Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this
Speaker 2: election and we are so excited about what that means
Speaker 2: for the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
Speaker 3: show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do so.
Speaker 2: Trump met with Emmanuel matcrone of France yesterday. Lots of
Speaker 2: news made on Ukraine, so we will break all of
Speaker 2: that down for you. We also have the very latest
Speaker 2: in the wars between Elon and the agency heads and
Speaker 2: OPM and Trump and whatever with regard to this Doge
Speaker 2: five bullet email, so lots of developments there will break
Speaker 2: that down for you. We also have Apple making a
Speaker 2: big economic announcement. Is it real though, because there are
Speaker 2: some other counter indicators, I would say, and with regard
Speaker 2: to the economy with the Apple specifically, a lot of
Speaker 2: developments with regard to Israel that we wanted to get to,
Speaker 2: including they appear to be annexing a significant part of Syria.
Speaker 4: So that's the thing that is just happening now.
Speaker 2: Also, tanks rolling through the occupied West Bank, so a
Speaker 2: lot of folks on there. Huge shake up at MSNBC.
Speaker 2: Joy Read is out, Amon is getting moved, Jensaki is in,
Speaker 2: just a lot of shifting of that lineup. And actually,
Speaker 2: notably she almost never does this, but Rachel Maddow directly
Speaker 2: criticizing the network there, specifically with regard to the cancelation
Speaker 2: of Joy Reid Show. So I'll write that down for
Speaker 2: you what it says about that network and where they're
Speaker 2: heading in the Trump era. And I'm taking a look
Speaker 2: at this is an astonishing story. So West Virginia experience
Speaker 2: these horrific historic floods, devastating, two thousand houses destroyed, three
Speaker 2: people lost their lives, etc. They've been begging Trump for
Speaker 2: an emergency declaration. Still as of today, they haven't gotten it,
Speaker 2: which means zero federal help on the ground in West Virginia.
Speaker 2: And these are some of the poorest counties in the country.
Speaker 2: These are also some of the most Trump supporting counties
Speaker 2: in the entire country there. So I'm going to take
Speaker 2: a look at what is going on there, which I
Speaker 2: still have a lot of questions about, to be frank with.
Speaker 3: You, Yeah, I'm very curious. I wasn't even aware of
Speaker 3: the situation. So I'm excited to hear that monologue. Thanks
Speaker 3: to all of our prem subscribers for supporting the show.
Speaker 3: But let's get into it with Ukraine. So there's been
Speaker 3: some significant developments here. As you said, President Trump meeting
Speaker 3: yesterday in the Oval Office at the White House with
Speaker 3: Emmanuel Macrone. Manuel Macrone's real mission was to come here
Speaker 3: and basically to sell Trump on stopping whatever he is doing.
Speaker 3: But it does not look like that will be successful.
Speaker 3: Here's a little bit of Donald Trump and the Oval
Speaker 3: describing this quote unquote minerals agreement which we're going to
Speaker 3: return to in a little bit that he wants to
Speaker 3: sign with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: It looks like we're getting very close. The deal's being
Speaker 5: worked on. I think getting very close to getting an
Speaker 5: agreement where where we get our money back over a
Speaker 5: period of time, but it also gives us something where
Speaker 5: I think it's very beneficial to their economy, to them
Speaker 5: as a country. But you know, we're in for three
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty billion dollars. How we got there, I
Speaker 5: don't know. But that's a lot of money, a lot
Speaker 5: of money invested, and we had nothing, nothing to show
Speaker 5: for it. And it was the Biden administration's fault. The
Speaker 5: Europeans are in for about one hundred billion dollars and
Speaker 5: they do it as a form, in the form of
Speaker 5: a loan. And the Europeans have been great on this issue.
Speaker 5: They understood it wasn't fair and we were able to
Speaker 5: work something out.
Speaker 3: So that is the description of the quote unquote Minerals Agreement.
Speaker 3: But all of this is all coming back to Big
Speaker 3: War between the Europeans and between Donald Trump in terms
Speaker 3: of wanting to sign this peace deal with Russia over Ukraine.
Speaker 1: The Ukraine Minerals Agreement is kind of secondary to.
Speaker 3: The overall peace deal, the Big The Big Peace Deal
Speaker 3: is basically negotiations with the Russians, which is currently Secretary
Speaker 3: of State and the Secret State and Steve Wikoff have
Speaker 3: been engaged in to return what it appears to be
Speaker 3: is to the Istanbul framework of April of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: So it is interesting because obviously the Europeans are freaking
Speaker 3: out about that. They do not want to be on
Speaker 3: the hook for their thirty thousand peacekeepers. They're saying, even
Speaker 3: if we did that America, you guys still have to
Speaker 3: pay for it, all of the intelligence, and there's a
Speaker 3: big war and a feeling of abandonment on the continent.
Speaker 3: It fits very well with the Germany story that we
Speaker 3: did yesterday, the new Chancellor of Germany saying that we
Speaker 3: will have to try and have independence from the United States,
Speaker 3: which is the logical endpoint of a lot of geopolitical
Speaker 3: forces over the last decades or so.
Speaker 2: I mean, it also goes with that, like some of
Speaker 2: the numbers and stuff. He just completely makes up the
Speaker 2: three and fifty billion number, the comparison with Europe. Macron
Speaker 2: actually jumps in, I think we have that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we have it, and it's like let's go and play.
Speaker 4: He actually jumps in.
Speaker 2: He's like, well something, you know, it wasn't all just loans,
Speaker 2: like we actually some of that was hard money.
Speaker 1: As well.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that moment.
Speaker 3: We'll grant to.
Speaker 6: Support the usbe I support the idea to have Ukraine
Speaker 6: first being compensated because they are the one to have
Speaker 6: lose a lot of the fellow citizen and being destroyed
Speaker 6: by this attack. Second, all of those who paid for
Speaker 6: could be compensated, but not by Ukraine, by Russia because
Speaker 6: they was the one to aggress.
Speaker 5: Again, so you understaid, just say you understand Europe is
Speaker 5: loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back now.
Speaker 6: In fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid sixty
Speaker 6: percent of the totally faults and it was through I
Speaker 6: like the US loans guarantee grants, and we provided real money.
Speaker 6: To be clear, we have two hundred and thirty billion
Speaker 6: frozen assets in Europe Russian assets. But this is not
Speaker 6: as a collateral of a loan because this is not
Speaker 6: all belonging. So they are frozen. If at the end
Speaker 6: of the day the negotiation we will have with Russia,
Speaker 6: they're ready to give it to us, super it will
Speaker 6: be loan at the end of the day and Russia
Speaker 6: will have paid for that.
Speaker 5: If you believe that, it's okay with me, but they
Speaker 5: get their money back and we don't, and now we do.
Speaker 5: But you know that's.
Speaker 6: Only fare close to her.
Speaker 2: Very weird interpersonal dynamics between these two as well, very
Speaker 2: like touchy, a lot of sort of like alpha male
Speaker 2: positioning and jockeying there or whatever. But you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: I have a lot of feelings about this, and number one,
Speaker 2: I just want the war to end. Like the fact
Speaker 2: that we are going back to a framework that was
Speaker 2: originally negotiated at the very in the very early days
Speaker 2: of this war. And frankly, I think Ukraine would be
Speaker 2: very fortunate.
Speaker 4: We would be very fortunate.
Speaker 2: Look if they're able to achieve you know, that agreement
Speaker 2: that was on the table at that point, because if
Speaker 2: you'll recall, and of course we discussed the Synauseum here
Speaker 2: on the show, at that point, Ukraine really did have
Speaker 2: Russia on the back foot. They really had outperformed. There
Speaker 2: really was this coalescing of the US and Europe and
Speaker 2: all these forces behind them. We had just put on
Speaker 2: this massive amount of sanctions, you know, the biggest sanctioned
Speaker 2: regime in history. It was very uncertain how that was
Speaker 2: going to go for Russia, et cetera. So the dynamics
Speaker 2: were a lot more in Ukraine's favor at this point,
Speaker 2: and so when you think about going back to like
Speaker 2: it's just heartbreaking the number of people lives that have
Speaker 2: been lost, the death and destruction, all because and this
Speaker 2: is the part where I get to like the way
Speaker 2: Trump frames this is just like wrong and a lie,
Speaker 2: all because the US wanted to use Ukraine as a
Speaker 2: proxy in this fight against Russia. That's why that peace
Speaker 2: deal wasn't pursued. And so, you know, like I said,
Speaker 2: complicated feel On the one hand, if he's moving towards ending.
Speaker 4: The war, great, I'm on board with that. Let's do it.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, like saying that it's Ukraine's fault
Speaker 2: that the war started, saying we should be reimbursed. No,
Speaker 2: we're the reason why we pushed them to have this
Speaker 2: massive war and devastate their population, devastate the country, etc.
Speaker 2: And you know, of course I'm also disgusted, which is
Speaker 2: like the naked return to colonialism and imperialism where it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, we're going to just make you a you know,
Speaker 2: a client state and extract whatever resources we can out
Speaker 2: of you. And I don't know if you saw this,
Speaker 2: why did I Russia came in. Russia came in and
Speaker 2: was like, oh, we have rare earth minerals too, Like maybe.
Speaker 4: You know, let's let's cut a deal.
Speaker 2: And I'll tell you why why it's bad is because
Speaker 2: I believe that these countries should actually have sovereignty. I
Speaker 2: do actually think that the post World War two order
Speaker 2: in which the norm generally followed around the world in
Speaker 2: which countries small countries are left alone and where it is,
Speaker 2: you know, a breach of international law and you know,
Speaker 2: something to be guarded against when you have large countries
Speaker 2: that are just taking advantage of small countries, Like that's
Speaker 2: why I think that is a bad direction to go in.
Speaker 4: But the other thing is that is.
Speaker 2: Really unclear to me, is Okay, if we strike this
Speaker 2: like raw earth minerals and their ports and their you know,
Speaker 2: oil and gas resources, this across the board fifty percent,
Speaker 2: we're basically taking over your state.
Speaker 1: Deal.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that doesn't get us less entangled in
Speaker 2: that region. That gets us more entangled in that region.
