Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have personal?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots of big news coming out of
Speaker 1: Israel where the RAFA ground invasion has begun. They've taken
Speaker 1: over a key border crossing. And there's also a lot
Speaker 1: going on with regards to ceasefire deal Homash accepted and
Speaker 1: then Israel went ahead and invaded. So we'll break all
Speaker 1: of that down for you. Also have some Trump on
Speaker 1: trial updates for you. The judge and the hush money
Speaker 1: case issuing yet another fine against Trump for violating the
Speaker 1: gag order and threatening him with jail time. So talk
Speaker 1: about that. The long anticipated meet debate lab grown meat
Speaker 1: to hopefully we're getting to it today, Hopefully Sager and
Speaker 1: I will be able to avoid talking so much that
Speaker 1: we have to skip it once again, because I know
Speaker 1: you guys are very excited about our takes on lab
Speaker 1: grown meat. Columbia has officially canceled their commencement this after
Speaker 1: they claimed that one of the big reasons they were
Speaker 1: clearing out the encampment was to get ready for said commencement.
Speaker 1: So we'll take a look at that as well as
Speaker 1: polling about how people feel about these protests, about the
Speaker 1: response to the protests, a lot of interesting stuff to
Speaker 1: get dig into. Their speaking of interesting saga, taking a
Speaker 1: look at some recent Jerry Seinfeld comments that seemed to
Speaker 1: be from like circa twenty fifteen, So that's going to
Speaker 1: be a good one. I'm looking forward to that. And
Speaker 1: on a much more serious note, we are hoping to
Speaker 1: be able to speak with a doctor who just returned
Speaker 1: from Gaza to talk to us about the conditions on
Speaker 1: the ground there and what she saw in the context
Speaker 1: of trying her best to treat patients. So very much
Speaker 1: looking forward to speaking with.
Speaker 3: Her as well.
Speaker 2: That's right, we want to get in on the ground update.
Speaker 2: She literally just returned from the war zone and she
Speaker 2: can give us actual view as to what's going on
Speaker 2: before we get to that. Thank you to everybody who's
Speaker 2: been signing up and helping us out for becoming a
Speaker 2: premium subscriber. We've got a big Counterpoints debate. Everything is
Speaker 2: ready and it's set to go. It's going to be
Speaker 2: on free speech. We won't get let give you away
Speaker 2: who the contestants are, but I think suffice to say
Speaker 2: you're going to know them, You're going to like it,
Speaker 2: and there's going to be some fiery moments. So go
Speaker 2: ahead and sign up, you guys get early access to that.
Speaker 2: On top of supporting all of our work here, we've
Speaker 2: got big plans now for the DNC. I think it
Speaker 2: is official. It is definitely going to be nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: eight ESK. We will all be on the ground there.
Speaker 2: So if you want to be able to support that
Speaker 2: type of work Breakingpoints dot com, we deeply appreciate you.
Speaker 1: All Right, guys, let's go ahead and turn two developments
Speaker 1: out of Israel and the Gaza strips. Specifically, we can
Speaker 1: put these images up on the screen, so these are
Speaker 1: images of air strikes. This has actually taken from the
Speaker 1: Egyptian side of the border. Of course, Rafa there all
Speaker 1: the way at the southern end of Gaza. These are
Speaker 1: more images you can see of air strikes that are occurring.
Speaker 1: This is I think an IDF soldier TikTok running what
Speaker 1: appears to be a tank over the welcome to Gaza
Speaker 1: sign and this was released by the IDF. I know
Speaker 1: it looks like a video game. To me, it looks
Speaker 1: like a video game, but this is official footage that
Speaker 1: the IDF released of the beginning of this invasion into Rafa.
Speaker 1: And these are more drone images that were also released
Speaker 1: by the IDF. So we don't know a lot at
Speaker 1: this point. We know that the ground invasion has obviously begun,
Speaker 1: We know there has been a significant increase in terms
Speaker 1: of air strikes, and we know there have been some
Speaker 1: additional palastidian depths. We also know that the IDF has
Speaker 1: actually taken control of the Rafa crossing on the Palace
Speaker 1: to the inside. This is something that Egyptian officials are
Speaker 1: already expressing alarm about and has major implications not only
Speaker 1: in terms of military strategy, but most significantly in terms
Speaker 1: of humanitarian situation on the ground. That Rafa Crossing is
Speaker 1: one of the most significant entry points for aid into Gaza.
Speaker 1: We know that yesterday the Israelis had closed another entry
Speaker 1: point into Gaza. This after Hamas rockets had hit a
Speaker 1: nearby military installation, and in retaliation they closed that crossing
Speaker 1: as well. This comes, of course, as the un IS
Speaker 1: saying they are Asidney McCain of the un IS officially saying, hey,
Speaker 1: northern Gaza is in full blown famine. This is creeping south.
Speaker 1: We also know in Rafa you have some six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand kids, all of whom are in bad shape, many
Speaker 1: of whom are already malnourished. And yesterday, of course reported
Speaker 1: on the fact that the Israelis had asked one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand Palestinian sheltering in Rafa to leave. I read some
Speaker 1: accounts of some of those individuals Saga, and you know,
Speaker 1: many of these people they've already been forcibly displaced multiple times.
Speaker 1: They have literally no money, they have no idea where
Speaker 1: to go. There is nowhere that is actually safe. And
Speaker 1: that's not according to me. That's according to New York
Speaker 1: Times and NPR and other analysts who have looked at
Speaker 1: the quote unquote safe zones that people have been told
Speaker 1: to move to in the past in fact, Rafa was
Speaker 1: one of these safe zones that people were originally told
Speaker 1: to move to. And now you have this long threatened
Speaker 1: invasion occurring. Let's go ahead and put this next element
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Give you a little bit of
Speaker 1: background here, because this ground invasion came immediately after Hamas
Speaker 1: had actually accepted a ceasefire proposal, and the details of
Speaker 1: that proposal are very clear. The US was involved in
Speaker 1: helping to negotiate this along with Egypt and Katar, and
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of details about three different phases,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. The bottom line here is that
Speaker 1: Hamas wanted to release all of the hostages in order
Speaker 1: to secure an end of the war. So all the
Speaker 1: reporting is that the Israelis, after Netanyahu, really went out
Speaker 1: of his way to try to scuttle this deal, to
Speaker 1: try to sabotage it, as we covered yesterday, by announcing
Speaker 1: after there was some indications Hamas might be favorable towards
Speaker 1: the deal, by announcing really clearly, no, no, no, We're going
Speaker 1: into Rafa no matter what, as an attempt to undercut it.
Speaker 1: Also by banning Al Jazeera that Al Jazeera obviously a
Speaker 1: product of linked to the Katari government. That was an
Speaker 1: effort to piss off Gatar as well to try to
Speaker 1: undercut this deal, because Bebie's whole play is to pretend
Speaker 1: like he's opened to a ceasefire deal for the international audience,
Speaker 1: but to really do everything to block it, and of
Speaker 1: course exposes the lie that they you know this thing
Speaker 1: that we've heard a million times, Oh, if Hamas just
Speaker 1: released the hostages, the war could be over tomorrow. Well
Speaker 1: here's Ama saying, hey, we'll release all the hostages, and
Speaker 1: isral Is like, no, we want to continue the war
Speaker 1: and we're going to go ahead right now with this
Speaker 1: invasion of Rafa. Let me just put the next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen and I'm I get your reaction, Sager.
Speaker 1: So the Israeli media, after they were kind of stunned
Speaker 1: by this Hamas acceptance of the proposal, Israeli media started
Speaker 1: reporting that Israel was not likely to accept a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: They claimed it was softened or one sided Egyptian version.
Speaker 1: But again, we actually we have all the details of
Speaker 1: what this deal entailed, and it is release of all
Speaker 1: the hostages, which is something that Israel demanded. The key
Speaker 1: sticking point is that the Hamas side wants the war
Speaker 1: to end and the Israeli side wants the war to continue.
Speaker 1: One side actually wants a ceasefire and the other doesn't.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of an irreconcilable difference.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's basically where we're at. This is a complicated backstory.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of sniping. People are saying this is
Speaker 2: a Hamas pr move. According to the Israelis, Basically the
Speaker 2: background appears to be this, this was a ceasefire proposal
Speaker 2: that was given by the Egyptians in Cairo with the
Speaker 2: input and knowledge of the United States.
Speaker 3: Hamas sees this deal and they're like, cool, we're in.
Speaker 3: You know, we're on that.
Speaker 2: You already saw the details, crystal, which you put up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. According to the Israelis, they were
Speaker 2: never aware of that, and according to them, the US
Speaker 2: never delivered the details of that proposal to them, and
Speaker 2: the first they had heard of it is after Hamas
Speaker 2: had accepted that. Now the US Western diplomats behind the
Speaker 2: scenes were leaking and saying that's not true, actually at all,
Speaker 2: we did communicate the details of that. They were under
Speaker 2: consideration whenever Hamas accepted that deal. Another point against the
Speaker 2: Israelis is they didn't have anybody in Cairo, so it's
Speaker 2: their fault that they had nobody at the table with
Speaker 2: Hamas and with Egypt and all the other negotiators, despite
Speaker 2: the fact that the US has been begging them to
Speaker 2: come and to be available. Because Israel is not blaming
Speaker 2: the United States for being bamboozled into a situation where they,
Speaker 2: according to them, have been screwed because Hamas agreed to
Speaker 2: a ceasefire deal that they view not as acceptable. There's
Speaker 2: also a sticking point right now around the number of
Speaker 2: hostage just to be released. The Hamas counteroffer was that
Speaker 2: they'll release thirty three hostages. That these thirty three, though
Speaker 2: are some are alive and some are dead. The Israelis say, no,
Speaker 2: we want forty hostages in the first deal, but they
Speaker 2: all have to be alive. I don't know, you know
Speaker 2: exactly who is telling the truth. It obviously is conceivable
Speaker 2: that some of these hostages have sadly perish either from
Speaker 2: you know, malnutrition, from bombing.
Speaker 1: They've been in an a war zone for a semele more.
Speaker 2: We're in bad captivity and we have no idea, right
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of it's been a long time
Speaker 2: since somebody has actually been released from Hummas. There's been
Speaker 2: some proof of life images and all that that have
Speaker 2: been released. So my only point is that in terms
Speaker 2: of the background on all of this, there is a
Speaker 2: lot of pointing fingers, but the end result is clear
Speaker 2: they're using this as a pretext to go forward with
Speaker 2: the Rafa invasion, and I do think that it's a
Speaker 2: tremendous mistake from the international community side. We can put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, for example, just if
Speaker 2: you look at the wording of their justification. The war
Speaker 2: cabinet has unanimously decided that Israel continues the operation to
Speaker 2: exert military pressure on Hamas in order to promote the
Speaker 2: release of our hostages and the other goals of the war.
Speaker 1: They already agree to the release of the host amas.
Speaker 2: He's like, no, no, no, we'll give you the hostages though,
Speaker 2: and they're like, but you know, we're squabbling over seven
Speaker 2: whether some are alive or dead. I'm not saying that
Speaker 2: stuff isn't important, but I think we should point crystal
Speaker 2: to the fact that there are massive protests in Israel
Speaker 2: calling for the acceptance of this. To show you that
Speaker 2: the members of hostages themselves, family members are pleading with
Speaker 2: them to.
Speaker 3: Take this deal. So that's very important to underscore.
Speaker 1: A couple things to add to that. So I want
Speaker 1: to read Mooing Raboni's ad, a fantastic lengthy thread on Twitter.
Speaker 1: I just want to read a small portion of it
Speaker 1: because it gets to what's really going on here. He says,
Speaker 1: among the key sticking points in the negotiations is that
Speaker 1: Hamas demanded an end to Israel's war, well Israel insisted
Speaker 1: on continuing it. That's, like I said, kind of an
Speaker 1: irreconcilable difference when one side wants to cease fire on
Speaker 1: the other side does not want to cease fire. He
Speaker 1: goes on to say, given this contradiction, the mediators could
Speaker 1: not incorporate explicit wording that either ended or failed to
Speaker 1: end the war and still clinched the deal. What appears
Speaker 1: to have happened is that a sufficiently vague formula was
Speaker 1: included in the proposal, paired with informal American assurances that
Speaker 1: if Hamas implemented the first stages of the three stage deal,
Speaker 1: Washington would guarantee an Israeli cessation of hostilities by the
Speaker 1: end of its final stage. So Basically, the Americans were like, listen,
Speaker 1: we can't put into this deal that it will definitively
Speaker 1: end the war. But trust us, we're going to make
Speaker 1: sure that there is a permanent cessation of hostilities. That
Speaker 1: we didn't even get to covering this because it happened
Speaker 1: on like Thursday, Friday, Saturday somewhere in that timeframe when
Speaker 1: we were off air, that actually leaked out that the
Speaker 1: Americans were telling Hamas like, no, this is actually going
Speaker 1: to end the war, even though the language doesn't explicitly
Speaker 1: say that in the deal. Then the Israelis come out.
Speaker 1: That's when you get BB saying no, absolutely not, and
Speaker 1: we're still going into rafa et cetera, et cetera, which
Speaker 1: was an attempt basically to kill the deal because he
Speaker 1: doesn't actually want a deal. And just to be really
Speaker 1: clear about the hostage situation. So first of all, the
Speaker 1: Israelis are also holding thousands of Palestinians. We've covered here
Speaker 1: and many other news outlets have covered the abhorrent conditions
Speaker 1: they've been kept in under, including torture and sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: You actually just recently had a doctor from Gaza who
Speaker 1: died from the torture that was from being tortured in
Speaker 1: Israeli custody. So those Palestinian hostages are also part of
Speaker 1: this deal. And while there are may be some quibbling
Speaker 1: about how many hostages in phase one, phase two, et cetera,
Speaker 1: very clear that Hamas has as part of this deal,
Speaker 1: accepted releasing all of the hostages and all of the
Speaker 1: remains of the hostages. Know one thing, Sager, that I've
Speaker 1: been thinking about. I was talking to Yegor about this too.
Speaker 1: He had the same thought, which is a really dark thought,
Speaker 1: which is is I don't actually think that bib Netnaho
Speaker 1: or the rest of the war cabinet wants these remaining
Speaker 1: hostages to be released and talk about what their experience
Speaker 1: was like, because basically their experience was having their lives
Speaker 1: risked by their own government, being left in a war
Speaker 1: zone for seven months god knows, and what conditions God
Speaker 1: knows what sort of injuries they sustained from, potentially IDF
Speaker 1: bombing and starvation, And I'm not sure that that's a
Speaker 1: political reality that bib Netnaho wants to deal with.
Speaker 2: Well, that happened last time around, right whenever we had
Speaker 2: the previous tranch of hostages that were released, they were
Speaker 2: all were like, you were literally bombing us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then three of them were killed.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that the family members of these
Speaker 2: people know that, for example, we can play this video please.
Speaker 2: This happened immediately after Hamas accepted the ceasefire. This is
Speaker 2: in Hebrews, so we'll just read you a translation. But
Speaker 2: the families of these prisoners are saying Hamas has agreed
Speaker 2: to the deal.
Speaker 3: The government must agree now, otherwise we will burn the country.
Speaker 2: And there actually were massive demonstrations last night in Tel
Speaker 2: Aviv and across the entire country, led by many members
Speaker 2: of the hostage families that were begging for the government
Speaker 2: to take that deal. Because I think you're right. I
Speaker 2: think look the smart ones they know and they can
Speaker 2: see it. Now. I'm not saying all of them are
Speaker 2: unanimously of some of that opinion. I know some have
Speaker 2: come out with a different opinion as well, But you
Speaker 2: could also see there is a widespread celebration at the
Speaker 2: population level on both sides of this conflict at the
Speaker 2: idea of a ceasefire. Maybe not the Israeli government. Here,
Speaker 2: we have a video came out in the immediate aftermath
Speaker 2: that we can go ahead and play This was actually
Speaker 2: in Rafa the immediately after it was announced that a
Speaker 2: ceasefire was agreed to. You know, obviously these people didn't
Speaker 2: know what was coming in the immediate aftermath, which was
Speaker 2: the invasion. But it's important just to point out there
Speaker 2: that there is obviously a widespread want, not just at
Speaker 2: the Palestinian level, but at the Israeli level for a
Speaker 2: cease fire.
Speaker 3: But the problem is the government. Crystal.
Speaker 2: You pulled this clip which is one of the most
Speaker 2: insane things I've ever seen. Let's go ahead and play
Speaker 2: it that we have here. This is Simon Boucair. He's
Speaker 2: the vice chairman of the World Licued Arm of the party,
Speaker 2: and he says, here the abductee families, they're going to
Speaker 2: be murdered. They see what we're doing, and so then
Speaker 2: they're asking him and what they should be done. He says,
Speaker 2: I think we should have gone into Rafa already to
Speaker 2: get in, and they go okay, and then what happens.
