Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do lots of
Speaker 1: interesting stories that we have to bring you this morning.
Speaker 1: So first of all, we have the start of a
Speaker 1: trial date in one of Trump's many trials, and we
Speaker 1: have a rapidly filling out calendar of trial and political
Speaker 1: and so it's all pretty well. We'll break that down
Speaker 1: for you. We've also got some new polls revealing just
Speaker 1: how Americans actually feel about both Donald Trump and Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: so will bring you those numbers, new dire economic predictions,
Speaker 1: and some new dire economic numbers. We've also got a
Speaker 1: major hurricane that is set to hit the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: We'll bring you updates on that and a little bit
Speaker 1: of a tiff I guess between the veak Ramaswami and
Speaker 1: Eminem he famously as his character dot bake like to
Speaker 1: wrath mnem he did at the Iowa State Fair. Eminem
Speaker 1: is now responding. So we've got all of that for you.
Speaker 1: But before we get into any of that, thank you
Speaker 1: so much to everybody's been signing up to be premium subscribers.
Speaker 1: We revealed yesterday we are in the works to get
Speaker 1: a focus group going. That is thanks to your support
Speaker 1: and you guys back in this channel.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: We are actively working, scheduling, working in all the details
Speaker 2: right now. Everybody's signing up. We took advantage of the
Speaker 2: debate special and continues to sign up. Now, you guys
Speaker 2: are just helping us out so much. These two things
Speaker 2: do cost a lot of money. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: travel involved. We're working with various different firms, et cetera,
Speaker 2: and we want try and bring you the best possible
Speaker 2: coverage and the networks all have you know, big pharma
Speaker 2: advertisers and all those other people. We only have you,
Speaker 2: so Breakapoints dot com. If you are able to sign up,
Speaker 2: it really does help us a lot. But with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the trial.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so let's go and put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. We have a trial date set now in
Speaker 1: the federal case for Donald Trump where he is charged
Speaker 1: with plotting to overturn the election. This is one of
Speaker 1: the Jacksmith cases. This is the one directly related to
Speaker 1: the fake elector's plot in January sixth and all of
Speaker 1: that stuff. So a judge on Monday set a March fourth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, trial date for Donald Trump in that case,
Speaker 1: rejecting they say, a defense request to push the case
Speaker 1: back years. It was not quite as expedited as Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Jack Smith wanted. He wanted that date to be
Speaker 1: in January, but it was, you know, much closer to
Speaker 1: his date than what the defense was pushing for. They
Speaker 1: wanted to push this all the way out, I think,
Speaker 1: until twenty six. There's something very noteworthy about March fourth,
Speaker 1: and that is that it is right next to Super Tuesday.
Speaker 1: So let's put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We've compiled a graphic of all of the rapidly filling dates,
Speaker 1: the very full calendar that Donald Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be facing here with what we know of his trial
Speaker 1: dates plus the key points in the election. So September sixth,
Speaker 1: he's arraigned in Georgia. September twenty seventh, this second GUOP debate,
Speaker 1: we'll safety participates. October second, we've got the trial in
Speaker 1: the Trump Org civil fraud suit. Later that month, we've
Speaker 1: got the first trial in the Georgia case. Now that
Speaker 1: is the trial of Kenneth Cheeseboro, but is expected that
Speaker 1: Trump may be involved, may be called as a witness.
Speaker 1: On January fifteenth, we've got the Iowa Republican caucuses, and
Speaker 1: we also have the start of the trial in the
Speaker 1: Ejene Carroll civil defamation suit. Let's going to put the
Speaker 1: next one up on the screen because we are far
Speaker 1: from done. January twenty ninth, the trial in the Pyramid
Speaker 1: Scheme class action suit. This is some Trump Org stuff
Speaker 1: that I genuinely didn't even know what was going on,
Speaker 1: but apparently it is. And it starts on January twenty ninth.
Speaker 1: On February sixth, we have the Nevada Republican primary. On
Speaker 1: February twenty seventh, we've got the Michigan Republican primary. And
Speaker 1: then on March fourth, the trial starts in the federal
Speaker 1: January sixth case. The very next day is the Super
Speaker 1: Tuesday primaries. Then we go on later in March. We've
Speaker 1: got the trial in the New York State criminal hush
Speaker 1: money case. That's the Stormy Daniels one and last graphic
Speaker 1: that we have. And of course this is not complete
Speaker 1: because we don't know all of the trial dates and
Speaker 1: when they start yet. May fourteenth we've got pre trial
Speaker 1: hearing in the classified Documents case, and May twentieth the
Speaker 1: trial in the Classified Documents case. So this is the
Speaker 1: campaign schedule, guys. It's going to be a lot less
Speaker 1: about debates and policy and all of the things that
Speaker 1: we would aspirationally want our democracy to be about, and
Speaker 1: much more about the unfoldings and the doings and workings
Speaker 1: of these trials, which are going to occupy a lot
Speaker 1: of the former presidence time as we head into the
Speaker 1: heat of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that the judge made a mistake
Speaker 2: here putting it in March. Obviously the Trump people are
Speaker 2: being ridiculous.
Speaker 3: I even think that the Jack Smith trial date proposed
Speaker 3: date is too late.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can't be having these things around actual
Speaker 2: election season. It needs to try and be wrapped up before,
Speaker 2: and so it's August twenty ninth right now. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't see any reason why it can't happen sometime
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three. It's you know, the lawyers are like,
Speaker 2: oh it takes listen. I understand that. But from an
Speaker 2: actual small d democratic perspective, having the trial date set
Speaker 2: the day before where he will be down there ahead
Speaker 2: of Super Tuesday when dozens of states head to the
Speaker 2: polls in the primary is insane. And then also to
Speaker 2: have it the January trial the civil I mean, look,
Speaker 2: at least that one is civil, But to have that
Speaker 2: one on the same day as Iowa, weren't we also
Speaker 2: talking about the other case that was happening that we
Speaker 2: saw where some of the some of the proposed dates
Speaker 2: are in May of twenty twenty four, post Super Tuesday.
Speaker 2: To have all of these things happen, the Trump team,
Speaker 2: of course, is going to use this opportunity to say, oh,
Speaker 2: it should all happen after the election.
Speaker 3: I think that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: But I think the American people deserve to act, actually
Speaker 2: have some sort of finality, and even the Republican voter
Speaker 2: have some sort of like final say on the most
Speaker 2: consequential cases like these, far far ahead before they go
Speaker 2: ahead and head to the polls.
Speaker 3: And also, obviously, Crystal, as you and I know, this
Speaker 3: is only going to.
Speaker 2: Help Trump in a primary situation. I will save my
Speaker 2: speculation for what on the general electorate. I've long long
Speaker 2: ago given up on any idea of what will happen
Speaker 2: when everybody actually does go to the polls on.
Speaker 3: The GOP primary.
Speaker 2: We have ample evidence enough to show us that this
Speaker 2: is the best thing that could ever happen to him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for winning the nomination.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it all does beg the question why
Speaker 1: did it take so long for these charges to drop?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really you know, I don't really blame
Speaker 1: Jack Smith because he wasn't appointed special counsel, he wasn't
Speaker 1: handed this until relatively recently, and so to conduct an
Speaker 1: investigation and do it in a like proper and thorough manner,
Speaker 1: that timeline makes sense to me. Even the documents case
Speaker 1: like that timeline also makes sense to me because they
Speaker 1: were trying to go back and forth with Trump, and
Speaker 1: they were genuinely seen like they were trying to do
Speaker 1: everything they could before taking the more aggressive stance of
Speaker 1: the FBI rate and then ultimately being sort of like
Speaker 1: having their hand for us and filing charges. But I
Speaker 1: don't know why Fulton County took so long.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: I don't know why Merret Garland took so damn long
Speaker 1: to appoint Jack Smith as special counsel. I mean literally,
Speaker 1: this should have been done on like day one of
Speaker 1: the administration. Like we knew what unfolded on January sixth,
Speaker 1: We knew there were potential crimes there, So what were
Speaker 1: you all waiting around for? And that's what to me
Speaker 1: is very frustrating. I mean, listen, the Trump people were
Speaker 1: always going to say this is political, no matter what
Speaker 1: the facts are, no matter what the timeline was, et cetera.
Speaker 1: If they had a point of special counsel on day
Speaker 1: one of the Biden administration, they was So that was
Speaker 1: clearly political. You know that it happened right out at
Speaker 1: the gates. But I care much more about the American
Speaker 1: people being able to evaluate all of these charges and
Speaker 1: its potential guild or innocence and have this play out
Speaker 1: before election season really kicks off. And I think by
Speaker 1: them dawdling and dragging their feet for whatever reason. I
Speaker 1: think they have really you know, just made the election
Speaker 1: very difficult, really undermined, you know, undermine democracy in a
Speaker 1: certain sense, because now no one's gonna be talking about, Hey,
Speaker 1: what's your tax plan, Hey, what's your foreign policy plan? Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, what are we going to do in terms
Speaker 1: of getting people a better wage? None of that is
Speaker 1: really going to be the center of this campaign. And
Speaker 1: that's really kind of a It's a huge loss.
Speaker 2: And it's a huge disass it's a massive loss, and
Speaker 2: it's a huge disservice by Merrick Garland and the Biden
Speaker 2: Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: If you're going to do it, then do it. You know,
Speaker 3: you guys could have done it on literally on day one.
Speaker 2: You could have come into office and I'm appointing a
Speaker 2: special counsel on January sixth.
Speaker 3: They decided not to go. As you said, I'll back
Speaker 3: it up.
Speaker 2: On the document's case, because that was a timeline that
Speaker 2: actually did take months. They charged relatively quickly actually considering
Speaker 2: all the things that happened. But both on Fulton County
Speaker 2: and on this I mean, it's very difficult not to
Speaker 2: read it as an actual attempt to influence the election.
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you think actual, why do you
Speaker 1: think they actually waited, Because my theory is effectively like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe they deluded themselves into thinking that
Speaker 1: Trump would just go away and they wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: do the uncomfortable thing of charge in the former president.
Speaker 2: My theory is that they didn't know which where they
Speaker 2: stood on the ground of popular opinion on stop the steal.
Speaker 2: They probably had the opinion that January sixth and all
Speaker 2: that they're like, well, maybe the American people don't care
Speaker 2: as much stop the steal, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Then the midterms happened, and like, oh, actually they do
Speaker 3: care a lot.
Speaker 2: Why don't we go ahead and you know, hammer this
Speaker 2: thing home not a bad thing in order to remind
Speaker 2: the American people about what happened on January sixth in
Speaker 2: the run up to the election. I genuinely believe it
Speaker 2: is that political in terms of its base instinct.
Speaker 3: If you were to think about the way that this
Speaker 3: all happened too.
Speaker 2: With the January sixth case, they made the decision, you know,
Speaker 2: previously not to go ahead with these charges. They turned
Speaker 2: it over as a matter of course to Jack Smith
Speaker 2: under the fold of the document's case, not as one
Speaker 2: of his main mandates.
Speaker 3: But Jack Smith then goes ahead and decides to prosecute. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 2: That's a very difficult one in order to get around.
Speaker 2: They decided not to prosecute, then he decides to prosecute.
Speaker 2: They can't do anything because it's got special prosecutor status.
Speaker 2: But I mean, again to the political and the actual
Speaker 2: electoral aspects. So there's a funny clip here from CNN
Speaker 2: where they air what the Dream of the Liberal like
Speaker 2: the Capital L Liberal MSNBC. CNN viewers like, oh, this
Speaker 2: is obviously going to take him out, But here they
Speaker 2: air a very countervailing opinion, which I do think has
Speaker 2: a lot of truth behind it.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: I know that Democrats look at this race and think, well,
Speaker 4: we'll probably do pretty well against Donald Trump. But there's
Speaker 4: a real reality here of being careful what you wish for.
Speaker 4: That's exactly what Democrats thought in twenty sixteen. They thought
Speaker 4: there was no way that Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 4: and he did, and we saw what the results were
Speaker 4: from that. I'd tell democrats be really careful of what
Speaker 4: you wish for on this No, I mean, he's.
Speaker 2: Right, there's a good chance that Donald Trump could win. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's a good chance that Donald Trump can win. Remember
Speaker 2: what Harry Enton said on their own network. Yeah, so
Speaker 2: he said, He's like, look, he's doing better in his
Speaker 2: polls against Biden than he did against Hillary. And he's
Speaker 2: doing better against the Poles and Biden than he did
Speaker 2: against Biden twenty twenty. I mean things, as much as
Speaker 2: people want him to be gone, there is no evidence
Speaker 2: at all this current case or any of that against
Speaker 2: him has had a major impact.
Speaker 3: Now, look, he hasn't gone to trial, but at this point,
Speaker 3: I mean, how many Americans have seen the mugshot?
Speaker 2: Like, how many Americans are veryly aware that Trump is
Speaker 2: indicted and or being prosecuted for something.
Speaker 3: Some people say that they won't voform. We'll see. I
Speaker 3: mean it's one of those.
Speaker 2: But poll after pole after pole after pole shows that
Speaker 2: he has strength. Now, look, they all could be totally wrong.
Speaker 2: We could have a same miss that we had in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two. We vastly underestimated the revulsion at stopped
Speaker 2: the steel. I don't want to rule that out whatsoever.
Speaker 2: But does he have a chance. Absolutely has a chance.