Speaker 2: So I still have a lot of questions about how
Speaker 2: this is all goingting.
Speaker 3: Well, see, this is where I just totally depart from
Speaker 3: this like kind of liberal fantasy view of the world.
Speaker 3: Like not to go all Howard's in, but the idea
Speaker 3: that the post World War two order has protected small
Speaker 3: countries is ridiculous. I mean, if you look again, I
Speaker 3: would borrow some left this commentary. Look, take a look
Speaker 3: at tiny little countries in South America and how independent
Speaker 3: they've been over the last year, seventy five years.
Speaker 1: It's ludicrous. It's all just complete bullshit.
Speaker 4: And so this is this is my issue. Sorry to
Speaker 4: cut you.
Speaker 2: Off, like this is to me the sort of core
Speaker 2: ethos of the Trump administration two point zero, not just
Speaker 2: with regard to foreign affairs, but with regard to domestic
Speaker 2: affairs too. It's like, Okay, well things are bad, and
Speaker 2: like we've been hypocritical, so instead of trying to improve
Speaker 2: those international laws, try instead of trying to actually act
Speaker 2: as you know, moral actors in the world and respect
Speaker 2: territorial sovereignty, have additional cooperation, et cetera. Instead it's like, well,
Speaker 2: things have been bad and we've been hypocritical, so let's
Speaker 2: just make it worse. And it's the same thing with
Speaker 2: regard to you know, the government here, it's like, well,
Speaker 2: government has failed, so let's just strip it down and
Speaker 2: make it so it can't even deliver your social security
Speaker 2: medicare in the things that it actually does well. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I you know, reject this return to just naked colonialism
Speaker 2: and imperialism. And you know, there are a lot of
Speaker 2: ways that you can do. There are multiple ways you
Speaker 2: can do a multipolar world, one of which is to
Speaker 2: actually have respect for smaller countries around the world, actually
Speaker 2: to respect territorial integrity, actually to move in the direction
Speaker 2: of cooperation with large powers. And when Trump says things
Speaker 2: about like hey, let's cut the military fifty percent and
Speaker 2: strike a deal with Russia and China, that would be
Speaker 2: a move in that direction, there is no way in
Speaker 2: hell that I think that is actually what's going to
Speaker 2: play out here whatsoever.
Speaker 4: Instead, I think.
Speaker 2: We're headed much more towards like a new imperialism, a
Speaker 2: new naked like just we're going to take Greenland, We're
Speaker 2: going to take Panama, we're going to take Canada, we're
Speaker 2: going to bomb Mexico, we're going to take Gaza, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And an increase in militarism and defense spending very much
Speaker 2: in line with like you know, the Cold War hostilities
Speaker 2: with the SOVIETI but.
Speaker 1: This is the thing.
Speaker 3: We don't have a choice, and all countries in the
Speaker 3: international system will do what's in their best interest. It's
Speaker 3: just again like a literal liberal fantasy of the nineteen
Speaker 3: sixties that we could create some grand peace architecture when
Speaker 3: the United States and the great.
Speaker 1: Powers will always rule the world.
Speaker 3: We're going to get to this to the United Nations,
Speaker 3: and just again to show you there's no such thing
Speaker 3: as international law. There is no such thing as a
Speaker 3: UN General Assembly. No one gives a shit what Montenegro thinks,
Speaker 3: nor should we all of all. The international system of
Speaker 3: all time, multipolarity, bipolarity, unipolarity has always come down to
Speaker 3: the say of the great powers. It is built into
Speaker 3: the United Nations that the p five powers have absolute
Speaker 3: authority to veto anything. It's actually implicit in the international
Speaker 3: system that the great victors of World War two will
Speaker 3: decide the new fate. And so this idea also that
Speaker 3: we shouldn't have Ukraine pay us back.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, you're not wrong.
Speaker 2: That faults well like we should be paid, to be
Speaker 2: honest with you're the death and destruction.
Speaker 4: That you know led them into.
Speaker 3: Well again, that's just again, in my opinion, kind of
Speaker 3: a ridiculous notion. If you are going to expend one
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollars plus into building this country and ensuring
Speaker 3: its territorial integrity, the idea that we should not reap
Speaker 3: the rewards and the benefits of it is insane. I mean,
Speaker 3: go back to the Marshal. No, No, because this is
Speaker 3: the architecture of the post World War two era.
Speaker 2: The Marshal, these tensions that led to NATO's expansion, that pushed,
Speaker 2: you know, this direction for Ukraine, like we've used them
Speaker 2: as our toy.
Speaker 3: Yes, but they all know that, of course, but that's
Speaker 3: also what they want, right, is a willing participant pay.
Speaker 2: Back when we're a key component, not that Zelenski doesn't
Speaker 2: have an agency whatever, but we are a key reason why
Speaker 2: this country has been at war, why Russia invaded this
Speaker 2: but we are far more responsible for.
Speaker 4: That than Ukraine is.
Speaker 2: So you know, again, I want the war to end,
Speaker 2: but I cannot just city and brook this complete inversion
Speaker 2: of reality in which is Ukraine's fault that they got
Speaker 2: invaded by Russia and they somehow owe us something when
Speaker 2: we're the whole reason why this war wasn't settled years ago.
Speaker 4: In that is Stanbul.
Speaker 3: It's not just US, it's also the UK which always
Speaker 3: needs to get out in that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it was mostly US. I don't agree.
Speaker 1: That's why I think Biden is terrible. It was an
Speaker 1: awful president.
Speaker 3: But again, if we return to this idea, do you
Speaker 3: think we did the Marshall Plan out of the goodness
Speaker 3: of our heart?
Speaker 1: Or did we do it to prop up a.
Speaker 3: Democratic europe democratic you know, small d to do what
Speaker 3: so that we could, you know, have a nice, big,
Speaker 3: old marketplace over there. We don't do anything out of
Speaker 3: the goodness of our heart, nor should we. It's a
Speaker 3: stupid idea. That's not how countries conduct relations with others.
Speaker 3: If we have now expended over one hundred plus billion dollars,
Speaker 3: the United States has depleted its stockpiles and more, that
Speaker 3: we should just say, oh, you know, deal's done. No,
Speaker 3: if we're going to ensure your territorial integrity or do
Speaker 3: this piece deal with Russia, we're going to get something
Speaker 3: out of it. Whether Ukraine exists has absolutely no import
Speaker 3: to the United States whatsoever. The only thing that if
Speaker 3: we're going to get something out of this should of
Speaker 3: course be to the economic benefit of the United States consumer,
Speaker 3: which again is the backbone of the US liberal world order.
Speaker 3: I know people don't like when I talk like this.
Speaker 3: It's the truth, all right. The other people who are
Speaker 3: telling you about democracy and oh NATO, it's all bs
Speaker 3: completely What Latvia matters so much to America?
Speaker 1: No, it's ludicrous.
Speaker 3: I mean, these countries are both in the traditional Russian
Speaker 3: sphere of influence, as you said, with the NATO encroachment
Speaker 3: on Russian borders and more. The entire idea behind it
Speaker 3: is a US and European basically market system which we
Speaker 3: use our military power to protect to the benefit of
Speaker 3: our consumers, of our companies, and of the European companies
Speaker 3: as well. Let's all just be honest about it. And
Speaker 3: that's where I have to return to. Where when we
Speaker 3: look at the way that the Ukrainians are complicit in
Speaker 3: this is that they have wanted since that push for
Speaker 3: more militarism, for more war. They want to basically, you know,
Speaker 3: you know, take all all of our stockpiles.
Speaker 1: They want to increase their war with Rush.
Speaker 3: Their plan from the very beginning is what is to
Speaker 3: draw the United States in. Whatever they're doing is definitely
Speaker 3: bad for American security interests. And so while yes, I
Speaker 3: won't let Biden or Boris Johnson off the hook. The
Speaker 3: Ukrainians also are, especially the Ukrainian government has tied itself
Speaker 3: legally to this framework where they're not allowed to have elections,
Speaker 3: even though we're protecting democracy. They're not allowed to even
Speaker 3: negotiate on any territorial integrity.
Speaker 1: According to their own laws.
Speaker 3: Like they have locked themselves in to this paradigm, and
Speaker 3: that's where they have agency, and we also can reset
Speaker 3: the paradigm of how we conduct relations between states. The
Speaker 3: ideal foreign policy that I would ever want is exactly this.
Speaker 3: Right now, we're meeting with Russia Ukraine. You're not even there.
Speaker 3: You know why, because it's not about you. That's the
Speaker 3: whole What.
Speaker 4: Happened in them having agency, what happened to it being.
Speaker 3: Their fault They can do whatever they want inside their
Speaker 3: country soccer? When is that an the pro level we
Speaker 3: will decide what's.
Speaker 2: That's my point is that it's not their fault that
Speaker 2: we wanted to drag this war out for years.
Speaker 4: We were the ones who.
Speaker 1: Were driving that trade.
Speaker 4: It were the reason.
Speaker 2: Why in twenty twenty two in Istanbul, we went in
Speaker 2: and said no, we don't want this peace process to continue.
Speaker 2: It wasn't because of Ukraine. They were at the table negotiating.
Speaker 2: We covered those negotiations. Okay, they have desires and agency,
Speaker 2: and of course, if they're going to be invaded by
Speaker 2: this nuclear superpower, they want whoever can have their back
Speaker 2: to have their back. But we are the reason why
Speaker 2: this has been dragged out for years, and the fact
Speaker 2: that you have an election, have new president doesn't wipe
Speaker 2: that slate clean and now means somehow that they owe us.
Speaker 4: No, they don't we owe them.
Speaker 2: That's the truth of the matter if you're actually looking
Speaker 2: at things from an equitable perspective, because we are the
Speaker 2: primary reason that they have lost hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 2: lives and their country has been decimated because we wanted
Speaker 2: to use them as a plaything in our geopolitical ambitions.
Speaker 2: That's the truth of the matter. And so this idea
Speaker 2: that it's Ukraine's that Russia invaded them, I think is
Speaker 2: a discussing why it's bullshit.
Speaker 4: It's complete inversion of reality.
