sampling people. I've seen this game before from Democrats.
Speaker 2: I've seen this game before from Republicans. Almost always, whenever
Speaker 2: you are trying to point to individual problems in.
Speaker 3: Polls, you're just you know, you're playing you're playing the
Speaker 3: wrong game.
Speaker 2: This is one where it generally reflects you being on
Speaker 2: the back foot, and when you're on the back foot,
Speaker 2: that's just not a good place to be with respect
Speaker 2: to the national media and generally in terms of your
Speaker 2: campaign messaging. So clearly, as we showed in the economy
Speaker 2: and even the brief, we didn't have time necessarily to
Speaker 2: go through the border numbers. But on both of those
Speaker 2: two issues, immigration in the economy, that's what you should
Speaker 2: be putting out press releases.
Speaker 3: That's all you should really be talking about.
Speaker 2: And if you can't win on that, I don't really
Speaker 2: know what to tell you because clearly it's such a
Speaker 2: huge edge with that, right Crystal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, here's here's what I would say about the
Speaker 1: unskew the polls thing. It brings back Mitt Romney in
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. That was that was sort of the original unskew.
Speaker 1: There was actually an unskew the Poles website, and that
Speaker 1: guy was on box News all over the place, and
Speaker 1: people really bought it. And you know, the right was
Speaker 1: the Republicans were absolutely shocked to the point of your
Speaker 1: the famous moment on with Megan Kelly on Fox News
Speaker 1: where she was having to talk them down from the you.
Speaker 4: Know, Ohio was not lost. It's not lost. You's like,
Speaker 4: I think it's lost.
Speaker 1: You know, these are fake numbers that you're trying to
Speaker 1: pull together. And then Joe Biden just recently total denial,
Speaker 1: you know, kept in this little coseted bubble, told by
Speaker 1: his advisor Donalin that oh, no, your numbers are great, sir,
Speaker 1: and not letting any contrary information in. And oh if
Speaker 1: there are polls that show you down, those poles are wrong,
Speaker 1: they're lying. That's not true. It's you know, of course
Speaker 1: you're a wonderful, great leader who could vote against you,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. No, these were not winning campaigns.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was headed to a massive, massive defeat. And
Speaker 1: so it's not a good sign for the Trump people
Speaker 1: that they're out there doing the unskewed the polls thing.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll say with regard to the entire
Speaker 1: electoral picture, though Sager, is one thing we haven't talked about,
Speaker 1: which we are about to talk about with doctor Trija Parsi,
Speaker 1: is the threat of a massive or in the Middle
Speaker 1: East that we would be deeply entangled in and so
Speaker 1: while you know, foreign policy rarely is the number one
Speaker 1: deciding factor at a time when we could be you know,
Speaker 1: facing direct threats to our troops and insane chaos and
Speaker 1: continued horror in the Middle East, but on a much
Speaker 1: broader scale that could end up being incredibly salient in
Speaker 1: a way that you know is difficult to anticipate. So
Speaker 1: given that you have an economy that's clearly on the
Speaker 1: brink and some really dire signs there that you have
Speaker 1: in the entire region of the world with nuclear armed
Speaker 1: powers that is on the brink, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: potential terrifying dangers. And in terms specifically of the political
Speaker 1: horse race, which of course the least important point here,
Speaker 1: but in terms of the political horse race, a lot
Speaker 1: of fraught danger for Kamala Harris ahead.
Speaker 4: So I know they're feeling good right now. They should
Speaker 4: be feeling good about where the Poles are.
Speaker 1: Versus they were just sort of like locked into to
Speaker 1: defeat in November when it was the Biden ticket. Now
Speaker 1: they've got a shot, but there are a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of risk.
Speaker 2: For them on that, and they're also in a very
Speaker 2: bad position on that because they're not in charge. Joe
Speaker 2: Biden is in charge. But not only is he literally ailing,
Speaker 2: you know, and fading before all of our eyes, he's
Speaker 2: also ideologically committed to us, to the defense of Israel
Speaker 2: and to a potentially massive war in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: while also being incredibly weak and not being able to
Speaker 2: bring any of the powers to bear both the Israelis,
Speaker 2: the Iranians, the Jordanians, and others. So we have a
Speaker 2: power vacuum in the Middle East, which is the worst
Speaker 2: possible place you could be in.
Speaker 3: So in some sense, you're totally right.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you have hundreds of US troops that
Speaker 2: are killed months before the election, that's a totally different situation,
Speaker 2: not to mention tens of thousands in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: rockets going all over the place, and who even knows
Speaker 2: what the hell would be going on. Donald Trump showing
Speaker 2: us some old twenty twenty ways and how he certainly
Speaker 2: is being as normal for him as possible, returning to
Speaker 2: the state of Georgia and deciding to attack Brian Kemp,
Speaker 2: the popular GOP governor who he tried to defeat unsuccessfully
Speaker 2: in the primary in twenty twenty two. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to what he had to say about the state's
Speaker 2: popular governor.
Speaker 7: Kemp doesn't want to end it because he's a bad guy.
Speaker 7: He's a disloyal guy, and he's a very average governor.
Speaker 7: Little Brian, Little Brian camp bad guy. But think of it.
Speaker 4: I got this guy.
Speaker 3: Just think and then that's it.
Speaker 4: I got this guy nominated.
Speaker 7: I then got him elected. Without me, he doesn't get
Speaker 7: nominated and he doesn't get elected. He had no chance
Speaker 7: of winning either one and all he had to do
Speaker 7: is sign something where the Senate would like to look
Speaker 7: at election integrity. This is an honest man. That's an
Speaker 7: honest man. They were all honest. They were looking at
Speaker 7: something very legitimate, and this bad guy said, I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Sir, I can't do it.
Speaker 7: I called him and I said, Brian, they're looking at
Speaker 7: election integrity.
Speaker 6: Is there anything you could do.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, sir, I can't get involved in that. I said,
Speaker 7: but Brian, you don't understand. This is a good thing,
Speaker 7: not a bad thing. I'm sure, sir, I can't get involved.
Speaker 7: I've had you up to here, Brian, I've had you
Speaker 7: up to here. He's a bad guy and he's not
Speaker 7: doing this country a good service.
Speaker 2: Hoof All right, well, Donald Trump certainly back right back
Speaker 2: to his old ways.
Speaker 3: It certainly hasn't been changed by anything.
Speaker 2: And just sticking with the sheer electoral consequences of this, imagine,
Speaker 2: in October twenty twenty, I tell you there will be
Speaker 2: two Democrats who will represent state of Georgia in the
Speaker 2: United States Senate. There will be a primary challenge backed
Speaker 2: by Donald Trump against two GOP officials, and all of
Speaker 2: those not only will the Democrats win, but then those
Speaker 2: Republicans who stood up to Trump will actually have an
Speaker 2: electoral advantage at the ballot box in Georgia, which we
Speaker 2: previously thought of all as a red state. Oh and
Speaker 2: Joe Biden actually won that state in twenty twenty. So
Speaker 2: it's very clear that this is an electoral massive loser
Speaker 2: in the state of Georgia, regardless of whether Trump believes
Speaker 2: it or not. And as we all learned at the
Speaker 2: ballot box with Brian Kemp and Brad Raffinsberger, the Secretary
Speaker 2: of State, Republican voters, yes, Republican voters did not even
Speaker 2: care as much about these issues because Kemp defeated what
Speaker 2: was his name, David Perdue, the former Senator by the
Speaker 2: way with huge name recognition by some seventy percent margin.
Speaker 2: He went down massively and Brad Raffinsberger won as well,
Speaker 2: which people were even shocked by. So at this point,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump clearly is consumed by his own petty grievances
Speaker 2: about personal loyalty and is very willing to risk a
Speaker 2: margin in a state where maybe under Joe Biden he
Speaker 2: could get away with this, but under Kamala Harris and
Speaker 2: with the tolls where they are right now only two
Speaker 2: percent plus advantage in the state of Georgia, shouldn't be
Speaker 2: messing around. This is Trump really at his worst.
Speaker 1: Brian Kemp, I just looked it up, has a sixty
Speaker 1: three percent approval rating in the state of Georgia.
Speaker 3: That's crazy.
Speaker 4: He's very popular.
Speaker 1: He's way more popular than Donald Trump is in the
Speaker 1: same of Georgia. Is just like not even close. And
Speaker 1: you know, part of this is something said Jelani's been
Speaker 1: tweeting about who I believe it lives. He's from Georgia.
Speaker 1: I think he lives in Georgia again, right, Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: been tweeting about the fact. I mean Kemp has governed
Speaker 1: very conservatively. You know, he's very much in line with like,
Speaker 1: you know, the Trump direction of the party in terms
Speaker 1: of his ideology. But because he's seen as being oppositional
Speaker 1: to Trump, that has actually given him a lot of
Speaker 1: credibility with moderate voters in spite of his pretty hard
Speaker 1: right ideological leaning, which just is a long way of saying,
Speaker 1: so much of our politics is just about like vibes
Speaker 1: and how you feel about the singular figure of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and that is certainly the case here. But I also
Speaker 1: felt like watching this all unfold, you know, sometimes you
Speaker 1: give trump weigh too much credit.
Speaker 4: We always think he's doing some forty chess move.
Speaker 1: There is no universe in which this makes any sense electorally,
Speaker 1: where is anything other than shooting yourself in the foot electorally.
Speaker 1: This last time in Georgia, Sager, we talked about this
Speaker 1: so much because he casts so much doubt on mail
Speaker 1: in ballots. He lost out on Republican votes in the
Speaker 1: state of Georgia because they weren't able to bank those
Speaker 1: mail in ballots ahead of time, and that alone was
Speaker 1: probably responsible for that thin margin that he lost by
Speaker 1: in the state of Georgia. So it wouldn't be the
Speaker 1: first time that he shot himself in the foot and
Speaker 1: undermined his own electoral chances in a critical now swing state.
Speaker 1: So it's just like it reminds you how foolish this
Speaker 1: man can be, and how sometimes he's just preternaturally gifted
Speaker 1: in terms of sensing a political moment and political opportunity,
Speaker 1: and sometimes he is the dumbest person politically on the
Speaker 1: face of the planet.