Speaker 2: And they just they they think this is the silver
Speaker 2: bullet when I think it actually gets us even much
Speaker 2: closer to a precipice of some sort of disaster in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: If you are the nominee of one of the two
Speaker 1: major parties, you have a chance. Yeah, no matter who
Speaker 1: you are, no matter how many indictments, no matter how
Speaker 1: guilty you are of how many crimes, You've got a chance.
Speaker 1: And I don't think anyone should delude themselves about that now.
Speaker 1: I do think that all of the weight of these
Speaker 1: charges and the prospect of jail time, and just the
Speaker 1: constant reminder of the mess and the chaos that was
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump, I do think that that weighs on
Speaker 1: in general electerate. But if you look at the polls
Speaker 1: right now, it is literally tied. It's literally tied. And
Speaker 1: I think Democrats should do a lot of soul searching
Speaker 1: about how they could possibly how their guy who's the
Speaker 1: incumbent president, could possibly be tied with this guy, who,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is a criminal, who is thoroughly corrupt.
Speaker 1: We're about to get to the fact that the American
Speaker 1: people also think that he is thoroughly corrupt. How are
Speaker 1: you tied with this dude? And don't tell me it's misinformation,
Speaker 1: or don't tell me it's whatever cope that they love
Speaker 1: to roll out, or Americans just don't realize how good
Speaker 1: the economy actually is, etc.
Speaker 2: No, you have.
Speaker 1: Failed if you are in a jump ball with this
Speaker 1: dude that Americans were very happy to get rid of,
Speaker 1: and who has a thirty one percent approval rating, and who,
Speaker 1: as we show you yesterday, about sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: country on every one of these charges, thinks that he's
Speaker 1: guilty and you're tied with him. I mean, that's astonishing.
Speaker 1: And if you think about it also in terms of
Speaker 1: all their you know, they really want to unite this
Speaker 1: anti Trump coalition. Their whole message isn't about hey, we're
Speaker 1: going to do anything for you, it's just about stopping Trump. Well,
Speaker 1: if your core commitment really is stopping Trump, you need
Speaker 1: to look in the mirror about your commitment to propping
Speaker 1: up Joe Biden, who clearly is an incredibly weak candidate
Speaker 1: going into twenty twenty four. If you really wanted to
Speaker 1: beat Donald Trump, you would actually have a competitive Democratic
Speaker 1: primary so that voters had an opportunity to back a
Speaker 1: candidate that they aren't afraid is going to not make
Speaker 1: it through the next term and leave us with Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris as president. If you actually wanted to defeat Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that's what you would do, so that people had an
Speaker 1: opportunity to participate in democracy and be able to evaluate
Speaker 1: the candidates and come up with the strongest choice to
Speaker 1: defeat this bid. But they have no interest in doing
Speaker 1: that because ultimately they're more concerned with keeping their grip
Speaker 1: on power within the democratic establishment than they really are
Speaker 1: committed to beating Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, for all of the talk of corruption,
Speaker 2: it's like, if you were to go ask a Republican voter,
Speaker 2: they'd be like, all right, well, Biden's corrupt, and you're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean it's kind of true. And it's like, we're well,
Speaker 2: wolcome nobody talks about you know, Hunter Biden or any
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 3: This isn't what aboutism.
Speaker 2: I'm just demonstrating that when you don't allow like an
Speaker 2: actual free discussion of this, particularly in the media or
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, to have a MARYN.
Speaker 2: Williamson and RFK Junior actually call out Biden or any
Speaker 2: of this on the stage, have him account for it.
Speaker 2: The Democratic primary voters and others could say, well, we
Speaker 2: had a reasonably fair process where these things were aired.
Speaker 2: But when you push it down to silence, and then
Speaker 2: you also see the other candidate who's being actively prosecuted,
Speaker 2: it's like, well, you know, it's very difficult in order
Speaker 2: to draw this different conclusion. And it comes back to
Speaker 2: the fact that for a lot of people, and we
Speaker 2: talked about this, We have a segment dropping over the weekend.
Speaker 3: I think people will enjoy it.
Speaker 2: About tribalism and about how negative partisanship is at all
Speaker 2: time high levels. That's exactly how you get to this situation.
Speaker 2: You have no ability in order to positively win over.
Speaker 2: The slice of the electorate that can be positive and
Speaker 2: over is smaller and smaller, and they feel equal revulsion,
Speaker 2: it seems with a lot of these candidates and are
Speaker 2: much more voting in terms of choosing the lesser of
Speaker 2: two evils, which is you know, I mean, as we said,
Speaker 2: that's a terrible way in order to run your democracy.
Speaker 2: One thing though, that we wanted to flag for people.
Speaker 2: I've said this before. Let's put this up there please
Speaker 2: on the screen. This is actually a right up of
Speaker 2: about Reuter's IPSOS poll which shows that the majority of
Speaker 2: Americans super majority, Actually nearly sixty percent of Americans say
Speaker 2: they quote have at least a fair amount of trust injuries.
Speaker 2: And why that matters is this is something I flagged previously.
Speaker 2: We're talking about Trump. I mean, look, we're anti institutionals
Speaker 2: here of whatever it comes to some of whatever it
Speaker 2: comes to discussion around Trump. That said, whenever a large
Speaker 2: segment of this country still has kind of like a
Speaker 2: normy belief in the justice system, they're like, Oh, these institutions,
Speaker 2: they're not corrupt, They're they're following the.
Speaker 3: Rule of law.
Speaker 2: Got muggsh I got arrested. It's got to be you know,
Speaker 2: where there's smoke, there's fire. I think you said that
Speaker 2: last time. So if they do have a jury ostensibly
Speaker 2: of peers convict Trump here in Washington, DC or others,
Speaker 2: there could be some trust in that system by more
Speaker 2: independent voters because they think that there's no way that
Speaker 2: they would have voted to convict him if there wasn't
Speaker 2: some sort.
Speaker 3: Of fair conclusion.
Speaker 2: That's my one flag too for people is like, for
Speaker 2: some independent minded voters, the fact that he faces these
Speaker 2: legal troubles and if he is convicted, that could I
Speaker 2: wouldn't say it's disqualifying entirely, but it could marginally impact
Speaker 2: the amount of people to vote for him, and in
Speaker 2: a close election, that could matter a lot when it
Speaker 2: comes to the pulse.
Speaker 1: So with regards to jurors, most Americans, especially Americans actually
Speaker 1: who have served on juries before, have faith in you know,
Speaker 1: jury of their peers. That I think the fact that
Speaker 1: this is not a bunch of elites, it's ordinary citizens
Speaker 1: who sign up for this, well, don't sign up or
Speaker 1: selected for this civic duty and show up and do
Speaker 1: their part like that has kept this an institution that
Speaker 1: has a relatively high amount of faith. So about sixty
Speaker 1: percent of Americans say they have at least some amount
Speaker 1: of trust in juries according to a recent survey. But
Speaker 1: when you ask specifically about Trump's trials, a majority of Americans, Democrats, Republicans,
Speaker 1: and independance said they did not think the courts would
Speaker 1: be able to see impartial jurors. So it comes to
Speaker 1: Trump specifically, and I mean it sort of makes sense, soccer,
Speaker 1: because everyone's feelings about this man are so hardened, like
Speaker 1: it would be kind of impossible to get I don't know,
Speaker 1: a jury that's been living under a rock for the
Speaker 1: past in the past eight years and hasn't formed some
Speaker 1: sort of an opinion about Donald Trump and whether he's
Speaker 1: a hero or whether he's a criminal. So I do
Speaker 1: think it'll be tough for them to go through this
Speaker 1: jury process and come up with people who really truly
Speaker 1: have an open mind in terms of hearing the evidence
Speaker 1: and deciding where they stand. Obviously, the Trump team has
Speaker 1: been trying to make a lot of hay about you know, DC,
Speaker 1: which is a jurisdiction that votes overwhelmingly democratic. It's actually
Speaker 1: the most democratic voting jurisdiction in the entire country. So
Speaker 1: they've been trying to make a lot of hay about
Speaker 1: that and to place plant the seed in people's minds
Speaker 1: that you can't possibly get a jury that is going
Speaker 1: to be fair and impartial in this city. So you know,
Speaker 1: that's going to be kind of a continuing ongoing conversation.
Speaker 1: But just to some all of this up, to be
Speaker 1: totally clear about how I feel about this, which I
Speaker 1: think people know. I think you can hold two thoughts
Speaker 1: in your mind, which is that the charges are appropriate,
Speaker 1: which is what I believe, and I do think that he,
Speaker 1: you know, committed these crimes. He deserves to have his
Speaker 1: day in court and present all of his evidence, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You look at the documents trial, it's pretty hard for
Speaker 1: me to see what their defense is. You know, I
Speaker 1: do think the charges on January sixth in Fulton County,
Speaker 1: et cetera, are you know, pretty clear and also appropriate.
Speaker 1: You can believe that and also think that, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of politics involved here, and I think the
Speaker 1: timing of it is the perfect case in point. Why
Speaker 1: did they wait to this point? What was theation that
Speaker 1: led to all of these things unfolding right in the
Speaker 1: midst of a campaign season instead of what would have
Speaker 1: been a real service to the American public if you
Speaker 1: were going to file charges to it as soon as possible,
Speaker 1: so people have an opportunity to evaluate all of this
Speaker 1: on its own merits before we're in a campaign season.
Speaker 1: So for my part, that's the way I feel about
Speaker 1: all that, and I think.
Speaker 2: That's very reasonable, I think for maybe people to look
Speaker 2: at it, But unfortunately, I think a lot of this
Speaker 2: is going to get lost in the parsan muck and
Speaker 2: on cable news. Let's go over to age the discussion
Speaker 2: around age. President Biden would be the oldest man to
Speaker 2: ever be re elected to the oval office, who'd be
Speaker 2: eighty six years old, should he be re elected on
Speaker 2: the day that he would actually leave the White House?
Speaker 3: Should he live to serve that long?
Speaker 2: And the American people are very not only cognizant of it,
Speaker 2: they're not very happy about the fact that they have
Speaker 2: such old men who are running for president. And the
Speaker 2: White House was actually confronted with that yesterday. Let's take
Speaker 2: a lesson a new ap full ass American and don't
Speaker 2: open any question on her thoughts on the president.
Speaker 3: And the most congresponse has to do with his age,
Speaker 3: how old he.
Speaker 2: Has told the president of history if this waight up
Speaker 2: some additional plans to demonstrate that he can't continue to.
Speaker 3: Do the job at his advanced age, and kind of
Speaker 3: lays and of those concerns.
Speaker 5: I mean, look, look, I appreciate the question. I get
Speaker 5: I get it often, as you know. And what I
Speaker 5: would say, and I've said this many times, and many
Speaker 5: of my colleagues have said this.
Speaker 3: The president says this.
Speaker 5: If you watch him, if you've seen what he's done
Speaker 5: the last two years, this is a president has had
Speaker 5: a historic administration. But that is important, and so that's
Speaker 5: what we will happily, happily to discuss as we as
Speaker 5: it relates to age what the president has been able
Speaker 5: to do and how he's been able to deliver.
Speaker 3: Well, all right, you can discuss it. Let's be real.
Speaker 2: They haven't discussed it at all, and Biden hasn't even
Speaker 2: sat for an interview except for I believe the Weather
Speaker 2: Channel in the last couple of months.
Speaker 3: Let's go and start put this out.
Speaker 1: He did one with some like wellness podcast.
Speaker 3: Oh, I apologize, you're totally right.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that was in the past month,
Speaker 1: but that was the other reason.
Speaker 3: That's right. His most recent one was also a wellness podcast.
Speaker 2: No disrespect to my wellness podcasters out there, but there's
Speaker 2: a reason he didn't come on any political show.
Speaker 3: So this is the poll that he was referencing.
Speaker 2: Do you think Joe Biden is too old to effectively
Speaker 2: serve another four year term as president?
Speaker 3: Overall?
Speaker 2: Seventy seven percent yes, No, twenty two percent Democrats, even
Speaker 2: the vast majority of Democrats at sixty nine, and then
Speaker 2: of course the vast majority of Republicans.
Speaker 3: In terms of Trump, do you think Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Is too old to be effectively serve another four year
Speaker 2: term as president. Overall fifty one percent yes, no is
Speaker 2: a forty nine percent Democrats seventy one percent more people
Speaker 2: think Trump.
Speaker 3: Is too old than Biden.
Speaker 2: That's interesting for Democrats twenty nine percent say no, Republicans
Speaker 2: twenty eight percent say yes, and seventy two percent say no.
Speaker 2: So the significant difference between the two of them really
Speaker 2: is that even the vast majority of Democrats think Biden is.
Speaker 3: Too old to serve as president. Let's go to the
Speaker 3: next one.
Speaker 2: Please hear majorities of both younger and older Democrats really
Speaker 2: believe Biden is too old, with seventy seven percent of
Speaker 2: eighteen to forty four saying yes, Democrats forty five plus
Speaker 2: saying sixty two percent yes, eighteen to twenty nine seventy
Speaker 2: six percent.
Speaker 3: So really, it does show you that.