Speaker 2: He says that they'll pop up from under the ground.
Speaker 2: There are no uninvolved civilians. You have to go in
Speaker 2: and kill and kill and kill, and she says, okay,
Speaker 2: I got it. Will that bring back the hostages? And
Speaker 2: he says we will then kill them before they get us.
Speaker 2: And they say, well, are you going to get the hostages?
Speaker 2: And he says, at the end, we will try to
Speaker 2: get them. So again, this is the international arm of
Speaker 2: the Bevinis and Yahoo Party who is on Channel twelve
Speaker 2: Israeli News Crystal. He's saying this out in the open.
Speaker 2: I think the hostage families at this point no and
Speaker 2: hear this, and that's why there's so much consternation in Israel.
Speaker 1: Actually, yeah, yeah, this is this view is not it's
Speaker 1: fairly prevalent in terms of hard right factions in Israel,
Speaker 1: and it is almost a unanimous view, I would say,
Speaker 1: in terms of the actual Israeli government administration. And you know,
Speaker 1: we talk a lot, and I think understandably so about
Speaker 1: bebing Net Nahu's calculations and how he wants the war
Speaker 1: to keep going because he needs to do that to
Speaker 1: keep his grip on power. But we should make no
Speaker 1: bones about it. The war cabinet voted unit, including quote
Speaker 1: unquote moderates, voted unanimously to invade Rapa. So you know
Speaker 1: they have their own political calculation, they're own ideology too.
Speaker 1: They are all now as being part of the war Cabinet.
Speaker 1: They are all responsible for the conduct of this war.
Speaker 1: They know they have not accomplished the purported objectives that
Speaker 1: they set out to accomplish. So they have just as
Speaker 1: much invested in keeping the brutality going as anyone else.
Speaker 1: They have as much invested in making sure these hostages
Speaker 1: can never come out and tell their story, frankly, as
Speaker 1: anyone else. And that is at odds with the population.
Speaker 1: When we brought you some pulling that even right leaning
Speaker 1: members of Israeli society think that we should prioritize getting
Speaker 1: our hostages back, even if it means sending the word,
Speaker 1: even if it means new elections, we want our hostages home.
Speaker 1: And you see that sentiment certainly expressed in the street.
Speaker 1: And you know, we're talking about huge protests, tons of
Speaker 1: thousands of people in the street saying okay, Hamas said, yes,
Speaker 1: they give us our hostages back. What the hell are
Speaker 1: you waiting for? And so, you know, a couple more
Speaker 1: things to say about this. First of all, Saga you
Speaker 1: said this was being framed as like a Hamas pr move.
Speaker 1: I think that that's I think that's fair in a
Speaker 1: certain regard, because I think they had every expectation that
Speaker 1: BB's government and by the way, US officials also were
Speaker 1: leaking to this press that they weren't engaged in good
Speaker 1: faith in these negotiations, that they have no intention of
Speaker 1: taking the deal. And so I think in a sense
Speaker 1: they did say, Okay, we're going to call your pluff.
Speaker 1: We're to say yes even to this deal that doesn't
Speaker 1: explicitly say the end of the war. We're going to
Speaker 1: take the American assurances for it, which you know, right
Speaker 1: I wouldn't recommend, but anyway, we're going to take America's
Speaker 1: word for it. This will actually result in a sensation
Speaker 1: of hostilities. We're going to say yes to a ceasefire
Speaker 1: and put the ball in your court. Bb Net, Yahoo,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do now? Because now it
Speaker 1: is exposed the entire world that all you're bullshit about
Speaker 1: concern for hostages and hey, if the if they return
Speaker 1: the hostages, the war can end tomorrow. This was all
Speaker 1: complete and unor not. So this has been clear for
Speaker 1: a while, but now it's undeniable, and I think it's
Speaker 1: undeniable to the Israeli population as well. The last thing
Speaker 1: that's really important to say about this is Biden has
Speaker 1: been sounding the oppositional alarm to a ground invasion into
Speaker 1: Rafa for months now. He even sort of kind of
Speaker 1: said it was a red line before immediately saying I'll
Speaker 1: never leave Israel, but he sort of kind of said
Speaker 1: Rafa was a red line. We've heard about these tough
Speaker 1: conversations from Blincoln just recently and Jake Sullivan and co.
Speaker 1: And these sort of vague threats that hey, we may
Speaker 1: even change US policy, we may not have unconditional support
Speaker 1: if you go into Rafa. If you especially if you
Speaker 1: go in a way that we don't like, well guess
Speaker 1: what they're doing it. So, Joe Biden, what are you
Speaker 1: going to say? What are you going to do? This
Speaker 1: is a direct rebuke. This is bebe calling your bluff
Speaker 1: and saying, yeah, you expressed concern about some other things
Speaker 1: in the past either and at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you did nothing. You did exactly what we wanted you
Speaker 1: to do, and that's exactly what we think is going
Speaker 1: to happen now. So in that manner, the ball is
Speaker 1: now in Joe Biden's court. Do your words of concern
Speaker 1: mean anything? Does your supposed red line doesn't mean anything
Speaker 1: at all? Are you just going to let the Israelis
Speaker 1: get away with literally fit anything they want, anytime they want,
Speaker 1: till the end of time, unconditional support, no matter what,
Speaker 1: no matter how humiliating it is for you, no matter
Speaker 1: how awful it is for Palestinians. That's the real question
Speaker 1: that's on the table right now.
Speaker 2: Yep, absolutely, I mean it's humiliating for him that the
Speaker 2: fact that it even happened. And so even if he
Speaker 2: which you very likely is going to be unable to
Speaker 2: bring to the brink. So I think we all know
Speaker 2: which way things are headed.
Speaker 1: This is also another extraordinary story we didn't want to
Speaker 1: lose sight of we had covered previously. There's kind of
Speaker 1: a freak out going on in the net Nyahu government
Speaker 1: right now about possible arrest warrants being issued for net
Speaker 1: nyahuu yoav Gowan and a few other individuals and possibly
Speaker 1: Hamas leaders as well, coming from the International Criminal Court.
Speaker 1: So let's put this up on the screen. The ICC
Speaker 1: issued this rather extraordinary statement warning any entities against bullying
Speaker 1: and threatening them. Let me read you some of this.
Speaker 1: They say. The Office of the Prosecutors where their significant
Speaker 1: public interest in its investigation. It welcomes comments communication of
Speaker 1: concerns and engagement in its activities. But they go on
Speaker 1: to say independence and impartiality cannot be undermined, and they
Speaker 1: are when individuals threaten to retaliate against the Court or
Speaker 1: against court personnel should the Office and fulfillment of its
Speaker 1: mandate make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute
Speaker 1: an offense against the administration of justice under Article seventy
Speaker 1: of the Rome Statute. That provision explicitly prohibits both retaliating
Speaker 1: against an official of the Court on account of duties
Speaker 1: performed by that or another official, and impeding, intimidating, or
Speaker 1: corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose
Speaker 1: of forcing or persuading the official not to perform or
Speaker 1: to perform them properly his or her duties. They conclude,
Speaker 1: the Office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or
Speaker 1: improperly influence its officials cease immediately. So they put this
Speaker 1: out and everyone was like, hmm, okay, what is what's
Speaker 1: going on? What is this about? Now we had some
Speaker 1: guesses because there had already been some reports about you know,
Speaker 1: these railies using all the tools they had about the
Speaker 1: US pressuring the ICC. But now we have these specific
Speaker 1: details of what this likely was in reference to, and
Speaker 1: this is really quite extraordinary. Let's put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This scoop came courtesy of Zeteo, that's Maddie
Speaker 1: Hassen's new news outlet. He got a hold of a
Speaker 1: letter that was sent from a number of high profile
Speaker 1: Republican centers, including Mitch McConnell, that directly threatened the ICC
Speaker 1: prosecutor and threatened their family members. This is this is
Speaker 1: really crazy. Let me read you a little bit of this.
Speaker 1: They say in a terse one page letter obtained exclusively
Speaker 1: by Zeteo and signed by twelve GOP senators, including Tom Cotton,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Kahn. That's the prosecutor is informed
Speaker 1: that any attempt by the ICC to hold net in
Speaker 1: Yahoo and as colleagues to account for their actions in
Speaker 1: Gaza will be interpreted not only as a threat to
Speaker 1: israel sovereignty, but to the sovereignty of the United States.
Speaker 1: Quote target Israel, and we will target you, adding they
Speaker 1: will sanction your employees and associates and ban you and
Speaker 1: your families from the United States. The letter concludes, quote
Speaker 1: you have been warned, so I mean direct threats being
Speaker 1: made against the ICC, their employees, their family members, direct
Speaker 1: threats made by these twelve Republican senators. They got a
Speaker 1: statement response from Democratic Senator Chris mann Holland, who said, quote,
Speaker 1: it's fine to express opposition to possible judicial action, but
Speaker 1: it is absolutely wrong to interfere in a judicial manner
Speaker 1: by threatening judicial officers, their family members, their employees with retribution.
Speaker 1: This thuggery is something befitting the mafia, not US senators.
Speaker 1: So pretty wild this situation.
Speaker 2: I was not aware of something called the Hague Invasion Act,
Speaker 2: which authorizes the US President to use all means necessary
Speaker 2: and appropriate to bring about the release not just of
Speaker 2: US persons, but also allies who are imprisoned or detained
Speaker 2: by the ICC. Who wants to guess who signed that
Speaker 2: one into Lodge George W. Book two thousand and two. Now, look,
Speaker 2: if it's one thing. If it's it's one thing, if
Speaker 2: the ICC is attacking and going after US service members,
Speaker 2: for US to exert extraordinary influence to prevent that, it's
Speaker 2: another thing to do so on behalf of a foreign
Speaker 2: nation who is not even a treaty ally who we
Speaker 2: have no obligation actually I legally to defend at all.
Speaker 2: It's just the quote unquote non but like, just so
Speaker 2: people understand, Israel has the same treaty designation or ally
Speaker 2: designation as Argentina, So you know, just so everybody understands
Speaker 2: that in terms of our actual obligations the country. Now,
Speaker 2: as we can see here though very clearly, they are
Speaker 2: saying that this would constitute an attack on the US itself,
Speaker 2: where further evidence of dual loyalty and of exactly how
Speaker 2: much these people are willing to you know, basically expend
Speaker 2: extraordinary US effort and influence on behalf of the Israeli government.
Speaker 3: It's just crazy.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's in part too because there is
Speaker 1: some risks because the US has been so involved in
Speaker 1: this assault on Gaza. So they're not crazy to see
Speaker 1: this as like this could be a problem for US too,
Speaker 1: given what we've known about these war crimes, given the
Speaker 1: you know, overwhelming support in Congress and from the presidential
Speaker 1: level to ship these weapons in contravention of US law,
Speaker 1: leave alone international law. So I don't think they're crazy
Speaker 1: to see this is like this could be a problem
Speaker 1: for US too. And speaking of the Hague Invasion Act,
Speaker 1: they actually name check it has some other like sort
Speaker 1: of like Orwellian name like the service Member Protection Act
Speaker 1: or something like that, is the official name. The nickname
Speaker 1: for it is the Hague Invasion Act because it, as
Speaker 1: it indicates, authorizes military action in the event that you know,
Speaker 1: our service members were detained or any there was any
Speaker 1: sort of you know, threat to quote unquote US sovereignty.
Speaker 1: So it authorizes extraordinary measures. And they're saying that this
Speaker 1: could be invoked. The Hague Invasion Act could be invoked
Speaker 1: even if there are just arrest warrants for Bibi Yahu
Speaker 1: yoav Goalan, et cetera. So this is this is wild,
Speaker 1: Like this is really wild. And I guess it also
Speaker 1: does speak to the fact that it's easy to dismiss
Speaker 1: like UN resolutions and whatever. Is like they don't have
Speaker 1: any you know, they don't have a police force. What
Speaker 1: do they gotta do. They're not going to actually arrest
Speaker 1: net Nyahu or whatever. Clearly from the freakout from these individuals,
Speaker 1: the direct threats that are being issued in this letter
Speaker 1: and the freakount that's been reported on from the Israeli side,
Speaker 1: they clearly think it means something. They clearly feel like
Speaker 1: this is not a little nothing that they can just
Speaker 1: handwave by.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've said this before.
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody will get arrested or anything is
Speaker 2: going to happen. But international isolation is a problem. And
Speaker 2: that's really what they're more afraid of than anything is.
Speaker 2: They just want to be able to I mean, what
Speaker 2: does anybody want. They will a land without having to
Speaker 2: even worry or negotiate or have the US to excerpt influences.
Speaker 2: Ultimately what they want bbe also backing this, putting this
Speaker 2: up on the screen. Please Yesterday was actually Holocaust Remembrance
Speaker 2: Day in Israel, and Netsan Yahu, in his message frankly,
Speaker 2: in a very insulting message to all of us, says, quote,
Speaker 2: Israel will defend itself even if it is forced to
Speaker 2: stand alone. Now, if this was a country that had
Speaker 2: not received more military aid than any other country literally
Speaker 2: in the world from the United States, it would be
Speaker 2: one thing. But this is a country that owes not
Speaker 2: only its foundation and its existence, but every military development
Speaker 2: post nineteen seventy two to the United States taxpayer. So
Speaker 2: the idea that they're forced to stand alone and it's
Speaker 2: just them against the world is bullshit.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just insulting to us.
Speaker 2: And they just say that like as if their isolation
Speaker 2: at this point is a real because not if you
Speaker 2: look at the way that the West is supporting them
Speaker 2: to be to sell this idea that it's like oppositional,
Speaker 2: when in reality they are the greatest benefactors of the
Speaker 2: US superpower then probably maybe any other nation in the
Speaker 2: history of the world. So anyway, it just shows you
Speaker 2: that their foundational myth is like we stand alone. We
Speaker 2: stand where the underdoge, where the undergo said, come on, man,
Speaker 2: like you know not whenever you've been we've been funding.
Speaker 1: Your own country wouldn't even exist without us.
Speaker 3: It's literally the case, actually true.
Speaker 1: The UN partition plan was originally passed. It only came
Speaker 1: after we like bullied and coerced and threatened a few
Speaker 1: countries to demand their vote. Okay, So I mean it's
Speaker 1: just ridiculous, but it does speak to this sense of
Speaker 1: constant victory. We're the only legitimate victims. That's no. Number one.
Speaker 1: Everything that we do has to be seen in the
Speaker 1: context of the horrors of the Holocaust, and so since
Speaker 1: that horror was done to us, we can never be
Speaker 1: the ones perpetrating the horse. No matter what we do,
Speaker 1: we get a free pass. That's number one. And number
Speaker 1: two this self conception, which you know, people like like
Speaker 1: Christian Zionists like Joe Biden others also buy into this
Speaker 1: like outdated notion of which was never really accurate. Of
Speaker 1: Israel as the underdog, as the you know, the David
Speaker 1: against the Goliath, which is a preposterous concept when you
Speaker 1: look at the power disparity between them and the Palestinians
Speaker 1: at this point. So but he said, specifically in this
Speaker 1: message with regard to the ICC, he said, which also
Speaker 1: speaks to that dual like you know, victimhood and underdog situation.
Speaker 1: Issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials would leave an indelible
Speaker 1: stain on the edifice of international law and justice. He stressed,
Speaker 1: the ICC was founded as a consequence of the Holocaust
Speaker 1: and should not attempt to undermine Israel's fundamental right to
Speaker 1: self defense. So again, and the ideas like because of
Speaker 1: the Holocaust, we can do no wrong. This institution isn't
Speaker 1: about making sure that the laws applied equally no matter
Speaker 1: who does it in making sure these whoors that were
Speaker 1: perpetrated against us that nothing like it can happen to
Speaker 1: anyone in the world. No, no, no, this was set
Speaker 1: up explicitly to like give us a pass and make
Speaker 1: sure that it's never done specifically to us. Which again
Speaker 1: I want to reiterate that the reporting is that the
Speaker 1: ic C of rust wots if they come, which is
Speaker 1: a big if. The reporting is that they will likely
Speaker 1: be against Israeli officials and Hummas leaders. So keep that
Speaker 1: in mind as this is all unfolding.
Speaker 3: All said, all.
Speaker 2: Right, let's turn to the Trump trials. So some major developments.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump being held in contempt again giving a speech
Speaker 2: where he says he is very happy to serve in jail.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 4: And it's a disgrace. And then you have the other
Speaker 4: thing that maybe is even more disgraces, the gag order
Speaker 4: where I can't basically I have to watch every word
Speaker 4: I tend to do. People, you ask big question, a
Speaker 4: simple question, I'd like to give it, but I can't
Speaker 4: talk about it because judge just give me a gag
Speaker 4: order and say you'll go to jail if you violated,
Speaker 4: and frankly, you know what, our constitution is much more
Speaker 4: important than jail.