Speaker 2: I think Donald Trump is like the most high variant
Speaker 2: person's ever assistant. When he's good, he's great, and when
Speaker 2: he's bad, he's so horrible, and you just never know
Speaker 2: what you're going to get. This is also testament to
Speaker 2: the fact that sometimes you want a more middle of
Speaker 2: the road person whenever you have this slight advantage, because
Speaker 2: you want to make things a little bit less more predictable,
Speaker 2: and you want to run on the fundamentals, which a
Speaker 2: lot of the American people actually do say that they
Speaker 2: want out of politics now that they're generally exhausted in
Speaker 2: this political moment. Nonetheless, you do still have the maga base,
Speaker 2: who very much is with him. But the real lesson
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty two is that the base can only
Speaker 2: get you so far, even in Republican primaries, and that
Speaker 2: the base and its own predilections can be so repellent
Speaker 2: to the general public whenever it's backed up by something
Speaker 2: like stop the Steal, that many people will put their
Speaker 2: own economic concerns aside and they will come out specifically
Speaker 2: to vote against you. You see this in the problems
Speaker 2: with Kerry Lake in Arizona, where she continues to trail
Speaker 2: a lot of the MAGA candidates that lost in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two. And it is a significant electoral problem in
Speaker 2: a race where you have it very very tight, and
Speaker 2: in a state like Georgia where you have massive influx
Speaker 2: of the suburban voters from all across the country. I mean,
Speaker 2: Atlanta is booming open for business. Part of the reason
Speaker 2: Brian Kemp is so popular. You have a major population influx.
Speaker 2: All the fundamentals are there for a huge change and
Speaker 2: takeover in the state's economy. But you know, and they
Speaker 2: would be very willing to vote for a normal Republican
Speaker 2: like Brian Kemp, as we have seen, you know, in
Speaker 2: his electoral tally. The problem for Trump is that he
Speaker 2: actually single handedly makes it a toss up. And let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen too. You just
Speaker 2: don't want this going into the election. You have Brian
Speaker 2: Kemp here responding to Trump's truth. Keep this up because
Speaker 2: I'm gonna read Trump put out a true social post.
Speaker 2: He says. Brad Raflisberger has to do his job make
Speaker 2: sure this election is not stolen. Brian Kemp should focus
Speaker 2: his efforts on fighting crime, not fighting unity in the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. His crime rate is terrible as crime right
Speaker 2: Atlanta is the worst, his economy is average. He's just
Speaker 2: making unity, not retribution, especially against the man that got
Speaker 2: him the nomination through endorsement and without whom he never
Speaker 2: would have beaten Stacy Abrams.
Speaker 3: He and his wife don't even think he could win.
Speaker 3: I said, I'm telling you you're going.
Speaker 2: He goes on to a story about Brian Kemp's wife
Speaker 2: how she won't endorse him. He says, well, I don't
Speaker 2: want her endorsement. I don't want this. They're the ones
Speaker 2: who got Fanny Willis and her boyfriend all jazzed up
Speaker 2: and ready to go. So he could have ended that
Speaker 2: travesty with a phone call, but he doesn't want to
Speaker 2: end it because he's a bad guy. So that's both
Speaker 2: about Brad Raffensberger and Brian Kemp. Kemp response my focus
Speaker 2: is on winning this November and saving our country from
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and the Democrats, not engaging in pettyant personal insults,
Speaker 2: attacking fellow Republicans or dwelling on the pass. You should
Speaker 2: do the same, mister President, and leave my family out
Speaker 2: of it. And I can just tell you very clearly
Speaker 2: that all the evidence says that Brian's message there is
Speaker 2: ten times more popular than Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: So this really is the worst of Trump.
Speaker 2: And it also shows you Everyone always talks about discipline,
Speaker 2: et cetera. I think Trump has been around long enough
Speaker 2: now at this point that there is no such thing
Speaker 2: as the discipline Trump. I think Trump is still having
Speaker 2: a very difficult time adjusting to Kamala in the race.
Speaker 3: And psychologically I can understand it.
Speaker 2: You had so much confidence that you were going to win,
Speaker 2: You had the coach, you know, you had the wins
Speaker 2: that you're back in a way. For almost two years
Speaker 2: now that he has been in the race, since he
Speaker 2: launched it, you've had some setbacks where you were relatively confident,
Speaker 2: and then the span of just two weeks everything has changed.
Speaker 2: And he's always had difficulty calibrating changing his message and
Speaker 2: more and given the you know, in sheer insanity of
Speaker 2: the last month or so in American politics, it is understandable.
Speaker 2: That doesn't make it any less toxic at the ballot
Speaker 2: box for him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it smells desperate.
Speaker 1: I mean, it just seems like he is completely sort
Speaker 1: of melting down and has lost his sense of what
Speaker 1: to do in this race and how to do it,
Speaker 1: and it's just randomly lashing out.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with you.
Speaker 2: All Right, Well, we got treat to Parsi standby talk
Speaker 2: about the situation Iran.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: As we've been discussing in the week of multiple assassinations
Speaker 1: conducted across the region by Israel, we are now on
Speaker 1: the brink of a very dangerous escalation. Everyone sort of
Speaker 1: waiting to see what Iran is going to do in response.
Speaker 1: So as we await that, we're bringing in doctor Treta
Speaker 1: Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Staycraft to tell
Speaker 1: us where we are and where we could be headed.
Speaker 1: Great to see again, doctor, Good see sir, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. Yeah, of course, let's go ahead and put
Speaker 1: this first ol up on the screen that just sort
Speaker 1: of summarizes everything. This is from journalist Joyce karm She
Speaker 1: says update Iran a tax singe as early as Monday,
Speaker 1: US forces arriving in the region, Sentcom Chief Israel tomorrow.
Speaker 4: Per Barack Revid, Israel says plans in place for nationals
Speaker 4: leaving Lebanon, has an allies coordinate response strikes in Gaza
Speaker 4: with these target ships. That's sort of the top line
Speaker 4: of where we're at. Just give us a sense of
Speaker 4: how we got here and what you expect.
Speaker 6: We've spoken about this numerous times that the Israelis, particularly
Speaker 6: in the Prime Minister Nataniel who has three years tried
Speaker 6: to push the United States to go to war with
Speaker 6: Iran and choosing to assassinate Haniya during the inauguration of
Speaker 6: kozshki On, the new Iranian president, in Tehran, whereas Israelis
Speaker 6: clearly had the ability to do so while he was
Speaker 6: in Doha since he lives there is a clear indication
Speaker 6: that they were trying to do something that would be
Speaker 6: as escalatory as possible. The question is will the Iranians
Speaker 6: now walk into that trap? And the signal that they're
Speaker 6: sending is that they will retaliate and that if the
Speaker 6: Israelis respond, then they will continue it and they've essentially
Speaker 6: told foreign diplomats that they have a right to retaliate
Speaker 6: if it leads to a war. Essentially it's on Israel,
Speaker 6: not on Yvon. In some ways, the Iranians have trapped
Speaker 6: themselves in an escalatory cycle. They took a lot of
Speaker 6: absorbed a lot of hits from Israel over the years,
Speaker 6: numerous scientists that were assassinated, the head of the Yvoni
Speaker 6: nuclear program was assassinated. The Iranians did not retaliate openly
Speaker 6: after the attack against the Iranian embassy, and Syria decided
Speaker 6: to do so. And as a result, now after this
Speaker 6: assassination that is not necessarily worse, much worse than previous assassinations,
Speaker 6: they're in a corner in which they have to, in
Speaker 6: their view, retaliate, otherwise their efforts to restore the turrens
Speaker 6: has completely collapsed and failed, which is again part of
Speaker 6: the risk of retaliating in the first place. You put
Speaker 6: yourself in a position in which you constantly have to
Speaker 6: respond if the Israelis are not deterred, which in this
Speaker 6: case clearly they've chosen that they're not right.
Speaker 2: So, doctor Parsi, what we've learned is that there was
Speaker 2: a meeting in which apparently the Iranians told the Arab
Speaker 2: the Golf Arab states, they said, we don't care, you
Speaker 2: know if this does lead to war. Now, how much
Speaker 2: of this is bravado? How much of it is reality?
Speaker 2: And what are the political constraints within the regime itself
Speaker 2: that might drive their decision makings in the next twenty
Speaker 2: four hours.
Speaker 6: I think much of that is bravado. I think the
Speaker 6: Iranians are going to respond in such a way that
Speaker 6: it minimizes the likelihood that it will lead to a
Speaker 6: significant escalation and a war, but still it will be
Speaker 6: more than what we saw in April. And April they
Speaker 6: went out of their ways to avoid any casualties on
Speaker 6: the Israelis sides. That's not likely going to be the
Speaker 6: case this time around. I think they will actually try
Speaker 6: to draw blood this time around as a way of
Speaker 6: restoring that the terrence sort of saying, the risk obviously
Speaker 6: is that you have a prime minister in Israel than
Speaker 6: actually once escalation, and as a result, will use that
Speaker 6: as an opportunity to be able to escalate further. And
Speaker 6: I think is in that regard that the Iranians are
Speaker 6: saying they don't care if it goes in that direction.
Speaker 6: I think they do, but I don't think that they
Speaker 6: will abide by what appears to have been American messages
Speaker 6: to Tehran of what the US would consider to be
Speaker 6: acceptable response from Yvon. I think the Iranians are likely
Speaker 6: going to go quite a bit beyond that, but perhaps
Speaker 6: not so far that it will give the Israelis a
Speaker 6: very clear justification for further escalation.
Speaker 1: So the US EXU defense mainly jumped out and said,
Speaker 1: you know, the US will have Israel's back. We are
Speaker 1: now getting we can put this next element up on
Speaker 1: the screen. The empteenth version of the is having tough
Speaker 1: conversations and is really mad at bb Netnaho. Behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: Biden realized that Netnahu was lying to him about the
Speaker 1: hostages her rets. He's not saying it publicly yet, but
Speaker 1: in the meeting between them, he specifically told Bebe stop
Speaker 1: bullshitting me.
Speaker 4: So that's the leaks that.
Speaker 1: Are coming out of the latest meetings, you know, just
Speaker 1: reflects a little bit on that, and also how the
Speaker 1: calculus may have changed for Bebe, given that Biden is
Speaker 1: now a lame duck and Kamala Harris is the top
Speaker 1: of the Democratic ticket.
Speaker 6: I think the White House's efforts to try to signal
Speaker 6: that they actually are tough with Natagno leaves them in
Speaker 6: a position in which they're portraying themselves as quite pathetic.