Speaker 2: The millennial voter and or gen Z voter in the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party is very fed up with the age of
Speaker 2: President Biden. And I think what it shows you, let's
Speaker 2: go to the next one here as well about the
Speaker 2: majorities of older and younger, is that even though what
Speaker 2: we have here, what's stuck out to me was that
Speaker 2: the adults who are sixty plus even they also say
Speaker 2: seventy one percent that Biden is too old to run
Speaker 2: for president. So up and down the overall age demographics, Crystal,
Speaker 2: it is clear that the voters at every level of age,
Speaker 2: both partisan, independent, Republican Democrat, with Biden in particular, are
Speaker 2: very struck by the man's age. And I think that
Speaker 2: that is one where there is a fundamental difference in
Speaker 2: the way that they view Trump, and whether it's fair
Speaker 2: or not, I think it just comes down to aesthetics
Speaker 2: and observation. I mean, Trump just doesn't appear to be
Speaker 2: all that different than how he was when where he
Speaker 2: was in the Oval Office or really on their national
Speaker 2: stage since twenty fifteen. Yeah, so with Biden, I mean
Speaker 2: the pronounced decline. We've known this man for fifty years,
Speaker 2: you know, I've seen, I literally remember him doing interviews
Speaker 2: twenty sixty. I've played many of them here on the show.
Speaker 2: In terms of his cogent ability to form a sentence,
Speaker 2: it is night and day. The different of even five
Speaker 2: six years ago compared to we are right now and
Speaker 2: then imagine five years from now is whenever he would
Speaker 2: be leaving the Oval Office. That's how crazy that things are.
Speaker 2: Whenever people have to consider this and that's why it's
Speaker 2: reflected in the polling data.
Speaker 1: So this was interesting too. They ask people the first
Speaker 1: word that comes to mind when they think of Biden
Speaker 1: and the first word that comes to mind when they
Speaker 1: think of Trump. For Biden, twenty six percent of all adults,
Speaker 1: so more than a quarter cited Biden's age, and then
Speaker 1: an additional fifteen percent mentioned words associated with being slow
Speaker 1: and confused, while for Trump only one in three percent
Speaker 1: did so. So, you know, I think to your point, Sager,
Speaker 1: like people just evaluating the performance and the energy level
Speaker 1: of these two candidates, they've come to different conclusions about
Speaker 1: where they are in their aging process. However, this poll
Speaker 1: did not contain good news for Donald Trump either. For Trump,
Speaker 1: nearly a quarter mentioned words associated with corruption, crime, lying,
Speaker 1: or untrustworthiness, while only eight percent mentioned those traits for Biden.
Speaker 1: So basically, you know, American people think both of these
Speaker 1: guys are old and corrupt. But for Biden it's the
Speaker 1: age that really leads the concerns, and for Trump, it's
Speaker 1: really the corruption, crime, lying, untrustworthiness that leads the concern
Speaker 1: So this is some election that we're heading into. Guys
Speaker 1: really inspiring stuff.
Speaker 2: I think that's very important for people to understand, and
Speaker 2: that's why, you know, it fits actually with what we're
Speaker 2: discussing here. We began our show talking about Trump's trial dates,
Speaker 2: and that's really what people consider the most about him.
Speaker 2: And even before that, you know, the vast majority of
Speaker 2: Americans they didn't particularly like Trump. Many people with voted
Speaker 2: for him actually didn't like him at all. Many people
Speaker 2: had unfavorable views and still decided vote because of negative,
Speaker 2: negative partisanship with Biden. I mean, there was a real
Speaker 2: hold your nose phenomenon in terms of beating Trump back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: And the question is only will that hold on.
Speaker 2: To where we are right now in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: And the considerations and the concern about his age is
Speaker 2: only even more today than it was before. And people
Speaker 2: have to consider that if this isn't a one term
Speaker 2: this is a two term president that would be sending
Speaker 2: until the very you know, far into a sceptagenarian age
Speaker 2: that we would be have in the oval office in
Speaker 2: charge of the most powerful. You know, most powerful have
Speaker 2: the most power of any man on earth. And I
Speaker 2: think that difference in the choice it could marginally make
Speaker 2: enough of a difference, But then you know.
Speaker 3: At the same time, I could make the same case.
Speaker 2: Trump is so repellent, the attitudes around him all in
Speaker 2: all that haven't changed. People are willing to hold their
Speaker 2: nose and over Biden once. Why wouldn't they do it again.
Speaker 2: They rewarded the Democrats, you know, for negative PARTSIP reasons,
Speaker 2: mostly in twenty twenty two, no reason why they wouldn't
Speaker 2: do it in twenty twenty four. The only downside to that, though,
Speaker 2: I think, is Kamala Harris, who they know would be
Speaker 2: the president should Biden die, And that is a major
Speaker 2: consideration for a lot of voters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it is. I think that the Democrats
Speaker 1: do themselves a real disservice by trying to stick with
Speaker 1: Biden and close out any possibility of even having a
Speaker 1: debate within the Democratic Party, because you can see even
Speaker 1: among their base voters they're really concerned, they really want
Speaker 1: to have other options, they really want to have a
Speaker 1: full democratic process. They have an overwhelming majority worries about
Speaker 1: Biden's age as well. And so if you really want
Speaker 1: to beat Trump, like if that is actually your goal,
Speaker 1: if you really believe your rhetoric about the fascist being
Speaker 1: at the door, then you would do everything you could
Speaker 1: to try to identify the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But they are not interested in doing that. They've decided that,
Speaker 1: you know, they're just going to lock everything down and
Speaker 1: keep any There isn't even a democratic process playing out,
Speaker 1: pretend that Biden has no competitors whatsoever, and just cross
Speaker 1: their fingers and hope that, you know, the trials and
Speaker 1: the crimes and the chaos and Stop the Steal and
Speaker 1: abortion and all of these things are enough to get
Speaker 1: them over the finished line again. And listen, like you said, Zager,
Speaker 1: you know, if I had to bet, I would say
Speaker 1: they're probably right. I think it probably is. You know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to beat an income and president, even one
Speaker 1: with as many concerns as Joe Biden has. The fact
Speaker 1: that all of these trial dates are going to focus
Speaker 1: Americans back on stop the Steal and all of these
Speaker 1: things that they really hated about Donald Trump, I think
Speaker 1: probably you know, doesn't help out Donald Trump, even though
Speaker 1: you just never know how these things are going to
Speaker 1: play out. But listen, they're playing with fire, That's all
Speaker 1: I'm going to say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're absolutely correct. And to the Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris point that I was making. She is so weak
Speaker 2: and insecure she is now freaking out about the Gavin
Speaker 2: Newsome Ron de Santis debate. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. It really is just absolutely hilarious. Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris allies are quote privately grumbling that Gavin Newsom's plan
Speaker 2: to debate Ron Desanta's quote disrespectful to the VP, as
Speaker 2: they see the move as early jockeying for twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're not wrong in that. Is it disrespectful? Well,
Speaker 2: I mean maybe it's realistic. Even the guy is unpopular
Speaker 2: as Gavin Newsom is probably more popular and electable as
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris, the least popular vice president in all of
Speaker 2: modern American history. And the funny thing is is that
Speaker 2: this debate you know of, which has yet been has
Speaker 2: been agreed to by both sides but has not yet
Speaker 2: fishing materialized, which we're about to get into, is quite
Speaker 2: obviously Newsome trying to plant his flag as a a
Speaker 2: possible Biden alternative should something happen to Biden. It is
Speaker 2: a shot at Kamala Harris, but it's not disrespectful, Crystal.
Speaker 2: He's shooting a like he got Desantists to agree to
Speaker 2: the debate. I actually think it's a brilliant move for
Speaker 2: both of them because it's a decent amount of earned media.
Speaker 2: But it's an implicit acknowledgment really by the Harris camp
Speaker 2: that Newsom is actually far more formidable as a candidate,
Speaker 2: at least in that lane than Kamala Harris's. I mean,
Speaker 2: his overall favorability and all of that. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to say it's high, especially amongst Republicans. I don't think
Speaker 2: he is a particularly good record exactly he can run on.
Speaker 2: But again, when we're comparing it the two, it's obvious
Speaker 2: that he's strong enough. And it shows you a little
Speaker 2: bit of a preview of twenty twenty eight of what
Speaker 2: they want to do, which is use identity politics to
Speaker 2: anoint her as the queen to be able to take
Speaker 2: the nomination in twenty twenty eight and keep and.
Speaker 3: Bar out every single other person.
Speaker 2: And if you do challenge her in any way, then
Speaker 2: you're disrespecting the first black female vice president.
Speaker 1: You know, Newsom had an interview, you know, contentious interview debate,
Speaker 1: I guess you could say with Sean Hannity. Yep, that
Speaker 1: actually went really well for him, even with you know,
Speaker 1: the Fox News audience. Like he gained a lot of
Speaker 1: respect I think because of his ability to handle that
Speaker 1: exchange in a relatively effective way. And so that was
Speaker 1: the genesis of this idea of him debating DeSantis and
Speaker 1: having Sean Hannity moderate that. And so you know, I
Speaker 1: would just say, like, actually, it is kind of disrespectful
Speaker 1: to Kamala Harris. But you don't garner respect by just
Speaker 1: like being like you must respect me. You have to
Speaker 1: earn it. And so yeah, Gavin Newsome and about one
Speaker 1: thousand other ambitious Democrats see you as weak, and they
Speaker 1: are all positioning and circling like vultures, waiting for their
Speaker 1: chance in probably twenty twenty eight to be able to
Speaker 1: jump in the fray and be the next in line.
Speaker 1: There was a different universe in which she was, you know,
Speaker 1: a much stronger and much more compelling figure with a
Speaker 1: lot more admiration and higher favorability ratings among the American public.
Speaker 1: We're twenty twenty eight. If Biden were to get reelected,
Speaker 1: would be a foregone conclusion that she would basically be
Speaker 1: the next in line and be the nominee that should
Speaker 1: have sailed. It is not going to be that way,
Speaker 1: and they can try all of the identity politics that
Speaker 1: they want to. There are going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of candidates who jump into that race. There are going
Speaker 1: to be governors, they are going to be set up,
Speaker 1: there's going to be pee bootages, all kinds of cast
Speaker 1: of characters who are not going to be put off
Speaker 1: whatsoever by this. You know, currently very weak vice presidential candidate.
Speaker 1: So yeah, in a sense, it is kind of disrespectful.
Speaker 1: But guess what that's because you haven't exhibited the kind
Speaker 1: of strength that would dissuade people from trying to edge
Speaker 1: you out and take that place. So listen, that's politics, right,
Speaker 1: that's life. And you know, there's some also a little
Speaker 1: bit of grumbling even from Biden advisors who feel the
Speaker 1: debate could boost DeSantis, and they're now they now are like,
Speaker 1: you know, they still, I guess think that Trump will
Speaker 1: be a weaker candidate than DeSantis. They don't want to
Speaker 1: boost Asantis, which is kind of interesting to me because
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm not sure that DeSantis really would
Speaker 1: be a stronger candidate than Trump. Hard to say, but anyway,
Speaker 1: they're also worried that it could give the impression that
Speaker 1: there is a contested primary going on. Trust me, I
Speaker 1: think that they've done their best to close that door
Speaker 1: and make it clear to all Democratic voters that you
Speaker 1: have no choice. You mustick would Joe Biden. So they're
Speaker 1: worried about that as well. But I don't know. The
Speaker 1: hand ringing over it is kind of interesting and revealing
Speaker 1: to be. The other question is that whether this debate
Speaker 1: is even going to happen, because there's been some roadblocks
Speaker 1: in terms of in coming to terms over what the
Speaker 1: rules of this debate would be. You can put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from Politico. Apparently the big questions
Speaker 1: here are about who would be in the audience they
Speaker 1: want at Fox, and I think DeSantis wants like a
Speaker 1: live studio audience, and they propose that it be split
Speaker 1: evenly between the two candidates. But Newsome, I think understandably
Speaker 1: fears that that would be overwhelmingly tilted toward the Republican
Speaker 1: side because it's Fox News, and so he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to have the live audience. He wants it just to
Speaker 1: be him and DeSantis and Sean Hannity. So they're still
Speaker 1: sort of negotiating some of those details. Who knows if
Speaker 1: this even is gonna come together.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: I want to watch it.
Speaker 3: I think it's good. I think more people should do this.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have every competing visions here of people
Speaker 2: who are like B tier politicians in terms of who
Speaker 2: dominates a national stage. But you've got two of the
Speaker 2: most populous states in the entire country. Newsome affirmatively has
Speaker 2: a vision for California.
Speaker 3: I disagree with that vision.
Speaker 2: Ronen DeSantis has an affirmative vision for Florida. Both want
Speaker 2: the rest of the country to look more like their states.
Speaker 2: They have very dynamic economies.
Speaker 3: I mean, why not. You know, it's a good thing.
Speaker 2: It's one of those where actually we would all be
Speaker 2: better served for they can argue about crime, they can
Speaker 2: argue about whatever, books and libraries and trans and all that,
Speaker 2: and you know what, in many respects, it's even more
Speaker 2: consequential because they have actual governing power and influence over
Speaker 2: their state legislatures that actually impact the millions of people
Speaker 2: who live in those states. So I think it's a
Speaker 2: great idea, I really do, and I hope it goes forward.
Speaker 2: I almost on the Newsom side where take out the
Speaker 2: live debate, just because I want more of the debate
Speaker 2: than steering.