Speaker 3: It's not even close.
Speaker 2: So our constitution is more important in jail, It's not
Speaker 2: even close. Allegedly, and further going on saying that he
Speaker 2: would be happy to do it. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. This happens after Trump has been
Speaker 2: fined for contempt the tenth time now in the trial,
Speaker 2: has been fined one thousand dollars each time a sternest
Speaker 2: warning yet from the judge who says that clearly the
Speaker 2: money is not enough and that future gag order violations
Speaker 2: would send him to jail. So obviously that is pretty
Speaker 2: significant because the thousand dollars in the exactly cracking the
Speaker 2: wallet of Donald Trump, he especially with all of his
Speaker 2: truth social stock. But this is kind of overtaken the
Speaker 2: fact that there have been some significant developments in the
Speaker 2: trial itself. The most significant testimony actually happened on Friday.
Speaker 2: I've been wanting to give everybody an update. Let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and put this up there on the screen. It
Speaker 2: entails Hope Hicks wants his most closest advisor, his communications
Speaker 2: director in the White House. She was integral to the
Speaker 2: entire operation. She gave a tearful testimony at times over
Speaker 2: two hours quote with a behind the scenes glimpse into
Speaker 2: how his inner circle operated and responded to negative media stories.
Speaker 2: So Hicks actually was testifying there about learning about the
Speaker 2: Access Hollywood tape, about what the inside of how they
Speaker 2: learned about the Karen McDougall story, who previously also alleged
Speaker 2: an affair with Donald Trump, and then also Michael Cohen's
Speaker 2: role in the Stormy Daniel's hush money payment. So Hicks,
Speaker 2: despite being one of Trump's closest advisor's crystal called here
Speaker 2: to trial to try and offer evidence as to the
Speaker 2: fact that this was a payment given to Stormy Daniels
Speaker 2: motivated purely by the campaign and not as Trump is
Speaker 2: alleging that it was a personal expense that was done
Speaker 2: on his behalf.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, a lot was made of the
Speaker 1: fact she was very emotional. Reportedly she's still quite loyal
Speaker 1: to Trump. I mean, this is someone who's known him
Speaker 1: from times. She was quite a young woman, you know,
Speaker 1: thrust into the spotlight and into this big national position,
Speaker 1: and really was especially in the early days of the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency, just at the heart of everything that was
Speaker 1: going on, and you know, in terms of what impact
Speaker 1: it has on the trial, I think it's significant her
Speaker 1: testifying to the nature of the campaign and how they
Speaker 1: operated from just a you know, interest remembering that time.
Speaker 1: It was also really fascinating to hear her perspective on
Speaker 1: what happened the day that they got, you know, the
Speaker 1: media inquiry about hey, you want to respond to this
Speaker 1: whole Access Hollywood tape. They first got the transcript from
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. She's reading through it and is like,
Speaker 1: this is terrible. And her first thing that she sends
Speaker 1: to everyone is we need to deny, deny. Very quickly,
Speaker 1: they also get the video and realize, okay, that's probably
Speaker 1: not going to be a workable strategy, and she takes
Speaker 1: you into the room where she's the person who has
Speaker 1: to talk to Trump about what is about to come out.
Speaker 1: She said in her testimony. I shared the email with
Speaker 1: mister Trump sort of verbally, and we were at the time,
Speaker 1: based on the conversation outside the conference room, trying to
Speaker 1: get a copy of the audio or the tape to
Speaker 1: assess the situation further. We weren't sure yet how to respond.
Speaker 1: We were kind of just trying to gather more information.
Speaker 1: Everyone was observing the shock of it than She's asked.
Speaker 1: When you say you shared the content verbally, did you
Speaker 1: read mister Trump the email you receive from mister Farrenhold.
Speaker 1: He was the reporter who had asked for comment on this,
Speaker 1: She says, I write him in the email. I have
Speaker 1: a rag recollection of starting to read the transcript, and
Speaker 1: then he finished reading it himself. I believe did you
Speaker 1: hand the email for him to read? Yes, that's my recollection.
Speaker 1: And what if anything did he said say? He said
Speaker 1: that it didn't sound like something he would say. Oh really,
Speaker 1: it definitely sounds like something you would say, and obviously
Speaker 1: it's on tape, but I mean it is. It's extraordinary.
Speaker 1: She says. She was stunned, hard to describe. It was
Speaker 1: definitely concerning. I had, you know, a good sense this
Speaker 1: is going to be a massive story and sort of
Speaker 1: dominate the news cycle for the next several days at least,
Speaker 1: And she indicates it was a damaging development. This is
Speaker 1: all the reason this is relevant to this case, because
Speaker 1: you might think, like, why are they talking to This
Speaker 1: isn't actually directly related to the Stormy Daniels thing is
Speaker 1: to provide insight into the way that they reacted to
Speaker 1: negative stories that would come out about Trump, especially with
Speaker 1: regards to any sort of like you know, sexual relationships
Speaker 1: or commentary, et cetera, and how much they understood these
Speaker 1: things could be damaging to the campaign, because remember, the
Speaker 1: core this question is, okay, was this payment, these payments
Speaker 1: to Stormy Daniels, Should these have been a campaign expense
Speaker 1: or were there other reasons that Trump they have wanted
Speaker 1: to bury the story, like for example, his wife not
Speaker 1: you know, him not wanting his wife to find out.
Speaker 1: So that's why this piece is relevant, trying to provide
Speaker 1: context of like, yes, this was all about the campaign. Yes,
Speaker 1: when these Neggat stories would come out, they realized they
Speaker 1: were really damaging, they moved you did whatever they could
Speaker 1: to try to mitigate that damage, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And the speculation about why Hope was a much. I mean,
Speaker 1: anyone could kind of relate and understand. But this is
Speaker 1: someone she feels loyal to, and here she is testifying
Speaker 1: on the stand and feeling like she's providing information that's
Speaker 1: likely damaging. I think that's probably why it was difficult
Speaker 1: for her on the stand.
Speaker 2: Absolutely I will say she did give some evidence that
Speaker 2: would help be helpful for Trump. I mean in terms
Speaker 2: of reasonable doubt. She said that Donald Trump was concerned
Speaker 2: about the impact of the Stormy Daniel's news on Malania Trump,
Speaker 2: his wife, and apparently said he was very concerned about
Speaker 2: how it would be viewed by his wife and wanted
Speaker 2: to make sure the newspapers weren't delivered to the residents
Speaker 2: that morning. And quote the former president really values his
Speaker 2: wife's opinion, so giving at least room possibly for reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: One of the things you know, I want to prepare
Speaker 2: everybody for is that it is Remember you only need
Speaker 2: one person to declare a mistrial or a hung jury.
Speaker 2: Like it's very possible to create reasonable doubt. I think
Speaker 2: he's actually presented despite all the craziness around it, you know,
Speaker 2: enough reasonable doubt for at least maybe one or two
Speaker 2: so called impartial people to say, yeah, maybe he did
Speaker 2: do it for you know, for personal reasons, and that's
Speaker 2: all you really need to actually win this. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. Trump is trying to
Speaker 2: turn this to really to his political advantage.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Trump escalates a tax on prosecutors, says that the Democrats
Speaker 2: run a quote Gestapo administration. This was actually made at
Speaker 2: a fundraiser. My favorite part of the fundraiser, Crystal is
Speaker 2: he said, anyone who donates a million dollars here at
Speaker 2: this fundraiser can come up here and can say whatever
Speaker 2: they want. And he was taken up on it by
Speaker 2: a couple of people. So effective strategy. One million dollar
Speaker 2: donation right now, I will let you come up and speak.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Two donors then came to the stage and told the
Speaker 2: crowd Donald J. Trump is the person that God has chosen.
Speaker 2: Oh so, I don't know who you are with a
Speaker 2: million dollars with beliefs like that and a million dollars
Speaker 2: in disposable income.
Speaker 3: But I guess I.
Speaker 1: Guess money really is speech. Soaga, there we go.
Speaker 2: That's right, pretty amazing. Our main takeaway again here is
Speaker 2: that Trump. I've seen a lot of analysis on this.
Speaker 2: I'm curious what you think. Trump seems to believe that
Speaker 2: him getting rested would create another mar A Lago type moment,
Speaker 2: or being thrown in jail would create a mar A
Speaker 2: Lago type moment where it would force again the Republican
Speaker 2: Party to co list around him the same way that
Speaker 2: we had the mar A Lago raid. You already see
Speaker 2: evidence that Ron DeSantis is meeting with Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: doing campaign events set in the future on the schedule together.
Speaker 2: You haven't seen Nicky Haley or any of those others come.
Speaker 2: But he remembers how mar A Lago really saved him
Speaker 2: back and I was in November of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: and he believes you can recreate that if he was
Speaker 2: held in contempt and sent to jail and turn it
Speaker 2: into a free speech thing.
Speaker 1: So you're ann that's what ye Yeah, yeah, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but your analysis is that he's repeatedly violating the gag
Speaker 1: order to sort of intentionally court getting thrown in prison.
Speaker 2: I think it's possible because I don't know what's the
Speaker 2: other possible reason.
Speaker 3: I mean, nobody, because he's just beyond.
Speaker 1: Pops off of the mouth all the freaking time. Other thing.
Speaker 1: It's just like wildly undisciplined. Because I mean, if I
Speaker 1: don't I think that's possible too, that he is actually
Speaker 1: wants the spectacle of getting thrown into jail and is
Speaker 1: like kind of asking for it. I think that is possible. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a particularly wise strategy. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it either, because it's one thing in the context
Speaker 1: of a Republican primary, right, Yes, that rallied all the
Speaker 1: troops around him. In the context of Republican primary in
Speaker 1: general election, I think it's very different political dynamic. He's
Speaker 1: already got all Republicans on board. I don't think DeSantis,
Speaker 1: you know, coming on board as any surprise or has
Speaker 1: really anything to do with this trial. It's just like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's the nominee, he's very possibly the next president. If
Speaker 1: I'm going to have a political future, I better make
Speaker 1: things right with this dude. So that was always going
Speaker 1: to happen. So that piece I don't think is really connected.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the prospect of Trump actually getting thrown into jail,
Speaker 1: you know, it just brings this story to the forefront
Speaker 1: of the public. It provides images of him actually like
Speaker 1: in prison that I don't think are really great for him.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing here too, is the reason
Speaker 1: why this latest fine was levied is he was like,
Speaker 1: you know, like smearing basically the jury, which I know
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be disconnected from the media and not
Speaker 1: know what's going on, but if you're out there just
Speaker 1: like repeatedly going after the jury or the ones that
Speaker 1: are responsible for your fate, or the judge who's very
Speaker 1: important in terms of being responsible for your fate. It's
Speaker 1: not really a great legal strategy, I would say, and
Speaker 1: you're right that he has things to work with legally
Speaker 1: in this case. You know, I think, like you said,
Speaker 1: Hope Picks testified in particular with regard to the Karen
Speaker 1: McDougall story, which is relevant here, that's one of the
Speaker 1: catch and kill situations National Inquirer, that he was worried
Speaker 1: about what Malani would think and that that could be,
Speaker 1: you know, a real part of what was going on.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a huge requires a huge leap
Speaker 1: of imagination for people to imagine that he didn't want
Speaker 1: his wife to know about his affair with a porn star,
Speaker 1: so legally has things to work with here if he
Speaker 1: genuinely is like trying to get thrown in jail. First
Speaker 1: of all, I'm not sure it's going to work, because
Speaker 1: the judge did indicate that that might be required, but
Speaker 1: also expressed a lot of understandable reluctance about taking what
Speaker 1: would be an absolutely extraordinary step. But I'm also not
Speaker 1: sure that that political analysis from Trump really holds up.
Speaker 3: We'll see. All right, let's get to the polling.
Speaker 2: That's something that we also wanted to make sure we
Speaker 2: keep everybody updated on things actually possibly looking up for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Always want to show the other side of
Speaker 2: the coin. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Six months out quote a tight presidential race with a
Speaker 2: battle between issues and attributes. Trump has a forty six
Speaker 2: support amongst US adults and Biden forty four in a
Speaker 2: head to head matchup. But don't let that deceive you
Speaker 2: because as we see here in the graphic in front
Speaker 2: of us, this is ABC News IPSOS all adults, it
Speaker 2: shows Trump forty six Biden forty four, but if you
Speaker 2: go to registered voters you see forty six to forty five,
Speaker 2: and if you look at likely voters you actually get two.
Speaker 1: All right, how's my hairs?
Speaker 3: Gray sor right? Usually we can move last.
Speaker 1: That was a little too it's too clangy two one.
Speaker 2: Don't let those numbers deceive you though, as you guys
Speaker 2: can see on the graphic in front of you on
Speaker 2: the right, all adults forty four percent, Biden forty six
Speaker 2: percent Trump, but registered voters forty six forty five likely
Speaker 2: voters forty nine to forty five for Joe Biden, with
Speaker 2: a huge lead there, four points outside the margin of
Speaker 2: error within the likely voter sample. Now obviously that matters
Speaker 2: because likely voters of the people were probably going to vote. Now,
Speaker 2: the same actual phenomenon comes out even clearer in our
Speaker 2: next piece. Let's put this up there please. This was
Speaker 2: from NPR. Maris just came out out again just a
Speaker 2: couple of days ago. The headline there on their poll
Speaker 2: was Democrats if your fascism, Republicans worry about a lack
Speaker 2: of values.
Speaker 3: But here again, just check this out.
Speaker 2: Among people who say they are definitely voting in November,
Speaker 2: Biden's lead expands to five points, fifty two to forty seven.
Speaker 2: The survey shows Biden is doing better with groups that
Speaker 2: they are likely or definitely voting, older voters and college
Speaker 2: educated whites in particular. What do I always tell you,
Speaker 2: people don't get don't ever bet against suburban ladies and boomers,
Speaker 2: and because they'll drag their ask to vote no matter what.
Speaker 2: So I guess and this will be the most basic
Speaker 2: election analysis I've ever given. If it's a high turnout election,
Speaker 2: that's going to be really good for Donald Trump because
Speaker 2: it means low propensity voters are coming out to the polls.
Speaker 2: If it is a normal or low turnout election like
Speaker 2: let's say twenty twenty two or anything prior, then it's
Speaker 2: going to be very good for Joe Biden. Basically people
Speaker 2: who love to vote, like basically Democrats and highly educated
Speaker 2: and boomer if those are disproportionately the number of people
Speaker 2: comprise the electorate, and Biden has a huge edge. Best said,
Speaker 2: I would never bet against Trump. He has a historic
Speaker 2: track record of always being able to bring out people
Speaker 2: who are very low propensity and have never voted in
Speaker 2: the past. So I have no idea. History says one thing.
Speaker 2: We have no idea if that's necessarily a good predictor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it used to be you could kind of
Speaker 1: bacon like, Oh, the polls are understanding Trump's support. We
Speaker 1: really don't know anymore. It's in some of the polls
Speaker 1: they've been under est demanding Democratic support. So it's impossible
Speaker 1: to like even read into the polls what it might
Speaker 1: really mean. But this dynamic of Biden doing better with
Speaker 1: the likely voter screen when the polling companies are trying
Speaker 1: to look at ari who's actually going to show up
Speaker 1: and vote versus the overall electorate is a dynamic we've
Speaker 1: been seeing for a while. It's basically remember how back
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, I think it was Schumer who famously
Speaker 1: said for every blue collar Democrat we lose in western Pa,
Speaker 1: we'll pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia.
Speaker 1: Can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. Basically,
Speaker 1: these poles are like, maybe that strategy is finally coming
Speaker 1: to fruition. Maybe that was actually going to work out
Speaker 1: for them this time. Maybe. If it is the case,
Speaker 1: I do think abortion is a significant part of that.
Speaker 1: And then also just like you know, the negative sentiment
Speaker 1: around Trump, you know, which one of these men do
Speaker 1: people find to be more distasteful. That's going to be
Speaker 1: a key question here as well. How to young people
Speaker 1: factor into all of this. Who are you know, not
Speaker 1: only disgusted with Biden, but some number have actually shifted
Speaker 1: to Trump. Some number are just like I'm not going
Speaker 1: to vote at all. Some number are like, hey what
Speaker 1: about these third party candidates? That's the other big question
Speaker 1: mark is these numbers were showing you are just the
Speaker 1: head to head they don't have RFK Junior, they don't
Speaker 1: have Jill Stein, they don't have Cornell West. What ballots
Speaker 1: are those candidates going to be on? I just I
Speaker 1: just don't know. I just don't know. Like it's seems
Speaker 1: to me that it is really fifty to fifty. Every
Speaker 1: day that I see a like, oh, Biden's doing okay,
Speaker 1: the next day I see a one that's like, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump's winning every swing state. And I think that is
Speaker 1: another thing important thing to bring up, Zager, is it
Speaker 1: seems pretty consistent that the swing state polls appear to
Speaker 1: be better for Donald Trump than Joe Biden, whereas the
Speaker 1: national polls are more of a mixed BacT.