Speaker 6: They're trying to say that we are being tough by
Speaker 6: leaking this information about what is being said behind the scenes,
Speaker 6: But reality is that if that is actually what is
Speaker 6: being said and NATO is not responding, it clearly shows
Speaker 6: that Biden is choosing not to use the actual leverage
Speaker 6: he has, which is to actually stop the arms supplies
Speaker 6: to his role, and as a result, Nataniello was absolutely
Speaker 6: no reasons to listen to Biden or take his threats
Speaker 6: or his harsh words in these mythological conversations behind the
Speaker 6: scene particularly seriously. And this is part of the reason
Speaker 6: why we are in this situation now. We would not
Speaker 6: be in the situation if Biden actually had used America's
Speaker 6: leverage from the outset, he could have forced a ceasefire
Speaker 6: much earlier on. He chose not to, and even in
Speaker 6: April when he actually for the first time did use
Speaker 6: some leverage against Israelis and prevented them from escalating further. Nevertheless,
Speaker 6: it wasn't successful. Because here we are two three months
Speaker 6: later and Natanyahu did something even more provocative than he
Speaker 6: did when he bombed the Iran in embassy consular section
Speaker 6: of the embassy in Damascus. It clearly shows that Biden's
Speaker 6: strategy of never actually being tough with these Raelis has
Speaker 6: been a complete disaster for US national interests because this war,
Speaker 6: if it breaks out in that large format, very likely
Speaker 6: will drag the United States into another war. And I
Speaker 6: think Natania who came back from Washington after being here
Speaker 6: last week, realizing that the White House was quite a
Speaker 6: bit in a disarray as a result of Biden not
Speaker 6: really happily advocating the ticket, and as a result saw
Speaker 6: an opportunity to escalate dramatically and buy that force a
Speaker 6: conflict and a crisis on the next president of the
Speaker 6: United States, whether it is Trump or whether it is
Speaker 6: Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Yeah, doctor Parsi, how does has Bola factor into this?
Speaker 2: So there's of course an Iranian response, But there are
Speaker 2: also Iranian allies like Hesbola and others. They themselves are
Speaker 2: on the brink of a war. We have diplomatic nightmare
Speaker 2: right now with Lebanon. All US citizens being urged to leave,
Speaker 2: there's canceled flights, everybody is bracing. So even if there
Speaker 2: is a quote unquote like tempered response from the Iranian directly,
Speaker 2: what still holds on the front between Israel and Hezbolah.
Speaker 6: So, I think it's a very important question you asked,
Speaker 6: and I think it's important to bear in mind that
Speaker 6: when the Israelis took out the head of Hamas in Tehran,
Speaker 6: that happened just hours or days after they had taken
Speaker 6: out the number two in Hezbola in Lebanon, and the
Speaker 6: world was bracing itself for a potential escalation between Hezbola
Speaker 6: and Israel. And in that moment where everyone was hoping
Speaker 6: that there would be de escalation, the Israelis decided to
Speaker 6: kill Haniya in Tehran, clearly indicating that their desire actually
Speaker 6: is to escalate and bring about some larger war. If
Speaker 6: there is an attack, and I think there's an extremely
Speaker 6: highlightly that Iranians will respond, it will likely be a
Speaker 6: coordinative response from Hezbola, Iran Iraqi Siri militious as well
Speaker 6: as the huties in Yemen. Part of the risk of
Speaker 6: that is that some of these elements are far more
Speaker 6: eager to actually move towards a larger war than the
Speaker 6: Vanyans are. The Yvonians have been very calibrating and cautious.
Speaker 6: They've have plenty of opportunities to escalate they chosen not to.
Speaker 6: But the UTIs, for instance, have a very different calculation.
Speaker 6: They have publicly complained that the Vanians are trying to
Speaker 6: hold them back. Some of the Irakian and Syrian malicious
Speaker 6: have also complained about the unhappiness of yvon trying to
Speaker 6: restrain them. So if we end up in this larger
Speaker 6: war and at some point there is a serious effort
Speaker 6: to de escalate, the question is will there be discipline
Speaker 6: within the ranks of these different groups that are aligned
Speaker 6: with Yvan to actually go along with such a de escalation,
Speaker 6: or will we have a very chaotic situation in which
Speaker 6: some of them may be willing to de escalate than
Speaker 6: others will not. Then, as a result, we may not
Speaker 6: get the actual de escalation that may be desired in
Speaker 6: certain parts. So this is a very significant risk now
Speaker 6: as a result of this major deliberate escalation that that
Speaker 6: Tanyahu was brought.
Speaker 1: About doctor Parson in that same article where you know
Speaker 1: an aid is leaking that Biden told bb this is bullshit,
Speaker 1: and he realized finally that Bibe was.
Speaker 4: Lying about the hostages.
Speaker 1: It's obviously long been clear that bib netna in ten
Speaker 1: months apparently right, Yeah, I mean, it's just preposterous. But
Speaker 1: in that same article, this official says the US is
Speaker 1: preparing to help Israel in the face of Iran and
Speaker 1: Hesbela's response. However, they made it clear there would be
Speaker 1: no American backing for moves that would further expand the
Speaker 1: scope of the conflict. Do you give that any credence
Speaker 1: because it is very hard for me to believe that
Speaker 1: we would actually, you know, allow Israel to face Iran
Speaker 1: Hasbela alone, that we wouldn't once again jump to their rescue.
Speaker 6: Well, this is what Biden said last time as well,
Speaker 6: you know, we'll come in and defend you this time,
Speaker 6: but don't escalate further. And guess what. Two pro months later,
Speaker 6: Ntaia escalated dramatically and much further than he did the
Speaker 6: first time around. As long as Biden constantly comes to
Speaker 6: Tannaho's aid, despite all of these leaked stories about being
Speaker 6: angry behind the scenes, the reality is he's given Natanyahu
Speaker 6: a blank check or he has been so weak in
Speaker 6: his response that Nataiah, who is treating it as if
Speaker 6: he's got in a blank check from Biden to come
Speaker 6: now and say we will help you this time, but
Speaker 6: don't escalate further. Well, that's exactly what was said three
Speaker 6: months ago. And here we are at some point either
Speaker 6: by the needs to put down his foot, use the
Speaker 6: leverage that he has to put a stock to this,
Speaker 6: or he's going to be responsible for the United States
Speaker 6: getting dragged into yet another disastrous for in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: Yes, and doctor Parson, the US posture right now is
Speaker 2: one that is signaling more. We have the Carrier Strike
Speaker 2: Group there, we have several thousand US service members that
Speaker 2: are already in the region. Previously we had seen Obviously
Speaker 2: we dedicated enormous resource to the United States, Great Britain,
Speaker 2: Jordan and others. And so if there is some sort
Speaker 2: of bigger conflagration, do you have any doubt that the
Speaker 2: US would get involved here?
Speaker 6: I absolutely know that that the United States will be
Speaker 6: doing exactly what it did last time in terms of
Speaker 6: shooting down Iranian missiles, etc. The question is will the
Speaker 6: US go beyond that, Will it use fighter jist, will
Speaker 6: it use other things to start directly targeting, whether it
Speaker 6: is Iraqi Militia's Hezbola or even Yvonne itself. At this point,
Speaker 6: I find that not very likely, at least in the
Speaker 6: early stages of this. However, the way this may play
Speaker 6: out is that the Ivanians strike is Roll together with
Speaker 6: some of these other groups. It will cause damage, it
Speaker 6: will cause casualties, and then the question is what will
Speaker 6: Israel's response be. If the Israelis then respond, and if
Speaker 6: they respond particularly disproportionately, the message yvon has sense is
Speaker 6: that they're ready for numerous waves of attacks against Israel.
Speaker 6: Under those circumstances, particularly if Israel is taking very significant hits,
Speaker 6: I find it unlikely that the bid the administration in particular,
Speaker 6: will be able to resist the pressure to get directly
Speaker 6: involved in that war. And that's when the United States
Speaker 6: will be at full skill.
Speaker 1: Doctor PARSI always invaluable to have your insights, especially in
Speaker 1: such an important and fraught time.
Speaker 4: So thank you so much for your time this morning.
Speaker 6: Thanks sir, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 4: It's our pleasure.
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the very troubling news with the
Speaker 2: US economy and global economy and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen just breaking out this morning. Markets around
Speaker 2: the world are having a massive slowdown after two significant
Speaker 2: events here in the United States, a very disappointing unemployment
Speaker 2: report which showed unemployment rising and the Federal Reserve deciding
Speaker 2: not to cut rates. Both of those twin fears have
Speaker 2: triggered a massive sell off in the Japanese market, with
Speaker 2: the largest single day drop in the nicky since nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty seven following US data and also significantly changing their
Speaker 2: own policy with respect to their currency end. This simultaneously
Speaker 2: came on the heels of a big slowdown in tech stocks,
Speaker 2: fears that the AI craze may itself have been a bubble,
Speaker 2: and a significant change in the way that people are
Speaker 2: looking at the fundamentals of the US economy. Let's put
Speaker 2: the next one, please up there on the screen. This
Speaker 2: was the original event which triggered some of the initial
Speaker 2: sell off, which is now extending into Monday. US hiring
Speaker 2: falling sharply in July, quote unexpected setback for the economy
Speaker 2: and stoking recession fears. Now, there's been a lot of
Speaker 2: debate around recession, whether we're in one or not now
Speaker 2: for almost two and a half years or so, but
Speaker 2: all of it is indicative of two separate things, which is,
Speaker 2: we've had the inflation the problem which the Federal Reserve
Speaker 2: has responded to by increasing or keeping high interest rates
Speaker 2: relative to where they were previously, and then debates around
Speaker 2: whether they are putting their boot too far on the
Speaker 2: neck of the US economy and preventing it from quote
Speaker 2: unquote running hot. The fear amongstock markets and consumers and
Speaker 2: everywhere else businesses, small businesses up to large businesses is
Speaker 2: that they buy their refusal to cut rates as some
Speaker 2: European countries have now decided to do. They have actually
Speaker 2: waited now too long and simultaneously put pressure on an
Speaker 2: economy which itself is itself facing.
Speaker 3: Pressure from that unemployment.
Speaker 2: And then, of course, because we are the pre eminent
Speaker 2: leader in the global economy, you have other countries like Japan,
Speaker 2: China and others which are reliant on US consumers and
Speaker 2: manufacturing are buying manufactured goods in their economy which then
Speaker 2: significantly drop as a result.
Speaker 3: So it's a global slowdown, Crystal.
Speaker 2: We've got high inflation and now we're getting higher unemployment,
Speaker 2: much like the stagflation days of the nineteen seventies, and
Speaker 2: what we have on our hands is potentially a very
Speaker 2: real mess.
Speaker 4: Oh, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And I think it's becoming increasingly clear the FED screwed up.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a lot of premature celebration about
Speaker 1: a quote unquote soft landing because inflation had come down
Speaker 1: and employment had still been quite strong. But as we've
Speaker 1: been saying for quite a while now, these tools that
Speaker 1: the FED uses of hiking interest rates are very blunt tools,
Speaker 1: and it is a real guessing game, and it takes
Speaker 1: a while before those tools show up and really bite.