Speaker 1: It'd be better in the audience. I mean, their stance
Speaker 1: is like, we don't want to have this like truer leading. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's actually I agree with it, Like it'd be better
Speaker 1: if you just have the questions the viewing audience can
Speaker 1: judge for themselves rather than try to pump up one
Speaker 1: side or the other with whoever happens to be in
Speaker 1: the room. So I do think it would be better
Speaker 1: that way. But anyway, I hope they can come to
Speaker 1: terms because it'd be interesting to watch because, like you said,
Speaker 1: they both have implemented very different agendas in their states.
Speaker 1: They have very different you know, records that they can contrast,
Speaker 1: and I think they would both you know ably handle
Speaker 1: themselves in terms of articulating their own vision and it
Speaker 1: would be.
Speaker 3: Interesting to watch. All right, let's go to the next one.
Speaker 3: This is a really interesting story.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of you guys were interested in
Speaker 2: the Michael Burry short where he placed put options that
Speaker 2: we have a nominal value of some one point sixbility
Speaker 2: and not bet exactly one point six billion or whatever
Speaker 2: against the market, but should there be a crash and
Speaker 2: a recession, he actually would profit very handsomely, so the
Speaker 2: question is is that he is Is he the Cassandra
Speaker 2: You know, he's often saying things are going to crash,
Speaker 2: and sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. But Warren Buffett
Speaker 2: it seems, you know, the investor also appears to be
Speaker 2: preparing or possibly for some sort of downturn. Let's ahead
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: some new analysis from the economist Steve Hankey, and what
Speaker 2: he points out is that the Berkshire Hathaway CEO has
Speaker 2: sold some eight billion dollars worth of stocks and slowed
Speaker 2: pace of buybacks just last quarter, with sparking a quote
Speaker 2: thirteen percent rise in a money pile with a near
Speaker 2: record one hundred and forty seven billion dollars in cash.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: The sprawling conglomerate has now disposed of a net thirty
Speaker 2: three billion over the last three quarters, fueling a stash
Speaker 2: of cash, cash equivalents and treasury bills. These are consistent
Speaker 2: with the anticipation of a recession and the fact that
Speaker 2: stocks are currently pricey.
Speaker 3: Quote. It is also consistent with his long term.
Speaker 2: Track record of piling up cash in anticipation of storm
Speaker 2: clouds ahead, with the capacity to pounce on bargains once
Speaker 2: the storm hits. So I think that you put those together,
Speaker 2: and it's pretty clear here that both in terms of
Speaker 2: the overall price of assets and in terms of Buffett's
Speaker 2: long tracker occur, which we have decades now in order
Speaker 2: to observe, he's got a very consistent playbook, and in
Speaker 2: that playbook he anticipates some sort of crash that could come.
Speaker 2: The other important thing to remember too with not Bury,
Speaker 2: but really with Buffett, is that people track and think
Speaker 2: about things that he thinks so much that sometimes his
Speaker 2: expectations can actually become reality. He's such a power player
Speaker 2: that for if other fund managers are like, oh, Warren,
Speaker 2: Buffet's pulling back, they're like, oh, well, then we got
Speaker 2: to pull back, and that actually could cold cause a
Speaker 2: contraction in itself, even if that wasn't going to happen
Speaker 2: in the first place. Regardless, the over on that effect
Speaker 2: would be the same in terms of his ability in
Speaker 2: order to profit, so some crash happened in the future.
Speaker 2: Same in terms of Michael Burry should his options go
Speaker 2: ahead and pull off. And it's one of those where
Speaker 2: in our economy nobody knows what the hell is going on.
Speaker 2: Interest rates are sky high seven eight percent or whatever
Speaker 2: whenever comes to a mortgage, seven percent whenever comes to
Speaker 2: a car loan. But it's at the same time, inflation
Speaker 2: remains very steady. The new price of a car still
Speaker 2: remains above fifty thousand dollars. We've got record high gas prices.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Gas prices is actually highest that they've ever been in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. Some of that is due to the hurricane.
Speaker 2: A lot of it is also due to global instability.
Speaker 2: Hurricanes aren't going anywhere. Also, we had the oil production
Speaker 2: cuts by both Saudi Arabia and Russia, which continue to
Speaker 2: keep prices high. All of this shows that you've got
Speaker 2: sticky inflation. The FED it seems to be done ish
Speaker 2: in terms of raising their interest rates.
Speaker 3: The unemployment rate is very odd.
Speaker 2: It's both low, but also wages are not necessarily keeping
Speaker 2: up with inflation. The overall phenomenon of bargaining power, some
Speaker 2: of it remains, but it's not even close to what
Speaker 2: it was in twenty twenty one. So if you look
Speaker 2: at these two investors, both of whom have at least
Speaker 2: one in particular, is a very good track record you
Speaker 2: very much could see the scenario where what they're saying
Speaker 2: is very counter to with the Biden folks and what
Speaker 2: some of the other mainstream economists claim is going to happen.
Speaker 3: We're like, oh, we're going to get the soft landing
Speaker 3: and everything's going to be fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were several months ago there were a lot
Speaker 1: of mainstream economists that were sounding the alarm, expecting a recession, etc.
Speaker 1: Once inflation started to cool, Right, there's still persistent inflation,
Speaker 1: but it is lower than what it was, and the
Speaker 1: Fed basically stopped hiking interest rates. Additionally, they thought, all right,
Speaker 1: maybe we did pull off this soft landing. The reason
Speaker 1: potentially why some of these major investors are having second
Speaker 1: thoughts about that analysis is there's a number of factors here,
Speaker 1: all of them we've been talking about here on this show,
Speaker 1: but just to go through them. You've got an AI
Speaker 1: boom that could really be a bubble, right, that's one piece.
Speaker 1: You've got commercial real estate that is in a world
Speaker 1: of trouble and could have major follow on effects for
Speaker 1: ordinary people and for banks, especially mid size and small
Speaker 1: banks as well. And we've already had seen the shakiness
Speaker 1: of some of these banks balance sheets when we had
Speaker 1: the Silicon Valley bank collapse. So that's another piece. We
Speaker 1: just had their up on the screen. Student loan repayments
Speaker 1: are set to start. It's actually the there have been
Speaker 1: a lot of attempts from the Biden administration, which I appreciate,
Speaker 1: to try to, you know, make this less painful, to
Speaker 1: try to you know, have income based repayment plans, to
Speaker 1: allow for forbearans, et cetera. But that has made this
Speaker 1: all incredibly complicated. In this report, they talk about this
Speaker 1: one woman who's trying to get through to her student
Speaker 1: loan like the person who actually owns her loan now
Speaker 1: because like some forty percent or whatever of these loans
Speaker 1: have been sold off during the interim period since they
Speaker 1: last had to make payments. And the person she got
Speaker 1: through to at her student loan servicer told her a
Speaker 1: call back in January when maybe call volume would be lower.
Speaker 1: So that tells you how things are going over there
Speaker 1: on the student loan debt repayment front. But I mean
Speaker 1: this is a massive low to a lot of Americans
Speaker 1: who have not had to make payments for quite a
Speaker 1: while and are going to have to restart in October.
Speaker 1: I mean this is just around the corner. So that's
Speaker 1: another hit to the economy. So you've got ai potential bubble,
Speaker 1: You've got massive commercial real estate issues, I think everybody
Speaker 1: agrees with that. You've got student loan debt payments set
Speaker 1: to restart. You have consumers piling up massive amounts of debt.
Speaker 1: We saw credit card debt reaching over a trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: so people becoming increasingly overextended. And then the other piece,
Speaker 1: Sager is, as we've always discussed with the Fed, there
Speaker 1: is a lag between the actions they take and when
Speaker 1: those actions really hit the economy. A lot of this,
Speaker 1: you know, they project a lot of confidence and like
Speaker 1: they pretend like they know exactly how this is all
Speaker 1: going to work and how it's all going to impact
Speaker 1: the economy. They don't know. They're guessing, And so there
Speaker 1: is speculation that potentially the full force of those interest
Speaker 1: rate hikes hasn't even hit the economy yet, and that
Speaker 1: there could be a lot more damaging impacts to come
Speaker 1: down the road once those interest rates really show up
Speaker 1: in terms of their impact on the economy. So those
Speaker 1: are some of the factors that exist that would weigh
Speaker 1: on the negative side of things. Could end up getting
Speaker 1: a lot worse than what a lot of mainstream economists
Speaker 1: are kind of anticipating or predicting at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, And you know, it's one of those where
Speaker 2: we just have no idea where things are going to
Speaker 2: end up. But it's one of those where we should
Speaker 2: be prepared for anny of those bad scenarios. And to
Speaker 2: fit with all the politics that we have been discussing
Speaker 2: for the top portion of our show, a recession would
Speaker 2: dramatically change the electoral calculus. It'd be one of those
Speaker 2: where then, I mean, how out of touch would you
Speaker 2: seem when you're obsessing over Fulton County January sixth trials
Speaker 2: whenever there's a oh, how it straight up recession?
Speaker 1: How would you feel about the fact that you labeled
Speaker 1: the economy.
Speaker 3: By denying economics?
Speaker 1: I mean that people are in a recession. How are
Speaker 1: they going to feel? I mean, I think they already
Speaker 1: don't feel great about it. If you're in a full
Speaker 1: blown recession, how are they going to feel about Bidenomics?
Speaker 2: If we have a full blown downturn, I mean, it
Speaker 2: would dramatically change everything. And I don't forget you know,
Speaker 2: things can change completely on a dime.
Speaker 3: President George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush had a ninety one percent and approval rating around
Speaker 2: this time in his presidency, and then he've got his
Speaker 2: adding completely beaten in the election by Bill Clinton, largely
Speaker 2: because of an economic downturn that came in ninety two,
Speaker 2: of which Clinton was able to capitalize on even back
Speaker 2: in the even Jimmy Carter actually but most of.
Speaker 3: The country had turned against him.
Speaker 2: But the worst of the actual recession, depression and all
Speaker 2: that the high interest street phenomenon mostly came in the
Speaker 2: latter year of his presidency and just completely changed the
Speaker 2: way that he was able to campaign. So don't forget
Speaker 2: that the last year, specifically economics in the middle of
Speaker 2: what is going on in election is so so important
Speaker 2: to what actually ends up happening in set election. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part here, and this is also
Speaker 2: actually very interesting around Americans and where and how they
Speaker 2: are able to pay for their homes and including their
Speaker 2: home insurance. Something that we've been tracking quite a bit
Speaker 2: quote unquote from the Wall Street Journal, Americans are bailing
Speaker 2: on their home insurance. Some homeowners who are skipping coverage
Speaker 2: say that they can no longer afford the rising premiums,
Speaker 2: and the reason why is that many of them live
Speaker 2: in disaster areas where home insurance companies are either bailing
Speaker 2: out or creating or increasing their premiums dramatically. So for example,
Speaker 2: the national average or home insurance based on a two
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty thousand dollars in dwelling coverage increase this
Speaker 2: year twenty percent to four hundred and twenty eight dollars annually. Others,
Speaker 2: especially people who are wealthy, they are saying, at this point,
Speaker 2: paying the premium is so ridiculous because they have enough
Speaker 2: money stored away that they could probably just you know,
Speaker 2: rebuild if they needed to. Others, though, who don't have
Speaker 2: that capacity, are stuck in a situation where they are
Speaker 2: totally uninsured. They point to one man, for example, who
Speaker 2: he estimates that he has saved some fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 2: for not paying on his eleven hundred square foot Los
Speaker 2: Angeles home, but should anything happen, he would very easily
Speaker 2: be liable for it.
Speaker 3: In some of these areas, like.
Speaker 2: Florida and some wildfire prone areas, for example, in California,
Speaker 2: many current home insurance companies have pulled out, leaving them
Speaker 2: with no option and then if they are totally wiped
Speaker 2: out and destroyed, they are facing a serious issue.
Speaker 3: This is specifically a problem for seniors.
Speaker 2: We covered previously about how fifty this is insane to me.
Speaker 2: Fifty percent of seniors don't have one dollar save for retirement,
Speaker 2: one dollar, so they are a blown tire away from bankruptcy.
Speaker 2: Without social securities, people gonna be starving in the street.
Speaker 2: And then if they also because social security have the
Speaker 2: cost of living increase, some of them have basically been
Speaker 2: deciding just not pay their home insurance premium or don't
Speaker 2: even have home insurance. If they have some sort of disaster,
Speaker 2: they have nothing, you know, beneath their femling'e gonna lose
Speaker 2: everything that they got and no sort of coverage. So
Speaker 2: home insurance is one of those where it's probably secondary
Speaker 2: to car insurance in terms of the one that matters
Speaker 2: the most and one where a single accident can change
Speaker 2: your entire life completely overnight. You know, like the wealthy
Speaker 2: people in here who we're trying to gain the system,
Speaker 2: they're going to be fine, of course, But if you
Speaker 2: were one of those people without a dollar in retirement,
Speaker 2: and you're a state and you're a senior and you're
Speaker 2: not able.
Speaker 3: To afford home insurance.
Speaker 2: It's one of those where it's very clear like we've
Speaker 2: got to get our act together in some sort of
Speaker 2: program put into place very very very soon as more
Speaker 2: of these things are going to happen, or we're going
Speaker 2: to see like we are one event away from like mass.