Speaker 3: Great point.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right, and we don't know for sure. Just
Speaker 2: to give some turnout evidence, I just have it in
Speaker 2: front of me. Midterm turnout actually was about fifty two
Speaker 2: percent of the vote in twenty twenty two, but that
Speaker 2: is ten points lower than where we were in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: So sixty per sixty three percent of people came out
Speaker 2: eligible voters came out to vote in the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: election only fifty two percent. That's actually quite high for
Speaker 2: a midterm election, but clearly the Democrats had a major
Speaker 2: performance advantage with fifty two percent of people come into
Speaker 2: the polls in twenty twenty two, So in presidentials they're
Speaker 2: usually higher, But is it going to be sixty or
Speaker 2: sixty three? There's actually quite a big difference between those numbers,
Speaker 2: and you know who they are. But like you said, two,
Speaker 2: the swing voter stuff here really matters. At the same time,
Speaker 2: you're like, Okay, I see a poll Arizona ands say
Speaker 2: they're fed up with the economy, all that stuff. Well
Speaker 2: we saw all of that before twenty twenty two, and
Speaker 2: then what happened. They all came out on the elected
Speaker 2: bunch of Democrats, so I could see the exact same
Speaker 2: thing happening. Their state legislature has to try eight times
Speaker 2: to overturn a.
Speaker 3: Total abortion band. So I'm like, well, I don't know,
Speaker 3: you never know you're with them.
Speaker 1: You got a number of states, including Florida that I
Speaker 1: think Trump won by four points. If memory three serves
Speaker 1: three to four, that has a you know, abortion initiative
Speaker 1: on the ballot, that could be impactful. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna win Florida, but Biden seems to actually
Speaker 1: do better with old people than young people at this point,
Speaker 1: so you never know which puts. If Florida's in play,
Speaker 1: then you're like, oh, well, this could be a landslide
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. I could honestly see it going either.
Speaker 1: I could see it all going to Joe Biden, like
Speaker 1: all the swing states plus some outlier like Florida. I
Speaker 1: could see it going to the other direction and be
Speaker 1: in like a sweep for Trump, perhaps with some assists
Speaker 1: from third party candidates. I could see the third party
Speaker 1: Canid's cutting the other way. We see Trump freaking out
Speaker 1: about RFK Junior right now. I will say just in
Speaker 1: terms of anticipating turnout, I pulling indicates, and I think
Speaker 1: the vibes indicate as well. And what we see in
Speaker 1: terms of response to the you know, horse race segments
Speaker 1: that we do here, people are way less engaged than
Speaker 1: they were in twenty twenty, twenty twenty. They're just completely apathetic.
Speaker 1: I don't blame them. I feel the same freakin way.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what kind of a choice is this that
Speaker 1: we have? Our great democracy and this is the choice
Speaker 1: we have. This is disgusting. So I think people a
Speaker 1: lot of people are like, who really cares? Who cares
Speaker 1: which one of these like terrible people ends up being
Speaker 1: the next president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Very important point, and yet we can see it in
Speaker 2: our own data. I mean, you know, our show began
Speaker 2: as an election show back in twenty twenty. We know
Speaker 2: just how ripping election coverage can be when people are interested.
Speaker 2: That is not the case these days. And actually we're
Speaker 2: doing better than most national news outlets. In fact, most
Speaker 2: national news outlets have had a reduction in their overall
Speaker 2: ratings six months a head of the election, which is
Speaker 2: insane because that's never supposed to happen. It didn't happen
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen, didn't happen in twenty twenty. I mean,
Speaker 2: there was even more interest frankly in the twenty twelve election.
Speaker 2: You know, at that time, Obama being tested in all that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember, I'm sure you do too, that
Speaker 2: primary and Mitt Romney and everything.
Speaker 3: I think there was.
Speaker 1: More interest in like the twenty eighteen mid terms. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you're right than it's generally, you know, typically
Speaker 1: just in terms of you know, media business whatever. Typically
Speaker 1: there are a few media brands that really and we
Speaker 1: were one of these, that really like establish themselves and
Speaker 1: make themselves in and become known in the context of
Speaker 1: presidential races. I mean, this is the this is the peak.
Speaker 1: Usually the idea is that ratings and interest and clicks
Speaker 1: and views and all of that really spike and are
Speaker 1: an outlier, you know, order magnitude higher in presidential election years.
Speaker 1: And now, I mean, listen, it's it's a little early,
Speaker 1: but it's may. It's not that early, and people like
Speaker 1: who cares? And I feel the same way. Frankly, I
Speaker 1: feel the same way.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, and just give to give you
Speaker 2: even more evidence here also about how propensity and low
Speaker 2: propensity people may even turn out. We cannot erase RFK Junior.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. News Nation
Speaker 2: just did a poll. RFK Junior actually more popular. Here
Speaker 2: is showing with younger voters and specifically with Republicans, fifty
Speaker 2: seven percent of younger voters say they have a favorable
Speaker 2: review of RFK Junior, and amongst Republicans, he's got a
Speaker 2: very high approval rating. So let's say that you have
Speaker 2: more low propensity anti institutional folks who hate liberals or
Speaker 2: hate the Democrats, who want to stick it to somebody. Previously,
Speaker 2: they were just going to vote for Trump in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: This time around, they may come out and they may
Speaker 2: vote for RFK Junior if they do turn out to vote,
Speaker 2: So we cannot erase his role either in this election.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of X factors, but I agree, I mean,
Speaker 2: all indicators are right now is a much lower turnout
Speaker 2: than twenty twenty that the interest in a lot of ways.
Speaker 3: I mean, this might be.
Speaker 2: This almost feels like the nineteen ninety six election, which
Speaker 2: I think is the least important election of my lifetime,
Speaker 2: where you're like, eh, you know, you never whichever one
Speaker 2: you get.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying it won't be.
Speaker 2: Consequential, of course it will, right Like ninety six was
Speaker 2: consequential for a variety of reasons beyond the Gangrich era,
Speaker 2: welfare reform, etc. Like on a policy level, but in
Speaker 2: terms of the way people felt about it, they just
Speaker 2: didn't really care that much. And I think people do
Speaker 2: care this time around, but like you said, know that
Speaker 2: their choices are so limited that they're just turning the
Speaker 2: dial off. Mostly sports coverage, pop culture coverage and all
Speaker 2: of that is record highs, while political coverage is a
Speaker 2: very very.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think part of that I think part
Speaker 1: of it too, is the fact that you basically didn't
Speaker 1: really have a primary on either side. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Republicans went through the motion, but it was a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 1: Trump didn't even participate in the debates, So that there's
Speaker 1: a natural progression where people get engaged in the primaries,
Speaker 1: they get excited about the elections. They've got some candidate,
Speaker 1: some horse on their side of the aisle that they're
Speaker 1: getting excited about, and then you know that starts to
Speaker 1: spark interest in the stakes of the election. And so
Speaker 1: you have that dynamic of on the Democratic side, they
Speaker 1: just literally basically canceled the primary and we're like, nope,
Speaker 1: we don't care, no dissent, we don't care that the
Speaker 1: majority of Democrats actually would like to have someone else.
Speaker 1: We're just sticking with Joe. That's that. And on the
Speaker 1: Republican side, as I said, Trump didn't participate in the primaries,
Speaker 1: and he was massively ahead in the polls nearly once
Speaker 1: they people actually engaged the entire time. So there's that,
Speaker 1: and then there's just the fact that you've cut a
Speaker 1: majority of Americans who say they don't like Biden and
Speaker 1: a majority of Americans who they don't like Trump, and
Speaker 1: the most unifying sentiment in the entire country is utter
Speaker 1: disgust at the nature of our choices for this election.
Speaker 3: Big go. That's right.
Speaker 2: At the same time, the segment everybody's been waiting for
Speaker 2: lab grown.
Speaker 1: Meat really built this puppy up, didn't we Let's put it.
Speaker 2: Up there on the Florida Ron DeSantis has banned lab
Speaker 2: grown meat, as other states way a ban quote what's
Speaker 2: their beef with cultured meat?
Speaker 3: Good headline there from the USA.
Speaker 2: Today, Governor rond De Santas signed into law this bill
Speaker 2: which bans any quote cultivated meat because it has grown
Speaker 2: from animals. He says, take your fake lab grown meat elsewhere,
Speaker 2: We're not doing that in the state of Florida. To
Speaker 2: be clear, the ban does not include things like impossible meat,
Speaker 2: which is made from plant based ingredients and is meant
Speaker 2: to protect cattle ranchers and the integrity of American agriculture.
Speaker 3: Now, critics have come after Governor.
Speaker 2: DeSantis, saying that it goes against regulatory approvals that came
Speaker 2: in through the US just a year ago.
Speaker 3: There's actually been a huge backlash. Crystal.
Speaker 2: You'll find funny to know amongst the technology community. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of venture capitalists who to Florida who are
Speaker 2: very pissed off. They are calling this anti science and
Speaker 2: anti tech.
Speaker 3: However, there have.
Speaker 1: Been I think I saw like Bezos invested in.
Speaker 3: That's right, Bezos just invested a lot of money.
Speaker 1: This is the point against me. I shouldn't have brought.
Speaker 2: That Jeff Bezos to invest about sixty million dollars in
Speaker 2: Lab grown Meat company. He has picked up though, some
Speaker 2: interesting fellow travelers in the movement.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: John Fetterman has supported Rond DeSantis's lab Meat bands, saying quote,
Speaker 2: the fake meat is slop, and he says it pains
Speaker 2: me deeply to agree with the crass and burn ron,
Speaker 2: but I co sign this as a member.
Speaker 1: Picture of health, both Betterment and Santas.
Speaker 2: Okay, now that doesn't necessarily anything. Says as a member
Speaker 2: of Senate Agricultural Democrats, and as some dude who would
Speaker 2: never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with
Speaker 2: American ranchers and farmers. So this has picked I guess
Speaker 2: it's an interesting discussion which we wanted to have here
Speaker 2: about lab grown meat. So I will at least give
Speaker 2: my perspective and my advocacy for the bill. Now, I
Speaker 2: think it is a fair point just to preempting criticism.
Speaker 2: Why wouldn't you say this about factory meat. I agree
Speaker 2: with you. I think factory meat is poison. I was
Speaker 2: telling you us meat is actually banned in one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty countries because a lot of the additives that
Speaker 2: we put in there, many of the ways that we
Speaker 2: have are in our meat supply Tyson's foods and all
Speaker 2: of this is repulsive and discussing, and if you have
Speaker 2: the ability, I would genuinely urge you to not eat
Speaker 2: it and to try and either buy local meat, which
Speaker 2: is a pastur ray, organic grass fed, et cetera, from
Speaker 2: people who actually both treat animals well, harvest them sustainably
Speaker 2: and responsibly.
Speaker 3: I understand it's more expensive. Not everybody can afford it.
Speaker 2: That's part of the curse, though, has been a factory
Speaker 2: and you know, vertically integrated meat production here in the
Speaker 2: United States. Now, the reason I'm against lab grown meat
Speaker 2: and all of this is I believe very strongly in
Speaker 2: a principle called the Lindy principle. This was you know,
Speaker 2: by Nassim Teleb and the idea is basically like the
Speaker 2: longer it's been around, the better it is. And there
Speaker 2: is just something deeply dystopian and terrible to me about
Speaker 2: the ideas of like the future technology companies like these
Speaker 2: tech guys Jeff Bezos and others, not just owning land
Speaker 2: where food production actually happens, but synthesizing meat and then
Speaker 2: possibly I mean, who knows what you're even gonna put
Speaker 2: into it. I mean, just imagine, you know, our current
Speaker 2: vegetables already are not even real vegetables. They're like genetically modified,
Speaker 2: and they have all this crap in them to make
Speaker 2: them last longer in the freezer car on the way.
Speaker 3: From Chicago or whatever to overhere.
Speaker 2: And I just feel like more that we do that
Speaker 2: I understand is better for feeding eight billion people at scale.
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to criticize it, I guess in
Speaker 2: that way, but I don't think it is healthy and
Speaker 2: moving more in that industrialize food way, and it's also
Speaker 2: stripping away, you know, the tradition, and I think the
Speaker 2: benefactor of cattle ranching and trying to move to a
Speaker 2: pre nineteen sixties food market, which I would like to see.
Speaker 3: I'm supportive of the measure Oka anyway.
Speaker 1: With all that, yes, so there first, let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit of background the two things that are really
Speaker 1: driving this move to ban lab grown meat, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, what this is, I mean not that I
Speaker 1: really understand the process, but they take some stem cells,
Speaker 1: yes exactly, from an animal, animals not harmed, and they're
Speaker 1: able to use amino assets to basically like grow actual
Speaker 1: meat out of these stem cells, which is extraordinary, right
Speaker 1: and has potentially you can imagine the potential massive benefits
Speaker 1: because the meat that we consume, is Sager is actly
Speaker 1: pointing out, is actually really terrible. And industrial factory farming
Speaker 1: is also really horrifying and is bad obviously for the animals,
Speaker 1: but it's also bad for people. You have this massive
Speaker 1: use of antibiotics, which has led to you know, straight
Speaker 1: antibiotic resistant strains of infections, and that being a problem
Speaker 1: you have even like right now, there's a bird flu
Speaker 1: situation that comes directly out of the result of the
Speaker 1: way that these factory farms operate in the close integration
Speaker 1: with humans, and these factory farms which are disgusting, dystopian places,
Speaker 1: these animals are tortured from birth until the time that
Speaker 1: they are slaughtered. It's horrifying, horrifying situation. And that's before
Speaker 1: you even get into the climate impact. Okay, so that's
Speaker 1: number one. Number two, as I was beginning to say,
Speaker 1: the reason this is happening now is not because Ron
Speaker 1: DeSantis is deeply concerned about the quality of the food
Speaker 1: that our children consume. It's because number one, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of money in the factory farming industry that is
Speaker 1: concerned about this. And number two, Republicans have made it
Speaker 1: into this like culture war thing where it's like, and
Speaker 1: even Desanta says in his bill, like the World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum elites want us to eat fake meat and bugs
Speaker 1: and who cares about climate change, et cetera. So it's
Speaker 1: this culture war issue that has the benefit of also
Speaker 1: overlapping with a lot of big money interests. Fetterman, I
Speaker 1: think picking it up likely given his the demonstrated level
Speaker 1: of corruption and how influenced he is by money that
Speaker 1: is given or withheld from his campaign, I think it's
Speaker 1: very reasonable to assume that maybe a factor for him
Speaker 1: as well. But yeah, it's not like the rest of
Speaker 1: our food system is so pristine that it makes any
Speaker 1: sense to single out this one potential innovation. And then
Speaker 1: the other thing to say is this is like, this
Speaker 1: is a long way from coming to fruition.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's definitely true, right.
Speaker 1: It's still very early in the development. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think what we talked the other day, I think
Speaker 1: it was me and Emily you were out about lunchables.
Speaker 1: Like to me, things like that are probably a much
Speaker 1: bigger problem than lab grown meat, which has all of
Speaker 1: the genetic indications of being just basically like meat. So
Speaker 1: to have a hard ban on this, it's more culture
Speaker 1: war signaling than it is actual concern for anybody's health,
Speaker 1: because if you're concerned for anybody's health, you have a
Speaker 1: lot more critiques of our food system than you have.
Speaker 3: Sure, but I mean take where you can get, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, to me, lab grown meat is the epitome
Speaker 2: of the Jurassic Park. Mean, your scientists were so preoccupied
Speaker 2: whether or not they could they didn't stop to think
Speaker 2: if they should.
Speaker 3: I mean the idea.
Speaker 2: Look, as we have seen with a lot of the
Speaker 2: regenerative farming movement and others that are out there, you
Speaker 2: can actually minimize a lot of the climate impact. You
Speaker 2: can actually raise animals sustainably, you can have much healthier meat,
Speaker 2: and you can even buy directly from the sources. One
Speaker 2: of the amazing things about the internet is you can
Speaker 2: buy meat online today and you can get a ship
Speaker 2: to your house from ups. You're going to pay maybe
Speaker 2: fifteen percent more than you would buy at the grocery store.