Speaker 1: So the fact that they waited so long to reverse
Speaker 1: course and begin cutting interest rates is right now at
Speaker 1: this moment, looking like a tremendous mistake, because this jobs
Speaker 1: report that just came out was an I mean, it
Speaker 1: was an utter disaster in terms of the hike in
Speaker 1: the unemployment rate, the very low number of jobs that
Speaker 1: were created, and now it is triggering this massive global
Speaker 1: free count because the US economy had been somewhat unusually
Speaker 1: strong and really bolstered kind of world prospects and world
Speaker 1: economic sentiment. So with the rug being pulled out from
Speaker 1: under that, we don't know where this free fall ultimately ends.
Speaker 1: You add to that other thing that we've been covering
Speaker 1: is this possibility that all the AI euphoria is another
Speaker 1: tech bubble a la the late nineties Internet bubble. Not
Speaker 1: to say it's not an important innovation, not to say
Speaker 1: it won't be game changing in certain important respects, just
Speaker 1: as the Internet was. But you can still have this
Speaker 1: irrational exuberance, all of this money pouring into ventures that
Speaker 1: don't make a lot of economic sense, and it seems
Speaker 1: like we may be in that position as well. You
Speaker 1: add to that, you've also got huge drops in terms
Speaker 1: of bitcoin and other crypto So this is a very
Speaker 1: chaotic situation that we're looking at this morning. It'll be,
Speaker 1: you know, quite frightening to see where the US indexes
Speaker 1: end up at the end of the day here too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the stock market index that tracks Wall Street fear,
Speaker 2: known as the VIS is at the highest level since
Speaker 2: it's been since April of twenty twenty as of this morning.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen, because we
Speaker 2: literally just did a segment about not only about US
Speaker 2: economic data, but what they mentioned here in the Guardian
Speaker 2: is market turmoil from a potential war in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: I don't think it takes a genius to figure out
Speaker 2: that missiles flying all over very critical airspace and in
Speaker 2: naval waters, which are critical to transporting large petroleum and
Speaker 2: natural gas shipments, could significantly spike global prices and put
Speaker 2: even more pressure, very much like they did in the
Speaker 2: nineteen seventies with.
Speaker 3: The OPEC embargo.
Speaker 2: So all of the fundamentals there are literally around for
Speaker 2: a complete catastrophe in the next several months. We talked
Speaker 2: previously about the potential horse race implications, but economically it's
Speaker 2: probably never been worse since that time, just because we
Speaker 2: have a housing crisis in terms of the stickiness of
Speaker 2: overall home prices that's still affected by supply and demand.
Speaker 2: In fact, I just read this morning that they're actually
Speaker 2: going to be increasing the standards for lending, further restricting
Speaker 2: the amount of capital that's out there for people who
Speaker 2: want out mortgages.
Speaker 3: This is from Fanny May and Freddie Mack.
Speaker 2: You've also got the geopolitical tensions and pressure Russia, Ukraine,
Speaker 2: now the Israel situation with Iran. Then you've got the
Speaker 2: unemployment fears, and now you've got some misguided federal reserve policy.
Speaker 2: Let's put D three please up on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is another indicator data wise of where we may be.
Speaker 2: This is the official chart showing the quote unquote PSALM
Speaker 2: rule has been triggered. This is the real time recession
Speaker 2: indicator that was developed by an economist, Claudia sam historically
Speaker 2: quote this indicates the economy is in the early stages
Speaker 2: of a recession. It's possible quirks of the post pandemic
Speaker 2: recovery mean we could still avoid that, but this is concerning.
Speaker 2: As Heatherlong notes, now, I wanted to previously raise one
Speaker 2: of the things that made the Federal Reserve move so
Speaker 2: puzzling is that was actually in contrast to other central banks.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: For example, from the Bank of England just days ago
Speaker 2: actually lowered its A and interest rate yero point two
Speaker 2: five percent to five first cut in over four years.
Speaker 2: Some people were expecting that. Now it seems that the
Speaker 2: earliest possible rate cut from the Federal Reserve come in September,
Speaker 2: but that is, of course, you know, a little bit
Speaker 2: of time to wait, and there could be significant sell
Speaker 2: off in the interim period.
Speaker 3: Crystal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you have a lot of Wall Street types
Speaker 1: analysts saying, hey, we need an emergency rate cut and
Speaker 1: we need it right now. I know you shared with
Speaker 1: our group chat this morning, you had Jeremy Siegel from
Speaker 1: Wharton saying we need a seventy five basis point emergency
Speaker 1: cut in the FED funds rate, with another seventy five
Speaker 1: basis point cut indicated for next month at the September meeting.
Speaker 4: And that's minimum.
Speaker 1: That gives you a sense of the level of concern
Speaker 1: that we could be entering this sort of doom spy
Speaker 1: role now with the Fed having waited way too long
Speaker 1: to begin cutting interest rates. So it's a very very
Speaker 1: scary morning out there. And I think the big trigger
Speaker 1: was this very poor jobs report came in way under
Speaker 1: expectations and triggered the SAM rule. And officially, the SAM
Speaker 1: rule holds that if unemployment has jumped zero point five
Speaker 1: percent from the low of the past year, and that's soccer,
Speaker 1: as you were pointing out, that's what this chart shows here. Now,
Speaker 1: there could be mitigating factors. The economy has been really weird,
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe the Fed is able to act quickly,
Speaker 1: maybe they're able to forestall the worst of potential consequences.
Speaker 1: But I don't think there's any doubt that they waited
Speaker 1: too long. To act it to change course here. I
Speaker 1: think that's pretty clear this morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it appears when markets are pricing in some
Speaker 2: emergency rate cut certainly possible, but anytime you just have that,
Speaker 2: it just indicates chaos amongst decision makers. It does look
Speaker 2: like a huge amount of this comes back to Japan,
Speaker 2: but a lot of it also has its roots as
Speaker 2: I'm reading in the Financial Times in AI, and we've
Speaker 2: done several segments here previously just about how much of
Speaker 2: the quote unquote magnificent seven stocks or Nvidia or others
Speaker 2: compromise the S and P five hundred, and how you
Speaker 2: might have a lot more exposure just given the significant
Speaker 2: growth in those stocks. Even if you do or are
Speaker 2: invested just in a very standard S and P five
Speaker 2: hundred index, you will have much more exposure than you
Speaker 2: previously might have thought, just to technology stocks, which itself
Speaker 2: have expended tens of billions of dollars on expected AI returns,
Speaker 2: which we know have not yet materialized. Doesn't mean they
Speaker 2: may not, you know, it could take a couple of years.
Speaker 2: But in the immediate term, which is what the stock
Speaker 2: market is generally kind of you know, interested in, and
Speaker 2: what future quarterly returns, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That's not the best place to be in.
Speaker 2: So with contracting stock prices, you always have liquidity problems
Speaker 2: at different companies. You're also seeing a major slide at Bigcoin,
Speaker 2: as you said, probably indicative of people having to take
Speaker 2: risk off in their portfolios. And there was also I
Speaker 2: was kind of I'm still trying to get my head
Speaker 2: around it, but apparently it was a very popular trade
Speaker 2: on Wall Street that involved the Japanese yen. I am
Speaker 2: not smart enough exactly to understand it, but it has
Speaker 2: something involved with interest rate, and it was called a
Speaker 2: carry straddle. But anyways, the Bank of Japan has blown
Speaker 2: that trade up, which is apparently was one of the
Speaker 2: most popular trades on all Wall Street for the last
Speaker 2: six to ten months, blowing that up overnight, which also
Speaker 2: is a problem because if it triggers a sell off,
Speaker 2: and of course it always filters down to us, because
Speaker 2: when companies have problems, they take it out on their workers.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I also saw tweets about that and also was incapable
Speaker 1: of Really I didn't take the time to wrap my
Speaker 1: head around that one yet.
Speaker 3: I'm not smart enough to understand the carry straddle. I
Speaker 3: know it exists. That's the best I could possibly do
Speaker 3: if I spent.
Speaker 1: A day like really taking into it. Maybe, But yeah,
Speaker 1: just based on a tweet. No, it wasn't gonna wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna get that one wrapped into my head this morning.
Speaker 1: But you know, as we're recording this, Dow futures are
Speaker 1: down one thousand points, So bubble your seat belt. This
Speaker 1: could get extremely ugly, all right, speaking extremely ugly, we
Speaker 1: have a big old culture war fight that normally soccer
Speaker 1: and I typically avoid these like the plague.
Speaker 4: If we're being totally honest.
Speaker 1: However, this one has been embraced by the top of
Speaker 1: the GOP ticket, both by Donald Trump and JD. Vance,
Speaker 1: and I have to tell you it is one We're
Speaker 1: going to try to have a non stupid discussion about it.
Speaker 1: It is actually a topic that I find challenging and
Speaker 1: intellectually interesting, So let's go ahead and dig into it.
Speaker 1: There was a women's boxing match in the Olympics. We
Speaker 1: can go ahead and put some of these images up
Speaker 1: on the screen. We have an Italian boxer, Angela Karini
Speaker 1: versus an Algerian boxer Amani Khalif, and this match ended
Speaker 1: very quickly. The Italian boxer took a couple of blows
Speaker 1: and then she forfeited the fight. She came out tearfully,
Speaker 1: and we can actually put her comments up on the
Speaker 1: screen immediately afterwards and talked about why she decided to withdraw.
Speaker 1: Here are her comments in full. She said, my face
Speaker 1: and nose were hurting. I couldn't breathe anymore. I thought
Speaker 1: about my family. I looked at my brother in the stands,
Speaker 1: and I went to my corner to retire. I've never
Speaker 1: been hit with such a powerful punch. She added that
Speaker 1: the withdrawal was not a premeditated move. All this controversy,
Speaker 1: she said, makes me sad. Later on she said this,
Speaker 1: and she said she wanted to apologize to Amani for
Speaker 1: the controversy. And the controversy is that after this withdrawal,
Speaker 1: a bunch of people online, including JK. Rowling, began speculating
Speaker 1: that Amani was actually a man.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: First of all, they were saying she's transgender. She is
Speaker 1: not transgender. We can put put E four up on
Speaker 1: the screen that has some of the details of this
Speaker 1: fight and what happened. So she was born a woman,
Speaker 1: woman on her passport, raised a woman, et cetera. However,
Speaker 1: there was another boxing organization that at one point had
Speaker 1: disqualified Amani and another fighter is not meeting their gender criteria. Now,
Speaker 1: this boxing organization has come under a lot of scrutiny.
Speaker 1: It's called the International Boxing Association. The Olympic Committee actually
Speaker 1: kicked them out from regulating the sport and took over
Speaker 1: the sport because they had all.
Speaker 4: Kinds of corrupt dealing.