Speaker 3: Poverty in the state of Florida or in the state
Speaker 3: of California, and.
Speaker 1: We have a hurricane headed that way, what potentially major
Speaker 1: you know, possibly category three hurricane headed that way, which
Speaker 1: we'll get to at a moment. But just to give
Speaker 1: you some more of the numbers of how many people
Speaker 1: are quote unquote bailing on homeowners insurance, twelve percent of
Speaker 1: homers in the US now don't purchase homeowners insurance. Most
Speaker 1: of them a majority, have annual household incomes of less
Speaker 1: than forty thousand dollars. So we're not talking about the
Speaker 1: wealthy saying I got millions in the bank, no big deal.
Speaker 1: If a hurricane wipes out my house, I'll be fine.
Speaker 1: This is people who just literally can't afford it. And
Speaker 1: when you look at those numbers Saga that you cited
Speaker 1: of on a national average, homeowners insurance went up twenty
Speaker 1: per in one year. That's a national average. Just think
Speaker 1: of what's happening in states like Florida, think of what's
Speaker 1: happening in states like California, in states like Colorado, in
Speaker 1: states like Louisiana, and states like Texas. These are places
Speaker 1: that have been really hard hit in the expectation is
Speaker 1: will continue to be hard hit where homeowners' insurance companies
Speaker 1: are increasingly pulling out. Now, many of these states have
Speaker 1: a state run option sort of like a homeowner's inshore
Speaker 1: of last resort. But oftentimes, because you know, if you're
Speaker 1: left with no other option, you're probably in a higher
Speaker 1: risk category, those premiums are very high. So not only
Speaker 1: is this an issue if you face a horrific catastrophe
Speaker 1: and your home is wiped out, this is also a
Speaker 1: major issue in terms of people being able to afford
Speaker 1: a house because mortgage issuers have to factor in not
Speaker 1: only the cost of the house, but also are you
Speaker 1: going to be able to afford the cost of the
Speaker 1: homeowner's insurance. So this is also pushing a lot of
Speaker 1: people out in terms of affordability. You know, there was
Speaker 1: another article that is incredibly relevant to this, just about
Speaker 1: how much the cost of these increasingly you know, catastrophic events,
Speaker 1: how much that cost has escalated. You can put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen, the headline here the sauce from
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal. Are we ready for one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollar catastrophe? How about two hundred billion? Insurance companies
Speaker 1: are struggling to keep up with economic growth, population ships,
Speaker 1: inflation trends, and the most unpredictable variable of all, the
Speaker 1: rising prevalence of natural disasters big and small. The cost
Speaker 1: to recover from these natural disasters has wildly escalated. And so,
Speaker 1: I mean, the bottom line that you take away from
Speaker 1: this article and many others that we've looked at Soger
Speaker 1: is the homeowner's insurance market in increasing number of states
Speaker 1: is just completely broken because of where people have built,
Speaker 1: you know, population centers, because of the increasing frequency, you know,
Speaker 1: because of client change of these extreme disasters, and because
Speaker 1: of you know, inflation and the cost to build and
Speaker 1: the cost of housing, et cetera. There is just you know,
Speaker 1: for many of these insurers in a lot of regions
Speaker 1: of the country, it just doesn't make economic sense. And
Speaker 1: so we've got a market that is completely broken right
Speaker 1: now with disasters results already for a lot of people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we can fix it now or we can
Speaker 2: fix it later, because if we all know what's going
Speaker 2: to happen, there's going to be the one hundred or
Speaker 2: the two hundred billion dollar catastrophe like a hurricane. Hurricane
Speaker 2: Sandy was a disaster we all remember. I think it
Speaker 2: cost somewhere near one hundred billion dollars in damage. And
Speaker 2: guess what what's going to happen. The home insurance companies
Speaker 2: are going to come to and ask for a tax
Speaker 2: payer fund to bailout we already know.
Speaker 1: We already did that in Florida, by the way, and
Speaker 1: the Santus gave it to them.
Speaker 3: Well, and that's the state bailout.
Speaker 2: I mean we're talking about hundreds that's more than we've
Speaker 2: given to Ukraine. Okay, Like this is going to cost
Speaker 2: some serious coin if we don't actually deal with some
Speaker 2: of this now and actually implements regulation or whatever some
Speaker 2: sort of program in order to try and head it off,
Speaker 2: or we're going to end up in the prime world,
Speaker 2: which is then to require a massive bailout, and then
Speaker 2: people are absolutely going to get screwed sometime in the interim.
Speaker 2: So that's why we spend a lot of time on this,
Speaker 2: especially as you said, we got the hurricane which is
Speaker 2: coming down right now. Let's go ahead and put that
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Hurricane Idalia. I believe that
Speaker 2: we're saying that correctly, category three with one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifteen mile wins prior to Florida landfall. So look, we
Speaker 2: don't know yet where exactly it's going to strike, damage,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But this is just the beginning of hurricane season,
Speaker 2: I guess in some respects has already been going on
Speaker 2: now for quite some time. People in that area, stay
Speaker 2: safe and all that, and also just be prepared for
Speaker 2: these scenarios and all that are only going to become
Speaker 2: even more prevalent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I just looked it up to give people
Speaker 1: a sense. So, first of all, one hundred percent on Idalia,
Speaker 1: and we'll be keeping an eye on it. This could
Speaker 1: make landfall as a category three. This is incredibly serious.
Speaker 1: Governor DeSantis has already said, you know, this is going
Speaker 1: to be a major storm. There are mandatory evacuations in
Speaker 1: place for some of these areas. Tampa looks like it
Speaker 1: could be hit, so we'll keep an eye on that.
Speaker 1: In terms of you know historic cost of some of
Speaker 1: these catastrophes. The most financially expensive natural catastrophe in US
Speaker 1: history was actually Hurricane Katrina back in two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: estimated one hundred and eighty six billion dollars in damage.
Speaker 1: But the second most is one that might surprise people.
Speaker 1: It's Hurricane Harvey, which was just in twenty seventeen, which
Speaker 1: inflicted one hundred and forty eight billion dollars in damage.
Speaker 1: And Hurricane Harvey is part of what sent you know,
Speaker 1: portions of the homeowner's insurance market into a spiral and
Speaker 1: effectively like broke the homeowner's insurance market and made some
Speaker 1: of this so wildly expensive. So anyway, I know, this
Speaker 1: is a real pain point for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: So it's something we're going to continue to follow.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's right.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's get back to some some domestic politics here.
Speaker 1: There was an interesting back and forth between Center and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and one of his former supporters, Cornell and
Speaker 1: doctor Cornell West, who is now running as a third
Speaker 1: party candidate for president. Now, Bernie has already jumped in
Speaker 1: to endorse Joe Biden. This in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, he continues to he just gave a
Speaker 1: big speech in New Hampshire calling out the corporate Democrats
Speaker 1: and you know, urging them to do more. But even
Speaker 1: in that same speech saying up, but we got to
Speaker 1: back Biden, we got to unify behind Biden.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 1: He got asked on CNN specifically about doctor West's challenge
Speaker 1: of the current president, Joe Biden. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to how we responded.
Speaker 6: Chris Sanders Cornell West, who is a close ally of yours.
Speaker 3: He is running a third party campaign for president.
Speaker 6: He recently criticized you for endorsing President Biden's reelection.
Speaker 3: Listen to what he said.
Speaker 7: I love the brother, and you know, even in love,
Speaker 7: people have deep disagreements about these things. But I think
Speaker 7: again he's fearful of the neo fascism of people. Look
Speaker 7: at Biden. They don't really want to tell the full truth.
Speaker 7: He's created the best economy that we can get. Is
Speaker 7: this the best that we can get? You're going to
Speaker 7: tell that lie to the people just for Biden to win.
Speaker 3: What's your reaction to that?
Speaker 8: Well, my reaction is that certainly is not the best
Speaker 8: economy that we can create. That was my speech was
Speaker 8: about yesterday, We've got to join the rest of the
Speaker 8: industrialized world guarantee healthcare at all. We've got to cut
Speaker 8: the costs of prescription drugs in half. We've got to
Speaker 8: raise the minimum wage to at least seventeen bucks. And
Speaker 8: now we've got to build the affordable housing we desperately need.
Speaker 8: But where I disagree with my good friend of Cornel
Speaker 8: West is I think in these really very difficult times
Speaker 8: where there is a real question whether democracy is going
Speaker 8: to remain in the United States of America. You know,
Speaker 8: Donald Trump is not somebody who believes in democracy, whether
Speaker 8: women are going to be able to continue to control
Speaker 8: their own bodies, whether we have social justice in America.
Speaker 8: We end bigotry around that. I think we have got
Speaker 8: to bring the entire progressive community to defeat Trump or
Speaker 8: whether the Republican nominee will be support Biden. But at
Speaker 8: the same time, which is what I did yesterday, is
Speaker 8: the man that the Democratic Party, not just Biden, have
Speaker 8: the guts that take on corporate greed and the massive
Speaker 8: levels of incomb and wealth inequality that we see today.
Speaker 1: Saga, would you make of that exchange?
Speaker 2: Well, that's good of an articulation of vote Blue, no
Speaker 2: matter who I've ever heard. I think it's a bit
Speaker 2: odd because Bernie nobody asked him or AOC or any
Speaker 2: of these other people to step in so early and
Speaker 2: affirmatively endorsed Byen. He never did any of that back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. And now he's been effectively, you know,
Speaker 2: he's been downgraded to some sort of campaign suriate, openly
Speaker 2: attack in Cornell West and undermining many of the theories
Speaker 2: of which he himself ran on for a long time. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, I can't think of it anything as like.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's really an outright betrayal of like so
Speaker 2: much of his life's work and a lot of the people.
Speaker 3: Who followed his movement.
Speaker 2: I mean, not only in order to endorse Biden and
Speaker 2: not acknowledge any of the third party candidates or sorry,
Speaker 2: any of the candidate challengers who are running against him,
Speaker 2: but then to openly dismiss and discourage the idea of
Speaker 2: third parties, which is directly Cornell West explicitly trying to
Speaker 2: run against Joe Biden and to force change, and to
Speaker 2: try and get some of his ideas injected into the
Speaker 2: party of which and even candidates of which he you know,
Speaker 2: long was a defender of that. That is literally the
Speaker 2: definition of democracy. So Bernie saying that he's endorsing Biden
Speaker 2: or whatever because of democracy, but also kind of openly
Speaker 2: trashing the idea of democracy itself by running against Biden,
Speaker 2: it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: So there's two pieces of this. One part I actually
Speaker 1: agree with and one part I really disagree with, and
Speaker 1: I think profoundly goes against everything that he previously stood
Speaker 1: for and argued for. So the part that I'll start with,
Speaker 1: the part I agree on, I think he's basically correct
Speaker 1: about third parties. I think the only thing that Cornell West,
Speaker 1: doctor West, who I love, admire, respect, whose politics I
Speaker 1: almost wholly and completely share, I think effectively the only
Speaker 1: thing that his campaign will accomplish is number one, helping
Speaker 1: to reelect Donald Trump and number two hurting the left,
Speaker 1: because ultimately, you know, there just a poll that came
Speaker 1: out that showed Biden and Trump basically tied in a
Speaker 1: head to head. You throw Cornell West in and Trump
Speaker 1: is winning by like five points, and the margin is
Speaker 1: just exactly the amount that doctor West takes away from
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Now, listen, it's fully on Joe Biden that
Speaker 1: he needs to do more to appeal to potential Cornell
Speaker 1: West voters. But let's live in the land of reality
Speaker 1: of how this is going to work out. They're not
Speaker 1: going to do that, Doctor West. Will take some percentage,
Speaker 1: relatively small percentage away from the Democratic total, and it
Speaker 1: makes it easier for Donald Trump to get elected. So
Speaker 1: if your priority is re electing a Democrat, and if
Speaker 1: you believe as I do, that Donald Trump and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden are not equivalent, that Joe Biden has been better
Speaker 1: in particular on economics, but also with things like the
Speaker 1: withdrawal from Afghanistan, then yeah, I think a third party
Speaker 1: effort makes it more likely that Donald Trump gets reelected.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I say I think it will
Speaker 1: ultimately also hurt the left wing and left principles. If
Speaker 1: that's what you care about, is we have the model
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen. Look, the theory in twenty sixteen with
Speaker 1: Jill Stein was if we withhold our votes from the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and that's going to force them to the table, We're
Speaker 1: going to have a voice in the room. They're going
Speaker 1: to have to come to our side. No, that's not
Speaker 1: what they did. Instead, they demonized anyone who would have
Speaker 1: even considered Jill Stein. They used it to demonize the left,
Speaker 1: they used it to undercut any sort of leftward push.