Speaker 2: And also, you know, to frame Zelenski, Trump gets asked
Speaker 2: another point here he had no problem calling Zelenski a
Speaker 2: quote unquote dictator, even though he was democratically elected, And yes,
Speaker 2: I agree with you they should have elections, although I'm
Speaker 2: also sympathetic to the argument they make that, like, hey,
Speaker 2: it's kind of hard to have elections when you've got
Speaker 2: millions of people who have fled the country and people
Speaker 2: who are displaced, and parts of the country that were
Speaker 2: not even sure whether they're US or Russia at this point.
Speaker 2: But yes, they should have elections. But he was not
Speaker 2: willing to say Putin was a dictator, but he's perfectly
Speaker 2: comfortable saying Zelenski's a dictator. So again, listen, I want
Speaker 2: this war to end, but I also we have to
Speaker 2: exist in some sort of reality based framework here, and
Speaker 2: he has completely inverted what actually happened in this war
Speaker 2: and the entire trajectory.
Speaker 3: A look again to return. Now, is Putin a dictator?
Speaker 3: I can say that, yes. Do you know why it's
Speaker 3: a bad idea, for example, for the president of the
Speaker 3: United States to call a Russian nuclear superpower of leader
Speaker 3: of that country a dictator or a war criminal? I
Speaker 3: dare say, like maybe Joe Biden is because we have
Speaker 3: to conduct relations with these great powers. Now, is Russia
Speaker 3: like a pre eminent superpower? No, but it's a nuclear
Speaker 3: arm power, and it's military has already you know, dramatically
Speaker 3: increased its power and its size to the point where
Speaker 3: even the so called great powers of Europe are unable,
Speaker 3: by their own admission, to even keep up with them
Speaker 3: from a war production level. In general, it's a good
Speaker 3: idea to just make sure that things are unbalance. That's
Speaker 3: really what pisses people off is and this is what
Speaker 3: I just don't get. People would really liberals really would
Speaker 3: rather live in a world where we vote correctly in
Speaker 3: the un GA and don't call Zelensky a dictator than
Speaker 3: to have peace piece.
Speaker 4: Is all the dictator.
Speaker 1: He is irrelevant, that's but.
Speaker 4: It's also just a lie.
Speaker 2: And so that's why because I care, because having reality
Speaker 2: and like factual accuracy is something that I think we
Speaker 2: should all care about. I mean, you know, to turn Ukraine,
Speaker 2: which was truly a victim of the circumstance into like
Speaker 2: they're the aggressor, and to say that, oh, Russia, you know,
Speaker 2: it's not Russia's fault that they invaded this country, Like
Speaker 2: it's number one Russia's fault.
Speaker 4: It's number two our fault.
Speaker 2: And it has really very little to do with being
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian's fault and no, so no, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to just sit by and say like it's fine to
Speaker 2: just make up this preposterous, upside down worldview. And I
Speaker 2: don't even see how that actually helps in these negotiations either,
Speaker 2: because your goal in the negotiations, since Russia was the aggressor,
Speaker 2: and you don't want to have countries just willingly taking
Speaker 2: over other countries because that leads to more war and
Speaker 2: more death and more destruction and more devastation and us
Speaker 2: getting entangled more places. By the way, what you would
Speaker 2: ideally want is the best possible deal you can achieve
Speaker 2: at this point on the Ukrainian side, to me, going
Speaker 2: into this calling Zelenski dictator, throwing him under the bus
Speaker 2: signally you you know, aren't going to call putin a dictator,
Speaker 2: that you're going to side with them even in their
Speaker 2: preposterous narrative of how this war unfold and somehow make
Speaker 2: it about like Ukrainian aggression is insane and completely gives
Speaker 2: up any leverage you had to try to secure the
Speaker 2: best deal you can for Ukraine, which would be the
Speaker 2: most justice here.
Speaker 3: That's the presumption that you made there is incorrect. Is
Speaker 3: that why should we care about securing the best deal
Speaker 3: for Ukraine. That's Ukraine's problem. We should secure the best
Speaker 3: deal for us, and that is exactly how countries should
Speaker 3: conduct international relations. Ukraine's job is to push for its
Speaker 3: own interests. Congratulations to you. I actually think they've done
Speaker 3: a pretty good job. I mean they've got to save
Speaker 3: eighty percent of their country twenty percent of their countries
Speaker 3: controlled by Russia.
Speaker 1: They literally get to live and exist. That's your victory.
Speaker 3: They refuse to acknowledge that victory when you're up against
Speaker 3: a nuclear arm power. Our job is to do what
Speaker 3: is best for us and for our quote unquote allies. Ukraine,
Speaker 3: you know what kind of allies this is currently always
Speaker 3: asking us for money into broil our nuclear arsenal on
Speaker 3: their side, to give them NATO umbrella Like this is
Speaker 3: not something that is beneficial to us whatsoever. Not to
Speaker 3: mention how much money we have all paid in extra
Speaker 3: gas because of these Russian sanctions. To return to that
Speaker 3: Spring twenty twenty two framework. Steve Witkoff, who is Trump's friend,
Speaker 3: Envoy Envoy extraordinaire from Israel Gaza now involved in this
Speaker 3: as now talking specifically about the istan Bul Framework as
Speaker 3: one that he would like to see in the deal.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: They are responsive to an end to this. They were
Speaker 7: very very what i'll call kojint and substantive negotiations framed
Speaker 7: in something that's called the istan Bul Protocol agreement. We
Speaker 7: came very very close to signing something, and I think
Speaker 7: we'll be using that framework as a guidepost to get
Speaker 7: a piece deal done between Ukraine and Russia, and I
Speaker 7: think that will be an amazing day.
Speaker 3: So the Istanbul Framework or Spring of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: which you previously mentioned, that is important because that's the
Speaker 3: deal that was on the table of which Boris Johnson
Speaker 3: basically went over to the Kiev on behalf of Joe
Speaker 3: Biden was like, yeah, I don't do this. Actually, we're
Speaker 3: going to be behind you this entire time, and it
Speaker 3: leads to this complete quagmire. So I'm not letting Joe
Speaker 3: Biden or Boris Johnson or Mmanuel Maco, any of these
Speaker 3: NATO leaders off the hook. But we are where we
Speaker 3: are right now, So how do we deal with this?
Speaker 3: And so the way that we deal with it is
Speaker 3: end it as soon as possible. It's bad for us,
Speaker 3: it's bad for them. It's bad for the Russians too,
Speaker 3: just in terms of well, actually, let's put it to
Speaker 3: this way.
Speaker 1: Is it good for us to have an isolated Russia.
Speaker 3: With a war economy that is booming war production more.
Speaker 1: Than the United States and NATO combined. That sounds bad.
Speaker 3: So whatever we can do to try and bring that
Speaker 3: temperature down and just make sure that we're not having
Speaker 3: this not only ongoing land war humanitarian disaster, but just
Speaker 3: geopolitical tension rise again over a country which is completely
Speaker 3: irrelevant to the United States. Yeah, I think that's overall
Speaker 3: a good thing. And I mean this is also where
Speaker 3: we have a bit of a binary choice here. We
Speaker 3: had Joe Biden, Kamala Harrison, all of them who genuinely
Speaker 3: did not want peace in Ukraine. They wanted this war
Speaker 3: to go on forever. And then we have whatever the
Speaker 3: hell this is realism with the Trump flavor, the Trump doctrine,
Speaker 3: whatever it is that we can describe it. I'm going
Speaker 3: to choose the latter. I mean, I think the latter
Speaker 3: is far preferable. If the war ends, and especially if
Speaker 3: the US taxpayer or at least US consumers benefited in
Speaker 3: some way.
Speaker 1: That seems to be somewhat.
Speaker 3: More of a net positive and whatever the hell we
Speaker 3: were doing over the last three years, and I think that, honestly,
Speaker 3: I think this will be tremendously popular if it comes
Speaker 3: to fruition. The only I would say counter to all
Speaker 3: of this is the problems that could be sidelined in
Speaker 3: the rare earth minerals deal that you talked about. Let's
Speaker 3: put that on the screen for example. So here we
Speaker 3: have the actual text of the rare Earth Minerals deal
Speaker 3: quote worth hundreds of billions of dollars, under which the
Speaker 3: US would express its desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign,
Speaker 3: and secure. According to this draft, which is obtained by Axios,
Speaker 3: the Ukrainian deal would effectively allow US investment in Ukrainian
Speaker 3: mineral companies with some sort of split guaranteed in the future.
Speaker 3: As you said, the Russians are also saying, hey, we've
Speaker 3: also got a ton of rare earth minerals, which apparently
Speaker 3: on paper is correct. I did not know that in
Speaker 3: terms of what they're rare earth mineral stocks.
Speaker 1: Well, and all of that.
Speaker 2: Ryan was right when he was like, you know, these
Speaker 2: rare earths turn out to not be so rare.
Speaker 1: He's right. Yeah, he's like, they're in Mexico, they're in Chile.
Speaker 3: We actually had Chinese posts here now Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: And I also read that Ukraine is a little bit
Speaker 2: over selling their rare earth situation. But that's why it's
Speaker 2: important to understand some news outlet, I can't remember which
Speaker 2: one got their hands on the deal that was proposed,
Speaker 2: and it was not just rare earth mineral it was
Speaker 2: basically all of Ukraine's economic active, primary economic activity, including
Speaker 2: their ports. They're oil and gas, they're quote unquote rare
Speaker 2: earth minerals, which also, by the way, like which rare
Speaker 2: earths have been important, have shifted over time as well.
Speaker 2: So in any case, yeah, it's I mean, if some
Speaker 2: sort of deal like this actually goes down, then it
Speaker 2: means we are obligated to Ukraine forever, because we're not
Speaker 2: we're going to You don't think we're gonna protect those
Speaker 2: economics and be committed to protect those economics sorts.
Speaker 3: It's a desire to keep Ukraine free, sovereign, insecure. Desire
Speaker 3: is different than the guarantee of their security, which is
Speaker 3: the actual opposite of what we should ever get ourselves into.
Speaker 3: It's nice to have a free and a sovereign and
Speaker 3: secure Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It's nice to.