Speaker 2: I totally understand a huge portion of the public cannot
Speaker 2: afford that. So I am not saying that it is
Speaker 2: anywhere where it needs to be. But imagine if those
Speaker 2: people got the same federal subsidies that Tyson's Foods and
Speaker 2: Purdue Farm and all these other people are getting. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's a totally different type of food system which we
Speaker 2: could get to pro technology in the way that people
Speaker 2: could still get access to or even better buy something
Speaker 2: locally which is properly raised. So I would just say
Speaker 2: this lab grown direction is one where look, there's something
Speaker 2: both in terms of the playing god, but second, I
Speaker 2: just really believe and we're gonna talk we have a
Speaker 2: guest later who we're going to be posting later on
Speaker 2: about ozempic and there is just there is this idea
Speaker 2: of hubris where we seem to believe that we can
Speaker 2: just synthesize amino acids and that there isn't something intangible
Speaker 2: over hundreds of millions or tens of millions of years
Speaker 2: of evolution of an animal being grown from birth to
Speaker 2: wherever it is, and then us eating the animal protein
Speaker 2: that can just be synthesized through a tube into something
Speaker 2: that we're going to eat and is going to give
Speaker 2: us all the nutrients that we could ever possibly want.
Speaker 2: There's no you know, history of medical science that shows
Speaker 2: you that, like Western medicine itself right now, if you
Speaker 2: were to ask me to how to fix the bone,
Speaker 2: they know how to do that, but they don't know
Speaker 2: what makes us tick. That's why nobody has ever solved
Speaker 2: depression or you know, why you can't just take vitamins
Speaker 2: instead of eating vegetables.
Speaker 3: If it was that easy, then it would already have
Speaker 3: been done.
Speaker 2: So for me, it doesn't pass the Lindy test at all,
Speaker 2: and I think we should say that always.
Speaker 1: I mean, your tick is just basically like I assume
Speaker 1: all technology is bad, not all, but a lot, I mean,
Speaker 1: and it's very it's very dissonant with other technological like
Speaker 1: embrace of you know, the Apple Vision pro and other
Speaker 1: things that you're very life and also it's very it's
Speaker 1: very dissonant also with your you know, your view that
Speaker 1: we don't really need to worry about climate change because
Speaker 1: science is going to solve it. Well, this is one area.
Speaker 1: I mean what it's like twenty five percent of carbon
Speaker 1: emissions come from its food delivery. It's very high. So okay,
Speaker 1: this is part of science solving the climate change crisis
Speaker 1: and making it so that we don't have to make
Speaker 1: some of the more dire trade offs that some of
Speaker 1: us fear that ultimately will have to make. So listen,
Speaker 1: study it, make sure it's safe. But to just have
Speaker 1: no evidence that it's a problem and be like I'm
Speaker 1: going to ban it because I want to own the
Speaker 1: World Economic Forum elites, it's just silly. It's just silly.
Speaker 1: And like I said, it's so different than the way
Speaker 1: the entire rest of the food system is viewed. It's
Speaker 1: just this sort of like based on nothing, reactionary view
Speaker 1: that I believe, based on nothing, this is going to
Speaker 1: be a problem. When you know, it's nice that you
Speaker 1: can get like your organic whatever, small ranch raised beef,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Ninety nine percent that's the stat of animals
Speaker 1: consume for food production are factory farms and it's horrible.
Speaker 1: It's horrible for the animals, it's horrible for human beings.
Speaker 1: But I don't see Santis or John Fetterman upset about that,
Speaker 1: of course not, because that's where they're getting the money from,
Speaker 1: that is being used to drive this position. And then
Speaker 1: also this just like culture war.
Speaker 3: Virtue signal, I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: I think there's also I mean, look, I understand the
Speaker 2: whole World Economic Forum thing, but really what they are saying,
Speaker 2: let's say the best faith version of it is basically
Speaker 2: in a lab grown system.
Speaker 3: What does it mean.
Speaker 2: It means you have to go to a company in
Speaker 2: order to buy your meat. You can never actually be
Speaker 2: fully sustainable or harvest something if you want it to yourself.
Speaker 3: What okay, because.
Speaker 1: People can still have their own cat, they can still
Speaker 1: buy their meat.
Speaker 3: I mean what if they outlaw that as okay.
Speaker 1: Well, then you take a stand of back against that.
Speaker 1: But instead of saying, hey, let's study it and see
Speaker 1: and actually maybe this is healthier for people. Maybe this
Speaker 1: reduces the cost of meat so that people can have
Speaker 1: more whole foods versus the like, you know, lunchables crap
Speaker 1: that they're eating now, rather than that you're just like,
Speaker 1: let's ban it before we even know.
Speaker 2: I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing that
Speaker 2: it is a culture based argument. Yeah, only telling you
Speaker 2: where it comes from. The skepticism. Again, for me, it
Speaker 2: doesn't pass Thelindy test literally at all. The idea that
Speaker 2: you can just grow something in a lab and that's
Speaker 2: going to replace it. If again, if it were true,
Speaker 2: then vitamins would have replaced all of vegetables. But all
Speaker 2: medical scients would tell you that a vitamin is not
Speaker 2: a direct you know, is not a direct substitute. Now,
Speaker 2: could it get there maybe, but they've been trying, you know,
Speaker 2: for what forty fifty years, So in this case, maybe
Speaker 2: they will get there. But it does seem like, just look,
Speaker 2: it makes me uncomfortable the idea that these people are
Speaker 2: trying to consolidate the food system such that the fake.
Speaker 1: System is already consolidated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but we can have a problem. We have some
Speaker 3: level of self exit.
Speaker 2: Right now, I'm saying, what if we get to the
Speaker 2: point where you have a total control of the food
Speaker 2: system there, which I do think that.
Speaker 1: There is actually competitor to the consolidated food system. That's
Speaker 1: why there's a reaction against it from the political class
Speaker 1: because of these monopolists who want to be able to
Speaker 1: continue their factory farming with no alternative and have consolidated
Speaker 1: the marketplace. That's exactly the problem. They don't want a competitor.
Speaker 3: Well, but they don't.
Speaker 2: The competitors who are coming in are Jeff Bezos and
Speaker 2: the Facebook. The VC guys who I see tweeting about
Speaker 2: this on Instagram or on are on Twitter, who are
Speaker 2: you know, multi billionaires or have funds themselves. It's like
Speaker 2: Facebook taking over the monopoly of newspapers is like did
Speaker 2: we win? I mean, like if that's competitions not necessarily
Speaker 2: a good competition, Like is the new boss really as
Speaker 2: good as the old boss or is it just basically
Speaker 2: the exact same type of boss that we have here?
Speaker 1: Not?
Speaker 2: Again, is DeSantis corrupt? Do they really care about the
Speaker 2: food system? No, because they're from the top sugar producing
Speaker 2: state in the whole country. Like I'm with you, Like
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that it's not a good thing. If
Speaker 2: we could ban sugar, we probably better off doing that
Speaker 2: than we would with lab grown meat or any of
Speaker 2: this other stuff. But we could go after the agricultural
Speaker 2: subsidies and Purdue and Tyson's and all these other companies,
Speaker 2: and you know, like lunchables, which is I don't even
Speaker 2: know if that doesn't even qualify in my head as
Speaker 2: meat or hot dogs or so many of these other
Speaker 2: things with all those disgusting additives and things like that.
Speaker 1: Hot dogs are a great point. Actually, yeah, no, people
Speaker 1: are fine with hot dogs. You're worried about this, Okay,
Speaker 1: looked by the way, hot dogs.
Speaker 2: Fut and I don't eat any hot period. I'm not
Speaker 2: putting that poison into my body.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, listen, if you actually care about the food system,
Speaker 1: you would do a lot more good rather than banning
Speaker 1: something that hasn't even really been developed yet. You do
Speaker 1: a lot more good, just like killing the corn subsidies
Speaker 1: and the sugar subsidies and putting those subsidies instead towards
Speaker 1: whole foods, whole fruits, vegetables, meat, et cetera. But for
Speaker 1: some reason, political.
Speaker 3: Classmen, I think that's a fair point. Yeah, we were
Speaker 3: just trying to zoom out a little bit.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to what's going on in terms
Speaker 1: of the college protests panic across the country. Some significant
Speaker 1: news broke yesterday with regard to Columbia University, let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. So they announced their decision
Speaker 1: yesterday to cancel their university wide commencement amid protests. This
Speaker 1: headline says, and they cite specifically some vague quote unquote
Speaker 1: security threat. Note that previously the justification for like bringing
Speaker 1: in the cops and clearing out in the encampment and
Speaker 1: all that was, Hey, we got to like, we got
Speaker 1: to get it together so we can host a commencement.
Speaker 1: Could put this up on the screen. This is part
Speaker 1: of the statement from the President of Columbias. It's going
Speaker 1: to take time to heal, but I know we can
Speaker 1: do that. I hope we can use the weeks that
Speaker 1: head to restore calm, all our students complete their academic
Speaker 1: work and honor their achievements at commencement. But apparently, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone should take their like security threat
Speaker 1: thing here seriously. They're worried about it being disrupted. They're
Speaker 1: worried about a show of you know how widely supported
Speaker 1: these protests are not only among the students, but among
Speaker 1: the faculty. They're panicked about, you know, the donor class
Speaker 1: meltdown that they've already seen, and so like UCLA before them,
Speaker 1: they decided better just to cancel it all together so
Speaker 1: no one can see any potential exercises of free speech.
Speaker 1: Because I'm Cyer recovered yesterday. There have been graduation ceremonies
Speaker 1: that have had protests. It hasn't been a big deal.
Speaker 1: You know, some people stand up with flags, they you know,
Speaker 1: get cheered or boot or whatever. They're scorted out and
Speaker 1: that's the end of the story and it really continues
Speaker 1: with their day. So you know, there's I guess two
Speaker 1: things to say. Number One, like I said, it's not
Speaker 1: about security, it's about they don't want to be embarrassed
Speaker 1: and they don't want to be out of control. And
Speaker 1: number two, you know, this has everything to do with
Speaker 1: the manufactured panic that has been created and they just
Speaker 1: want it to end and be able to, you know,
Speaker 1: silence everyone in move.
Speaker 2: It is about the donors and the parents who would
Speaker 2: be coming there more than it is about anything else. Obviously,
Speaker 2: as as evidenced, like you said, at previous ones, there
Speaker 2: were annoying protesters. By the way, at my graduation, if
Speaker 2: I recall, I think it was at the height of Ferguson.
Speaker 1: It's very common to we did at mine as a
Speaker 1: but I can barely even remember because it wasn't even
Speaker 1: like that big a deal.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm with you, I agree with you. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't particularly care I remember. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: if I recall, the university was like, there will be
Speaker 2: no political songs on people's hats. And then people did
Speaker 2: it anyway because they're like, what are you going to do?
Speaker 2: Care well my degree? Yeah, and then people's parents were
Speaker 2: some people's parents were outrage, and other parents were supporting.
Speaker 2: I guess this is a time honored tradition. Let's put
Speaker 2: the next one, please up there on the screen. This
Speaker 2: kind of gets to some of what we previewed yesterday
Speaker 2: about where we were going to talk about. There's been
Speaker 2: some interesting new polling now about how Americans feel about
Speaker 2: these quote pro palest Indian college protests.
Speaker 3: So I'll go through support and oppose.
Speaker 2: The top line US adults is twenty eight percent strongly
Speaker 2: or somewhat support, not sure twenty four strongly or somewhat
Speaker 2: oppose is forty seven percent, so deflarent plurality. Now there
Speaker 2: is an age gap eighteen to forty four. Forty percent
Speaker 2: strongly or someone support, thirty one percent not sure, thirty
Speaker 2: percent strongly or somewhat oppose, forty five and older basically
Speaker 2: completely flipped. You got sixty two percent who completely opposed,
Speaker 2: nineteen percent only who support.
Speaker 1: Ninety wild age gap.
Speaker 3: What do I tell you about boomers votes? What I
Speaker 3: college graduates?
Speaker 2: This is another important one, important to me because it's
Speaker 2: the support figure and the don't know figure which are
Speaker 2: really interesting where the oppose is relatively similar. So you
Speaker 2: got thirty eight percent college grads who support, fifteen percent
Speaker 2: not sure, forty eight percent of pose non college is
Speaker 2: twenty four percent support, twenty nine percent is not sure
Speaker 2: as in probably just don't care, and then forty seven
Speaker 2: percent who oppose. Amongst Democrats, you got forty six percent
Speaker 2: Democrats who support independence, twenty four Republicans sixteen. And then
Speaker 2: on the opposition you've got thirty one percent Democrats, forty
Speaker 2: four percent independence, sixty nine percent Republicans. Not a surprise,
Speaker 2: they've got a breakdown there by religion. But do you
Speaker 2: want to comment on this before we go through more
Speaker 2: of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I'll just say I actually to be
Speaker 1: honest with Hugh this, you know, as someone who does
Speaker 1: support the protests. Given what I know about historic disapproval
Speaker 1: of protests, and given what I've seen in terms of
Speaker 1: being overwhelming media and political class manufacturing of consent around
Speaker 1: these protests, I'm actually surprised aren't worse, Like the fact
Speaker 1: that you still have eighteen to forty four year old's
Speaker 1: plurality of whom are in favor, the fact that the
Speaker 1: Democratic number, I mean, Joe Biden is really going against
Speaker 1: his own base, because there's a very clear plurality forty
Speaker 1: six percent of Democrats who are in support specifically of
Speaker 1: the college campus protests and only thirty one percent who oppose.
Speaker 1: You know, the religion gap is also quite quite extraordinary,
Speaker 1: quite notable. But to be honest with you, these numbers
Speaker 1: are not as bad as I frankly feared.
Speaker 5: That they would be.
Speaker 2: Interesting, I cope, in my opinion a little bit, because
Speaker 2: there's still forty seven percent of pose figure there in
Speaker 2: terms of the plurality of the public is against it.
Speaker 1: But if you look at like Vietnam War protests, which
Speaker 1: we have these numbers, we can get to in a
Speaker 1: message that they were way more negative than this.
Speaker 2: So, oh no, we'll get to that. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next part this is about too harsh or not
Speaker 2: harsh enough. This again is where I would say there's
Speaker 2: some warning signs. Amongst US adults, thirty three percent the
Speaker 2: plurality here at least in this one are saying that
Speaker 2: has not and harsh enough of a response. Thirty one
Speaker 2: percent not sure about right, twenty sixteen percent say too
Speaker 2: harsh eighteen to forty four. You've actually got a plurality
Speaker 2: who are saying it's about right or not sure. Twenty
Speaker 2: two percent say too harsh, sixteen percent not harsh enough.
Speaker 2: But again look at that older figure. Forty five percent
Speaker 2: and older forty five and older forty eight percent are
Speaker 2: saying not harsh enough.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and twelve loves there. They love their order.
Speaker 2: College graduates actually very similar. There's definitely more who will
Speaker 2: say too harsh, but there's still a plurality amongst college
Speaker 2: grads for the not harsh enough figure. Same for the
Speaker 2: non college graduates figure, although if the number is higher
Speaker 2: amongst not sure amongst Democrats, even the about right figure
Speaker 2: is the one that really takes the cake at thirty percent,
Speaker 2: So even amongst people who necessarily support the protests are
Speaker 2: saying it is about right for the police response Republicans
Speaker 2: and independence. Independence actually relatively split Republicans obviously saying it's
Speaker 2: not been harsh enough, and then a similar breakdown there
Speaker 2: amongst religion. Finally, let's go to the next part. This
Speaker 2: is just on the latest parts. This is about protecting
Speaker 2: free speech. This can be relatively grim as somebody who
Speaker 2: definitely supports a free speech do Americans think cologists would
Speaker 2: focus more on protecting free speech or stopping hate speech?
Speaker 2: US adult citizens say both equally, even though stopping hate
Speaker 2: speech is a fake thing and is not real.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can understand how people say it though
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I mean, this is one of the
Speaker 1: most unifying questions. Actually, where you see some divides among
Speaker 1: like older people are more likely to say stop hate
Speaker 1: speech was most people who are like yeah both, Like
Speaker 1: I want to predict hate speech is bad and free
Speaker 1: speech is good. Let's do both. So I don't know,
Speaker 1: even though from an ideological perspective, obviously I think protecting
Speaker 1: free speech is more important, but it doesn't I understand
Speaker 1: why they got these results.
Speaker 2: I guess I would say, I see what you're saying. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you're a no one personally not thinking, well, actually, there's
Speaker 2: no speech as opposed to free speech.
Speaker 1: But yeah, technically the first timement even applies it.
Speaker 3: You're like, which is true?
Speaker 1: You're like, let's do both. If both's an option, let's
Speaker 1: do both. Right, Okay? Fair enough?
Speaker 2: As Crystal teased, though, there definitely is a difference in
Speaker 2: terms of Vietnam War.
Speaker 1: Before we get to that shirt, I want to ask you,
Speaker 1: because I want to ask you what your takeaway or
Speaker 1: what you think the implications of these polls are.