Speaker 1: One of the guys that was running it was this
Speaker 1: like Russian mob boss. Another person was super close to Putin,
Speaker 1: and it called into question this test that had allegedly
Speaker 1: found that Amani and another boxer who's also competing at
Speaker 1: the Olympics did not meet the gender criteria. And just
Speaker 1: to give you the backstory, I went too deep on this,
Speaker 1: but anyway, to give you the backstory here, Amani had
Speaker 1: just defeated a Russian fighter who at that point had
Speaker 1: been undefeated and was this very promising amateur coming up.
Speaker 1: So Amani's been fighting no problem, you know, in the
Speaker 1: women's category, raises women, et cetera, et cetera. She beats
Speaker 1: this Russian boxer and all of a sudden, this very
Speaker 1: closely Russian tide organization disqualifies her and this other boxer
Speaker 1: for failing to meet their gender criteria.
Speaker 4: They told a.
Speaker 1: Russian state sponsored news organization that it was because she
Speaker 1: had an x Y chromosome. However, since then they haven't
Speaker 1: been willing to verify what the test was or really
Speaker 1: speak about it. The Olympic Committee is standing by Amani's
Speaker 1: classification as a woman. We haven't heard really from Amani
Speaker 1: herself her full side of the story. In any case,
Speaker 1: this sparked a whole political freak ount and really a
Speaker 1: kind of like online mob going after her for her
Speaker 1: number one not looking sort of traditionally female. Number two,
Speaker 1: this this is just a total lie that she was
Speaker 1: transgender and sort of tying it into that debate. And
Speaker 1: then number three, wild speculation about things that we really
Speaker 1: don't know. You know, it is possible that she has
Speaker 1: DSD differences in sexual development or she's in the other
Speaker 1: word for that is intersex. That is possible that could
Speaker 1: have been indicated by this test. We don't know for sure.
Speaker 1: It's possible that she has some sort of a hormonal disorder,
Speaker 1: could be from DSD that causes her to produce more testosterone.
Speaker 4: We don't know that either. So what you've ended up with.
Speaker 1: Is just a bunch of wild speculation and what I've found,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of offensive and has struck me, as
Speaker 1: a former female athlete myself difficult about it and disturbing
Speaker 1: about it is the way that so much of it
Speaker 1: is just based on her appearance as not conforming to
Speaker 1: sort of traditional female beauty standards. And then just the
Speaker 1: fact that they're just completely lying that she's transgender when
Speaker 1: she is not in fact transgender.
Speaker 2: Okay, I will say this, I blame that Italian lady
Speaker 2: because she's the one who heavily implied that she lost
Speaker 2: as a result of her opponent being transgender. Now I'm
Speaker 2: not going to sit here and justify JK. Rowling immediately
Speaker 2: coming out and not doing enough research. This is part
Speaker 2: of the problem, is that people want to sling takes,
Speaker 2: and they want to take things at face value, and
Speaker 2: now all of a sudden, you know, they take they're like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: the IBA set at the International Boxing Association, nobody knows
Speaker 2: anything about the background, And of course there's a political
Speaker 2: incentive in order to portray that. I guess one of
Speaker 2: the only reasons I'm willing to cut some slack here
Speaker 2: is that there have been instances previously in athletics and
Speaker 2: elsewhere where transgender athletes were allowed to compete in women's sports,
Speaker 2: and there obviously, well, I mean, it's a reality that
Speaker 2: was created that made it believable in the first place.
Speaker 2: That is not justifying people who are coming out and
Speaker 2: pushing these out, because I am not satisfied that there
Speaker 2: is any real evidence that this woman even has. While
Speaker 2: we were talking about that, what was it, DSD as,
Speaker 2: I understand it she passed the quote unquote gender test
Speaker 2: at the International Olympic Committee. I do understand though, that
Speaker 2: the IOC and many of these countries have significant incentives
Speaker 2: sometimes to game the system, not just on gender, but
Speaker 2: for testosterone hormone therapy, et cetera.
Speaker 3: As we all learned it's so cheap, countries.
Speaker 2: Are literally willing to go to extraordinarily extraordinarily extraordinary efforts
Speaker 2: to try and to deceive the Olympic Games.
Speaker 3: So I saw it.
Speaker 2: Within the context of people thought it was believable simply
Speaker 2: because it has literally happened, you know, previously, not only
Speaker 2: in combat sports, but also and other competitive athletics. I
Speaker 2: do feel bad for her, though, certainly because just because
Speaker 2: somebody's created a reality where such an event would be
Speaker 2: certainly believable, doesn't mean that she deserves to be victim
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, it made me think a lot.
Speaker 1: And we've actually talked a little bit offline about this
Speaker 1: case of Castor Semenya, who is a sprinter and a runner.
Speaker 1: She's an extraordinary athlete, and she faced similar scrutiny and
Speaker 1: it came out and now you know, I actually in
Speaker 1: some ways prefer to talk about Caster's case because we
Speaker 1: actually know the details, whereas with the money we genuinely
Speaker 1: don't know the details. Here, there's just rampant speculation. One
Speaker 1: thing we do know, she was identified female birth. Transgenderism
Speaker 1: is literally illegal in the country she's from, right, She
Speaker 1: was identified female at birth, so she has the visual
Speaker 1: genital appearance as a female. Apparently love having to talk
Speaker 1: about these things. She was raised as a girl. There's
Speaker 1: pictures of her as a very girly looking little girl
Speaker 1: with giant pink earrings, and in fact she had huge
Speaker 1: obstacles to being able to train as a boxer because
Speaker 1: her dad didn't approve of girls boxing. She and her
Speaker 1: mom she came from a very poor family and a
Speaker 1: very conservative part of Algeria. She and her mom sold
Speaker 1: scrap metal and would cook and sell the food to
Speaker 1: raise money for her training, which she hid from her
Speaker 1: father because, as I said, he didn't.
Speaker 4: Approve because she was the girl.
Speaker 1: So it is heartbreaking to see the way that she
Speaker 1: has been, you know, unfairly Attacksmearred lied about et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. You know, the case of castor semenia. It
Speaker 1: does raise really difficult questions because she is intersex or
Speaker 1: has DSD. She visually, you know, if you just were
Speaker 1: looking at the external bits, looks like a woman. However,
Speaker 1: she doesn't have some of the internal bits fallopian tubes, ovaries,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And because of the way she was naturally born,
Speaker 1: she naturally produces more testosterone than is.
Speaker 4: The quote unquote normal range for women. So what do
Speaker 4: you do with that?
Speaker 1: You know, this is like, this is a woman by
Speaker 1: most metrics, but she naturally produces more testosterone than your
Speaker 1: average woman. Okay, well, on the one hand, you say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: maybe that's not fair, But then you also think about
Speaker 1: there are many competitive advantages which don't seem particularly fair.
Speaker 1: I'm sure Michael Phelps competitors didn't feel it was particularly fair.
Speaker 4: That he's like, you know, built like a fish, with.
Speaker 1: This insanely freakishly long wingspan and double jointed ankles that
Speaker 1: allow him to get more propulsion out of his kick,
Speaker 1: and his body doesn't produce as much lactic acid as
Speaker 1: other athletes. He's another sort of genetic outlier, which, of course,
Speaker 1: when you get to elite athletics, you're going to find
Speaker 1: almost everybody who's competing at this level is going to
Speaker 1: be some sort of a genetic outlier. So I guess
Speaker 1: part of what I don't have many easy answers for this,
Speaker 1: By the way, I think it's actually very difficult question
Speaker 1: to figure out where you draw the line, because no
Speaker 1: matter where you draw the line, it's going to be
Speaker 1: unfair to someone. Right, There is really no perfect answer.
Speaker 1: I think the answer are also probably very score by sport,
Speaker 1: Like for example, in boxing, you know, we've obviously decided
Speaker 1: it's not fair to have some giant person fighting against
Speaker 1: some tiny person, so they instituted weight categories because it's
Speaker 1: not just you're not just losing a race, you're in
Speaker 1: the possibility of getting injured, getting hurt, and so that
Speaker 1: adds a level of care and concern about unfair advantages
Speaker 1: that could be dangerous to your competitor. So I think
Speaker 1: it could be different sport by sport. But I guess
Speaker 1: my big takeaway here is that a lot of the
Speaker 1: discourse on the right is very simplistic, just like women
Speaker 1: should be fighting women and men should be fighting men,
Speaker 1: and cases like cast or Semnia, and potentially, although we
Speaker 1: don't know, cases like a moaning Khaliph shows that nature
Speaker 1: doesn't actually draw a really clear and obvious line. Usually, yes,
Speaker 1: in ninety nine nine point nine percent of cases, it's
Speaker 1: very obvious, but especially in elite athletics, you're going to
Speaker 1: have these edge cases, these borderline cases that are really
Speaker 1: difficult and aren't really black and white.
Speaker 2: So yeah, but I think it's a very different case here.
Speaker 2: You have somebody who's born naturally. Again we don't know. Okay,
Speaker 2: the IBA apparently claimed that they say they have evidence.
Speaker 3: I don't know, they should release it.
Speaker 2: Okay, maybe the IOC should come out and clarify the
Speaker 2: situation too, just to make it very clear.
Speaker 3: But it's very different.
Speaker 2: We're born naturally and then we're taking exogenous hormones, or
Speaker 2: if you're not taking exogenous hormones and you just happen
Speaker 2: to identify as female and you compete in female athletics.
Speaker 2: I think is a totally different situation, and that's what
Speaker 2: people are reacting to. And I get I mean again,
Speaker 2: to be fair, this literally happened the whole Lea Thomas situation.
Speaker 2: We have sprinters and other situations that happen here in
Speaker 2: the United States. So people are primed to believe it
Speaker 2: because it's a reality that was created frankly, you know,
Speaker 2: by elite liberalism who thinks that this is somehow justifiable.
Speaker 3: So my line is quite simple.
Speaker 2: If it's natural, I mean, I guess you know, if
Speaker 2: it's natural, it's with the conversation. If it's not natural,
Speaker 2: then no, I don't think it should be in the conversation.
Speaker 2: I don't think exogenists hormone should be legal really period,
Speaker 2: you know, whenever it comes to elite athletics.
Speaker 3: Lance Armstrong is a good example of why.
Speaker 2: You know, you have somebody naturally who had a quote
Speaker 2: unquote advantage but then gets disqualified for taking exogenous substances. Now,
Speaker 2: Michael Phelps, you know, like what I forget exactly what
Speaker 2: his genetic mutation was, but it is something that is
Speaker 2: born of nature and so I just think it's quite
Speaker 2: a simple conversation, I guess within this and the reality
Speaker 2: is is that there was an entire thing created over
Speaker 2: the last decade of if let's say this woman was transgender,
Speaker 2: then I think the left would be like, yeah, that's
Speaker 2: completely fine, or they would ignore it. So in a sense,
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's necessarily the same controversy.