Speaker 3: Have a lot of things. Honestly, the text of that
Speaker 3: deal is perfect. It's like, yeah, we can express a
Speaker 3: rhetorical desire to have something, but we don't have to
Speaker 3: do anything about it. And that's the problem I have
Speaker 3: with what Zelensky ultimately wants. He wants not only he
Speaker 3: Let's be honest, a lot of the Ukrainian people now,
Speaker 3: they think they belong in NATO, they think they're entitled
Speaker 3: to our security umbrella. To us having to trigger Article
Speaker 3: five on their behalf. Sorry, never gonna happen, Like already,
Speaker 3: not only you been invaded twenty percent of your country.
Speaker 3: They're in terms of the historical spheres of influence and
Speaker 3: in terms of the actual like economic and security benefit
Speaker 3: of adding this gigantic territory to our security umbrella and
Speaker 3: our further interests. I mean, this would only further embroil
Speaker 3: US into the affairs of the continent, which is less
Speaker 3: and less and less important every day to the United
Speaker 3: States economy and to the United States security. So overall,
Speaker 3: the text or whatever of this deal, which is not
Speaker 3: one that secures any need right legally or whatever for
Speaker 3: the US to get involved here while reaping some benefit.
Speaker 1: That's the best you could possibly get.
Speaker 2: But Tigara, why do you think that Zelensky is proposing this.
Speaker 2: It's because he knows if we have significant economic interest
Speaker 2: in the country, then we are going to defend those.
Speaker 1: Then we can make a choice.
Speaker 2: Especially we're talking about you know, this is going to
Speaker 2: be some of Trump's billionaires buddies that propose this, that
Speaker 2: want to get their you know, their claws into the
Speaker 2: Ukraine economy, et cetera. And so that's the whole reason
Speaker 2: why Zelenski is open to this is because he sees
Speaker 2: that as a way of guaranteeing that we stay embrailed
Speaker 2: in this in this country, that we keep these interests
Speaker 2: there and that we will defend them if they are
Speaker 2: encouraged upon. He sees it as being sort of like
Speaker 2: a security guarantee.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't disagree, but the thing is that then
Speaker 3: actually prove it, you know, become important to us.
Speaker 1: If you are, then yeah, maybe we'll defend you.
Speaker 3: But for right now, I mean, if you just looked
Speaker 3: at the bilateral trade we had with Ukraine, we're doing
Speaker 3: four times more trade with Brazil, We're doing four times
Speaker 3: more trade with multiple other countries, then we do with
Speaker 3: Ukraine and Israel, by the way, if we all want
Speaker 3: to talk on those terms. But of course nobody also
Speaker 3: nobody who's pushing this piece deal wants to see anything
Speaker 3: like that. My only point is that as we continue
Speaker 3: to go down this, we are marching towards, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: a good outcome, which is a rejection of this rhetoric
Speaker 3: based international order, because it's not rules based, it's rhetoric based.
Speaker 3: Let's put the next up there, because this affirms that
Speaker 3: the US actually voted against the UN resolution quote condemning
Speaker 3: Russia for the Ukraine War. But this is why, again
Speaker 3: I want to return to the point that the great
Speaker 3: powers rule the world. So there's a lot made of
Speaker 3: this from the pro Ukrainian side, they're like, oh my god,
Speaker 3: ninety three different countries voted in favor of this, eighteen
Speaker 3: against and sixty five abstained. Well, the people who voted
Speaker 3: against it are the US and Russia. China abstained, and
Speaker 3: so did India. So the world's largest population abstained, the
Speaker 3: second world's population abstained.
Speaker 1: Two out of the five p five powers voted against it.
Speaker 3: So whatever, these ninety three other countries say, cool, nice,
Speaker 3: thank you for your words of affirmation.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: And that's my point around international law or the UN
Speaker 3: or any of these other resolutes, complete crap, I mean,
Speaker 3: And this is something where you just have to return
Speaker 3: to the preference, in my opinion from what I can
Speaker 3: see from these liberals, is literally rhetoric as opposed to
Speaker 3: a result.
Speaker 1: And the result is.
Speaker 3: Obvious no matter what, even if it was literal Ukraine vassalage,
Speaker 3: if you wanted a quote, you know, independent Ukraine or
Speaker 3: at least of Russia.
Speaker 1: How is that not preferable?
Speaker 3: Then the continuing ongoing march to death of the entire
Speaker 3: Ukrainian population, it's state, its economy and everything. The idea
Speaker 3: that it was just going to emerge as some you
Speaker 3: know what new Brussels or something is obviously not going
Speaker 3: to happen. And so I don't know, I find there's
Speaker 3: just so much fake idealism, you know, that has been
Speaker 3: baked into this, both right and left by the way,
Speaker 3: that comes into this which is falling apart on its
Speaker 3: own merits, and I think that is a necessary event
Speaker 3: for a more stable international outcome in the future.
Speaker 2: Well, what I will just say is this First of all,
Speaker 2: you know, as I explained before, I don't think the
Speaker 2: answer to us having been hypocritical or you know, things
Speaker 2: being not great in the international order is to just say, so,
Speaker 2: let's just do total like barbarism and my mix right,
Speaker 2: and you know, conquest here and there and everywhere else,
Speaker 2: and more militarism and likely more aggressive like Cold war
Speaker 2: posture towards China, et cetera. I don't think that that
Speaker 2: is the correct direction to go. In number one and
Speaker 2: number two, you can't ignore the fact, like we take
Speaker 2: for granted now that all of these European nations can
Speaker 2: coexist peacefully, that has not been the historical track record.
Speaker 4: And in fact, the.
Speaker 2: Architecture that was set up after World War Two, which
Speaker 2: by the way, was set up to serve our interests primarily,
Speaker 2: but also was quite effective at making sure that there
Speaker 2: were not repeated constant wars on the European continent. In fact,
Speaker 2: the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest land war
Speaker 2: in Europe since World War Two. So it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's not like it didn't accomplish anything. It actually was
Speaker 2: quite successful in that way. And could it have been better?
Speaker 2: Could we have like certainly the Cold War era use
Speaker 2: of all of these smaller countries in proxy wars against
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union and the you know, obsessive like have
Speaker 2: to get rid of any communist regime whatsoever like that
Speaker 2: was the wrong way to approach multipolarity. And frankly, I
Speaker 2: think that's exactly the direction that we are headed back
Speaker 2: in with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I fire that we will see.
Speaker 3: But the point, you know, the reason why that that
Speaker 3: mattered in the past, these European states warring were they
Speaker 3: were the bedrock of the global system and of the
Speaker 3: global economy.
Speaker 1: They're irrelevant today there well, okay, still.
Speaker 4: Matters if they go to war with each other, the
Speaker 4: war with each other.
Speaker 1: That's their problem.
Speaker 3: The only reason why did the United States get involved
Speaker 3: in World War One? Right, It's like, let's all be
Speaker 3: really honest about it. It was about the attacking of
Speaker 3: the Lusitania and about the well that was a pretext,
Speaker 3: and then US getting involved was to basically bigfoot the
Speaker 3: European powers and say no, we're the ones actually who
Speaker 3: are going to be in charge. Why, because we want
Speaker 3: the spoils of the international system After World War two,
Speaker 3: what we become the come pre eminent guaranteur of the
Speaker 3: West and of the rule space international or the Soviets
Speaker 3: get their side of it, which again is about a
Speaker 3: complete division of the world for market based purposes. Europe
Speaker 3: will no longer even be fifty percent of global GDP
Speaker 3: by twenty thirty. Its irrelevance to the global affairs is
Speaker 3: dramatic compared to how it was in one hundred years
Speaker 3: ago or even seventy five years ago.
Speaker 1: So if there's a.
Speaker 3: War between Latvia and Estonia, it doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 2: But Tiger, you're missing one point a little bit, which
Speaker 2: isn't that you know, Europe is the most important region
Speaker 2: on the planet right now or whatever. My point is
Speaker 2: that you dismissed that international architecture that was set up
Speaker 2: after World War Two as being fake and a waste
Speaker 2: of time and not accomplishing anything.
Speaker 1: And that's just not true.
Speaker 4: That's just not true.
Speaker 2: That architecture actually did service for years, even though you know,
Speaker 2: I think again, the way we approach multipolarity with the
Speaker 2: Cold War was deeply destructive and led to that incredibly
Speaker 2: hypocritical approach which ultimately leads to the downfall of all
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 4: But that international architecture that was set up.
Speaker 2: It did its job in terms of preventing wars additional
Speaker 2: wars in Europe. So you know, to say, none of
Speaker 2: this is possible and we can't do any better than
Speaker 2: just barbarism and conquest and taking over whatever countries we
Speaker 2: feel like taking over. I don't think that that is
Speaker 2: the case if you look at the historical record.
Speaker 3: But my point is is that that was an outdated
Speaker 3: model for an outdated market which does not exist anymore.
Speaker 3: The United States is an Asian power, and this one
Speaker 3: where it's destiny for both on a consumer at a
Speaker 3: technological level, will be accomplished there. No, there's not a
Speaker 3: seeringle serious economist who would even dispute that even Obama
Speaker 3: had the whole.
Speaker 1: Quote unquote pivot to Asia. This has been on paper
Speaker 1: on it.
Speaker 3: If you just look at it as a balance sheet
Speaker 3: and take out everybody's nice little vacations to Munich or
Speaker 3: to Italy or whatever, it's obvious. And my point is
Speaker 3: that over committing to this European security and fetishizing it
Speaker 3: as some great, incredible thing, just because we did it
Speaker 3: sixty years ago, we should continue to do it today,
Speaker 3: which is mostly the argument. If you really look at
Speaker 3: it on a merit level. For why we should be
Speaker 3: so supportive of Ukraine is bad for the overall US.
Speaker 1: Interest now I know, the whole barbarism and all that.
Speaker 3: Again, like what you think, other countries don't operate that way,
Speaker 3: Like in a certain sense, there's a Thucidides trap there
Speaker 3: always will be with the way that great powers function
Speaker 3: inside of the system. In a sense, you don't have
Speaker 3: any choice. And beyond that, when we talk about how
Speaker 3: the United States has conducted itself, it has always been
Speaker 3: this way. It's just been rhetorically dressed up. It's not
Speaker 3: just us, all these other countries. Like when China wants to,
Speaker 3: you know, justify its expansion, it does so in the
Speaker 3: same rhetoric, like in criticism of Western rules based international
Speaker 3: or when Russia invades Ukraine, how do they do it?