Speaker 2: My implication is that it's either a wash, it will
Speaker 2: be marginally important. But the reason why I actually don't
Speaker 2: pay attention to much as this as I do to
Speaker 2: there was a recent column we didn't cut it unfortunately
Speaker 2: that I just read this morning about why this is
Speaker 2: very different from Vietnam is that all of the polling
Speaker 2: that we have says that Israel Paleson is not number
Speaker 2: one or even top five, and if anything, is a
Speaker 2: fifteen out of sixteen issue for the vast majority of people,
Speaker 2: including for young people, whereas in Vietnam, Vietnam was top
Speaker 2: five and in many cases was number one and number two.
Speaker 3: The truth is that most people either.
Speaker 2: Don't care or they're marginally just like kind of interested
Speaker 2: they're like, yeah, whatever, those chaos. Maybe I'll support it,
Speaker 2: maybe I don't. And the real evidence to me was
Speaker 2: the huge not sure numbers in all of these because
Speaker 2: one things that really comes out in Vietnam, people were
Speaker 2: damn sure how they felt. They either felt strong or opposed,
Speaker 2: because people had thought a lot about Vietnam, Whereas with
Speaker 2: this one, I mean, look, I've said this before. If
Speaker 2: you watch the show every single day, you're in like
Speaker 2: the top one to two percent of news consumers in
Speaker 2: this whole country. And yeah, you know, we cover the
Speaker 2: news in the same way. If you go to the
Speaker 2: front page of the New York Times Israel, white House,
Speaker 2: Trump tile trial and all that stuff, maybe five ten
Speaker 2: percent of the country you know, actually checks in every
Speaker 2: single day. Because at that time, one point nine million
Speaker 2: Americans had been drafted into the armed forces fifty five
Speaker 2: thousand killed, the level of civic, like, the level of
Speaker 2: civic engagement around the issue was just so much higher
Speaker 2: that I just I don't really see it making all
Speaker 2: that much of a difference. Based on the polling, I
Speaker 2: would say I would probably be on the side, you know,
Speaker 2: polling just pure like popularity wise of either the about
Speaker 2: right figure or of the crackdown. That just seems to
Speaker 2: be the more popular spot. I'm not saying I support that.
Speaker 2: I don't for free speech purposes, but I'm just telling you, like,
Speaker 2: for political purpose, that's probably where I would align if
Speaker 2: we're a politician.
Speaker 1: So you think Joe Biden is handling.
Speaker 2: This well, unfortunately, he's probably doing them his best given
Speaker 2: the coalition that he has. He's got the suburban ladies,
Speaker 2: he's you know, the abortion ladies are coming out to
Speaker 2: vote for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I heard them.
Speaker 3: The boomers are loving it.
Speaker 2: The young people mostly don't vote in particular, they're making
Speaker 2: life miserable for everybody else. It's like, well, you know
Speaker 2: most people, we know how that turns out. Most people
Speaker 2: going to turn against that, even amongst colleges.
Speaker 1: Who are they making life miserable for it? Well, this
Speaker 1: unimpacted your life for my life, I mean, it's different than.
Speaker 3: I'm just waiting to get stuck in traffick.
Speaker 1: It is different from like the Black Lives Matter protests.
Speaker 1: So we've obviously we've talked about that. So I think
Speaker 1: your point about the probably more important numbers are how
Speaker 1: many for how many people? This is a critical issue, right,
Speaker 1: This is their number one issue. This is their voting issue.
Speaker 1: And I agree with you. I think that's probably a
Speaker 1: small number, but it only really takes a small number. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well see, you know, I mean, look at the uncommitted
Speaker 1: vote in Michigan. There were a few states where the
Speaker 1: uncommitted vote itself in a Democratic primary was larger than
Speaker 1: the margin that Joe Biden won against Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: you know, in that way, even if it's only a
Speaker 1: small percentage, you say this is my number one issue,
Speaker 1: you clearly have some part of the young population in particular,
Speaker 1: who were likely Biden voters who were like, no, not
Speaker 1: doing it. Can't vote for someone who is funding a
Speaker 1: Jen'm just not going to do it, And that's a
Speaker 1: problem for him. The reason I disagree about his response
Speaker 1: goes back to the analysis. It's similar to the analysis
Speaker 1: of why I thought he made a big mistake in
Speaker 1: terms of how he handled immigration. Okay, And there's studies,
Speaker 1: especially of politicians in Europe that show when they try
Speaker 1: to move to the right and be like no, I'm
Speaker 1: actually an immigration hardliner as well, it demoralizes their base
Speaker 1: and divides their base, and it seeds ground to that
Speaker 1: right wing perspective. So that if people are like, oh well,
Speaker 1: even this guy agrees with the the right on immigration,
Speaker 1: So why am I going to go for the water
Speaker 1: down version of that? If I want the law and
Speaker 1: order crackdown, dude, I'm going with Donald Trump all day long.
Speaker 1: So I think that's number one. Number two is that
Speaker 1: the thing that has caused the impression of like chaos
Speaker 1: is not actually the students who are in relatively small
Speaker 1: numbers on each of these campuses, like setting up tents.
Speaker 1: It's the crackdown. It's the police response. It's the police
Speaker 1: coming in brutalizing these students. In fact, the initial crackdown
Speaker 1: at Columbia sparked a massive increase in these protests across
Speaker 1: the country. So I think the response itself has created
Speaker 1: this impression of chaos. That is a problem for Joe
Speaker 1: Biden with his like moderate suburban voters. Now, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: those moderate suburban voters are already voting for him, like
Speaker 1: they're not going back to Trump. They're voting for him.
Speaker 1: Many of them very energized by jobs. As you're accurately
Speaker 1: pointing out, this issue is not important to them. They
Speaker 1: don't really care either way. So I think he has
Speaker 1: Number one divided his own basic coalition. We see that
Speaker 1: in some of the numbers. Number two further alienated some
Speaker 1: potentially small but also potentially determinative number of young people
Speaker 1: who are like you just called me a Nazi, Like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not voting for you, and there's nothing you can
Speaker 1: say it's going to change my mind at this point.
Speaker 1: And number three has created exactly the scenes of chaos
Speaker 1: that can lead to a conservative backlash that is not
Speaker 1: going to be like your law and order to do.
Speaker 1: They're going to be like Trump's law and order do.
Speaker 1: That's own going man.
Speaker 2: Counter to what you're saying is BLM is that if
Speaker 2: Joe Biden had embraced defund, he one hundred percent would
Speaker 2: have lost.
Speaker 3: I'm absolutely convinced of it.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: He basically tries to distance from the protest.
Speaker 1: He actually was. He were much more sympathetic so rhetorically
Speaker 1: to BLM than he was here one.
Speaker 2: But he did enough of a job of dissing himself
Speaker 2: from the violence and not all riot is the voice
Speaker 2: of the unheard, and everybody's suddenly MLK Junior all of
Speaker 2: a sudden back. In twenty twenty, No Black Squares on
Speaker 2: Instagram and no anti racism in Brahem Kendy, and that
Speaker 2: was enough for some moderate voters to come along with him.
Speaker 1: But let me say, though, that contradicts some analysis from
Speaker 1: you in the past, where you've said, and this is
Speaker 1: true even you know, you've made this point about Republicans
Speaker 1: an abortion for example, or with the Democrats, like even
Speaker 1: though I don't know, did any Democratic politicians elected members
Speaker 1: of Congress, did any of them actively say defund the police?
Speaker 1: Joe Biden certainly didn't. But your point was assailient one,
Speaker 1: which is like, it doesn't really matter because they're associated
Speaker 1: with this thing, right, And Joe Biden was associated with
Speaker 1: that thing. He was, as I said rhetorically, much more
Speaker 1: sympathetic to the protesters, was very clear about yes, I
Speaker 1: condemn the violence, but let's not use that to distract
Speaker 1: from the core issues in these core concerns, which are legitimate.
Speaker 1: And you know, obviously he became president of the United States.
Speaker 2: The point I'm trying to make is that I definitely
Speaker 2: think he paid a political price. I think though that
Speaker 2: if he had not navigated it in more of the
Speaker 2: way that he did, which was trying to split the difference,
Speaker 2: like in a kind of establishment friendly way.
Speaker 3: I think he would have lost. I think if he'd.
Speaker 2: Been more AOC on the topic, let's say, in terms
Speaker 2: of people are stealing bread because they're hungry, and more like, listen,
Speaker 2: you know, we got to hear people out.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, I don't condemn violence.
Speaker 3: He would have lost the election.
Speaker 1: So let me make the counterpoint, which is that if
Speaker 1: you look back at the polls, when Trump really started
Speaker 1: to have a problem was after remember the whole Bible
Speaker 1: photo op and the I don't remember which federal agency
Speaker 1: it was. There are peaceful protesters that were like cracked down.
Speaker 1: The horses came in. It was crazy, it was great,
Speaker 1: and there was a huge backlash to that. And the
Speaker 1: problem part of the problem for him in terms of
Speaker 1: his response at the time is there was chaos and
Speaker 1: it was happening under him. So my point is that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, by green lighting this crackdown, has created the
Speaker 1: very chaos that yes, is a problem for him, and
Speaker 1: that it sort of doesn't really matter what he says
Speaker 1: about it because the chaos is happening under him. And
Speaker 1: if his response is to be like, we need a
Speaker 1: crackdown and who we'll see what he says about college
Speaker 1: student protesters today is giving some big speech on anti Semitism. Like,
Speaker 1: if you're looking for the if you were horrified by
Speaker 1: what you're seeing on college campuses and you want the
Speaker 1: law and order guy, that's never going to be Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: That's going to be Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: The thing is about the Trump thing, though, is that
Speaker 2: there were a majority of the public at the time
Speaker 2: who supported calling in the National Guard in response to
Speaker 2: the riots.
Speaker 3: So it is more complicated.
Speaker 2: And I don't disagree he owns a chaos because in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways he was like police response, but
Speaker 2: then wouldn't go all out, and he was all over
Speaker 2: the place in terms of his Bible and then what
Speaker 2: he hid in his bunker during the protest. I remember
Speaker 2: that being a big story as well. And don't forget
Speaker 2: COVID on top of that either. So you're not wrong.
Speaker 2: He paid a price, for sure. Now was it all rights?
Speaker 2: Was it COVID?
Speaker 3: I mean it's very difficult to say. I guess.
Speaker 2: Just focusing on this, let's turn to Vietnam because this
Speaker 2: is actually important instructive.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: For example, how Americans felt about the campus protests against
Speaker 2: the Vietnam War. So, as you accurately pointed out in
Speaker 2: your monologue yesterday, a majority of respondents blamed the students,
Speaker 2: not just for violence, but specifically in the debts of
Speaker 2: the four students.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we actually have put the next piece up because
Speaker 1: we have an overall number about approve or disapprove of
Speaker 1: public protests seventy five, which is why I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: the protests perception now is actually not that bad compared
Speaker 1: to this.
Speaker 3: No, You're not wrong.
Speaker 1: The other point I want to make about this, which
Speaker 1: was which was noteworthy to me and looking into this,
Speaker 1: is that you know, this was taken in November sixty nine.
Speaker 1: At this point, public sentiment had already really turned against Vietnam.
Speaker 1: You had a majority, in fact, I have somewhere the
Speaker 1: actual numbers, but you had a very clear majority who
Speaker 1: were opposed to it. I said it was a mistake
Speaker 1: to ever send US soldiers there, and you had I
Speaker 1: think it was somewhere in like the thirties who were
Speaker 1: still supporting it. So even though public sentiment at this
Speaker 1: point agreed with the protesters, there was this very like
Speaker 1: visceral reaction against the protests themselves, which is you know,
Speaker 1: it's just interesting that that can be two separate questions,
Speaker 1: so they could support the issue in general but also
Speaker 1: be like, you know, no to these protests.
Speaker 2: It makes sense to me, though, because what you're saying
Speaker 2: is actually, unfortunately was very different in terms of Vietnam context.
Speaker 2: So even though the majority the people who had supported
Speaker 2: and said it was kind of like Iraq, where we're like, well,
Speaker 2: we never should have gone, but now that we're there,
Speaker 2: we need peace with honor. And that was Nixon's entire thing.
Speaker 2: And that's again I think point the protest. What I mean,
Speaker 2: Remember Nixon is elected in sixty eight and escalates the
Speaker 2: war in Vietnam. The number of debts actually increased, we
Speaker 2: have the secret bombing of Cambodia. Vietnamization doesn't happen until
Speaker 2: later on in the nix In presidency, where US soldiers
Speaker 2: are still dying by the hundreds every week in Vietnam.
Speaker 3: It's insane actually to go back and to think about.
Speaker 2: So I kind of think that the protest movement, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of the evidence from back in the day,
Speaker 2: is very strong for the fact that it was an
Speaker 2: immediate backfire. It didn't work in the immediate term or
Speaker 2: the near term. We didn't really look back, like quote
Speaker 2: unquote fondly on Vietnam War protesters until like the nineteen
Speaker 2: nineties when Bill Clinton was elected. Actually, this was an
Speaker 2: important thing in the ninety two election, when I think
Speaker 2: hw Bush called him a draft dodging bum or something
Speaker 2: because he got a college exemption for a Rhodes scholarship,
Speaker 2: and he had hair and he smoked weed at the
Speaker 2: Vietnam protests, and that was the first time it kind
Speaker 2: of didn't matter that somebody had opposed the Vietnam War.
Speaker 3: And that was thirty years later after.
Speaker 2: Something so saying the political fallout from those protests basically
Speaker 2: led to quasi republican rule from nineteen sixty eight with
Speaker 2: a brief aberation of Jimmy Carter up until what, yeah,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety two. The same thing actually can be said
Speaker 2: of the civil rights protests. Do we have the sit
Speaker 2: in graph?
Speaker 1: We do, that's like I think the last graphic that
Speaker 1: we have.
Speaker 2: So this question, this is an important one too. This
Speaker 2: gets to what I talked about previously. Nineteen sixty one,
Speaker 2: people are asked about the sit in protests. Do you
Speaker 2: think sit ins at lunch counters? Freedom busters and other
Speaker 2: demonstrations by Negroes will hurt or help a Negro chance
Speaker 2: of being integrated in the South. Hurt fifty seven percent,
Speaker 2: help twenty seven percent.
Speaker 3: Now you can look at that two ways, you can say,
Speaker 3: and I.
Speaker 2: Totally disagree with whoever this tweeter is as the most
Speaker 2: iconic and effective protest movement. I don't think it was
Speaker 2: effective actually at all in the moment. And this gets
Speaker 2: to a point that I was dying to bring up
Speaker 2: with you, which is about abolition and about how the
Speaker 2: history of these things actually happen. So in eighteen sixty
Speaker 2: eighteen sixty one, you have the Southern secessionists, they go
Speaker 2: out and the radical Republicans come to link and they're like,
Speaker 2: we got to do abolition, man, we got to do
Speaker 2: the emancipation Proclamation. It's time the rabble rousers are gone.
Speaker 2: And Lincoln famously says, I would like to have God
Speaker 2: on my side, but I must have Kentucky as in,
Speaker 2: we have to have the border slave states who stay
Speaker 2: within the Union.
Speaker 3: So who was correct?
Speaker 2: In the long run, the practical political you know, practitioner
Speaker 2: Abraham Lincoln, who understands abolition, is becoming incredibly unpopular that
Speaker 2: these radical abolitionists quote unquote who we view fondly now
Speaker 2: at the time, but who had maybe nine percent approval rating,
Speaker 2: you know in eighteen sixty. What were they correct, you
Speaker 2: know to try and to push him to do something
Speaker 2: that was very unpopular or was he correct to basically
Speaker 2: lie about his position and work within the political system
Speaker 2: at the time and force abolition and the emancipation through
Speaker 2: basically as a war aim lying to the American people
Speaker 2: and saying, well, we're doing it to win the Civil War.
Speaker 2: It has nothing to do actually with black liberation, even
Speaker 2: though that's an end result. And I think that's a
Speaker 2: very important question, is like, you know, who is who
Speaker 2: is really responsible?
Speaker 3: I would say Lincoln is the one who is.
Speaker 1: Well, so let me ask you that is your opinion
Speaker 1: that no protest movement in history has ever mattered or
Speaker 1: been successful. But that seems to be what you're laying
Speaker 1: out here.
Speaker 2: But I'm giving people good evidence. But the chances of
Speaker 2: a Civil Rights Act was zero.
