Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing
Speaker 3: show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Krystal.
Speaker 2: We do many interesting things continuing to unfold. So we
Speaker 2: have a continuation in the war between Sam Oltman and
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. But Trump is kind of undercut by this
Speaker 2: one as well, because Elon has taken shots at his
Speaker 2: big Stargate project that he announced with great fanfare. So anyway,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of drama going on there and also
Speaker 2: some real concerns about the direction of AI. So we'll
Speaker 2: show you a lot to do with that, going to
Speaker 2: undate you on the latest with regard to immigration, what
Speaker 2: we know about Trump's plans, what they're moving forward with,
Speaker 2: also the polling about how Americans feel about this new
Speaker 2: war hardline direction on immigration, So break all of that
Speaker 2: down for you. Also kind of break down for you
Speaker 2: this controversy over the bishop who spoke at the National
Speaker 2: Cathedral and the right was very upset about what she
Speaker 2: had to say, So we'll show you that and show
Speaker 2: you that controversy.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: Cibers had a little bit of inside reporting about some pushback,
Speaker 2: some war between the various factions within the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: the more sort of like hawkish Neokhon pro Israel faction
Speaker 2: versus some of the new people who are being brought
Speaker 2: on board who maybe have a different view and different
Speaker 2: direction they want to go, and so that's very interesting.
Speaker 2: We also got Steve Wikoff sounding off and planning a
Speaker 2: trip to Gaza, so we'll see what comes of.
Speaker 4: That and where that's all going.
Speaker 2: You know, there's some troubling indications, but there's also you know,
Speaker 2: that's one at least positive indication. So break all of
Speaker 2: that down for You've also got Trump weighing in on
Speaker 2: his approach to the Russia Ukraine War. We're trying to
Speaker 2: read the tea leaves there as best we can, and
Speaker 2: we're going to investigate whether there is some social media
Speaker 2: new censorship going on in the new Trump era. And
Speaker 2: also a weather lady weather person I guess meteorl meteorl
Speaker 2: at anyway, a woman local news station weather castor will
Speaker 2: go with that, who was fired because she criticized Elon
Speaker 2: Musk's salute. We'll leave it at that to avoid Sagera.
Speaker 1: And I having to drag me back. Don't drag me back.
Speaker 2: Before we get into any of that though. Thank you
Speaker 2: guys so much for your support of the show. We're
Speaker 2: really excited about what we have to bring for you
Speaker 2: this year. Obviously, there are going to be a million
Speaker 2: things for us to cover, so it is going to
Speaker 2: be eventful if nothing else.
Speaker 3: Look and there's a lot, there's a lot that's in play.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm gonna be talking a lot about that today.
Speaker 3: It's really interesting being, you know, getting some of the
Speaker 3: inside knowledge and all that. I really want to try
Speaker 3: and share it with some of you. And thank you
Speaker 3: to everybody who's you know, supporting the show and others.
Speaker 3: There's our ability to be completely independent and also have
Speaker 3: a little bit of a line, not claiming to have
Speaker 3: a total line or whatever on what's going on the inside,
Speaker 3: I think is kind of unique. And so that's one
Speaker 3: of the things that you can help us do here
Speaker 3: Breakingpoints dot Com and continue to build that out as
Speaker 3: the Trump administration really comes, you know, really starts to
Speaker 3: take shape, and also with the democratic response and the
Speaker 3: podcast selection and all that. So the narrative is really
Speaker 3: on our side if we want to do something interesting
Speaker 3: over here, So Breakingpoints dot Com and you can go
Speaker 3: ahead and support us, But let's get to stargate because
Speaker 3: this is ai one of the stories, Crystal, that we've
Speaker 3: been wanting to focus on now quite some time. Fundamentally,
Speaker 3: probably the most the thing that will be when historian
Speaker 3: looks back at this time period. You know, a lot
Speaker 3: of the crap that we talk about here, you know,
Speaker 3: to day to day whatever controversy, none of that is
Speaker 3: even going to be a footnote. It will be about
Speaker 3: the big macro economic trends and artificial intelligence and the
Speaker 3: eventual you know, how it comes to be shaped, the
Speaker 3: corporate influence and all of that as we see here
Speaker 3: with the development of star Stargate could be a big
Speaker 3: jump off in that period.