Speaker 3: They do it in a criticism again, as if they're
Speaker 3: the ones who are being encroached upon. They don't just
Speaker 3: outwardly say we want, you know, oil or whatever, or
Speaker 3: it used to be ours and so thus we deserve it.
Speaker 1: That's basically their argument, which is stupid.
Speaker 3: But that's what it all comes down to, and so
Speaker 3: honesty in the international system Let's say you were talking
Speaker 3: there about Russia and China and the United States, this
Speaker 3: idea of a meeting.
Speaker 1: It will not happen in the rhetoric that you're describing.
Speaker 3: The only way it would happen is to be like,
Speaker 3: all right, let's all be honest here, who needs what?
Speaker 3: How is it going to happen? And you know who
Speaker 3: we borrow this from. This is the great irony. This
Speaker 3: is what the European powers did before World War One.
Speaker 3: They carved up the world because they were the guaranteurs
Speaker 3: of security with the might and the ability to enforce
Speaker 3: those borders, and there actually was a period of some
Speaker 3: relative piece on them.
Speaker 4: Then there was World War One.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, I mean I didn't say every system is perfect,
Speaker 3: but it always breaks down because things change.
Speaker 2: Here's what I would say, and then we can move on,
Speaker 2: which is that when we have pursued what we perceived
Speaker 2: to be in our just total naked self interest. For example,
Speaker 2: when we went into a rock, those things have ended
Speaker 2: up being a disaster.
Speaker 3: Well, I would flip it. I don't scar that was
Speaker 3: for our self interest and that was part of the problem.
Speaker 6: Of course.
Speaker 2: I mean that I think we clearly went into cure
Speaker 2: natural resources, just as we're now talking about being in
Speaker 2: Ukraine forever to secure natural resource, just like we're talking
Speaker 2: about being greenland in Panama, in Gaza to secure our
Speaker 2: own naked self interest. And so what I would say
Speaker 2: is that I don't think that that is number one
Speaker 2: beneficial to America in the long term whatsoever. And number two,
Speaker 2: I certainly don't think it's good for you know, the
Speaker 2: people of those countries who are getting blown up and
Speaker 2: having their societies destroyed.
Speaker 4: And the amount of blowback.
Speaker 2: That we've seen from that hypocritical adventurism where we were
Speaker 2: really nakedly pursuing our self interest, no matter what language
Speaker 2: we know wrapped it around democracy or markets or whatever,
Speaker 2: where we really were just nakedly pursuing our self interest.
Speaker 2: The amount of blowback from that has been utterly catastrophic
Speaker 2: for US. So'suing it more nakedly without an even ear
Speaker 2: of democracy. It doesn't improve the fact that this has
Speaker 2: led us. That is a big part of the decline
Speaker 2: of this country. Is that adventurism, and is that naked
Speaker 2: pursuit of our own self interest which has led to
Speaker 2: massive blowbacks for our own country and created more horror
Speaker 2: more barbarism, more terror, more danger.
Speaker 4: All of that.
Speaker 3: My last word would be I would dispute that the
Speaker 3: Second Iraq War was a war of national interests, and
Speaker 3: that's exactly why it was such a terrible idea. It
Speaker 3: was born of an ideological obsession with nation building, and yes,
Speaker 3: securing the oil was also a great uh.
Speaker 1: It didn't even work out.
Speaker 3: Ironically, the Chinese currently control the oil market out of Iraq.
Speaker 3: But if we look in the past at both Vietnam
Speaker 3: and the Second Iraq War, those were ideological projects, not
Speaker 3: born of national interests. They've basically fused ideology with well,
Speaker 3: it's in the US interest to make sure South Vietnam
Speaker 3: is demanded.
Speaker 2: It sounds so a domino effects later they thought of
Speaker 2: it iry.
Speaker 3: My point is that if you actually had a true
Speaker 3: balance sheet analysis of that, which many realists at the
Speaker 3: time of both Iraq and Vietnam said, you would never
Speaker 3: do it, and actually they would be better off and
Speaker 3: so would we. And so if we pursue things that
Speaker 3: are openly from a position of national interests and don't
Speaker 3: let ourselves get sucked down the trap of democracy or
Speaker 3: human rights or stopping communism, or we have to can't
Speaker 3: let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud, then we
Speaker 3: will be better off overall. This is kind of a
Speaker 3: Kissingerian view of the world, which I agree with one
Speaker 3: hundred percent, and it was one where if we had
Speaker 3: pursued that we'd be richer, we'd be more prosperous.
Speaker 1: Those people will be better off and we would be
Speaker 1: better off.
Speaker 3: So you can read it two different ways, but I
Speaker 3: would read them much more of mistakes of ideology rather
Speaker 3: than of mistakes of natural interests. I would say, when
Speaker 3: the United States works in its national untests, it actually
Speaker 3: works out pretty damn well. And it's when we depart
Speaker 3: from that, like our stupid experiments in Cuba and in
Speaker 3: the Philippines, when we just want to like appear, you know,
Speaker 3: like one of the great powers, or whenever we pursue,
Speaker 3: you know, this land war in Asia against Vietnam, or
Speaker 3: invade Iraq for no purpose literally whatsoever, that's when we
Speaker 3: lose our treasure. That's exactly how the Roman Empire, like
Speaker 3: frustrat as.
Speaker 2: Well, for example, wanting to take over Gaza. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's the problem, that's I know you do.
Speaker 1: We're doing that on behalf of these rayless.
Speaker 2: The problem That's the problem is that the way you
Speaker 2: might calculate that balance sheet as you described it is
Speaker 2: not there's no like universal way to calculate that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's and so you know Trump.
Speaker 2: Is looking at it and his calculation is, Oh, we
Speaker 2: should have fifty percent of Ukraine, which again obligates us
Speaker 2: to Ukraine forever. Oh we should take over Greenland. Oh
Speaker 2: we should take over Panama. Oh we should take over Canada.
Speaker 2: Oh we should bomb Mexico. Oh we should do total
Speaker 2: ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and take that over,
Speaker 2: because that'll be good for our interests. That's That's what
Speaker 2: I'm saying, is that when you are unconstrained by anything
Speaker 2: and it's just purely might makes right, what you're going
Speaker 2: to end up with is a lot of disastrous foreign
Speaker 2: adventurism that both is bad for our country, but also, yes,
Speaker 2: I do care about the fact that you know it
Speaker 2: leads to mass slaughter and devastation and horror for people
Speaker 2: in other countries around the world too, like the Palestinians,
Speaker 2: for example.
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. I understand how you got there.
Speaker 3: I again, I just think and look, you're right in
Speaker 3: terms of the balance sheet many people disagree with me.
Speaker 3: All the Libs in my neighborhood, they will tell you
Speaker 3: Ukraine as a vital national interest and they can express
Speaker 3: their wish at the ballot box, you know, if they will.
Speaker 3: This is just an argument that I made. This view
Speaker 3: is not popular in Washington. It's really not actually all
Speaker 3: that popular in America. Most Americans like to trust up
Speaker 3: you know, you know, their their foreign policy and some
Speaker 3: sort of doing good in the world. It's how we
Speaker 3: basically serve.
Speaker 2: Because humans want to believe that they can make the
Speaker 2: world like that we don't have to accept naked barbarism, colonialism, imperialism,
Speaker 2: that things can be improved. They yes, they have a
Speaker 2: basic belief in the power of human beings to improve civilization.
Speaker 2: And instead what we're seeing is just a return to well,
Speaker 2: actually we're just going to go back to pure resource grabs.
Speaker 2: You know that we feel like doing an adventurism around
Speaker 2: the world wherever we feel like.
Speaker 3: I think the nightmare scenarios if that doing that would
Speaker 3: actually lead to a more stable scenario. Now, of course,
Speaker 3: as I said, the big risk of that is gaza,
Speaker 3: because that is the definition of doing something outside your
Speaker 3: own national interest, and for literally another nation's interest, which
Speaker 3: we will get to later on in the show. So
Speaker 3: why don't we send it there? All right, it's been
Speaker 3: a good discussion.
Speaker 2: Yes, all right, let's move on to the latest of
Speaker 2: whatever the hell is going on with this doje Elon
Speaker 2: email that he sent out and asking for everybody to
Speaker 2: send in their five bullet points, et cetera. So Trump
Speaker 2: yesterday when he was with Emmanuel Macron, got asked about
Speaker 2: the Elon email and whether or not people should respond
Speaker 2: and how he felt about it. He seems in this conversation,
Speaker 2: or really go to bat for Elon and back him up.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 1: People to ignore it.
Speaker 5: But you're learning about the last email that was sent
Speaker 5: where he wanted to know what you did this week?
Speaker 5: You know why he wanted that. By the way, I
Speaker 5: thought it was great because we have people that don't
Speaker 5: show up to work and nobody even knows if they
Speaker 5: work for the government. So by asking the question tell
Speaker 5: us what you did this week, what he's doing is
Speaker 5: saying are you actually working? And then if you don't answer,
Speaker 5: like you're sort of semi fired or you're fired because
Speaker 5: a lot of people are not answering because they don't
Speaker 5: even exist. They're trying to find that's how badly various
Speaker 5: parts of our government were run by it, especially by
Speaker 5: this last group. So what they're doing is they're trying
Speaker 5: to find out who's working for the government. Are we
Speaker 5: paying other people that aren't working?
Speaker 1: And you know, where is all this?
Speaker 5: Where's the money? Gud We have found hundreds of billions
Speaker 5: of dollars of fraud so far, and we've just started.
Speaker 5: Some of the agency heads instructed their employees not to
Speaker 5: respond because they were waiting on further guidance.
Speaker 3: But Elon Musk's tweet said a failure to respond would
Speaker 3: be taken as a resignation.
Speaker 5: So there's been a disconnect in communications.