Speaker 1: Well, it's definitely not the same controversy, except that people
Speaker 1: lied about this person said she was transgender, to try
Speaker 1: to fit it into the same controversy.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, idea. I don't think that was responsible.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's here's why it is related though, because
Speaker 1: you're talking about you know, innate characteristics and where is
Speaker 1: the line that you're going to draw between the two genders.
Speaker 1: And so I don't know that anyone would argue Maybe
Speaker 1: there's some person out there that would argue it, but
Speaker 1: I certainly went on I don't know anybody else on
Speaker 1: the left that would argue it would be enough to
Speaker 1: just say, you know, oh, I feel like I'm a
Speaker 1: woman now and you know, get to compete in female athletics.
Speaker 1: The conversation is about, okay, is there a process by
Speaker 1: which if you transition over a number of years, and
Speaker 1: you are, you know, suppressing your testosterone levels and you
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's been a certain period of time.
Speaker 1: Is there a time period in which, okay, now it's
Speaker 1: all right for you to compete or is it just
Speaker 1: if you, if you went through puberty as a biological male,
Speaker 1: do you have too much of a competitive advantage to ever,
Speaker 1: you know, forever to be fair for you to compete
Speaker 1: against women. And I do think that that's a difficult
Speaker 1: because it wouldn't be fair to just say no, that's it.
Speaker 4: You just can't compete, period, end of story. You're done, right.
Speaker 1: And on the other hand, I think that certain sports,
Speaker 1: like for example, I think what was it a was
Speaker 1: like a pool player or something who quit because she
Speaker 1: was up against a transgender Woman's like this has you
Speaker 1: your gender doesn't even confer any sort of advantage. So
Speaker 1: in certain sports, you know, yes, I think that it's
Speaker 1: like boxing, I think would be one of them where
Speaker 1: if you went through puberty as a biological mail, you
Speaker 1: probably have advantages that even if you've been taking you know,
Speaker 1: hormone suppression and medically transition for years, that you're not
Speaker 1: going to be able to just totally put in the
Speaker 1: in the background. But there are other sports where it
Speaker 1: may not make as much of a difference. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm saying it's a complicated question and also why it
Speaker 1: could vary support by sport, and why the fact that
Speaker 1: you have these natural, naturally occurring edge cases makes it
Speaker 1: really clear that it is not a black and white
Speaker 1: question that sex, even you know, just naturally occurring differences
Speaker 1: create these edge cases that actually, when you come down
Speaker 1: to it, makes it very difficult to draw that line
Speaker 1: of you know who goos in which category, et cetera.
Speaker 3: And yeah, but this is a yes butt question.
Speaker 2: This is a so yes, there are point zero zero
Speaker 2: zero zero one occurrences people like this in which it
Speaker 2: will manifest in elite athletics. But the puberty conversation, this,
Speaker 2: the data is incredibly clear. If you went through puberty
Speaker 2: as a biological mail, then the natural differences that you
Speaker 2: have are immense. There has been tons of research on this.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter if you've been on hormone blockers for
Speaker 2: five years, just in terms of your muscle development, what
Speaker 2: the amount of testosterone that you had that could contribute
Speaker 2: to you know, growing larger, et CETERA friend of mine,
Speaker 2: Derek more Place More Dates, has done extensive research on
Speaker 2: this and put out a lot of videos that are
Speaker 2: on the subject. You can go and watch them for yourself.
Speaker 2: So I really just think it's totally different, Crystal. I
Speaker 2: mean we're talking here, I mean we're almost seems like, well,
Speaker 2: just because there's a point zero one percent edge case,
Speaker 2: that means that the modern fun nomenon of transgenderism and
Speaker 2: tried to ideology is somehow comparable.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's the case at all.
Speaker 2: And then that also, I mean when you say difficult question,
Speaker 2: then that even raises the idea that you can put
Speaker 2: puberty blockers in a child and not allow them to
Speaker 2: go through puberty in their natural gender, which I think
Speaker 2: is frankly disgusting and abhorrent. I would personally be forbanning
Speaker 2: it if I could. I don't know if the public
Speaker 2: would necessarily be on my side. I know that in
Speaker 2: Europe they've certainly gone in a different direction, So I
Speaker 2: don't think that this conversation is really related in any
Speaker 2: way to a natural phenomenon. And then the specific choice,
Speaker 2: frankly by parents who are deciding to plug children and
Speaker 2: chemically castrate them with chemicals. I mean, that is just
Speaker 2: not even in the same leak of conversation to me.
Speaker 1: So to stick with the conversation about the athletics. I mean,
Speaker 1: the other thing I would say is just this has
Speaker 1: made been made into such a top political issue on
Speaker 1: the right and it hasn't succeeded in terms of I
Speaker 1: think on the public opinion its succeeded. You know, if
Speaker 1: you pull people, majority will say yes, I don't think
Speaker 1: that transgender women should be able to participate in women's athletics.
Speaker 1: But there were a lot of candidates who really leaned
Speaker 1: into this topic in the midterms and it was not successful,
Speaker 1: and so it was sort of dropped for the agenda.
Speaker 1: Now it's been picked up, you know, because of this
Speaker 1: debate about this Olympic women's boxing match. It's been picked
Speaker 1: up by Jade Vance and Donald Trump, who very much
Speaker 1: do want to make it about transgender women, even though
Speaker 1: this woman is not transgender at all. So they've been
Speaker 1: using this rhetoric on the campaign trail. This is what
Speaker 1: do we have here?
Speaker 4: E three. Let's go ahead and run this thot.
Speaker 3: We think it's.
Speaker 6: Weird that the far left wants to allow biological males.
Speaker 3: To beat the living crap out of women in boxing, I.
Speaker 8: Used to use the bar bells.
Speaker 3: You have to do is look at the boxers.
Speaker 7: This young girl from Italy, a very a champion boxer.
Speaker 7: She got hit so hard she didn't know what the
Speaker 7: hell hit her. So person that transitioned he was a
Speaker 7: good he was a good mailboxer.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he was.
Speaker 7: A good mail boxer. And she didn't even go down.
Speaker 7: He hit it with two jams and she said, I'm out.
Speaker 1: So anyway, that's all just that's a lie. She did
Speaker 1: not transition. She was not a great mailboxer. She was
Speaker 1: born a woman. She has competed as a woman. There
Speaker 1: is this question about the tests. We don't know the details,
Speaker 1: but that is all a complete lie. So there's the
Speaker 1: political aspect of this. But yeah, I'll just say with
Speaker 1: regard to part of why I don't think the transgender
Speaker 1: sports debate has been the politically salient issue that Republicans
Speaker 1: at one point thought it would be, and why I
Speaker 1: take these two examples once again of like them sort
Speaker 1: of flailing around and not really knowing how to run
Speaker 1: against common Harris.
Speaker 4: At this point.
Speaker 1: In fact, I saw someone online who tweeted, like Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is losing, so they had to make up that
Speaker 1: this boxer is transgender. But why part of why I
Speaker 1: think that this has not been salient is because, like,
Speaker 1: look at the Olympics. Now, you know, Katie Ldeki is
Speaker 1: the dominant female swimmer, She's a woman. This looming threat
Speaker 1: of destroying female athletics, et cetera, et cetera, like it
Speaker 1: just hasn't come true. There have been a few cases,
Speaker 1: like Leah Thomas that I think have been, you know, nationally,
Speaker 1: very sensational. Lee Thomas isn't at the Olympics, right, So
Speaker 1: as a salient issue that impacts people frequently in their lives.
Speaker 1: You've got states that are passing bands on transgender athletes
Speaker 1: that don't that have like one transgender athlete in their
Speaker 1: entire state. So I think it's a much greater threat
Speaker 1: to women's athletics they sent that any of these people
Speaker 1: actually care about that at all. Outside of like creating
Speaker 1: this culture war issue, I think the greater threat is
Speaker 1: stoking these online lynch mobs to judge women by their
Speaker 1: appearance and hold up whether or not they meet the
Speaker 1: standard that they think that they should look like, and
Speaker 1: then smearing them internationally.
Speaker 2: Accordingly, Chrystl, the reason Leah Thomas is not in the
Speaker 2: Olympics is apparently because she lost in the World Aquatics
Speaker 2: Governing Court of our arbitration that would have not allowed
Speaker 2: her to compete. So it's not that she wasn't competing
Speaker 2: against Katie Leadecci. It's because she legally was not allowed
Speaker 2: to compete in the event.
Speaker 4: Would take her ass But.
Speaker 3: Anyway, maybe I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, she's got the top twenty fastest times
Speaker 1: in the fifteen hundred freestyle that have ever existed.
Speaker 3: Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't.
Speaker 2: I think seeing her him whatever up on the dais
Speaker 2: frankly is disgusting and that is something that I deeply
Speaker 2: object to. Now on the transgender point, now, the reason
Speaker 2: I don't think that it was politically salient is because
Speaker 2: it was in the context of abortion in a vacuum.
Speaker 2: As you said, Poles dramatically agree that transgender athletes should
Speaker 2: not be allowed to compete in women's sports, and in
Speaker 2: some governing bodies where they have been allowed to compete,
Speaker 2: you had the grotesque outcome of people like Leah Thomas
Speaker 2: and weightlifters and others that are competing against women. You've
Speaker 2: had athletes like Riley Gaines and others who have spoken
Speaker 2: out about this and, by the way, face significant social
Speaker 2: consequences as a result of that.
Speaker 3: In their university.
Speaker 2: Yeah, after she quit, you know, and had to make
Speaker 2: this hor By the way, I don't recommend making this
Speaker 2: your whole identity. You know, there's a reason that I
Speaker 2: conduct myself the way that I do. But if forced
Speaker 2: to discuss, you know, certainly will the vast majority of
Speaker 2: the American public agrees on this issue. And by forcing
Speaker 2: you know, people like Leah Thomas and others, you just
Speaker 2: frankly create this grotesque spectacle which sets back, as I
Speaker 2: have told my gay friends, the quote unquote gay marriage
Speaker 2: polling numbers that we have seen within the GOP. Now,
Speaker 2: abortion is always going to be a lot more salient issue.
Speaker 2: Now after that's solved, now maybe we can tackle the
Speaker 2: puberty debate. And I think it's going to be very
Speaker 2: different on the polling and political salience with abortion off
Speaker 2: the table. But of course, I mean there's a ton
Speaker 2: more women who exist in America, so there's going to
Speaker 2: be a lot more important. But in a vacuum, I
Speaker 2: don't think it's nearly as unpopular as.
Speaker 3: You're laying out.