Speaker 2: Incredibly consequential. And so Trump made this big announcement counterpoints cover.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you guys saw this too, that these private
Speaker 2: companies and investment funds were going to put five hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollars into building out AI focused data centers in
Speaker 2: the US. One of the companies that was involved in
Speaker 2: that is open Ai, headed by Sam Oltman, who was
Speaker 2: formerly up until like five minutes ago, major Democratic donor.
Speaker 2: Actually full disclosure, he had previously contributed to a project
Speaker 2: that I ran to try to recruit working class candidates
Speaker 2: to run in Democratic primaries. So he was, you know,
Speaker 2: buddies with Reid Hoffman, all in on the Democratic side.
Speaker 2: Once Trump won, suddenly, oh let me give you a
Speaker 2: million dollars to the inauguration fund. Here I am at
Speaker 2: the inauguration singing a very different tune, et cetera. The
Speaker 2: other piece of the backstoring need to know is that
Speaker 2: he and Elon are at war. Elon has sued him.
Speaker 2: They founded open AI originally together. They had a falling out.
Speaker 2: You know, they both have different versions of what that
Speaker 2: falling out was over but in any case, they're at
Speaker 2: war with one another. So let me show you a
Speaker 2: little bit of Sam Altman at this announcement, you know,
Speaker 2: really buttering up Trump and doing the whole dance as
Speaker 2: part of this Stargate reveal.
Speaker 5: Let's take a listen, to create one hundreds of thousands
Speaker 5: of jobs, to create a new industry centered here. We
Speaker 5: wouldn't be able to do this without you and mister President,
Speaker 5: and I'm thrilled that we get to.
Speaker 1: I think it'll be an exciting project.
Speaker 5: I think we'll be able to do all of the
Speaker 5: wonderful things these guys talked about, but the fact that
Speaker 5: we get to do this in the United States is
Speaker 5: I think wonderful.
Speaker 1: So thank you very much.
Speaker 6: First, let me talk to you, Sam about what.
Speaker 1: This means for AI and the future for the US
Speaker 1: investment here.
Speaker 5: This means we can create AI and AGI in the
Speaker 5: United States. In America, wouldn't have been obvious that this
Speaker 5: was possible, but I think that's a different president might not.
Speaker 1: Have been possible.
Speaker 5: But we are thrilled to get to do this, and
Speaker 5: I think it'll be great for American's great for the
Speaker 5: whole world.
Speaker 1: And that's great for the whole world. I'm sure. I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's great for the world.
Speaker 2: Great for you, for sure, and the oligarchs who are
Speaker 2: you know, at the forefront of this. But you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know. If you watch the whole press conference.
Speaker 2: I did watch the whole deres of conference. Everybody would say,
Speaker 2: oh my god, Trump, President Trump, this is soone like
Speaker 2: this never would have happened without you, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: And it's it is a little odd because there's no
Speaker 2: indication at least that public money is going into this.
Speaker 2: This is just like businesses who were doing a thing
Speaker 2: Trump gets to take credit for and look like he's
Speaker 2: making this, you know, giant investment, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: Also an opportunity for them to like kiss the ring
Speaker 2: and bend the knee and tell him how wonderful and
Speaker 2: great and brilliant he is, et cetera, et cetera. Open
Speaker 2: AI put out an announcement on Twitter. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up on the screen. I'll read a little bit of
Speaker 2: the way that they framed this. They said, the Stargate Projects,
Speaker 2: a new company intends to invest five hundred billion dollars
Speaker 2: in the next four years building new AI infrastructure for
Speaker 2: Open AI and the US. Would we can deploying one
Speaker 2: hundred billion immediately this infrastructural so caure American leadership and
Speaker 2: AI great hundreds of thousands of American jobs. I'll believe
Speaker 2: that when I see it, and generate massive economic benefit
Speaker 2: for the entire World's project will not only support the
Speaker 2: reindustrialization of the United State, it's quite the opposite, actually,
Speaker 2: but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national
Speaker 2: security of American and its allies. We don't have this
Speaker 2: part up here, but they go on to name all
Speaker 2: the partners soft Bank, Open AI, Oracle and MGX.