Speaker 4: Are you concerned all about that?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: No, no, that was done in a friendly manner. Only
Speaker 5: things such as perhaps Marco at State Department where they
Speaker 5: have very confidential things, or the FBI where they're working
Speaker 5: on confidential things. And they don't mean that in any
Speaker 5: way combatively with Elon did just say there are some
Speaker 5: people that you don't want to really have them tell
Speaker 5: you what they're working on last week.
Speaker 2: They don't mean that in any way combative. So he's yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, so number one, he's backing at Elon. Number
Speaker 2: two is trying to downplay what we covered yesterday, which
Speaker 2: is that a bunch of these agency heads really started
Speaker 2: actually by cash Metal, but then the Apartment of Defense
Speaker 2: jumps in Secretary of State Marco Rubiozi reference RFK Junior
Speaker 2: went one way and then went.
Speaker 1: The other way.
Speaker 4: Telsey Gabbert like basically.
Speaker 2: All the agency heads ultimately were like, no to their
Speaker 2: own people, you don't have to reply to this email.
Speaker 2: So Trump's trying to downplay that, but he seems to
Speaker 2: back up Elon there. Then let's put this next piece
Speaker 2: up on the screen. This is great reporting from our
Speaker 2: friend Jeff Stein and co. By the way, Jeff Stein
Speaker 2: got a promotion over the Washington Post. Congratulations to him.
Speaker 2: He's going to be their chief economic correspondent. In any case,
Speaker 2: Trump administration tells agencies they can ignore Musk's order on
Speaker 2: this email reply. The awsome personnel management told HR officials
Speaker 2: that employees would not be let go for not replying
Speaker 2: to an email asking what they did last week. So
Speaker 2: seems to contradict Trump. But this is the you know,
Speaker 2: direction coming from effectively like the HR Department of the
Speaker 2: whole federal government. This is the o PM email that
Speaker 2: came out later in the day that seems to now
Speaker 2: indicate people are supposed to respond to this email. They say,
Speaker 2: to further clarify response to the email sent on Saturday's
Speaker 2: voluntary was strongly encourage once again, you should not transmit
Speaker 2: any confidential or sensitive privilege or investigative information.
Speaker 4: Please send your bullets to this email going forward.
Speaker 2: I've asked the office to operationalize this exercise, so please
Speaker 2: stay tuned for instructions.
Speaker 4: In the future.
Speaker 2: OPM may consider incorporating expectation that employees submit weekly accomplishment
Speaker 2: bullets into its regular weekly reporting structure, because you know,
Speaker 2: having to send in five bullshit bullets every week is
Speaker 2: certainly going to improve government efficiency. Again, thank you for
Speaker 2: your dedication to our agency's mission. So they're saying here
Speaker 2: they're going to operationalize this exercise moving forward. And then
Speaker 2: we've got one other piece here from Elon. He says,
Speaker 2: subject to the discretion of the President, they will be
Speaker 2: given another chance for referring two employees who did not respond.
Speaker 2: Failure to respond a second time will result in termination.
Speaker 4: So anyway kind of indications all over the place.
Speaker 2: Trump backs up Elon, Then the Office Personnel Management says, no,
Speaker 2: you don't have to respond. Elon says you're going to
Speaker 2: have to. You get one more chance. Then OPM comes
Speaker 2: in and says, well, it's not mandatory right now, but
Speaker 2: we're going to operationalize this.
Speaker 4: So that's basically where things are.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have a read now of elon blowback, which
Speaker 3: I was trying to tease out to you yesterday. Is
Speaker 3: boss theory is that the more Elon is seen as
Speaker 3: a dickhead boss as opposed to a visionary entrepreneur, the
Speaker 3: more Americans will turn against him. So the vast majority
Speaker 3: of Americans are not like us. They're not self employed,
Speaker 3: you know, they don't own their own business.
Speaker 1: And that's fine.
Speaker 3: It's a pain in the ass over all for the
Speaker 3: people who want to know what it's like out there.
Speaker 3: They work for W two, or they have a boss
Speaker 3: right or they and or are the boss, having been
Speaker 3: subject to somebody's authority previously. You and I previously have
Speaker 3: worked office job, so you know intimately what it's like
Speaker 3: to have a literal moron trying to performance review you
Speaker 3: or tell you what you can and can't do. Differently
Speaker 3: in some sort of like hr software that rates you
Speaker 3: one out of four. It's both dehumanizing and also incredibly
Speaker 3: stupid at the same time. But the stakes are so
Speaker 3: high because your salary is on the line. And so
Speaker 3: I believe that the more Elon has seen as a
Speaker 3: capricious and an annoying boss over the vast majority of
Speaker 3: over the largest employee in the employer in the United States,
Speaker 3: and the more that people have a connection to that employer,
Speaker 3: there will be more pushback against that. And now part
Speaker 3: of the reason why most Americans had not really cared
Speaker 3: about it previously is you know, at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, the private institutions like Tesla or SpaceX, you
Speaker 3: have a choice of whether you want to work there
Speaker 3: or not. You're also incredibly well compensated, and it's not
Speaker 3: like worldly important that you work in your job, which
Speaker 3: at least some government jobs are. But I think that
Speaker 3: the more publicity that there's a spotlight on this type
Speaker 3: of behavior, that Americans really don't like to be screwed
Speaker 3: with by their boss. I remember reading a statistic it's
Speaker 3: like seventy percent of people like hate their boss, or
Speaker 3: they were just like twenty some percent of people would
Speaker 3: literally like kill their boss if they had, or say
Speaker 3: they would they could.
Speaker 1: People really hate their boss.
Speaker 3: I get it, you know, it's one of those where
Speaker 3: I've been in that position before, where they're so annoying,
Speaker 3: and so I think that the more that this permeates
Speaker 3: to people, it will really start to piss people off,
Speaker 3: because if you think about it, white collar, service based,
Speaker 3: everybody knows what it's like to have an annoying supervisor,
Speaker 3: or to be scheduled, or.
Speaker 1: To be told one thing and then told the opposite.
Speaker 3: I mean, how often does that happen when you work
Speaker 3: in a workplace.
Speaker 1: It's maddening.
Speaker 2: And white collar employees get treated way more humanly and
Speaker 2: I mean like literally like human beings than blue collar workers,
Speaker 2: who you know, are completely dehumanized, often like searched, subject
Speaker 2: to these ridiculous security procedures and surveiled even while they're
Speaker 2: in the breakroom eating their lunch and all that sort
Speaker 2: of crap. And so, yeah, everybody hates bosses.
Speaker 4: Everybody hates bosses.
Speaker 2: Really, So I think you're right about that, and I
Speaker 2: think Elon is leaning hard into the asshole boss persona.
Speaker 4: So when you couple.
Speaker 2: That with the fact that you know these federal garment jobs.
Speaker 2: I was telling Soccer before the show, one of the
Speaker 2: states that has the highest proportion of federal government workers
Speaker 2: is actually Alaska. Pople think of federal government workers being
Speaker 2: here in d C. They buy and large are not.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are many here in DC, this is
Speaker 2: obviously the greatest concentration of them, but they're spread down
Speaker 2: across the country and their impact is felt across the country.
Speaker 2: And then you think about like the ancillary workers and
Speaker 2: just the You know, anytime you have this level of
Speaker 2: like glee and delight and firing people and destroying their
Speaker 2: lives in their livelihood, it's gonna rub people the wrong way.
Speaker 2: So I think we are starting to see that pushback.
Speaker 2: You know, what's going to happen with this frickin' Elon
Speaker 2: bullet point sich you I don't really know, and it
Speaker 2: is an interesting subplot to see. And one thing I
Speaker 2: didn't anticipate is the possibility that the agency heads themselves
Speaker 2: could be somewhat of a check on Elon. Because they
Speaker 2: got the their Senate confirmations, they went through the thing.
Speaker 2: They thought they were getting this level of power and
Speaker 2: agency within these departments, and then they're watching Elon just
Speaker 2: completely bigfoot them, even to the point of like, well,
Speaker 2: I get to say who works for you and who
Speaker 2: does what and how this whole thing is run, and
Speaker 2: I'm going to get access to all your data and
Speaker 2: my little like goofy twenty year olds are going to
Speaker 2: come in and run wild through your agency whenever the
Speaker 2: hell they feel like it, whether you want them there
Speaker 2: or not. And so while the congressional Republicans, because of
Speaker 2: the politics around it, will just bend the need of
Speaker 2: Trump and Elon, and Elon has threatened them with primary challenges,
Speaker 2: and that's an important enforcement mechanism, et cetera. It's a
Speaker 2: little bit different dynamic with these agency heads. So it
Speaker 2: is a particular dynamic that I want to watch and
Speaker 2: I think is a little bit unsettled as of now
Speaker 2: in terms of how all of that is going to
Speaker 2: play out. There was yesterday an interesting protest, I guess
Speaker 2: you would say, at the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Speaker 2: we can put this up on the screen. Somebody hacked
Speaker 2: into the screen the building and played this AI generated
Speaker 2: video of Elon Elon having is like feet kissed.
Speaker 4: But yeah, it's it's kind.
Speaker 1: Of disturbing to see she put a trigger one to
Speaker 1: be honest with.
Speaker 2: You, and then across the screen it reads, long live
Speaker 2: the real King courts, a reference to the position of
Speaker 2: power Elon has taken. And also Trump's previous reference last
Speaker 2: week to long live the King in the context of
Speaker 2: the New York congestion pricing situation. So that is something
Speaker 2: that happened, that was confirmed by multiple reporters, including Justine
Speaker 2: as I said, there's also a few developments in terms
Speaker 2: of the legal battles against Doge. We can put this
Speaker 2: next one up on the screen. So the Federal ethics
Speaker 2: watchdog that Trump has been blocked from firing by a
Speaker 2: federal court has ruled that some of the terminations of
Speaker 2: probationary employees appear to be illegal. So Trump tried to
Speaker 2: fire this dude, a court said you can't do that,
Speaker 2: or at least there's a temporary injunction put in on that.
Speaker 2: And so he has said that according to and this
Speaker 2: is not a court ruling, to be clear from Hampton Dellinger,
Speaker 2: this is just he's the Federal ethics watchdog. He's advising
Speaker 2: that some of these probationary employee firings may be illegal.
Speaker 2: You also had we don't have an element for this.