Speaker 1: You're creating a binary choice though. I mean, what you're
Speaker 1: basically saying is the only thing that matters is these
Speaker 1: individual great men. None of the social movements, none of
Speaker 1: the protest move the sit ins, the freedom writers, the abolitionists,
Speaker 1: the suffragettes, the anti apartheid protests, and none of these
Speaker 1: things matter at all. All that matters is that you
Speaker 1: get one dude in there who's going to do the
Speaker 1: right thing. And I think that that is a fundamental
Speaker 1: misreading of history. I think it's you have to have
Speaker 1: a confluence of factors, right. The social movements are critical,
Speaker 1: having like the labor movement, pressuring FDR. These things are
Speaker 1: critical for pressuring these people in power to make these
Speaker 1: steps in history that are important. So I just can't
Speaker 1: go along with the idea that protest never works, it
Speaker 1: always backfires, It's always fool hardy, you know, because when
Speaker 1: I look at the lunch counter sit in numbers, like
Speaker 1: the conclusion is the exact opposite. It's not only do
Speaker 1: people disapprove, they found it disorderly, chaotic, etcetera, etcetera. Just
Speaker 1: like the reaction you know, among many to the protests. Now,
Speaker 1: not only that they said this is going to hard,
Speaker 1: this is going to create a backlash, just like you're
Speaker 1: saying this is going to be a problem, it's going
Speaker 1: to make it worse. And I don't think any reading
Speaker 1: of history can look at that and say that's accurate.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that a protest movement is not
Speaker 1: accepted by NORMI Americans is you know, uncomfortable for them,
Speaker 1: rejected where they think it's going to be backlash, et
Speaker 1: cetera is not at all determined if you look at
Speaker 1: history of how successful those movements are ultimately going to be. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the apartheid movement eighties is like a great
Speaker 1: example of that, you had to say, And it's probably
Speaker 1: a more close example to Israel than Vietnam, because you're right,
Speaker 1: there was much more focus on Vietnam. It was much
Speaker 1: longer period of time. You had Americans getting drafted, you
Speaker 1: had Americans dying. I mean, this was massive, right. The
Speaker 1: apartheid example, I think is a much more closely related one.
Speaker 1: But you still had the same like normy backlash. You
Speaker 1: still had I feel like freed Zakaria out there, you know,
Speaker 1: like what are you kids doing? And yeah, you was
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of that one. Yeah yeah, that
Speaker 1: got dug up recently in terms of context of it whatever. Anyway,
Speaker 1: But they mattered, they helped. Were they the only thing? No,
Speaker 1: But they were part of a global movement combined with
Speaker 1: internal struggle with in South Africa itself that contributed to
Speaker 1: a climate that ended that racist regime. So I guess
Speaker 1: my question for you is, like, put yourself in the
Speaker 1: shoes of these college shoes and I don't know, you
Speaker 1: don't agree with their perspective, that's fine, but I think
Speaker 1: you are. I think you understand they're not doing this
Speaker 1: for like clout. They genuinely feel very passionate that there
Speaker 1: is a genocide that is being conducted in their name
Speaker 1: with their dollars, and they want to do whatever they
Speaker 1: can think of to do to throw some sand into
Speaker 1: these gears and to desperately try to stop these horrors
Speaker 1: that they see unfolding in front of their eyes. Like,
Speaker 1: what would you tell them to do?
Speaker 3: It's a tough question.
Speaker 2: I mean sometimes you have to understand too that you
Speaker 2: have no influence on the system. I mean I felt
Speaker 2: this way whenever Congress passes Ukraine AID and we spend
Speaker 2: two years talking about how it's useless, how it's a
Speaker 2: stupid cause, how it's just going to waste more life,
Speaker 2: and we get the majority of the American public on
Speaker 2: our side, and then Congress passes it. Any Way, what
Speaker 2: did I do the next day, I put on my
Speaker 2: suit and I came back to work.
Speaker 3: I mean, like, what else are you going to do?
Speaker 3: Always got a beat.
Speaker 1: No significant protest movement with regard to Ukraine, And I
Speaker 1: think it is not correct to look at the response
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden the Democrats and say they're not feeling
Speaker 1: the pressure the very they very clearly are. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think, like we know the US was involved, and
Speaker 1: I believe this reporting was involved in trying to secure
Speaker 1: this ceasefire deal. Barack Ravine, who is you know, the
Speaker 1: White House whisperer, and all of this is saying like
Speaker 1: they see this as really important politically, because but Joe
Speaker 1: Biden obviously doesn't care about Palestinians, He's obviously committed Zionist.
Speaker 1: He is feeling political pressure from this protest movement. That
Speaker 1: to me is very clear. And so since we don't
Speaker 1: really live in the kind of democracy where the majority
Speaker 1: like rules and just you get public sentiment on your
Speaker 1: side and that's it, that pressure that he feels from
Speaker 1: this movement is what counts way more than whether Normanis
Speaker 1: are upset about a campus building and a window broken
Speaker 1: and the you know, what's the encampments, the disruption itself
Speaker 1: is creating the pressure. That is the thing that could
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but that could change things.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: I do think there's we're flirting right along the line
Speaker 2: right now of the same danger that happened back in
Speaker 2: the nineteen six where the disruption can turn and can
Speaker 2: actually be going against the disruption can become a political asset.
Speaker 2: The reason I bring all these things up is not
Speaker 2: because I revel in the fact that America was frankly
Speaker 2: very sympathetic with the Jim Crow South, or at the
Speaker 2: very least didn't think it was their problem. It's only
Speaker 2: to say that I know that that was the reality,
Speaker 2: and so like, let's you know, the sit in thing
Speaker 2: is the perfect example. Like this person calls it the
Speaker 2: most effective protest, It's just not true. Nineteen sixty one
Speaker 2: was a time when the President of the United States,
Speaker 2: John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, his Attorney General,
Speaker 2: support rhetorically the civil rights protesters. At the day that
Speaker 2: Kennedy died, the likelihood of a civil Rights Act being
Speaker 2: passed zero percent. It was his death and LBJ that
Speaker 2: eventually the genius of LBJ ushers in the nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: four Civil Rights Act. But then even to say that
Speaker 2: you know that these people were wrong. I don't think
Speaker 2: they were wrong. The truth is that race politics then
Speaker 2: rules the Republican Party in the South for what nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty eight, race riots are basically the reason that Nixon
Speaker 2: gets elected. Then Ronald Reagan, everybody seems to just forget this,
Speaker 2: happens to launch his nineteen eighty campaign in Mississippi at
Speaker 2: the very heart of like some serious segregationist sympathies. I mean,
Speaker 2: the year I was born, in nineteen ninety two in
Speaker 2: the in Texas, fifty percent of the public did not
Speaker 2: support interracial marriage, which is nuts.
Speaker 3: But that actually happened in the year that I was born.
Speaker 1: But the question then, the logical question of that then
Speaker 1: is okay, so was it worth it? And I think
Speaker 1: most people would say myself included of course, of course
Speaker 1: getting the Civil Rights Act passed and ending segregation, ending
Speaker 1: Jim Crow, even knowing that it did create this You
Speaker 1: know this, LBJ. We lost the South for a generally
Speaker 1: him being right, like he knew that that was going
Speaker 1: to happen, it was still worth it. And so you're Like,
Speaker 1: if your argument to me is like, oh, now Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to lose elections, you think I fucking care
Speaker 1: about that. I don't care about.
Speaker 3: That's a fair point.
Speaker 1: Like if I knew that Democrats were going to lose
Speaker 1: elections for the next twenty years straight, but the genocide
Speaker 1: in Gaza was going to end, sign me up for
Speaker 1: that deal today. And I think that's the way that
Speaker 1: many of these students, they're not worried about how Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to do in the fall. The fact that
Speaker 1: they're a threat to democratic electoral chances is the only
Speaker 1: thing that gives them power because the Democrats certainly don't
Speaker 1: care about human life in Gaza. So yeah, it's a
Speaker 1: problem for Democrats electorally. Their policy in Gaza is a
Speaker 1: problem for them electorally. The way they're treating them people
Speaker 1: is a problem for them electorally. The chaos that they
Speaker 1: themselves created is a problem for them electorally. And to that,
Speaker 1: I say, good, it should be. It should be a
Speaker 1: problem for you.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I'm glad. I mean, you're honest about it.
Speaker 2: But they're not right. I mean, these people are craven
Speaker 2: self interested with politicians, like I'm saying you, and the
Speaker 2: protesters are like, yeah, we don't care about the Democrat.
Speaker 3: I'm with you, by the way, I'm with you.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying for them is these pos politicians, they're craven,
Speaker 2: they don't care, they're you know, narcissistic. All they want
Speaker 2: to do is really get re elected right at the
Speaker 2: end of the day.
Speaker 1: Which is why causing problems for their reelection is the
Speaker 1: only strategy, because it's not like we've.
Speaker 3: Been, it's more electorally beneficial, which we have been.
Speaker 1: There, we've been, you know, ceasefire has been a majority
Speaker 1: of position since like day two of this war. Definitely,
Speaker 1: public opinion has been on the side of these protesters,
Speaker 1: not maybe in terms of the protest tactics, but in
Speaker 1: terms of what they're actually protesting for a long time now,
Speaker 1: and it hasn't matter. So if this is your number
Speaker 1: one issue, if you cannot sleep at night, see like
Speaker 1: seeing these children starving to death, children being bombed, knowing
Speaker 1: these are tax dollars, Like what else are you going
Speaker 1: to do? This is the the only And they have
Speaker 1: been so disciplined, ninety nine percent nonviolent, Like the worst
Speaker 1: thing they've done is break a window and enter one
Speaker 1: campus building. Okay, that's that is incredible discipline, very big
Speaker 1: contrast definitely with the seventies protests and with the Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter protests as well, Like this is the this
Speaker 1: is not guaranteed to work, but at least it has
Speaker 1: a chance of working. And I think that's that's all
Speaker 1: you can That's all you can bet on, is that, like,
Speaker 1: I'm doing everything I can think to do. I'm being
Speaker 1: principled in my non violent tactics, which they really have been.
Speaker 1: And even now, even with the I mean incredit, I've
Speaker 1: never seen a media propaganda campaign like what we're seeing
Speaker 1: with this. I genuinely this is beyond war and tearor
Speaker 1: whole of politics, congressional response banning, TikTok, Dana bash and
Speaker 1: you know Fox News making common cause with bab Net
Speaker 1: and ya whoever these kids are Nazis and Joe Biden, mcgrid,
Speaker 1: the whole bit, everybody in league. And you still have
Speaker 1: a clear plurality of Democrats who are like, no, I'm
Speaker 1: with the protesters. I mean, that is kind of that
Speaker 1: is pretty extraordinary. Like the Democratic base is quite split
Speaker 1: with specifically regards to the protest tactics in spite of
Speaker 1: the most insane propaganda campaign I've ever seen, and American
Speaker 1: public is very clearly on the side of the protesters
Speaker 1: in terms of wanting to secure a ceasefire and the
Speaker 1: end and not supporting for their aid to Israel and
Speaker 1: saying that Israeli military has gone too far, like they're
Speaker 1: on their side and that. So, yeah, I think this
Speaker 1: is the only thing that has even a chance of
Speaker 1: making a difference. And so I you know, I say,
Speaker 1: God bless these protesters, Thank God for them.
Speaker 3: We'll find out. We'll find out whether there's a cost
Speaker 3: or not.
Speaker 1: All right, Siger, what are you looking at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Political correctness is killing comedy. That's a sentiment I may
Speaker 2: have agreed with, like seven years ago, when Louis c.
Speaker 2: K lost tens of millions of dollars over a New
Speaker 2: York Times story and decades old allegations. It's a comment
Speaker 2: maybe I would have agreed with when comedy movies themselves
Speaker 2: were basically stopped being made in Hollywood, like a decade ago,
Speaker 2: as the latest Marvel films were coming out.
Speaker 3: But it's not really a sentiment.
Speaker 2: That I agree with anymore, and in fact, increasingly think
Speaker 2: is being used by people who aren't funny to complain
Speaker 2: about their own mediac This monologue was really inspired by
Speaker 2: both the hoost of Tom Brady that I watched on
Speaker 2: Netflix yesterday and juxtaposed next to another Netflix star, Jerry Seinfeld.
Speaker 2: Seinfeld is hot off of his latest project, Unfrosted, where
Speaker 2: doing his media tour he made some interesting comments about
Speaker 2: comedy and what is stifling it.
Speaker 3: According to him, let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: Oh Cheers is on, Oh Mash is on, a Mary
Speaker 6: Tyler Moore is on, all the families on. You just
Speaker 6: expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on
Speaker 6: TV tonight. Well guess what where is it? This is
Speaker 6: the result of the extreme left and PC crap and
Speaker 6: people worrying so much about offending other people when you
Speaker 6: write a script and it goes into four or five
Speaker 6: different hands, committees groups. Here's our thought about this joke. Well,
Speaker 6: that's the end of your comedy. They move the gates,
Speaker 6: Like in the scheme culture, the gates are moving. Your
Speaker 6: job is to be agile and clever enough that wherever
Speaker 6: they put the gates, I'm going to make the gate.
Speaker 3: So Gordon and seinfeldt the extreme left and PC crap
Speaker 3: has killed comedy. Now.
Speaker 2: Maybe there would be something to that if it wasn't
Speaker 2: for the fact that the movie he produced, Unfrosted, is
Speaker 2: probably one of the dumbest Anadyne and Born comedies that
Speaker 2: I've ever had the indignity to suffer through for research
Speaker 2: purposes of this monologue. What really revealed to me, though,
Speaker 2: is how dumb Seinfeld's take here is, especially with the
Speaker 2: release of the Tom Brady.
Speaker 3: Roast that just happened. Now, everyone should go watch this roast.
Speaker 2: I don't even watch football, and I got all the references,
Speaker 2: but what I really took away from watching it was
Speaker 2: how dead political correctness and so called woke left limits
Speaker 2: on comedy are.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: This is mainstream comedy roast on the most establishment of
Speaker 2: all places, Netflix, with people like Kim Kardashian and Ben
Speaker 2: Affleck in attendance. It's about as establishment as it gets.
Speaker 2: And with that, they allowed the madman Tony Hinchcliff to
Speaker 2: sound off like this.
Speaker 7: Tom is afraid of the giants, which is why Kevin
Speaker 7: Hart is hosting Tonight All Night. He's been using the
Speaker 7: stool that Aaron Hernandez kicked out from under himself is
Speaker 7: so small that when his ancestors picked cotton. They called
Speaker 7: it deadlifting. Tom Brady is a Patriot, which is surprising
Speaker 7: considering he looks like a Confederate fag. Clearly your ex
Speaker 7: wife takes after you. I hear she's out there draining
Speaker 7: balls right now. People love you, Tom. You have the
Speaker 7: same fan base as Kyle Rittenhouse Gronk. I'm happy you
Speaker 7: could take a break from writing Santa letters to be
Speaker 7: here today. I knew you were here when we were
Speaker 7: all out of chocolate milk backstage. You look like the
Speaker 7: final boss in George Floyd the video game. Jeff is
Speaker 7: so Jewish he only watches football for the coin toss.
Speaker 7: Nikki has such a bad eating disorder the industry keeps
Speaker 7: shoving her down our throat. You might recognize over our
Speaker 7: podcast appearances, specials and winning the Triple Crown at Churchill Downs.
Speaker 7: You might recognize Kevin is the jockey that wrote her,
Speaker 7: and that's Churchill Downs the racetrack. Not to be confused
Speaker 7: with what Jeff Ross looks like when he smokes a cigar.
Speaker 7: Sam Jay in Obese African American lesbian. So by having here,
Speaker 7: Netflix checked off a lot of boxes. Andrew Schultz, I'm
Speaker 7: glad you took a break from watching YouTube videos on
Speaker 7: how to tap up black dudes. Correctly, Schultz's mom is
Speaker 7: a professional ballroom dancer, which means she's a stripper that
Speaker 7: talks too much. Bert Kreischer is a king. He looks
Speaker 7: like at the Tiger King and the Liver King, only
Speaker 7: ate Burger King and had a liver that looked like
Speaker 7: Martin Luther.
Speaker 3: King got beat up by Rodney King.
Speaker 7: And how about the parents from the Great Ron Burgundy
Speaker 7: huh ah whales vagina which reminds me Kim Kardashian's here.
Speaker 7: She's had a lot of black men celebrating her end zone. Kim.
Speaker 7: Word of advice, close your legs. You have more public
Speaker 7: beef than Kendrick and Drake. Thank you guys, Thank you Tom,
Speaker 7: thank you joke, Thank you Netflix.
Speaker 2: So we have gay jokes, black jokes, ju jokes, sex jokes,
Speaker 2: retard jokes. I mean, is it me or is it
Speaker 2: two thousand and five? Am I watching the Office? And
Speaker 2: is Comedy Central on the best part? Despite the fact
Speaker 2: that this was watched by millions, including Hollywood darlings, like
Speaker 2: I said, Kevin Hart, Ben Affleck all these others, I
Speaker 2: couldn't even find a single think piece about how mean
Speaker 2: spirited it was, or how Tony Hinchcliff and Andrew Schaltz,
Speaker 2: Bird Krascher, Jeff Ross.
Speaker 3: Or any of these other people should never work again.
Speaker 2: If you need proof that the PC comedy era is over,
Speaker 2: that's the proof right there.
Speaker 3: And let's not forget the real.