Speaker 4: By the way, MGX is a.
Speaker 2: UAE based investment fund with huge investments from the Abu
Speaker 2: Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Strange group of bad fellows. Anyway,
Speaker 2: the whole thing is a little bit odd. But the
Speaker 2: key part of this is underneath this big announcement, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a big Trump initiative, something he's taken credit for.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, Trump's first buddy, says they don't actually have
Speaker 2: the money. So Elon coming in hot, taking a shot
Speaker 2: obviously at Sam Yes, but also inadvertently perhaps taking a
Speaker 2: shot at Trump and this, you know, big glossy announcement
Speaker 2: that he made there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's there's several dimensions to it. Obviously,
Speaker 3: where you have a basically Elon is now a White
Speaker 3: House official. So can we say that a senior White
Speaker 3: House official is pouring cold water on Stargate? But Stargate
Speaker 3: itself is really worse looking at and saying what the
Speaker 3: hell is going on here? Because effectively, the way I've
Speaker 3: come to understand it is that this is supposed to
Speaker 3: be a Manhattan project for AI to compete with China.
Speaker 3: There's only a big difference here, which is it's not
Speaker 3: being run by the United States government or to the
Speaker 3: public interest or with the coherent goal involved, and instead
Speaker 3: is basically being outsourced to the private sector. Now, the
Speaker 3: real reason why everyone should pay attention is, first, let's
Speaker 3: just look at the colossal amount of money that we're
Speaker 3: talking about here, five hundred billion. Look, I understand here
Speaker 3: that we can talk every once in a while like
Speaker 3: one hundred billion, two hundred billion, five hundred billion is
Speaker 3: half a trillion dollars for a private mark. For a
Speaker 3: private corporation or even corporations to be able to come
Speaker 3: up with that sum is extraordinary. I mean, just think
Speaker 3: about that in terms of actual cash and dollars even
Speaker 3: over a ten year period, we've very rarely seen ever
Speaker 3: such private investments. Now, if if that's going to happen,
Speaker 3: where does that money come from? And that's kind of
Speaker 3: what Elon is getting at here when he says they
Speaker 3: don't don't actually have the money. Now, Satya Nadell, the
Speaker 3: CEO of Microsoft is said I'm good for my eighty billion,
Speaker 3: But I mean, keep in mind, this is a two
Speaker 3: trillion dollar market cap corporation. Where is open AI's money
Speaker 3: coming from. Even Masa, you know over at SoftBank. A
Speaker 3: lot of people probably don't know a lot about SoftBank,
Speaker 3: but I encourage you to go and read some of
Speaker 3: the histories of Uber and we Work, where Masa was
Speaker 3: very very important in the development of those companies. Masa
Speaker 3: is literally the guy who told Adam Newman to do
Speaker 3: all of this crazy shit over at we Work, and
Speaker 3: he was like, the only thing I don't like about you, Adam.
Speaker 3: This is direct quote. He said, the only thing I
Speaker 3: don't like about you, Adam is that you're not crazy enough.
Speaker 3: And he's the one who encouraged him to go from
Speaker 3: an office space company, to we live and we care
Speaker 3: and you know, drive a forty billion dollar company into
Speaker 3: the ground that eventually gets sold for scraps over to
Speaker 3: to like a private equity giant or yeah, Adam.
Speaker 2: Will be We'll be taught for years as a corporate
Speaker 2: cautionary tale.