Speaker 2: But yesterday you had a judge that really harshly questioned
Speaker 2: the constitutional constitutionality of the entire setup of DOGE. And
Speaker 2: part of this soccer comes down to you, guys. Remember
Speaker 2: the Trump administration put in this court filing like Elon
Speaker 2: he has nothing to do with DOGE, Like he's not
Speaker 2: in charge of DOGE, He's just an advisor to the president.
Speaker 2: But then when this judge was questioning them, okay, well
Speaker 2: then who is in charge of DOGE, they had they
Speaker 2: couldn't answer, They had no idea. And the reason that
Speaker 2: this is important in terms of its potential constitutionality is
Speaker 2: there something called the appointments Clause, which means if you
Speaker 2: have a significant position, it has to be confirmed by
Speaker 2: the Senate. That's why the government was trying to say, like, oh,
Speaker 2: Elon doesn't have anything to do with that, because obviously
Speaker 2: he's not confirmed by the Senate. And so the fact
Speaker 2: that they're this far in the administration and they're pretending
Speaker 2: Elon not in charge when like clearly he is number
Speaker 2: one and number two, they can't say who the acting
Speaker 2: director of DOGE is when it obviously has been given
Speaker 2: these incredible hole of government powers. That's why this judge
Speaker 2: was questioning whether or not this whole situation was constitutional
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a very interesting in terms of how this
Speaker 3: will continue in the core process. But for me, I
Speaker 3: am just still mystified of this whole oer PM situation
Speaker 3: because it does really get to a crux of It
Speaker 3: gets to the crux of who not only who's in charge,
Speaker 3: but to what extent they will have authority going forward
Speaker 3: under their own department and if Elon can just parachute
Speaker 3: in and outside of some programs, like is he going
Speaker 3: to be able to run the so called day to
Speaker 3: day I mean, I guess the thing is with Trump,
Speaker 3: And again I think this is the thing about Trump
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: Trump is also a boss, right. Trump is also somebody who.
Speaker 3: Probably empathizes with this idea like, oh, my employees are
Speaker 3: stealing from me or you know, they're taking advantage of me.
Speaker 3: And so now that he runs the government, he probably
Speaker 3: empathizes with that sending such an email. But this, like
Speaker 3: I said, I think it's starting to flirt with people
Speaker 3: who are feeling jerked around, because that's where I think
Speaker 3: most people can again empathize with the chaotic nature of
Speaker 3: all of this, and if there was a plan and
Speaker 3: there were going to be cuts, I think a lot
Speaker 3: of people would be fine with it, you know, but
Speaker 3: or or at least Trump maga folks would be not
Speaker 3: necessarily liberal ones. But the idea that your job boys
Speaker 3: in jeopardy or not, and all of these legal theories
Speaker 3: and you have to send us email or not. It
Speaker 3: detracts from the idea that there's like a steady hand
Speaker 3: and competence on the wheel, which, if you think about it,
Speaker 3: that was the pitch that Donald Trump made whenever he
Speaker 3: came back to office, is I'm going to make everything
Speaker 3: normal and restore it to twenty nineteen. Again, there are
Speaker 3: very different interpretations of that, and that's why it's important.
Speaker 1: But that's why I think it matters.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, And then just to go through some of
Speaker 2: some of the impacts here and some of the things
Speaker 2: that really cut negatively against them. Let's put this next
Speaker 2: piece up on the screen. It's impossible to keep up
Speaker 2: with like all the things that are impacted and all
Speaker 2: the things that are going on. So this is a
Speaker 2: bit of a sampling. But the CNN article I actually
Speaker 2: actually was really was really good and pointed out something
Speaker 2: that I hadn't thought about before. They say military families
Speaker 2: rocked by Trump's federal government cuts. We've talked here before
Speaker 2: about how much of the federal government is employees are
Speaker 2: retired military, and you know, so that's very significant. But
Speaker 2: this article looks specifically at there have been all kinds
Speaker 2: of federal government programs, including one that was championed by
Speaker 2: Trump in his first term, to higher military spouses and
Speaker 2: give them work and flexible work and often telework within
Speaker 2: the federal government. And you know, the reason is pretty
Speaker 2: obvious here. You've got this, you know, this group of
Speaker 2: military spouses who are oftentimes having to be moved around
Speaker 2: the country based on where their significant other is stationed
Speaker 2: at the time and what deployments they're dealing with. Also,
Speaker 2: if you know, if your significant other is deployed overseas,
Speaker 2: that's going to create childcare issues, et cetera, if you're
Speaker 2: having to commute a long way to your job. And
Speaker 2: so when the order came down of okay, everybody back
Speaker 2: to the office, initially military spouses were not excluded, so,
Speaker 2: you know, people for whom they'd been given an ability
Speaker 2: to be able to work these jobs and have that
Speaker 2: kind of flexibility, of being able to work from home
Speaker 2: and you know, be able to work long distances even
Speaker 2: when they get moved around, et cetera. They were not excluded.
Speaker 2: And then there were some memo that went out that
Speaker 2: it's like maybe you are excluded, and it's just been
Speaker 2: total chaos and really unclear. And the other piece with
Speaker 2: this is, you know, in terms of firing all of
Speaker 2: the employees that are on this probationary period, it's important
Speaker 2: to understand that that doesn't just apply to people who've
Speaker 2: been newly.
Speaker 4: Hired by the federal government.
Speaker 2: If you move positions in you know, between agencies, or
Speaker 2: even sometimes if you get a certain promotion, but certainly
Speaker 2: if you're you know, moving from Okay, he was stationed
Speaker 2: here and now he's stationed somewhere else, and I'm totally switching,
Speaker 2: you know, to work at a different agency that's close
Speaker 2: to where he lives now to where we live now,
Speaker 2: those people would be on probation. So that means that
Speaker 2: you would have a disproportionate impact on these military spouses
Speaker 2: that I think everybody finds pretty like, oh, it's a
Speaker 2: good thing for the federal government to These are people
Speaker 2: who are capable to have skills that are useful to
Speaker 2: the government. It's not like it's you know, they're not
Speaker 2: deserving of the positions, but they require some flexibility and
Speaker 2: they're more likely to be in this probationary period. So
Speaker 2: it's hit them in particular, really really hard. In addition,
Speaker 2: something we could put the next one up on the
Speaker 2: screen that Soccer and I were mentioning yesterday is you're
Speaker 2: already having big impacts at the national parks. So National
Speaker 2: Park Service was already pretty bare bones in terms of
Speaker 2: you know, they'd faced staffing cuts and also staffing freezes.
Speaker 2: So the workforce has declined by fifteen percent since twenty ten,
Speaker 2: but park visitation is way up. It's increased by sixteen percent.
Speaker 2: If any of you guys have been to these national
Speaker 2: parks in recent years, you've seen like they are quite busy.
Speaker 2: People really love and enjoy It's like an afford vacation.
Speaker 2: They're incredible, they're beautiful, it's a wonderful experience. And my greatest,
Speaker 2: you know, favorite memories are at some of the places
Speaker 2: in the National park system. And so you're having already
Speaker 2: massive lines. You've had reservations at Gettysburg National Military Park
Speaker 2: that were just blanket canceled because they weren't able to
Speaker 2: manage the reservation system. You had weights in order to
Speaker 2: get into the Grand Canyon National Park were like multiple
Speaker 2: hours long because some of the people who just you know,
Speaker 2: let people in and give them the map and take
Speaker 2: the money and whatever had been let go. So you're
Speaker 2: having significant impacts there already. And then the other piece
Speaker 2: is you've had a fair amount of what appears to
Speaker 2: be self dealing, although you could never say for sure,
Speaker 2: but certain certainly the appearance of self dealing coming from
Speaker 2: Elon as well put.
Speaker 4: Me five up on the screen.
Speaker 2: So they laid off a bunch of workers at the
Speaker 2: auto safety agency that oversees Tesla. They've you know, this
Speaker 2: agency had come like Elon had expressed his disgust at
Speaker 2: this agency previously prior to being the head or not
Speaker 2: the head of DOGE, according to who you believe he's
Speaker 2: They've mandated that Tesla and other automakers report crash data
Speaker 2: on vehicles, specifically like self driving technology equipped vehicles have
Speaker 2: to report this crash data. He didn't like that they've
Speaker 2: launched investigations into deadly crashes involving his company's cars. He
Speaker 2: didn't like that either you know, so again, can you
Speaker 2: say durre Okay, they got fired because elon wan of
Speaker 2: them fired and you can't say that, but it certainly
Speaker 2: has the appearance of self dealing and very similar with
Speaker 2: this next piece as well. It can put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. So employees that had been reviewing Neuralink
Speaker 2: also were fired over the weekend as part of a
Speaker 2: broader purge, So twenty people in the FDA's Office of
Speaker 2: Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, several of whom specifically worked
Speaker 2: on Link. According to two sources, they were all let go.
Speaker 2: Now after the fact, Shagger, some of these people they're
Speaker 2: like scrambling to bring back because they realized that we
Speaker 2: really need some of these people, so they're scrambling to
Speaker 2: bring them back.
Speaker 4: But to your point, I think.
Speaker 2: It's I think you're absolutely right about the more that
Speaker 2: he appears like the you know, evil, dreaded boss, I think.
Speaker 4: That's really bad.
Speaker 2: The more people see him less as the visionary and
Speaker 2: more as.
Speaker 4: The self interested, self.
Speaker 2: Dealing billionaire, the worse. And then the more that it
Speaker 2: impacts groups that are sympathetic and services that people actually value, the.
Speaker 4: More of a political problem. This is.
Speaker 3: That was my prediction is if you start to actually
Speaker 3: come after stuff that people use and or a beloved
Speaker 3: for example, national parks literally most beloved national programs in
Speaker 3: the country, and we.
Speaker 4: Should expand the national parks system.
Speaker 2: In sure, Yeah, because they are sort of overcrowded at
Speaker 2: those point because they're so popular.