Speaker 2: Sign that before Seinfeld even spoke about how dead this
Speaker 2: comedy is, Shane Gillis, who was literally canceled from Saturday
Speaker 2: Night Line for his jokes about Asians in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: was invited to host Saturday Night Live this year twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four, and while while he was there, he made
Speaker 2: jokes about people with Down syndrome. Now, there may have
Speaker 2: been a few tweets criticizing him at the time, but
Speaker 2: let's be real, nothing even close to the cancel brigade
Speaker 2: of the late twenty tens. If anything, Shane Starr is
Speaker 2: even brighter, and he is hosting shows with Schultz directly
Speaker 2: for Netflix, selling out massive arenas. Now, I don't write
Speaker 2: any of this to say that political correctness and woke
Speaker 2: influences on comedy we're never a problem, only to say
Speaker 2: that I don't think it's really a problem anymore. And
Speaker 2: that people who rely on the crutch for why it's
Speaker 2: ruining comedy, maybe they have another agenda that they're trying
Speaker 2: to push, like, I don't know, maybe the fact that
Speaker 2: Jerry is deciding to make these comments at the exact moment,
Speaker 2: that his wife is donating huge amounts of money to
Speaker 2: pro Israel protesters, and that he has been urging people
Speaker 2: to read Barry Weiss's The Free Press, and Broadley has
Speaker 2: decided to now enter the fray as a pro Israel
Speaker 2: voice since October seventh, Camp help, But notice that Unfrosted
Speaker 2: co star Amy Schumer also been doing the exact same
Speaker 2: thing lately. If anything, they appear to be the new Snowflakes,
Speaker 2: crying about the fact that people disagree with them in
Speaker 2: public and then blaming their middling performance or their products
Speaker 2: on the very forces that they participated in when it
Speaker 2: was something that was on their side. Now, as for
Speaker 2: why any of this matters, it's because I've always thought
Speaker 2: comedy is like a decade ahead of where a lot
Speaker 2: of the media ends up.
Speaker 3: It's not a coincidence.
Speaker 2: A comedy podcasts are really what birth the podcasting format.
Speaker 2: It was the falling apart of the establishment comedy on
Speaker 2: control forces that gave rise to YouTube and podcast popularity,
Speaker 2: and that presses show like ours many others who entered
Speaker 2: that fray later on.
Speaker 3: So take from this what you will.
Speaker 2: I'll just take the victory and notice that what's really
Speaker 2: popular again today and what even establishment forces are okay with,
Speaker 2: maybe that's a bright spot for the future.
Speaker 3: I mean, Chrissell, how can you see that?
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. We
Speaker 1: are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined by a remarkable guest
Speaker 1: this morning. Moira Lang is a palliative care doctor. She
Speaker 1: just recently returned from Gaza, where she visited many places,
Speaker 1: including Anajar hospital which is in Rafa. Obviously it's very
Speaker 1: relevant given the ground invasion that just began in Rafa. Doctor. Welcome,
Speaker 1: it's great to have you, Thank you, it's great to
Speaker 1: be here. Yeah, So first, just tell us the context
Speaker 1: in which you were in Gaza and a little bit
Speaker 1: of what you saw there.
Speaker 5: Sure, I mean, I've had the privilege, incredible privileg You're
Speaker 5: traveling to Gaza for ten years and working with colleagues
Speaker 5: in hospitals, in universities, and this particular visit, I was
Speaker 5: able to see what was happening to people who are
Speaker 5: living with illnesses such as cancer, kidney disease, heart disease,
Speaker 5: and to visit the colleagues and healthcare colleagues who are
Speaker 5: taking care of them. We were looking particularly, for example,
Speaker 5: at pain relief. Pain relief has been almost zero in
Speaker 5: Gaza during this last period, and I spent time yes
Speaker 5: in Alijar Hospital in fatimaal Zacha Hospital that's the oncology
Speaker 5: service that has been displaced three times already, and as
Speaker 5: well as neonatal hospitals and primary care hospitals in Rufa.
Speaker 2: Doctor, what can you tell us about some of the
Speaker 2: remaining health care facilities. You're talking there about the reduction
Speaker 2: in pain medicine, Others we hear about the destruction of
Speaker 2: the infrastructure. What was it like to actually witness firsthand?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Yeah, Number one, it's an absolute privilege always to
Speaker 5: spend time with colleagues in Gaza, some of the most inspirational, courageous,
Speaker 5: compassionate people that I know. The first thing that struck
Speaker 5: me was that the healthcare colleagues were utterly and completely exhausted.
Speaker 5: They had been working under these conditions for six months.
Speaker 5: They had been displaced personally and professionally. Every time your
Speaker 5: hospital displaced, you lose what little supplies you'd built up.
Speaker 5: They had not been paid any salary for six months.
Speaker 5: The price of basic foodstuffs was sky high, making it
Speaker 5: impossible for their families. They were not sleeping any night.
Speaker 5: I was not sleeping any night, continually all night, drones
Speaker 5: and bombs, and yet they were still coming to work
Speaker 5: and doing the best they could. So that's the first
Speaker 5: thing I'd say. And it was a pleasure to see
Speaker 5: people that I've known. I've taught in the medical school,
Speaker 5: so you know some of the young doctors. Would you
Speaker 5: believe I was teaching communication and ethics just last August,
Speaker 5: and that brought up many a conversation about what ethics
Speaker 5: looked like in healthcare. But it was a pleasure to
Speaker 5: see people doing there at most best. But I couldn't
Speaker 5: believe how exhausted they were. There was a little bit
Speaker 5: of teasing about how much weight everybody had lost, but
Speaker 5: the reality was minimum fifteen to twenty kilograms, and that
Speaker 5: was in a place that had some access to food.
Speaker 5: I was only able to be in telephone contact with
Speaker 5: those in the north. So that's my first thing that
Speaker 5: struck me. The second is everywhere was full. The hospital
Speaker 5: on the shar a small district hospital. Over the years,
Speaker 5: RAFA has said, you don't give us a big hospital,
Speaker 5: but there was a big hospital just a few miles
Speaker 5: up the road in han Juniz, and then the major
Speaker 5: one obviously in North Gaza. That hospital should have had
Speaker 5: sixty beds. It had anything between six hundred seven hundred
Speaker 5: patients coming through the hospital and even more than a
Speaker 5: thousand in the accident emergency. It was the first point
Speaker 5: of call for trauma, even though it only had a
Speaker 5: simple X ray machine and some ultrasound now. In fact,
Speaker 5: the doctors told me they felt they were working with
Speaker 5: their hands tied behind their back, and they told me
Speaker 5: stories of young people with diabetes coming in with very
Speaker 5: dangerous blood tests something called potassium very very low. It's
Speaker 5: a known complication. Yet they couldn't test for that, and
Speaker 5: so the patient should have been an ICU, should have
Speaker 5: had blood tests. All the time they were still managing
Speaker 5: to care for those patients, and a one young doctor
Speaker 5: told me how we slept for forty eight hours next
Speaker 5: to the bed of a young man his age who
Speaker 5: was dying of diabetic keto acidosis, that's this complication of diabetes,
Speaker 5: and actually managed somehow to help that patient survive. So
Speaker 5: exhausted healthcare staff, dreadful, dreadful circumstances, patients in huge trouble
Speaker 5: with their chronic illness and then their new illness such
Speaker 5: as a pneumonia or infection, and then maybe also a
Speaker 5: traumatic event with an injury, so all of those combined
Speaker 5: and still people trying to care with compassion.
Speaker 1: Doctor you talked about how there was basically no pain management,
Speaker 1: which sounds very, I guess, sanitized when you say it.
Speaker 1: If you are a patient who's suffering from a traumatic injury,
Speaker 1: if you are struggling with aggressive cancer, what does that
Speaker 1: actually look like, and what does it look like to
Speaker 1: try to care for these individuals who are in absolutely
Speaker 1: excruciating pain, because we've all seen the reports of even
Speaker 1: children having to undergo amputations with no anesthetic, women having
Speaker 1: to have cesareans with no anesthetic.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you for that question. I want to put
Speaker 5: it in a context that globally this is a big issue.
Speaker 5: I've spent thirty years of my professional career with other
Speaker 5: brilliant colleagues trying to work on this issue, because this
Speaker 5: is a problem in many places, but when you're in
Speaker 5: this kind of situation, it is unbelo be the level
Speaker 5: of suffering. Just imagine the healthcare workers doing these procedures
Speaker 5: with that anesthetic. The children, the mothers with cesarean sections
Speaker 5: without anesthetic or with minimal or you get maybe one
Speaker 5: dose of a painkiller because that's all there, but nothing afterwards.
Speaker 5: Think of rehabilitating from your severe injury, all the dressings changes.
Speaker 5: Think of the burns patients. I spoke to some of
Speaker 5: my colleagues whose parents died of severe burns and they
Speaker 5: watched them cry as they died. And this is no
Speaker 5: criticism of my colleagues. And then you moved to the cancer.
Speaker 5: I had just had the privilege of working with my
Speaker 5: GAZA colleagues to train twenty amazing multidisciplinary GAZA colleagues in
Speaker 5: pain and palliative care. They have the skills, we were
Speaker 5: about to graduate them. They were pharmacists and doctors and
Speaker 5: physios and nurses, and they were saying, you gave us
Speaker 5: the skill and we can't use it. And the stories
Speaker 5: they told of the cancer patients children as well as
Speaker 5: adults just crying, crying in pain was absolutely devastating. I
Speaker 5: have to say. The day we were there, they had
Speaker 5: got a small donation through UNISEEF had arrived in fatimal Zacha.
Speaker 5: That was the clinic for the oncology hospital, beautiful oncology
Speaker 5: hospital called the Turkish Palestine Friendship Hospital in northern Gaza
Speaker 5: that had been displaced now the three times, and they
Speaker 5: got some and immediately my colleagues were coming to me
Speaker 5: and saying, you know, we know how to do this,
Speaker 5: Let's get on and do this. But they also told
Speaker 5: me that every time they were displaced, they usually lost
Speaker 5: all their supplies. And yesterday that clinic was displaced again.
Speaker 5: And I have no idea whether where they've been displaced too.
Speaker 5: I mean, where can they be displaced too? We'll even
Speaker 5: have a drop of anaalgesia, and it's absolutely heartbreaking and
Speaker 5: unimaginable suffering.
Speaker 2: Yeah, doctor you mentioned there the weight loss, just to
Speaker 2: translate for our us audience, that's about thirty three to
Speaker 2: forty four pounds that you're describing.
Speaker 3: In terms of that.
Speaker 2: We've heard a lot here about the destructive of act
Speaker 2: of famine and the lack of aid what did you
Speaker 2: witness with respect to famine and also to the lack
Speaker 2: of humanitarian aid being allowed into the strip As you.
Speaker 5: Come into Rufa through across the sin idea is that
Speaker 5: the first thing you say, that's the cross thing from
Speaker 5: Egypt into Gaza at the south, the first thing you
Speaker 5: see is queues and ques and cues of trucks. And
Speaker 5: I have to say, my heart sank and I had
Speaker 5: a deep sense of shame that. You know how humanitarian
Speaker 5: and access to manitarian aid is a basic right, it's
Speaker 5: enshrined in international law, and it was awful to see that.
Speaker 5: What we saw in Rafa at that point was people
Speaker 5: somehow getting by. I mean a kilo of chicken or
Speaker 5: two kilos of chicken. They haven't had any for months,
Speaker 5: arrived frozen from Egypt, and I think it was fifty
Speaker 5: or sixty dollars to buy enough for a family. And
Speaker 5: remember I said no one had been paid, so they
Speaker 5: were somehow managing. There was a few tins coming in
Speaker 5: and people were getting by, but were still lose weight.
Speaker 5: And of course, once you start losing below a certain level,
Speaker 5: you're using up all of your protein stores. You become
Speaker 5: liable to infections. I saw people dying of pressure sores.
Speaker 5: Now that's a combination of untreated wounds, of not enough water,
Speaker 5: no hygiene because you're living in circumstances where there is
Speaker 5: either no toilet facilities or one share between hundreds, and
Speaker 5: can imagine hygiene. It's getting hot now, that kind of
Speaker 5: infections were rising. That's a result of malnutrition. But even
Speaker 5: worse I was hearing from Northern Gaza. I had two
Speaker 5: long calls with the very dear colleague I've worked with
Speaker 5: a long time. A tomato was costing seven dollars. People
Speaker 5: were dying trying to catch the food coming from the sky.
Speaker 5: I think you've seen the and all of this is
Speaker 5: one hour from where I used to come into Asa
Speaker 5: when the area is crossing, So you know, it's not
Speaker 5: like an earthquake in a distant mountainous place. This is
Speaker 5: just beside where food and water are available. And I
Speaker 5: also attended the meeting where we got an update on
Speaker 5: the nutritional status. And there's four stages before you get
Speaker 5: to famine, and each of those stages had been crossed
Speaker 5: and crossed, and now we were looking at moving Northern
Speaker 5: Gaza fully into famine. And that is not severe malnourishment.
Speaker 5: That is imminent death of thousands, and it hardly ever happens.
Speaker 5: We see malnutrition, but a man made famine is almost unheardle.
Speaker 1: Doctor. When we covered this morning, how the ground invasion
Speaker 1: long threatened of Rafa has begun along with air strikes,
Speaker 1: the Idea has taken control of Palestine inside of the border,
Speaker 1: has shut that crossing with Egypt there in Rafa. As
Speaker 1: someone who has been in Rafa, when you hear that news,
Speaker 1: when you see those images, what does that mean to you?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't a lot of sleep last night. Obviously,
Speaker 5: we were communicating, trying to find out who was okay,
Speaker 5: where people were, what had happened. The very house that
Speaker 5: I was living in while I was there with colleagues
Speaker 5: has been evacuated. While I was there, there were bombs
Speaker 5: killing people in the house next door, and of course
Speaker 5: we remember the very public well publicized deaths killings of
Speaker 5: World Central kitchen stuff. I mean, what I was hearing
Speaker 5: last night was just absolute panic. No one had fuel.
Speaker 5: They knew this might happen, but they'd nowhere to go.
Speaker 5: They're trying to get out the way. Where can they go?
Speaker 5: They say they're moving for peace, but there's nowhere to go,
Speaker 5: there's nowhere safe to go, and people are just trying
Speaker 5: to desperately find a way to survive. I spoke to
Speaker 5: a colleague in northern Gaza, a very dear colleague working
Speaker 5: through the whole of this time, and he said to me,
Speaker 5: dear Moira, I'm so happy to hear you and Gaza,
Speaker 5: but we have lost hope in the international community, and
Speaker 5: our people are simply awaiting our fate. And that's the
Speaker 5: sense I had last night. Number One is the international
Speaker 5: community to protect civilians, to protect healthcare, to protect the
Speaker 5: children and the sick, and also where is the humanity?
Speaker 5: I see humanity every time I go to Gaza, and
Speaker 5: I've described already what I've seen, but I felt a
Speaker 5: deep sense of shame that as an international community we
Speaker 5: have not we have not upheld the dignity and humanity
Speaker 5: of the Gadsen people.
Speaker 1: Doctor. Last question that I have for you is, you know,
Speaker 1: the healthcare system has been under attack routinely by the
Speaker 1: idea of some of the justification that's been used as
Speaker 1: the context of Alshifa and other hospitals has been that
Speaker 1: these have been places where Hamas has been sheltering, understanding
Speaker 1: that you were not in all places at all times,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I just wanted to ask you if you
Speaker 1: saw any evidence that would lead you to believe that
Speaker 1: there were Hamas operatives in any of the hospitals where
Speaker 1: you were.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: I absolutely not. I saw no evidence in ten years,
Speaker 5: and all the hospitals that have been mentioned in news reports,
Speaker 5: particularly alshipa hospital, was a hospital. I knew well. This
Speaker 5: In your colleagues that have been detained, I knew well,
Speaker 5: and can I just mentioned the courage of my Gaza colleagues.
Speaker 5: They are still going to work even when they know
Speaker 5: if that hospital is overrun, they will be detained. And
Speaker 5: we're hearing very very serious, disturbing eyewitness reports of torture
Speaker 5: on any particularly productors. So I saw absolutely none of that.
Speaker 5: I only saw. I didn't see any military presence at all,
Speaker 5: And there has not been any credible evidence shared. And
Speaker 5: I would really again say, we need independent journalism. We
Speaker 5: need independent international colleagues who can investigate and look into
Speaker 5: any of those allegations, but also can document which, according
Speaker 5: to the evidence presented to the international criminal courts, are
Speaker 5: evidence of war crimes.
Speaker 3: Got it well?
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Doctor, are a very courageous woman.
Speaker 2: We appreciate your time very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you, doctor. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: everything you've done. It's truly extraordinary.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Great Counterpoint show tomorrow, See you later.