Speaker 1: That is who we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: You know, I guess because I read the news, I'm
Speaker 3: aware of who these people are. It's really important to
Speaker 3: first think about where this money is coming from. As
Speaker 3: you said, the Ua Masa in the past has taken
Speaker 3: tons of money from the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund. Do
Speaker 3: we really want all of this money to be involved
Speaker 3: in our Matt Manhattan project? But secondary to that and
Speaker 3: part of the reason why I'm really concerned about the
Speaker 3: lack of oversight and where I at least look, you know,
Speaker 3: and somehow in this war, I'm like on Evon's side
Speaker 3: where I'm like, yeah, I'm not so sure about all
Speaker 3: of this is this is a corporate conglomerate which is
Speaker 3: totally which is basically coming together as a cartel with
Speaker 3: all of these big tech companies who are now getting
Speaker 3: to decide our future of our economy. That's right, how
Speaker 3: our medicine is we're about to show you which they're
Speaker 3: openly bragging, which will replace humanity, which will develop mRNA
Speaker 3: vaccines in forty eight hours.
Speaker 1: How amazing. I'm sure sure they'll work. And you know
Speaker 1: all of that.
Speaker 3: If we put this stuff together, you're looking at it
Speaker 3: literally like an elysium led society, and they're not even
Speaker 3: shy about saying it all out loud.
Speaker 1: That's the crazy part.
Speaker 4: That's all so well said.
Speaker 2: And that's not to say that there aren't potential benefits
Speaker 2: to society from AI. But as we'll get to in
Speaker 2: a minute, you also should like, this technology already exists,
Speaker 2: so we should also look at the way it's already
Speaker 2: being deployed. And many of the ways it's already being
Speaker 2: deployed are to eliminate jobs, make your health care worse,
Speaker 2: kill people in kill Palestinians in Gaza. So it's you know, listen,
Speaker 2: anytime you put the corporate profit motive at the center
Speaker 2: of innovation, then definitionally the benefit of humanity.
Speaker 4: Is not going to be the primary goal here.
Speaker 2: So the fact that it is being celebrated and so on,
Speaker 2: it is all really wild. Just to get take you
Speaker 2: quickly through the Elon Musk, Sam Altman drama, because of
Speaker 2: course human drama is always interesting, and it's also another
Speaker 2: indication of the way all of these tech oligarch types are,
Speaker 2: even if they were previously totally on board with the
Speaker 2: Democratic brand, now completely bending the knee and sucking up
Speaker 2: to Trump because that's where power is, that's where them is,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Let's put this up on the screen. A
Speaker 2: little bit of this back and forth. So Elon says, hey,
Speaker 2: they don't actually have the money.
Speaker 4: By the way, Elon.
Speaker 2: Also self interested here has his own AI developments, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Sam Altman chimes in, Elon, I genuinely respect your accomplishments,
Speaker 2: and I think you're the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time,
Speaker 2: because again he sees who has power and Elon Musk
Speaker 2: as a lot of position and powerless.
Speaker 4: Put the next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 2: So Elon says, SoftBank has well under ten billion dollars secured.