Speaker 1: I know. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Actually, like I said, I went to Zion and during
Speaker 3: COVID and it was, oh my god. The reservation system
Speaker 3: was a disaster. So if anything, you should make it better. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it easier. One of the reasons that I love and
Speaker 3: I support them is that it's literally free, or as
Speaker 3: close to free as you can get. A lot of
Speaker 3: the accommodations around the area are actually very cheap. It's
Speaker 3: very easy to take a very cheap vacation there, especially
Speaker 3: if you're nearby. You see it all the time. If
Speaker 3: you're into camping or it's you know, you can use
Speaker 3: the reservation. The park people will help you. They have
Speaker 3: it all set up.
Speaker 1: They really do. It's awesome in terms of the government
Speaker 1: support for it.
Speaker 3: That is an example again of people who are like, hey,
Speaker 3: hold on a second here. I also think that where
Speaker 3: it comes down to not only with the military strategy,
Speaker 3: but the slap shot nature of it, the more again,
Speaker 3: people are fine with the plan. I really believe that,
Speaker 3: especially Republicans. Most Republicans hate the government. They hate they
Speaker 3: want to see it, gut it and all that, but
Speaker 3: they want to see it done in such a way.
Speaker 3: Not necessarily it doesn't impact them, but it's for a goal.
Speaker 3: So if it's just about DEI, it's like, that's actually
Speaker 3: not that difficult. You can pretty much even with the
Speaker 3: widest DEI definition, you could identify and publish all of
Speaker 3: the programs that have that, and you could ask.
Speaker 1: Them and or you could fire the employees involved.
Speaker 3: The problem with the ten percent layoff or with any
Speaker 3: of that and then bringing people back is it just
Speaker 3: feels as if it's doing it for the sake of it,
Speaker 3: which is fine if you're at Twitter, and honestly, it
Speaker 3: may be fine in the long run, right That's it
Speaker 3: really could be. It could be one where they all
Speaker 3: leave and we don't even notice, which is Elon's kind
Speaker 3: of theory of the case. I don't really think that's
Speaker 3: true in democratic institutions, but I could be completely wrong.
Speaker 3: And that's where I currently see, especially the pushback for
Speaker 3: families because I keep thinking about the statistic. If four
Speaker 3: million people work for the government, that means that there
Speaker 3: are eight to ten million people out there who know
Speaker 3: somebody or are related to somebody, who are directly related
Speaker 3: and are married to that person, not to mention their
Speaker 3: kids if they're older, or their cousin. I mean, we
Speaker 3: could do the tree out and everybody's a couple of
Speaker 3: degrees removed from somebody who directly works with us. Here
Speaker 3: in Washington, I know dozens of people who are affected.
Speaker 1: Also, my commute's gotten worse. Thank you Elon for calling
Speaker 1: off back end. It's a painting.
Speaker 3: And that's another one where you are we really like,
Speaker 3: what is the metric? Are we asking people to come
Speaker 3: into work? I think that's fine, But to what end
Speaker 3: is it just to clock in and to clock out?
Speaker 3: Like what is the theory of what is all happening here?
Speaker 3: And you know, the government's not a startup. I've always
Speaker 3: said that, And this is the problem with treating it
Speaker 3: as such. It's a literal democratic institution. Sometimes things are
Speaker 3: done stupidly and inefficiently, but in a sense that's only
Speaker 3: because people like it that way, or because congressmen or
Speaker 3: senators like it that way, and many constituents do as well,
Speaker 3: So it's a very complicated dance that I don't think
Speaker 3: that currently they are winning, and Trump seems enthralled by
Speaker 3: the whole thing. I think Trump and this is where
Speaker 3: I need to check my own bias, and I always
Speaker 3: say this, I think it would be a little too
Speaker 3: cute by half to have some great liberal backlash against
Speaker 3: Elon Endoge. It seems just a little too on the
Speaker 3: nose for what the media wants and what the liberals want,
Speaker 3: which by and large their political theories have been wrong
Speaker 3: over the last four years outside of abortion. So I
Speaker 3: just don't know. Maybe he's correct. I mean, he's a
Speaker 3: very smart person. For him, the media and the liberals
Speaker 3: are against it, so he continues to fight. He could
Speaker 3: still have millions of people who rally not to him
Speaker 3: per se, but to the Republicans who defend it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I could.
Speaker 2: There definitely is a massive liberal backlash, that much I
Speaker 2: can tell. I mean, I think that it's showing up
Speaker 2: at town halls in every state that everywhere they're having
Speaker 2: town halls, whether it's a Democrat or Republican who's having them,
Speaker 2: people are showing up en mass and so there's no
Speaker 2: doubt about that. And certainly in a midterm election when
Speaker 2: that enthusiasm is what counts, I think that's going to
Speaker 2: be really really determinative and important. So you know, I
Speaker 2: do think that there will be a massive electoral backlash
Speaker 2: to all of this, But you know, we'll see how Lauren,
Speaker 2: there's a long time between now and then, etc. But yeah,
Speaker 2: you've got the evil boss piece, You've got the incompetent piece.
Speaker 2: You know, it's very hard to argue that any of
Speaker 2: this is being done based on like merit when it's
Speaker 2: just these very blanket across the board not thought having
Speaker 2: to scramble like, oh shit, we fired the dude who
Speaker 2: like keeps our nuclear energy stay, like, we better get
Speaker 2: that guy back, And oh no, we fired some people
Speaker 2: at the FDA that were like keep a track of
Speaker 2: bird flu. That seems kind of important. We better get
Speaker 2: those people back as well. And that's where your point
Speaker 2: about the government not being a business is a really
Speaker 2: really important one for people to understand, because government is
Speaker 2: not supposed to be, like, its main goal isn't actually
Speaker 2: to be quote unquote efficient. And I'll give you a
Speaker 2: perfect example. Air traffic controllers, right businesses take all kinds
Speaker 2: of risks, especially businesses run by Elon Musk, take all
Speaker 2: kinds of risks, including safety risks, betting that the fine
Speaker 2: or the consequences will be less than the fallout from
Speaker 2: cutting those corners and taking those risks. But as a society,
Speaker 2: we want to make sure that the planes don't run
Speaker 2: into each other. So you don't want to just slapshot
Speaker 2: fire a bunch of air traffic controllers and make the
Speaker 2: thing more dangerous, even if that did mean it was
Speaker 2: quote unquote more efficient. I also got news for you,
Speaker 2: Like the federal the amount that we pay to employ
Speaker 2: the federal garment workforce is also not that large a
Speaker 2: part of the budget either. So even if you slashed
Speaker 2: like a preposterous amount of this workforce, you're doing very
Speaker 2: little in terms of actual cost cutting. And then's the
Speaker 2: other piece is like when you zoom out even from
Speaker 2: just this, okay, what DOGE is up to and they're
Speaker 2: like bullshit, pretending like they found this or that fraudulent program,
Speaker 2: which they have not actually identified any fraunt thus far whatsoever.
Speaker 2: And you consider the broader agenda, which is like, okay, well,
Speaker 2: we're trying to cut spending so we can do what
Speaker 2: give a giant tax cut to people like Elon Musk
Speaker 2: who already pay very little in taxes. Then the agenda
Speaker 2: just completely departs from what most Americans want. And Sober's
Speaker 2: are absolutely right that most people if you ask them like, oh,
Speaker 2: should the government be cut?
Speaker 4: Should it be made more efficient? Some of the fat
Speaker 4: be cut?
Speaker 2: And they'd be like, yes, absolutely, But the way you
Speaker 2: do that matters, and the impact on people's lives matter.
Speaker 2: And and I don't think that this is landing well
Speaker 2: with people based on what we're seeing.
Speaker 3: It's a good politically, it is a good test for
Speaker 3: trump theory of politics. Trump's theory of politics is if
Speaker 3: that the media and the liberals are against it, then
Speaker 3: he's going to fight against it.
Speaker 1: And that has proven very well for him.
Speaker 3: It has worked dramatically well actually politically for him specifically
Speaker 3: not necessarily the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: So how will he continue to.
Speaker 3: Fare not only his grip on the party, his ability
Speaker 3: to then perhaps transfer some of that in the midterms
Speaker 3: or in the future election. Because right now, if you
Speaker 3: were to believe a traditional media narrative, you're like, oh,
Speaker 3: it's going to be a blowout. But I just have
Speaker 3: a sneaking suspicion that the rules might have changed, only
Speaker 3: in the sense that because the mainstream media no longer
Speaker 3: has the same grip on the American culture for its
Speaker 3: ability to set narratives, I genuinely question how much of
Speaker 3: this is even penetrating, because even when the lib narratives
Speaker 3: penetrated during the election didn't hit to the electorate in
Speaker 3: the same way. Nice the electorate is huge, right, nobody
Speaker 3: can really know. But a lot of the memes that
Speaker 3: people tried to make that were supposed to be offensive,
Speaker 3: turn people off or whatever in the traditional rules of politics,
Speaker 3: they didn't work.
Speaker 2: That's only the case when Trump is on the ballot.
Speaker 2: And Trump is not really supposed to be on the
Speaker 2: ballot again.
Speaker 1: He has other ideas, want.
Speaker 2: He has other ideas, but you know, as of today,
Speaker 2: based on the Constitution, he's not supposed to run again.
Speaker 2: He's also getting you know, he is getting old too,
Speaker 2: But you know, so he's never been able to translate
Speaker 2: his particular political guests in this way. He's very much
Speaker 2: like Obama, his particular political gifts to midterm elections, special elections,
Speaker 2: or really anyone else. So yeah, when he's on the ballot,
Speaker 2: The polls are understate his support. You know, people want
Speaker 2: to give him a chance time and time again. He
Speaker 2: comes extraordinarily close in twenty twenty, even with the disastrous
Speaker 2: state of the country under his leadership. He obviously wins
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four and is able to secure a
Speaker 2: popular vote victory, which is extraordinary. But the midterms before
Speaker 2: that were a disaster for Republicans, and the twenty eighteen
Speaker 2: midterms were disaster for Republicans as well. So you know,
Speaker 2: I've never seen him able to translate his political gifts
Speaker 2: and talents to anyone else, And you know, I don't
Speaker 2: see why that would change when people are already kind
Speaker 2: of over the honeymoon period, already turning certainly on Elon,
Speaker 2: but also his numbers are going down, and people aren't
Speaker 2: happy with the state of the economy either,