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was unpopular. I'm saying that people
Speaker 1: don't care that much, Like they don't, you know.
Speaker 3: They're so you shouldn't care, don't particularly care that much.
Speaker 4: But there's so few instances. And that's that's the thing.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm trying to get at, Sager, is look
Speaker 1: at the Olympics. Look at the female start Shikari Richardson,
Speaker 1: Simone Biles, Katie Ladeki, Like, none of these people are
Speaker 1: threatened by transgender athletes. There was there's one. There is,
Speaker 1: just through another wrinkle is there actually is one self
Speaker 1: identifying transgender male who is boxing but hasn't taken hormones
Speaker 1: or whatever and just changed their pronouns and is boxing
Speaker 1: as a woman. I think I'm getting these details right,
Speaker 1: But there's very few transgender athletes, even at the Olympics.
Speaker 1: So again my point is not that this, you know,
Speaker 1: I actually think probably the most fair thing, if you
Speaker 1: had sufficient number, is to have separate categories for transgender athletes.
Speaker 1: But I think that's practically difficult because the few numbers.
Speaker 1: Because I agree with you that I think if you
Speaker 1: go through puberty as a biological male. It does convert
Speaker 1: certain advantages that even if you've been taking hormone, you know,
Speaker 1: suppressants for many years, are not going to just magically
Speaker 1: go away.
Speaker 4: I just subject to.
Speaker 1: This being such a like fixation and focus and the
Speaker 1: demonization of you know, this boxer or now apparently anyone
Speaker 1: who doesn't there's another boxer by the way, who's in
Speaker 1: the same category, anyone who doesn't fit this ideal. I
Speaker 1: just find that to be so gross, and I do
Speaker 1: take it kind of personally, just because you know, I'm
Speaker 1: a former athlete. I wasn't going to the Olympics, but
Speaker 1: I was a Division one swimmer. I was a big
Speaker 1: part of my identity. And you know, when you are
Speaker 1: a high level athlete, oftentimes as a woman, you do
Speaker 1: have some characteristics that are not traditionally feminine. If you
Speaker 1: look at the swimmers right, really broad shoulders, flat chests,
Speaker 1: because you're more aeroors dynamic, big lats. I've always been
Speaker 1: able to put on a lot more muscle than other women.
Speaker 1: And so if you're creating a situation where now they're
Speaker 1: these like online Lynch model of people judging whether you're
Speaker 1: feminine enough, like they did to cast er Somnia Duti
Speaker 1: chand Ammani Khalif. Now, to me, that's far more damaging
Speaker 1: to women's athletics than these you know, very few cases
Speaker 1: of transgender athletes that I also by the like I said,
Speaker 1: I also have.
Speaker 4: Issues with and have questions about.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's sort of they're sort of killing
Speaker 1: the uh They're they're doing more damage to the thing
Speaker 1: that they're claiming to protect. And I do wonder what
Speaker 1: you make of like the Trump comments where he just
Speaker 1: like lies about her. I mean, do you think that
Speaker 1: this is a smart political direction for Trump and Jade
Speaker 1: Vance to go in embracing this culture war question over the.
Speaker 3: Audience people who really care.
Speaker 2: I mean, the American people are on their side regardless
Speaker 2: of whether this is true or not. If it was
Speaker 2: a transgender athlete, then yeah, I mean most people. I look,
Speaker 2: it is not all that politically salient. Like I said,
Speaker 2: it forced to discuss. I'll lay out you know, what
Speaker 2: I think is a pretty clear case of why this
Speaker 2: is gross. I don't think that is nearly as damaging
Speaker 2: that the left created reality where women are literally or
Speaker 2: men are literally allowed to compete in women's sports biological men.
Speaker 2: So then you can't get upset when people are like, hey,
Speaker 2: is this a biological man or not?
Speaker 3: And then if they were, and.
Speaker 4: When the information is there and you're just flat on looks.
Speaker 2: But if it was a biological man, people would say, oh,
Speaker 2: what a great celebration you know that this is an
Speaker 2: amazing outcome of you know, transgender equality. It's like you
Speaker 2: can't simultaneously cheer on like bearded guys in dresses and
Speaker 2: then say like, oh, we shouldn't be able to criticize
Speaker 2: the whatever, like female aesthetics. I mean, this is a
Speaker 2: reality that was created literally by modern liberalism, post O
Speaker 2: Burger felt, which I think was a massive mistake as
Speaker 2: we look at the political polling that has now happened
Speaker 2: both on gay marriage and on the transgender is an issue.
Speaker 2: So I just certainly I almost feel frankly like a
Speaker 2: gas lit on this bit on little this conversation, because
Speaker 2: if you create an entire reality where everything is questionable
Speaker 2: and then people can't ask questions.
Speaker 1: But there was, it was readily apparent, it was readily
Speaker 1: available information that this is not a transferent person. How
Speaker 1: can I just don't think it's fair to just give
Speaker 1: a path to these big accounts and JK Roll and
Speaker 1: the freaking former president of the United States, like, well,
Speaker 1: it's not his fault because somebody else, you know, did
Speaker 1: something that he didn't like. Once the facts exist out there,
Speaker 1: you are able to you know, absorb them and read
Speaker 1: articles about what's going on and assesss it accurately and
Speaker 1: have empathy for this person and not just go on
Speaker 1: this nasty like demonization kick and make her into some
Speaker 1: sort of political fodder. So I think just like excusing
Speaker 1: them as well, it's not really their fault. I find
Speaker 1: that preposterous. But the last thing, just to tie up,
Speaker 1: like what we know about this and the reaction from
Speaker 1: the Italian boxer who you know, I going back and
Speaker 1: reading her initial comments I know a lot of people,
Speaker 1: and you were saying, like you really blame her for service, right.
Speaker 4: I don't know that that's.
Speaker 1: Really fair because all she said is just like she'd
Speaker 1: never been hit that hard. She didn't say that Amani
Speaker 1: shouldn't be able to fight, or she was a man
Speaker 1: or whatever. So I don't know if it's really fair
Speaker 1: to put it all on her. But in any case,
Speaker 1: we have her final comments where she was talking about
Speaker 1: how she would actually apologize to Amani. She says, it
Speaker 1: wasn't something I intended to do. Actually, I want to
Speaker 1: apologize her and everyone else. I was angry because my
Speaker 1: Olympics had gone up in smoke. She added, she bet
Speaker 1: cahlif again she would embrace her. So, in any case,
Speaker 1: just kind of a wild situation that really touched a
Speaker 1: cultural nerve and has now been embraced by the former
Speaker 1: president of the United States, in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that some of the very basics of the situation have
Speaker 1: been nothing but lies in innuendo.
Speaker 2: All right, well, let's see what the developments are. Maybe
Speaker 2: a gender test. I believe that people are demanding she'd
Speaker 2: take a gender test, or so maybe we'll say, perhaps
Speaker 2: we'll get the truth.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Did they have to pass the gender test to even
Speaker 2: compete in the IOC. This is where I'm confused, this
Speaker 2: governing body. Yeah, like, what are the rules? What do
Speaker 2: they even say?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think that the Olympic Committee, as best
Speaker 1: as I was able to understand, they don't conduct chromosomal tests.
Speaker 1: And they so typically again this is my layman's understanding
Speaker 1: of doing one day of research. Yes, typically, I believe
Speaker 1: they allow these various sports governing bodies to sort of
Speaker 1: legislate themselves. So previously they had been relying on this
Speaker 1: International Boxing Association.
Speaker 4: However, they were all kinds.
Speaker 1: It was legitimately very sketchy organization and like you know,
Speaker 1: tied into the drug trade and like you know, Russian mobsters.
Speaker 4: Whatever. It was kind of a mess.
Speaker 1: So they banned them from allying with them, and the
Speaker 1: Olympic Committee themselves put together a temporary committee.
Speaker 4: To adjudicate these types of questions.
Speaker 1: From my reading, it was not entirely clear to me
Speaker 1: what they based their assessments on. The thing that they
Speaker 1: said is that she was born a woman. She's you know,
Speaker 1: woman on our driver's license, woman on our passport, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And so I don't know if I don't think that
Speaker 1: they have like a testosterone limit, and I don't know
Speaker 1: that they conducted these same sort of uh, you know,
Speaker 1: potential chromosomal tests now in track and field where castor sima,
Speaker 1: where this was relevant for castor semenia, they decided that
Speaker 1: for certain events, not all events, but for certain events,
Speaker 1: high levels of testosterone were a sufficient advantage that they regulate.
Speaker 1: They set a maximum bar for what your testosterone levels
Speaker 1: can be even if you're in all other respects, you know,
Speaker 1: present as a female, so cast or semenia. In order
Speaker 1: to compete in some of her top events, was forced
Speaker 1: to take testosterone suppressants in order to be able to compete.
Speaker 1: And she's written about how it really it made her
Speaker 1: really sick and she hated doing it. Ultimately, she stopped
Speaker 1: taking those testosterone suppressants. So different sports, it seems like,
Speaker 1: have different criteria. And I guess one question I have
Speaker 1: for you is, Okay, so let's say that she does
Speaker 1: have DSD and she does have x Y chromosome, even
Speaker 1: though you know she you know, physically presented as a female.
Speaker 4: Do you think that she should compete as a woman
Speaker 4: or not.
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I just think that the risk
Speaker 3: is too high for people in boxing.
Speaker 2: Whenever you're literally hitting somebody else in the head, that's
Speaker 2: that's the red line, you know, run. I would switch
Speaker 2: it from track and field to anything where you could
Speaker 2: potentially harm somebody.
Speaker 1: I actually agree with that, Yeah, But then I was
Speaker 1: thinking about if.
Speaker 4: You reverse it.
Speaker 1: Let's say you have a someone who presents as a
Speaker 1: male but who has so they have, you know, the
Speaker 1: male bits externally, but they have XX chromosome.
Speaker 4: Do that get to compete as a female?
Speaker 3: Is that possible? I don't think.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I know that there are thirty different like biologies, there
Speaker 1: are thirty different ways of being intersext, So is that
Speaker 1: one of them. I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure.
Speaker 1: But you know, again, that's why I think it very
Speaker 1: sports to sport. I think it's very difficult.
Speaker 4: I do.
Speaker 1: I tend to think I disagree with the castor subnian decision.
Speaker 1: I think her naturally high levels of testosterone. I think
Speaker 1: that's just a natural genetic advantage, in the same way
Speaker 1: that many athletes have natural genetic advantages and no one's
Speaker 1: getting hurt. To your point, but I agree with your
Speaker 1: point that in fighting, that's why you have different weight categories.