Speaker 2: I have that on good authority. Sam says, wrong, as
Speaker 2: you surely know. Want to come visit the first site
Speaker 2: already underway. This is great for the country. I realize
Speaker 2: what is great for the country isn't always what's optimal
Speaker 2: for your companies. But in your new role, I hope
Speaker 2: you'll mostly put America first. Let's put the next piece
Speaker 2: up on the screen. As this continues, you had someone
Speaker 2: who pointed out online basically like in one tweet, Sam
Speaker 2: being like, oh my god, Elon's so amazing, and then
Speaker 2: in another tweet, you know, criticizing him, and Sam says, well,
Speaker 2: both sentiments are true. I don't think he's a nice
Speaker 2: person or treating us fairly, but you have to respect
Speaker 2: the guy, and he pushes all of us to be
Speaker 2: more ambitious. Elon again chimes in with them excellento on
Speaker 2: the screen, pointing out as I recently did that Sam,
Speaker 2: and was until five seconds ago totally tied in with
Speaker 2: the Democratic Like what with the Democratic machine? I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm tired that he puts significant financial resources into the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party and various Democratic Party projects. So you got
Speaker 2: Cernovich here pointing out that Sam was involved with Reid Hoffman,
Speaker 2: who was involved with the what he describes as law
Speaker 2: fair against Trump. Sam said, very few people this was
Speaker 2: back twelve fifteen twenty one. Very few people realized just
Speaker 2: how much Reid Hoffman did and spent to stop Trump
Speaker 2: from getting reelected, it seems reasonably likely to me that
Speaker 2: Trump would still be in office without its efforts. Thank
Speaker 2: you read and Elon quote tweets all of that and
Speaker 2: says true. So, I mean the thing that's funny to
Speaker 2: me too. So it's like, it's not like Maga is
Speaker 2: even buying this new act from Sam Olman. It's just
Speaker 2: so shameless to completely change your tune and change your
Speaker 2: colors on a dime. Now that there's a new new
Speaker 2: regime and power and a new vibe out there, and
Speaker 2: you want to secure these partnerships and you know, whatever
Speaker 2: deregulatory stuff you want and be hand to the cannot
Speaker 2: be subject to any sort of retaliation. Now you've got
Speaker 2: Elon and you're at war with Elon.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: So it's just so this is one of the most
Speaker 2: brazen and shameless possible examples. I mean, Zuckerberg is really
Speaker 2: up there too, given how much Heat changes it on
Speaker 2: the dime. Not these people really ultimately believe anything. They're
Speaker 2: just in it for themselves. I trying to position themselves
Speaker 2: in the best possible but self interested.
Speaker 3: I would put Zuck at the top of the list,
Speaker 3: and Sam Hall that would be your ranking simple. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's just sous just too much, really so much. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's you know, I just can't handle it all sometimes.
Speaker 3: But Sam Altman is definitely up there as well. Like
Speaker 3: you said, this is a lifelong Democrat guy who put
Speaker 3: tens of millions at the least possibly hundreds, you know,
Speaker 3: who know who even knows into the Democratic machine over
Speaker 3: the last several years. Completely switches about how incredible Trump is.
Speaker 3: But really the game for Zuck and Altman are all
Speaker 3: the same. Remember Sam Altman, you know, even though he
Speaker 3: might appear to be like some meek, mild mannered guy,
Speaker 3: this is a person who took a nonprofit and has
Speaker 3: turned it into one hundred and some things of billions
Speaker 3: of dollars company who himself is now worth untold sums.
Speaker 3: Transferred this NGO nonprofit into a partnership with Microsoft. Ye
Speaker 3: I mean he took the entire idea of open AI
Speaker 3: is really one I could get behind. Right, It's like, Okay,
Speaker 3: this is going to be a fundamentally transformative, transformative technology.
Speaker 3: We're going to make sure this technology is open source,
Speaker 3: is not profit driven, and is for the benefit of humanity. Great, Well,
Speaker 3: the problem is they strike gold with chat GPT and
Speaker 3: they're like, oh, there's a lot of money to be
Speaker 3: made here, license it off to Microsoft. Now you're turning
Speaker 3: it into a major service, and now there's all this
Speaker 3: you know, censorship stuff going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 4: Well, and let me just just to chime in and
Speaker 4: to back you up.
Speaker 2: We have to take a look at what they're doing
Speaker 2: now with this tech which already exists specifically at Microsoft,
Speaker 2: and dropsite has new breaking news just that I just
Speaker 2: saw this morning. Guess who one of the top customers
Speaker 2: for Microsoft's AI services is right now at this point
Speaker 2: in time.
Speaker 4: Oh, that would be the Israeli military. So you know,
Speaker 4: all of your oh, I'm.