Speaker 1: And so while I would love to imagine that that
Speaker 1: theory of the case would work out, we've seen the
Speaker 1: reality and that is not what happens now. The place
Speaker 1: where I profoundly disagree with Bernie Sanders is on his
Speaker 1: orientation towards the Democratic primary. And there's another section of
Speaker 1: this where he gets asked specifically about the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: and he says, no, I think we need to unify
Speaker 1: behind Joe Biden because that will be what helps to
Speaker 1: defeat Donald Trump. Well, that's exactly the argument that was
Speaker 1: used against Bernie Sanders himself, both in twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: again in twenty twenty. Stop criticizing the Democrats, stop criticizing
Speaker 1: the democratic establishment, stop running all together, because you're sowing dissent,
Speaker 1: and your you know, attempts at democracy here are really
Speaker 1: undermining our attempt to defeat Donald Trump. It was bullshit then,
Speaker 1: it's bullshit now. And the fact that he jumped in
Speaker 1: to endorse Joe Biden, a man that he knows is
Speaker 1: not living up to the you know Democrats, Social democratic
Speaker 1: ideals that Bernie Sanders supports is not living up to
Speaker 1: the bare minimum of really helping the working class or
Speaker 1: even the meeting the promises that he himself made on
Speaker 1: the campaign trail, something that I know that Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is aware of, because he just gave this big speech
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire with this direct critique of the corporate
Speaker 1: wing of the Democratic Party. But still you jump and
Speaker 1: endorse him while there's a competitive primary going on. Listen,
Speaker 1: I understand, I'm not a fool. The realities of DC.
Speaker 1: Okay for him to endorse the candidate Marian Williamson, who
Speaker 1: most closely matches his own ideology. I get the way
Speaker 1: that that would make it impossible for him to, you know,
Speaker 1: have any sort of influence with the White House, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But you didn't have to do anything. You know,
Speaker 1: you could have just stayed out. And if you really
Speaker 1: believe your rhetoric about what needs to be done to
Speaker 1: defeat Donald Trump, then actually you would endorse and fight
Speaker 1: for Marian Williamson because she is the person who is
Speaker 1: carrying the mantle of his political project. Let me put
Speaker 1: this next piece up on the screen. I referred to
Speaker 1: this New Hampshire speech a couple of times, so he
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders traveled to Yeah, this is the third element.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders traveled to New Hampshire, and he says, I
Speaker 1: gave a major speech about why Democrats must ignore the
Speaker 1: corporate wing of the party and instead put forward a
Speaker 1: concrete agenda that speaks to the needs of struggling working Americans.
Speaker 1: And in the very same speech where he's saying we've
Speaker 1: got to reject the corporate Democrats and we've got to
Speaker 1: do better, and we've got to lay on this working
Speaker 1: class vision, et cetera, et cetera, he's also repeatedly saying
Speaker 1: we got to back Joe Biden. I back Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I back Joe Biden, I back Joe Biden. These two
Speaker 1: things make no sense together. It's just wildly inconsistent. It's nonsensical,
Speaker 1: and it does go against everything he used to say
Speaker 1: about the importance of democracy and the importance of backing
Speaker 1: candidates who are going to support an actual, genuine, material,
Speaker 1: working class agenda. So that's the piece that makes no
Speaker 1: sense to me and that I really object to.
Speaker 2: Well you should, I mean, this is the man who
Speaker 2: said he was going to challenge Obama or at least
Speaker 2: thought about challenging Obama for the primary in twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: He used to really believe in shaking up the system,
Speaker 2: and so yeah, I mean, it's one of those where
Speaker 2: I just don't really understand his orientation around all of this.
Speaker 2: And as you said too, you know, you can separate
Speaker 2: two different things like a third party bid and then
Speaker 2: also an active primary challenge, of which he has refused
Speaker 2: to get involved in, or at very least he could
Speaker 2: stay silent. He could ask Biden, he could be like, well,
Speaker 2: if you want me to endorse you, I'm gonna need X,
Speaker 2: Y and Z. But he has actually not done literally
Speaker 2: any of that, right, So that's that I think is
Speaker 2: his biggest problem that he has going on.
Speaker 3: You know. And that's the thing too.
Speaker 2: Look with Corner West, like nobody can get into his
Speaker 2: mind or into his head about exactly what he's doing,
Speaker 2: what he's trying, and what he wants to do. I mean,
Speaker 2: And the other thing is you could take it out
Speaker 2: of his word, and he just believes that it's not
Speaker 2: going to work. And I think, you know, we have
Speaker 2: to come back to this, Like you can't quash his
Speaker 2: ability to run like you can't declare war against you
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, like you have to
Speaker 2: work within the system. The Green Party has ballid access
Speaker 2: and in that like you got to fight for the
Speaker 2: votes and actually get him.
Speaker 3: And there's you know, there's a way in order to
Speaker 3: get that done.
Speaker 2: And if you know Bernie believes so passionately, then he
Speaker 2: would have to make a much better case to many
Speaker 2: of the people who are who would and are considering
Speaker 2: Cornell West for a president in order to say, here's
Speaker 2: why if you share our politics, like going back in
Speaker 2: the day, you would have to go and do this
Speaker 2: and that's why, you know, we can actually have a
Speaker 2: vision of change in order toly affect and get things
Speaker 2: done on this side. But he's not doing that, you know,
Speaker 2: in any of these pitches or in the New Hampshire speech.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and listen, guys, just to be clear about third parties,
Speaker 1: like I would love to, you know, live in a
Speaker 1: world where Cornell West running as a third party candidate
Speaker 1: had a real shot at the White House, but simply
Speaker 1: because of the structure of our political system as it
Speaker 1: exists today, it's not going to happen. And so you
Speaker 1: know that's the reality that I'm sort of grappling with here,
Speaker 1: and we have an example from twenty sixteen of how
Speaker 1: this all works out. Now. I think the narrative about oh,
Speaker 1: Jill Stein costs a democracy election twenty I think that's
Speaker 1: total bullshit. Like the numbers just literally don't add up.
Speaker 1: That's not what happened. Hillary Clinton was a disastrous candidate.
Speaker 1: It's one hundred percent on her. So let me be
Speaker 1: really clear about that. But let's also be clear about
Speaker 1: the fact that they definitely blamed Jill Stein, and they
Speaker 1: definitely blamed her supporters, and it did not have the
Speaker 1: impact that people wanted it to have. Then forcing the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party to come to the table and actually appeal
Speaker 1: to these voters. That is not their response. That's never
Speaker 1: going to be their response. So let's not pretend that
Speaker 1: it really is. So that's the third party piece, but
Speaker 1: listen on the Democratic primary piece. I just think it's
Speaker 1: I do find it sad. I still really, you know,
Speaker 1: really respected to Meyer Bernie Sanders. I think he's done
Speaker 1: a lot for this country. He still is one of
Speaker 1: the most beloved figures in the entire country because of
Speaker 1: his willingness to speak the truth on a number of
Speaker 1: issues about the media class, the political class, and the
Speaker 1: way that working class people have been screwed. But on
Speaker 1: this particular, like how he's jumped in to endorse Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: it goes against everything that he said in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: everything he said in twenty twenty, everything he said about
Speaker 1: his theory of political change, and it makes no sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. That's really what galls me.
Speaker 2: I'm like, it's changed if this is the difference in
Speaker 2: everything your entire life, and it's like, and this is
Speaker 2: this is your last app.
Speaker 1: Into the argument they were making.
Speaker 3: See, you're almost ninety years old. He's like eighty what
Speaker 3: is he eighty six? It's like, this is it for you, dude,
Speaker 3: this is this is what people are going to remember
Speaker 3: you for. So listen. He gets to choose the course
Speaker 3: of his own life.
Speaker 2: Some news that we just couldn't ignore on vivike Ramaswami
Speaker 2: too good and too fun for our media block. Here
Speaker 2: about Eminem and vivikes Ramaswami's previous personality known as davek
Speaker 2: the Rapper, who would frequently rap Lose Yourself by Eminem
Speaker 2: while he was in college and also showed it to
Speaker 2: all of us at the Iowa State Fair. Eminem, it seems,
Speaker 2: has taken notice. Let's go ahead and put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. Eminem has sent Vivic a cease
Speaker 2: and desist letter demanding that he stopped wrapping his music
Speaker 2: on the campaign trail. That the Daily Mail can say
Speaker 2: after exclusively obtaining a letter from a representative for the
Speaker 2: music licenser BMI, which represents Eminem, they say quote in
Speaker 2: the letter, which was dated on August twenty third, BMI
Speaker 2: told the campaign's lawyer they had received communications from mister
Speaker 2: Marshall B. Mathers, the third professionally known as Eminem, objecting
Speaker 2: to the Ramaswami campaign's use of his musical compositions the
Speaker 2: Eminem works, and requesting that they remove all Eminem works
Speaker 2: from the agreement. B and I will consider any performance
Speaker 2: of Eminem works by the Vike twenty twenty four campaign
Speaker 2: from this date forward to be a material breach of
Speaker 2: the agreement for which BMI reserves all rights and remedies
Speaker 2: with respect there too. Ramaswami having performed Eminem's Lose Yourself
Speaker 2: eleven days before that the actual letter was sent, we
Speaker 2: have some We can put this a little bit of
Speaker 2: a video that we have, we can't play the music
Speaker 2: for you for copyright reasons.
Speaker 1: Would come after us as well.
Speaker 2: Well, his lawyers would come after us and get all
Speaker 2: of our ad revenue from this video. The funny thing
Speaker 2: is is Avic responded and took it in stride. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there. He says, quote, will the real
Speaker 2: slim shady please stand up? He didn't just say what
Speaker 2: I think he did?
Speaker 3: Did? He at eminem with laughing face?
Speaker 2: So you know, I actually do have a question here
Speaker 2: around these cease and desist letters, okay, and their legal standing.
Speaker 2: I mean, are you allowed to tell this happens like
Speaker 2: every time you have some candidate who somebody doesn't like
Speaker 2: and they're like, hey, you need to stop using my music,
Speaker 2: But then the candidates never do seem to do anything
Speaker 2: about it. And I mean, one of the things I
Speaker 2: was looking at here is like this is now constitution agreement,
Speaker 2: and it's like, well, hold on a second, Like he
Speaker 2: didn't agree to anything. And whenever it comes to copyright,
Speaker 2: if you're not using it to make money, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, I just assume that there's like a whole
Speaker 2: different legal conversation around this. I'm assuming he just did
Speaker 2: it for political or public purposes, because he's like, I
Speaker 2: don't want my music associated with this guy's brand.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, But I'm like, this is actually enforceable. I
Speaker 3: don't think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have no idea what the legality or around
Speaker 1: any of this is if there's actually something enforceable here.
Speaker 1: But listen, if I was an artist and some politician
Speaker 1: that I hated was using my music, I would feel
Speaker 1: the same way, and I would would definitely be the
Speaker 1: point like, don't use my art on behalf of whatever
Speaker 1: political project that I wildly disagree with. But to your
Speaker 1: point about how this happens all the time, I pulled
Speaker 1: up there's actually a Wikipedia that lists all of the
Speaker 1: musicians who have at some point opposed on Trump use
Speaker 1: of their music. And I'll just read you a sample.
Speaker 1: You've got Adele Aerosmith, The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Creten's Clearwater Revival,
Speaker 1: Eddie Grant, He's the Electric Avenue, Guy Elton, John Everlast,
Speaker 1: Guns N' Roses, Isaac Hayes, Leonard Cohen, Lincoln Park, Luciana Pop,
Speaker 1: Roddy Neil Young. When did he use Luciana Roddy?
Speaker 3: I'm going to confess I don't even know who that is.
Speaker 1: Oh, you don't use it. It's an opera singer.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, okay. So anyway, he does have a weird
Speaker 3: pension for strange.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, he's got the his walkout song
Speaker 2: as the whole like you can't always get you what
Speaker 2: you want, but he sung and like the highest whatever
Speaker 2: the note that is for.
Speaker 3: Singing, and then yeah, I mean he'll use what he's got.
Speaker 2: Elton John before, Yeah, I know, born in the USA
Speaker 2: was the one that Springsteen went after himformably.
Speaker 3: I don't think he gets Elton John.
Speaker 1: Okay, So it says here he used his recording of
Speaker 1: nesson Dorma okay at Trump rallies, which ends with the
Speaker 1: chant I will win Ah. They objected, Neil Young, Nickelback,
Speaker 1: Panic at the Disco, Ovea, Pharrell Williamsville Collins, Prince, Queen Aria, Rihanna,
Speaker 1: the Rollingstones, Tom Petty, Village people, the White Stripes. So, okay,
Speaker 1: welcome to the club A fake, I.
Speaker 3: Guess, yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: I think the only artists that you're allowed to use
Speaker 2: as a Republican are like some country musicians and then
Speaker 2: kid Rock. I actually thought Romney had a great song.
Speaker 3: It was twenty twelve. I think it was.
Speaker 2: Born free by kid Rock. Actually always like that song.
Speaker 2: That was a good one, and kid Rock actually campaign for.
Speaker 9: Rodney had the most fringe cam. She certainly did all
Speaker 9: so good good.
Speaker 1: I hear that song every time I want to die.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when I hear it, I think about all the
Speaker 2: women crying in the Javid Center as like.
Speaker 1: I was there was there to witness good sad sad.
Speaker 3: Inject that into.
Speaker 1: The other one I think about is Pete High Hope.
Speaker 9: Of course, the disco a whole dance, Yes, the Pete
Speaker 9: Blue to Judge dance, Yes, indeed, so good.
Speaker 3: Anyway, that's your fun news for the day.