Speaker 1: There's an added level of we need to protect these,
Speaker 1: you know, individuals as much as we can, and so
Speaker 1: you know, an advantage like if you have an elevated
Speaker 1: level of testosterone, which is probably going to occur more often,
Speaker 1: like I bet if you tested a lot of these
Speaker 1: women competing in Olympic boxing, like they're probably at the
Speaker 1: high end of normal or beyond the high range of
Speaker 1: normal because it is an advantage there. So you know,
Speaker 1: maybe you have an addition to the weight classes, maybe
Speaker 1: you have like a high testosterone class. Maybe that's the
Speaker 1: most fair thing to do.
Speaker 2: I know, at least amongst men, there's like physiological doses
Speaker 2: and there's like super physiological So somebody who is far
Speaker 2: more well versed in hormones can weigh in.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 3: We do have Jordan Sheridan standing by the crystal, so
Speaker 3: we should get to them.
Speaker 4: All right, let's get to that.
Speaker 1: So, as you may recall, an entire city, Flint, Michigan,
Speaker 1: was poisoned, and much of the media has forgotten about
Speaker 1: that and let many of the politicians who had their
Speaker 1: hands all over.
Speaker 4: This horrific act off the hook.
Speaker 1: But one person who never did is journalist Jordan Cheriton,
Speaker 1: founder of Status Ku, an author of an incredibly important
Speaker 1: and revelatory new book about the Flint water cover up
Speaker 1: called We the Poisoned, with a forward I should add
Speaker 1: by Aaron Brockovich.
Speaker 4: Welcome, Jordan, Hey, thank you for having me. Yeah, it's
Speaker 4: our pleasure.
Speaker 1: So talk to us about why this crisis still continues
Speaker 1: to be so relevant to Americans and not just in Flint.
Speaker 4: Michigan.
Speaker 1: But you know, we see echoes of this in crises
Speaker 1: like that in East Palestine, Ohio.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, red, white, progressive, conservative water is one
Speaker 9: thing we could agree about. Ten years later, the water
Speaker 9: is still contaminated in Flint. Residents are still posting pictures
Speaker 9: of brown water, and the playbook for this cover up
Speaker 9: is now being copied in other communities like East Palestine,
Speaker 9: their situations in Kalamazoo, Michigan, East Chicago, Indiana. I mean,
Speaker 9: it would take too long to name other cities with
Speaker 9: water contamination where the federal government, in coordination with state officials,
Speaker 9: are basically just kind of checking some boxes, doing some testing,
Speaker 9: cherry picking data to claim everything's fine. Meanwhile, residents are
Speaker 9: receiving dirty or smelly water, getting rashes, and in the
Speaker 9: case of Flint, cancer is surging. Some cancers are up
Speaker 9: three hundred to five hundred percent. And meanwhile, you know,
Speaker 9: nobody is being held accountable. And my book kind of
Speaker 9: reveals a massive cover up. I mean, we're talking the
Speaker 9: federal government, the state government, local government, and Wall Street
Speaker 9: all kind of together. That is still ongoing. Reminder, no
Speaker 9: one has been criminally convicted.
Speaker 3: So Jordan, we have some passages.
Speaker 2: To put this up there on the screen that you
Speaker 2: pulled out for us, maybe you can explain a little
Speaker 2: bit about what's in front of us about Todd Flood,
Speaker 2: some of the quotes that you were able to unveil.
Speaker 9: Yeah, So Todd Flood was a special prosecutor for the investigation,
Speaker 9: kind of like Robert Muller on a local level, and
Speaker 9: he was interviewing Richard Baird. Think Richard Baird is kind
Speaker 9: of like Tony Soprano's consiglieri. He was the right hand
Speaker 9: man for former Governor Rick Snyder, known as his fixer.
Speaker 9: And my reporting which is shown in the book indicates
Speaker 9: that Richard Baird, apparently with the governor's knowledge, was going
Speaker 9: around throughout Flint and offering sick residents who happened to
Speaker 9: be getting media attention deals payments from the state government
Speaker 9: with strings attached that you can't say anything and you
Speaker 9: can't say who's paying for it. And in this passage,
Speaker 9: the criminal prosecutor caught when that a resident suddenly got
Speaker 9: enough money to replace her busted service lines, the water
Speaker 9: pipes that deliver water into the home they were damaged
Speaker 9: by the Flint River water cash from the state and
Speaker 9: he asked the governor's right hand man about that, do
Speaker 9: you know anything about this cash to this resident?
Speaker 8: And he simply answered, I guess I have to answer that.
Speaker 4: Wow, what are the echoes that you see?
Speaker 1: What is the kind of the playbook that was utilized
Speaker 1: in Flint that is now being utilized in other places
Speaker 1: like East Palestine.
Speaker 9: Yeah, so in Flint, essentially they told you don't believe
Speaker 9: your lying skin, your ashes, don't believe your lying eyes.
Speaker 9: The brown water, it's just, you know, it's just an
Speaker 9: aesthetic thing, it's not a health thing. They told the
Speaker 9: residents were working on it, it's safe. The EPA was
Speaker 9: getting complaints but didn't actually step in to take over,
Speaker 9: which they do have the legal right to do in
Speaker 9: a case of an emergency. And then it was residents
Speaker 9: and activists, not politicians, streaming and literally conduct doing their
Speaker 9: own testing. They secured independent researchers to help them test
Speaker 9: that they blew the liddle up the scandal. Same thing
Speaker 9: is going on in East Palestine, for example, the EPA
Speaker 9: is doing testing even though they've acknowledged that their equipment
Speaker 9: cannot find certain levels of contamination, and they're saying, we're
Speaker 9: not finding certain contaminants. Meanwhile, residents that I speak with
Speaker 9: have shown me also they're getting rashes. I mean, residents
Speaker 9: are having seizures and strokes. In East Palestine. They're still
Speaker 9: passing blood, some of them through their vowels, through urinating.
Speaker 9: I got sick of these palicine. I mean, it's a
Speaker 9: chemical petri dish. Just like Flint. It was very apparent
Speaker 9: just through walking in the houses that the water was
Speaker 9: contaminated because it was breaking washing machines, it was breaking
Speaker 9: dishwasher machines, it was coming through the walls. But the
Speaker 9: government simply told them everything's fine, and media simply in
Speaker 9: both cases regurgitates what the government says. So that's kind
Speaker 9: of the playbook being used. And in the case of Flint,
Speaker 9: it was a privatization scheme that caused this.
Speaker 8: And in the case of East Palestine, you have.
Speaker 9: A multi billion dollar railroad company that blew up toxic
Speaker 9: chemicals unnecessarily by the way, and are now the government
Speaker 9: is allowing them to oversee the response.
Speaker 2: So Jordan, with all of the criminal investigation now and
Speaker 2: all the stuff that we've learned and throughout your book,
Speaker 2: does it still stun you that there was no justice
Speaker 2: eventually done over the mass poisoning of the city.
Speaker 9: You know, not a lot of things stunned me, but
Speaker 9: in this case, yes, because you would have to think
Speaker 9: that if an American city with one hundred thousand people
Speaker 9: at the time this happened, was poisoned, at least some
Speaker 9: low level, some low level.
Speaker 8: Person would be thrown under the bus.
Speaker 9: I mean, this is so severe that literally the Attorney
Speaker 9: General that came in, who happens to be a Democrat,
Speaker 9: she took an unprecedented step to restart the investigation. I believe,
Speaker 9: unnecessarily dismiss all the charges. Now she is refusing to
Speaker 9: provide me documents, particular documents that would expose the financial
Speaker 9: scheme that caused this, involving the Wall Street banks. I
Speaker 9: believe they basically swept this all over the rug, because
Speaker 9: if it went forward in criminal court the full scope,
Speaker 9: which is revealed in my book, particularly the Wall Street
Speaker 9: part this, I believe it would be catastrophic for the
Speaker 9: Democratic Party and the Republican Party because it would show
Speaker 9: there's a lot of privatization and for profit schemes involving
Speaker 9: you know, complicated like bond deals and things like that
Speaker 9: that communities don't know about that are endangering their health.
Speaker 9: That's actually the backdrop of what caused the Flint water crisis.
Speaker 8: It's stunning that nobody.
Speaker 9: Is above the law justice system that ten years later,
Speaker 9: no one has even seen a jury, and as of
Speaker 9: now it doesn't even see if anyone will ever be convicted.
Speaker 1: I think there's also a deeper story that you're effective
Speaker 1: in telling here about who matters in the country and
Speaker 1: who doesn't. And that's another parallel between East Palestine and Flint, Michigan.
Speaker 1: You know, these are both industrial Midwestern places that have
Speaker 1: been really sort of forgotten and left behind by political
Speaker 1: class in both parties. You know, in one instance, you
Speaker 1: have majority poor black city, in another instance, you have
Speaker 1: a majority poor white area in the country. And you
Speaker 1: can only imagine that the response and the political discussion
Speaker 1: around this would be much different if it happened in
Speaker 1: like you know, McLain, Virginia, which is where all the
Speaker 1: rich people around DC live.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 9: But we don't have to imagine because when this happened,
Speaker 9: an hour down the road from Flint is ann Arbor, Michigan.
Speaker 9: That's where former Governor Rick Snyder lived, and they preemptively
Speaker 9: without a problem replaced all the lead pipes. Meanwhile, in Flint,
Speaker 9: ten years later they had not replaced all the lead pipes.
Speaker 4: So that's insane. That is insane.
Speaker 1: Jordan, tell people where they can, where they can get
Speaker 1: the book and support your work.
Speaker 9: Yeah, a book will be available in all major bookstores.
Speaker 9: You could order also on Amazon, Barnes and Noble. It
Speaker 9: will be available on audio in September. And definitely, definitely
Speaker 9: the book not only details after the water switch, it
Speaker 9: details to cover up and the fraud that caused the
Speaker 9: water prices in the first place.
Speaker 8: Which has not been reported.
Speaker 9: I also exclusively got testimony a former governor Rick Snyder
Speaker 9: under oath that has never been released, where he seems
Speaker 9: to contradict his Congressional testimony, particularly on what he knew
Speaker 9: and when he knew about the deadly legionnaire's outbreak. So
Speaker 9: definitely I encourage people to get the book, you know,
Speaker 9: and we need to unnormalize the poisoning of an American community,
Speaker 9: any community. So yeah, it'll be available in all bookstores
Speaker 9: as well as audio in September, and you could support
Speaker 9: my work at Status coup on YouTube coup we cover this,
Speaker 9: East Palestine and many other important stories.
Speaker 3: Very nice Jordan.
Speaker 4: Congrats on the book and thank you for staying on
Speaker 4: this story always.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching. We have a
Speaker 2: great show for everyone tomorrow and we will see you
Speaker 2: all later