Speaker 2: We want to end actually on a segment that just
Speaker 2: happened with Hannity in Vivike Ramaswami on a more serious note,
Speaker 2: because there's a lot going on here in terms of
Speaker 2: what Viveke has said so far, which is pissed off
Speaker 2: Republican elites the most, and it appears to be his
Speaker 2: declaration that we will treat Israel like every other country
Speaker 2: by normalizing foreign aid to them. Hannity in particular in
Speaker 2: sensed by this idea, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 10: You know you said aid to Israel, our number one,
Speaker 10: ally only democracy in the region, should end in twenty
Speaker 10: twenty eight, and that they should be integrated with their neighbors.
Speaker 3: That was exactly quote.
Speaker 11: That's actually yeah, I can tell you the exact quote.
Speaker 11: What I said is it would be a mark of
Speaker 11: success if we ever got to a point in our
Speaker 11: relationship with Israel, if Israel never needed the United States's
Speaker 11: aid and SEAWAN.
Speaker 3: You know how politics is played.
Speaker 11: A lot of the other professional politicians who have been
Speaker 11: threatened by my rise have used that statement to say
Speaker 11: that I would cut off aid to Israel.
Speaker 3: That's not correct. I've been crystal clear.
Speaker 10: But do you the only question under which do you
Speaker 10: understand the importance of the strategic alliance, the intelligence sharing
Speaker 10: in an area of the world where we have a
Speaker 10: lot of enemies, which, by the way, boggles my mind
Speaker 10: that we look for the lifeblood of our economy in
Speaker 10: the world's economy from that very same region of the world.
Speaker 10: We have more natural resources here, which you agree, but
Speaker 10: you do understand how important that US is and how
Speaker 10: important the intelligence fact. I understand how important it is
Speaker 10: with a Ran, especially seeking nukes.
Speaker 3: I understand it.
Speaker 11: I think more deeply than probably anybody in this race.
Speaker 11: I've traveled to israel I business partners in Israel. The
Speaker 11: reality is this, by the end of my first term,
Speaker 11: our relationship with Israel will be stronger than it ever
Speaker 11: has been, because I will treat it as a true friendship,
Speaker 11: not just a transactional relation.
Speaker 10: Why did you say I want to treatment? Why did
Speaker 10: you say that Israel should not have friinancial treatment from US.
Speaker 11: That's a direct quote, Sean, I understand. No, those are
Speaker 11: direct quotes from headline summarized by opposition research fed to
Speaker 11: the fake news media. The reality is here's where I'm
Speaker 11: saying that. But Abraham towards two point zero is my
Speaker 11: top priority. Abraham reports of two point zero is my
Speaker 11: top priority, which is to get Saudi Arabia Aman Cutter
Speaker 11: into that pact with Israel, and foremost, to have a
Speaker 11: partnership with Israel that does something really important for the US,
Speaker 11: which is to make sure that Iran never ever ever
Speaker 11: has nuclear capabilities. That's important to the United States. And
Speaker 11: the other thing I've said, Sean is that Israel's our friend.
Speaker 11: Good friends learn from each other. I would love Israel's
Speaker 11: border policies in this country. I would love Israel's tough
Speaker 11: on crime policies and strong national identity in this country.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know what did you make of that.
Speaker 2: I just think the level of hatred that he appears
Speaker 2: to garner for just saying we will treat Israel like
Speaker 2: a like any other country with our foreign aid, and
Speaker 2: that it's so I mean, I don't know why it's
Speaker 2: not desirable to have to not give Israel foreign aid
Speaker 2: anymore or any other country.
Speaker 3: Really, yeah, that matter.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've been It's a very developed, tech based economy.
Speaker 2: They're making a hell of a lot of money the
Speaker 2: last time I checked. You know, we'll go over there
Speaker 2: in many respects their own military capabilities. They laugh at
Speaker 2: us because they think we're far behind the times. I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: you take anybody's money if they're going to give it
Speaker 2: to you. But this has particular has like struck the
Speaker 2: third rail for Nikki Haley and for Sean hannityingly Sean
Speaker 2: Hannity seemingly here and it blows their mind the idea
Speaker 2: that we would treat them the same way that we
Speaker 2: treat everybody. And it's just funny because even if you
Speaker 2: look and you go back at what he said previously,
Speaker 2: he was like, yeah, I guess we should just normalize
Speaker 2: it the way that we have our relationship with Egypt.
Speaker 2: You're like, what, why is this so objectionable to so
Speaker 2: many of these gop eleaits.
Speaker 1: So let me read you exactly one of the quotes
Speaker 1: on Israel that they're referring to.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 1: What he originally said is if we're successful, the true
Speaker 1: mark of success for the US and for Israel will
Speaker 1: be to get to a twenty twenty eight or Israel
Speaker 1: is so strongly standing on its own two feet integrated
Speaker 1: is the economic and security infrastructure of the rest of
Speaker 1: the Middle East that it will not require and be
Speaker 1: dependent on that same level of historical aid or commitment
Speaker 1: from the US. So that's what he said. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot that's interesting about this exchange.
Speaker 3: Number one, anything wrong with that?
Speaker 1: Number one. What's interesting about this exchange is of all
Speaker 1: the things that Vivek has said that you could object to,
Speaker 1: like invading Mexico, like disenfranchising young voters, like basically like
Speaker 1: watching the world burn, like this deeply regressive flat tax,
Speaker 1: and dismantling all of these like federal agencies that we
Speaker 1: actually kind of need of all the things that you
Speaker 1: could take issue with, it's him sort of suggesting maybe
Speaker 1: we adjust our relationship with Israel that they go all
Speaker 1: in on okay, So that's revealing. Equally revealing, I think
Speaker 1: is that the Veke is very politician y and very
Speaker 1: squishy and very like sort of trying to spin on
Speaker 1: this particular issue. If you think back to the debate,
Speaker 1: how many places where you know, everybody else was trying
Speaker 1: to dodge the question on climate change and he's happy
Speaker 1: to jump in and there and me like the climate
Speaker 1: change agenda is a hoax, he's happy to jump in there.
Speaker 1: I'm he's super crystal clear and what he thinks about Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But on this issue, even during the debate, when Nikki
Speaker 1: got him on this issue, part of why she actually
Speaker 1: know even though I think Herni o'conn world view, as
Speaker 1: I explained detail is porn et cetera, et cetera. Part
Speaker 1: of why she got him on this particular issue is
Speaker 1: because suddenly he becomes very easily and very like, let
Speaker 1: me explain, and let me change what I actually said,
Speaker 1: and let me reframe in and rephrase it, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So even he feels very tepid and skittish about what
Speaker 1: he previously said on Israel. I mean, this is such
Speaker 1: a third rail that if you say anything different than
Speaker 1: the one hundred percent consensus, there is such a freak out,
Speaker 1: especially the Republican Party, but I mean we've seen it
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party as well, where there's this whole
Speaker 1: organized effort to quash any sort of dissent on the
Speaker 1: status quo of our aid towards Israel.
Speaker 2: And the funny, the easy if you put that quote
Speaker 2: to a Republican voter, they'd be like, all right, yeah, whatever,
Speaker 2: it be.
Speaker 3: One of those.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, a lot of Republicans have they they
Speaker 2: have a lot of deep affection for Israel. They have it,
Speaker 2: not like a rosy view of the country whatever.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: But the point though, is that if you were to say,
Speaker 2: let's just treat every we wish, we should get to
Speaker 2: a point where they're independent of us, how.
Speaker 3: Can you possibly object to that.
Speaker 6: I That's a long standing point of foreign aid in
Speaker 6: many of these respects. It's one of those where it's
Speaker 6: like it makes such transparent sense, especially if that's something
Speaker 6: that you're trying to pursue, and if you listen to
Speaker 6: what he's talking about He's like, yeah, I want to
Speaker 6: normalize relations between all the countries so they can just
Speaker 6: live like that and we don't have to be involved anymore.
Speaker 3: I mean, what what are we objecting to here?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 2: How like what is the dissent from that we should
Speaker 2: just give somebody money regardless of whether they want it
Speaker 2: or need it or not.
Speaker 3: It doesn't. It's just it boggles the mind.
Speaker 2: But now, the reason why I think he's defensive is,
Speaker 2: let's all be real here, the billionaire donors and all
Speaker 2: those other people.
Speaker 3: But they can say he's free of them.
Speaker 2: I think he's probably free of them them most person
Speaker 2: his own personal wealth.
Speaker 3: Ye, but you know you can't be running.
Speaker 2: Let's say, in this scenario where he is the nominee,
Speaker 2: you can't run without them.
Speaker 3: You know you're gonna need their super pac money.
Speaker 2: You're gonna need you get all the money in the
Speaker 2: world can't buy you as much as you're gonna need
Speaker 2: in order to run.
Speaker 3: And he's afraid.
Speaker 2: I also think that whenever it comes to conservative media,
Speaker 2: this is the one.
Speaker 3: Where I see them attacking him one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: Fox News obviously with Sean Hannity, with many of the
Speaker 2: other outlets of which he relies on to really get
Speaker 2: some earned media in order to pump you know, in
Speaker 2: order to pump like info to the GOP bass. This
Speaker 2: is one where they're taking the most issue sometimes because
Speaker 2: they also take money from donors who are obsessed with Israel.
Speaker 2: So it actually reveals I think a lot, a lot
Speaker 2: about the subject.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it also reveals a lot about Fox News doesn't
Speaker 1: want Rupert Murdoch. Let's be clear, because plenty of the
Speaker 1: hosts still love Trump and you know, are very sycophantic
Speaker 1: and all of that stuff because they see where their
Speaker 1: brend is buttered in terms of what their audience wants
Speaker 1: to hear. But Ruper Murdoch wants to move on from Trump.
Speaker 1: Tried with Ronda Sandas hasn't really worked out. They sort
Speaker 1: of pseudo floated Tim Scott put on an old Tim
Speaker 1: Scott trial balloon that hasn't really taken off. The new
Speaker 1: flavor of the moment is Nicky Haley. And so I'm
Speaker 1: just thinking back to when they did their like they
Speaker 1: invented out of whole cloth these quote unquote power rankings
Speaker 1: and like just randomly put Tim Scott in the top
Speaker 1: three alongside DeSantis and Trump. In these power rankings based
Speaker 1: on literally nothing, and obviously, you know, the person that
Speaker 1: you would actually put in the top three based on
Speaker 1: his online support, based on his polling, based on his fundraising,
Speaker 1: et cetera, would be the Vake. So that was immediately
Speaker 1: a signal to me of like, oh, they don't want
Speaker 1: this guy whatsoever. And this is another sign of you know,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity was really confrontational from him with him from
Speaker 1: the start of this interview on the issue of Israel.
Speaker 1: They clearly, you know, they don't see him as an
Speaker 1: acceptable second choice Trump alternative, et cetera. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think the VIC if you just look at his proposals,
Speaker 1: I think they would largely be really good for you know,
Speaker 1: status quo of America. I think they'd be largely very
Speaker 1: good for the wealthy, et cetera. But I do think
Speaker 1: they feel that they have less control over him, and
Speaker 1: so that's probably why they're so viciously going after him
Speaker 1: and trying to make sure that he's not acceptable as
Speaker 1: the Trump number two.
Speaker 3: Alternatives, no question about that whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in terms of and it's even rhetorically the reason
Speaker 2: why they got to quash this and crush it in
Speaker 2: his tracks because he can't be allowing any of this.
Speaker 2: The only person could ever actually say this is Trump
Speaker 2: and get away with it. And even with Trump, he
Speaker 2: never did that. Whatever it came to, that's true.
Speaker 1: This is the one issue where he never across Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: even he did everything they wanted him to do on Israel.
Speaker 1: Absolutely all right, Sager, we looking at well.
Speaker 2: At this point, it looks pretty likely that absent a
Speaker 2: black Swan event, Donald J. Trump is going to be
Speaker 2: the next Republican nominee for president. Whether he wins is
Speaker 2: another matter entirely, but I subscribe to a lesson all
Speaker 2: Americans should have learned in twenty sixteen. If you're the nominee,
Speaker 2: you can damn well win the presidency. And as CNN
Speaker 2: reminded its viewers very recently, there's a very good chance
Speaker 2: and likelihood that Trump actually does win the election against
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, who is facing his own host of problem.
Speaker 2: This raises a really interesting question what actually happens if
Speaker 2: Trump is reelected. There's a whole host of monologues I
Speaker 2: could do about what it would look like from a
Speaker 2: domestic perspective, but for this purpose, I wanted to zoom
Speaker 2: in on something that I of course care a lot
Speaker 2: about our foreign policy and military resources and specifically redirecting
Speaker 2: them away from Eurocentrism and direct them towards actual American interests. Alone,
Speaker 2: on this front, Trump, Rohnd de Santis, and Vivek Ramaswami
Speaker 2: are the only ones who even rhetorically take a different
Speaker 2: pitch than the rest of the Republican field. The rest
Speaker 2: of the world is certainly taking notice. I was especially
Speaker 2: caught in some very humorous moments that the Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal took a survey of European diplomats who are freaking
Speaker 2: out at the prospect of another Trump presidency. The journal
Speaker 2: cites numerous European politicians who are aghast at two prospects,
Speaker 2: one that Trump would slap them with tariff should he
Speaker 2: become president again, and at the idea they would actually
Speaker 2: have to pay Ukraine's bills.
Speaker 3: If he won. This quote, in particular hit home to me.
Speaker 2: Quote French officials have been warning European allies the possibility
Speaker 2: of a Trump return requires the continent to significantly expand
Speaker 2: arms production, from artillery to missile defense systems so that
Speaker 2: it can supply Ukraine on its own.
Speaker 3: Did you hear correctly.
Speaker 2: The Europeans are worried they may actually have to pay
Speaker 2: the bills for the war that most affects them. And remember, Germany,
Speaker 2: the largest power on the continent and literally has a
Speaker 2: massive land war raging next door, still refuses to even
Speaker 2: commit itself to the necessary minimum of two percent to
Speaker 2: maintain NATO Alliance membership in good standing. That is what
Speaker 2: type of freeloaders that these people are. It says more
Speaker 2: about Biden that he lets them get away with it.
Speaker 2: It is clear that a Trump victory at this point,
Speaker 2: maybe even regardless of policy, would dramatically change the way
Speaker 2: Europe approaches Ukraine conflict and realign our priorities. But what
Speaker 2: really has Europe's attention right now? It's not just Ukraine.
Speaker 2: It's a little noticed policy proposal in our press that
Speaker 2: has been widening eyes across the world. Trump is increasingly
Speaker 2: coming around to the idea of a ten percent quote
Speaker 2: universal baseline tariff on all imports to the United States.
Speaker 2: Idea is to create a quote ring around the US economy,
Speaker 2: and behind the tariff, of course, is to try and
Speaker 2: lower the cost of US produced goods and give an
Speaker 2: advantage to US based businesses selling domestically.
Speaker 3: This lit a fire across the pond.
Speaker 2: European countries heavily are dependent on US based exports are
Speaker 2: freaking out at the Trump return. Recall, Biden agreed to
Speaker 2: roll back some of the major Trump tariffs on European
Speaker 2: based steel and aluminum, which garnered more complaint from them
Speaker 2: than any single policy that Trump ever enacted. Europeans since
Speaker 2: have even been smarting since the Trump imposed those tariffs
Speaker 2: before COVID, and have been continued to be upset after
Speaker 2: Biden imposed modest Made in America provisions into the Inflation
Speaker 2: Reduction Act for the electric vehicle supply chain. The Trump
Speaker 2: proposal reveals the limits of so called Biden's commitment to
Speaker 2: some America first trade policy. The White House blasted the
Speaker 2: Trump ten percent tariff, saying, quote, combining a sweeping tariff
Speaker 2: tax on the middle class with more trick down welfare
Speaker 2: for the rich special interests would stifle economic growth and
Speaker 2: fuel inflation. The irony is that the Biden Whitehouse is
Speaker 2: using the same talking points that would apply to their
Speaker 2: own tariffs in place right now against China. The whole
Speaker 2: point is that buying this agenda, the neoliberal agenda around
Speaker 2: cheap goods as the end all be all is exactly
Speaker 2: the philosophy that landed us in a place where we
Speaker 2: can't make a namb thing to save our own lives.
Speaker 2: The reason that we even have high inflation is because
Speaker 2: the cost of goods was raised dramatically on us by
Speaker 2: supply chain disruptions from around the world.
Speaker 3: We have no choice but to pay for it.
Speaker 2: If we had it here already, maybe we would have
Speaker 2: paid a little bit more in the past, but not
Speaker 2: even close to as much as we did after COVID,
Speaker 2: not to mention all of the hard heartache and the
Speaker 2: pain and the suffering that losing our industrial middle class
Speaker 2: did to millions of people around the globe. There is
Speaker 2: plenty to criticize Trumbon if you ask me, mostly that
Speaker 2: if he didn't actually do anything that he said he
Speaker 2: was going to do.
Speaker 3: But he was right about America's foolish.
Speaker 2: Relationship with Europe, and he was absolutely right to declare
Speaker 2: a trade war against America's supposed partners, which are taking
Speaker 2: us to the cleaners. Much of this comes back to
Speaker 2: a major moment from the GOP debate that I still
Speaker 2: can't really get out of my head. That was the
Speaker 2: battle between Mike Pence and vivek Ramaswamick.
Speaker 12: If we do the giveaway that you want to give
Speaker 12: to Putin, to give him his land, it's not going
Speaker 12: to be too long for he rolls across a NATO border,
Speaker 12: and frankly, our men and women of our armed forces
Speaker 12: are going to have to go and fight him. I
Speaker 12: want to let the Ukrainians fight and drive and the
Speaker 12: Russians back out.
Speaker 3: President Pense, I have a new flash.
Speaker 11: The USSR does not exist anymore.
Speaker 3: It fell back in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2: More than anything was the real clash, the new versus
Speaker 2: the old. Is America a nation in decline that needs
Speaker 2: to be saved and needs to husband its resources to
Speaker 2: secure his future? Or are we a country with such
Speaker 2: abundance and such petty considerations they don't matter to us.
Speaker 3: To me, the answer is obvious. It's the former.
Speaker 2: It's why Trump was right he declared American carnage twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: It's also why the rest of the world hates that
Speaker 2: vision that he brought so much. Setting up America up
Speaker 2: for success is directly bad for them because their success
Speaker 2: has come at our expense.
Speaker 3: I'm curious what you make of the ten percent.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Cygre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Crystal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: For my entire life? The story of the working class
Speaker 1: has been one of betrayal and loss, stagnant wages, vanishing benefits,
Speaker 1: rise of the gig economy, decline of unions, and so
Speaker 1: it has been astonishing to watch a potential turning of
Speaker 1: that tide. Nowhere is that shift is evident, as in
Speaker 1: the fight that workers at the Big three automakers organized
Speaker 1: by the UAW are waging right now. Ninety seven percent
Speaker 1: of those workers just voted to authorize a strike which could,
Speaker 1: if contract negotiations fail, kick off in just a few weeks.
Speaker 1: This comes, of course, on the heels of UPS workers
Speaker 1: securing some real wins in a contract that includes one
Speaker 1: hundred more than seventy thousand dollars in wages and benefits
Speaker 1: for full time workers, a number that is decent enough
Speaker 1: to spark a whole wave of upper class anxiety and
Speaker 1: resentment around the notion that package carriers might actually be
Speaker 1: able to afford to live. But the wins in the
Speaker 1: UPS contract they pale in comparison to the demands which
Speaker 1: are being made right now by the United Auto Workers.
Speaker 1: These workers remember bail downt the bosses back in the
Speaker 1: financial crash, and have watched as the automakers have returned
Speaker 1: to astronomical profitability, happily handing out goodies to shareholders, but
Speaker 1: never cutting their workers in on their company's success. And
Speaker 1: so workers have had enough. They're asking now for a
Speaker 1: forty six percent wagetyke to match the pay increase of
Speaker 1: top executives. They're asking for job guarantees in the event
Speaker 1: of plant closures, and they're asking for a return to
Speaker 1: real pensions. But in one of their boldest demands, they
Speaker 1: are also asking for a four day, thirty two hour
Speaker 1: work week. Take a listen to uaw's new national President,
Speaker 1: Sean Fain explain exactly why.
Speaker 13: I've been talking a lot, you know, about a thirty
Speaker 13: two hour work week, forty hour work week for thirty
Speaker 13: two hours that we work forty hours pay. And it's
Speaker 13: been wild to us, the talking heads on television to
Speaker 13: continue to have a meltdown over this discussion. You know,
Speaker 13: right now Stilantis has put its plants on critical status,
Speaker 13: forcing our members to work. Seventh important as the families
Speaker 13: of company executives. Isn't our own health just as valuable
Speaker 13: as that of the talking heads on television? No uaw family,
Speaker 13: our demands, and our fight are about more than just us.
Speaker 13: They're about the double standards in our society. Company executives
Speaker 13: to get to work remotely while the working class is
Speaker 13: forced to risk our health at work. They can live
Speaker 13: a life of luxury at their second multi million dollar
Speaker 13: mansion in Acapulco, while the rest of us are scraping
Speaker 13: to get by at jobs that don't provide a pension.
Speaker 1: Fain makes what is a really key point there. White
Speaker 1: color workers have benefited from increased work flexibility through hybrid
Speaker 1: remote work schedules post pandemic. Writing day work week into
Speaker 1: the Big three contract could help secure better flexibility and
Speaker 1: work life balance for blue collar workers as well. Now
Speaker 1: you might think this sounds like a fantasy, but there
Speaker 1: are actually some real signs that the four day work
Speaker 1: week's moment might have arrived. Recent pilot program out of
Speaker 1: the UK was so wildly successful that all but three
Speaker 1: of the companies that participated said they are going to
Speaker 1: stick with the new shortened schedule. Workers of course, absolutely
Speaker 1: loved it and said that their sleep, mental health, stress levels,
Speaker 1: and personal lives all improved as a result of those
Speaker 1: new schedules. Bosses found that workers were way more productive
Speaker 1: and actually able to accomplish the same amount even given
Speaker 1: the shorter hours. Revenue at those participants participating companies was
Speaker 1: unchanged and even went up from a comparable period in
Speaker 1: the prior year, and unsurprisingly, workers wanted to stay in
Speaker 1: their jobs, leading to a major decline in employee resignations.
Speaker 1: Fifteen percent of the participants actually said there was literally
Speaker 1: no amount of money that could induce them to go
Speaker 1: back to five days of work per week. Now Here
Speaker 1: in the US, a Democratic lawmaker just proposed a four
Speaker 1: day work week in the state of Pennsylvania, which would
Speaker 1: apply to companies with over five hundred people. That legislation
Speaker 1: was set the work week at thirty two hours, but
Speaker 1: require companies to keep overall pay the same so that
Speaker 1: workers are not losing out as they move to fewer hours.
Speaker 1: The moment also fits perfectly with a post pandemic attitude
Speaker 1: shift that has led millions to rethink their work obsession
Speaker 1: and shift their priorities away from the grind and towards
Speaker 1: their personal lives. We have tracked all of this here
Speaker 1: really closely. The migrations in search of better quality of life,
Speaker 1: the mass adoption of hybrid work schedules for office workers,
Speaker 1: the rise of some cultural phenomenon like the anti work subreddit,
Speaker 1: the wave of post COVID resignations that saw workers hopping
Speaker 1: jobs and industries like never before. And in a sign
Speaker 1: of those rebalanced priorities, research just came out showing that
Speaker 1: workers quote connection to companies' missions just hit a record low.
Speaker 1: Now Axius of course frames this as a negative, but
Speaker 1: personally I see it as extremely howal Why should workers
Speaker 1: devote themselves to a company mission that likely has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with them, for companies that have zero loyalty
Speaker 1: to them. In another sign of the four day work
Speaker 1: week being an idea that time has come, polling shows
Speaker 1: it is insanely popular with basically everyone. Eighty seven percent
Speaker 1: of workers are interested in four day work week. Highest
Speaker 1: support comes from millennials and ninety three percent. But support
Speaker 1: for the idea was extremely high, over seventy percent among
Speaker 1: workers of every single generation. So for any cynical politicians
Speaker 1: out there, please take note. Voters will love you if
Speaker 1: you champion this cause, it's worth remembering too that the
Speaker 1: forty hour work week had to be invented and had
Speaker 1: to be fought for, and actually the auto industry was
Speaker 1: central to that reform as well. Henry Ford was one
Speaker 1: of the first employers to institute a forty hour work week,
Speaker 1: along with pay that was high at the time, under
Speaker 1: the theory that a large middle class was needed in
Speaker 1: order to buy his product. In the same era, pressure
Speaker 1: from workers and unions helped codify the forty hour work
Speaker 1: week at the national level through legislation signed by FDR.
Speaker 1: Often forgotten, too, is the fact that the movement for
Speaker 1: a shorter work week had even more audacious goals. In
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty three, a bill to shorten the work week
Speaker 1: to thirty hours sailed through the United States Senate. Labor
Speaker 1: groups backed it. FDR initially backed it as well, before
Speaker 1: buckling to pressure for manufacturing concerns. The forty hour week
Speaker 1: workweek was actually the compromise position after that initial Boulder
Speaker 1: effort was killed in the House of Representatives. Nearly a
Speaker 1: century later, white collar and blue collar workers alike are
Speaker 1: picking up where reformers and labor activists left off. Nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred years ago. After all, what could be more
Speaker 1: essential to human thriving and to realization of freedom than
Speaker 1: control over one's own time. What could be more beneficial
Speaker 1: to families and to communities than actually having time to
Speaker 1: give to loved ones and civic participation time that is
Speaker 1: not inexhausted, distracted afterthought, for decades, Americans have been brainwashed
Speaker 1: into believing their only worth is as workers and as consumers.
Speaker 1: Experience of COVID, whether you're forced into a remote work
Speaker 1: that triggered a life of reassessment, or whether you were
Speaker 1: deemed essential and then discovered your employer was literally willing
Speaker 1: to kill you for profit, that experience has broken decades
Speaker 1: of work obsess programming, and so in this new reality,
Speaker 1: the uaw's four day workweek demand makes all the sense
Speaker 1: in the world, because we are all more than our
Speaker 1: jobs and Sager, one of the key points that I
Speaker 1: thought was.
Speaker 2: So chech and if you want to hear my reaction
Speaker 2: to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot com.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Continue if you can to be able to help us
Speaker 2: out as we build up for the focus groups for
Speaker 2: the polling. We have a lot of big improvements that
Speaker 2: are coming here. We got a great counterpoint show for
Speaker 2: everybody tomorrow. Otherwise we will see you all on Thursday.