Speaker 2: Going to do good for humanity and just be the
Speaker 2: best thing ever for mankind. What they're actually using the
Speaker 2: tech for right now is to kill Palestinian civilians en mass.
Speaker 2: And we of course reported here talked here about the
Speaker 2: nine seven to two magazine reporting about the way that
Speaker 2: AI program was used to have algorithmically generate this mass
Speaker 2: number of targets, many of them including civilian infrastructure, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So those are the sorts of things AI is being
Speaker 2: deployed for right now.
Speaker 1: Today we mentioned a couple of days ago.
Speaker 3: But on January eighteenth, members of Open Ai apparently had
Speaker 3: some closed door briefings with US officials. Let's put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen from Axios, which alludes to
Speaker 3: some of it. They say Open AI product chiefs says
Speaker 3: that the world is on the verge of AI agents now.
Speaker 3: According to Axios, members of open AI and others are
Speaker 3: poised to announce a next level breakthrough that will unleash
Speaker 3: PhD level super agents to do complex human tasks. Such
Speaker 3: a breakthrough would push generative AI from a fun, cool
Speaker 3: aspirational tool to a true replacement for human workers. This
Speaker 3: is apparently something that has already been developed inside the
Speaker 3: company and that was briefed to senior members of the
Speaker 3: Trump administration in terms of a warning about what is
Speaker 3: coming now when we pair that with now the illusions
Speaker 3: of all of these people Ellison for replacement for him
Speaker 3: again saying we're gonna have mRNA vaccines, like basically talking
Speaker 3: in a full scope of replacement of technology with any
Speaker 3: human check. And also more importantly for Stargate, here is
Speaker 3: no government or policy check that's gonna be the most important.
Speaker 3: And honestly, there's still there's some huge battle lines here
Speaker 3: to be drawn because part of the thing that Stargate
Speaker 3: reveals to all of us is the scale and the
Speaker 3: cost of compute with open AI or with AI in general.
Speaker 3: So we could say it's nice, it's like, oh yeah,
Speaker 3: we want open AIS theory and or open source. But
Speaker 3: the truth is is that the development of these models
Speaker 3: cost you know, tens of billions, hundreds of billions of
Speaker 3: dollars to build these data centers and video the amount
Speaker 3: of power that they consume that could go on forever.
Speaker 3: So the scale of the cost means that it naturally
Speaker 3: lends itself to existing technological monopolies people like Facebook, Google,
Speaker 3: Amazon and others who have hundreds of billions of dollars
Speaker 3: and profits that they can burn just to develop the
Speaker 3: new future technology. So they're the ones who are getting
Speaker 3: to decide all of our future. And as we all
Speaker 3: saw like with Google Gemini, you know, with the crazy
Speaker 3: censorship going on, as we see also if you have
Speaker 3: political questions to ask to chat GPT, this has real
Speaker 3: scale implications for if you're going to replace humans. You know,
Speaker 3: humans are complex systems, complex theories in terms of our
Speaker 3: ability to intuit what is maybe good and bad and
Speaker 3: to debate democratically about whether this is something that we
Speaker 3: all even want. And they're the ones who very openly
Speaker 3: are pursuing like transhumanism and complete replacement of the human
Speaker 3: being in the US economy.
Speaker 4: Like openly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like they always we're about to show it to you.
Speaker 2: Talk about that being their goal. And I think that
Speaker 2: is the most important point. Is I really want It
Speaker 2: sounds insane, but I really want people to reckon with
Speaker 2: the fact that a really quite small number of people,
Speaker 2: a handful of mostly billionaires, interested billionaires, are deciding things
Speaker 2: that will be just immeasurably consequential to the future of humanity.
Speaker 4: And especially for workers.
Speaker 2: Like that is a really important piece right now, is
Speaker 2: I mean, they talk openly about wanting to replace all
Speaker 2: of the human labor force, and this is happening behind
Speaker 2: closed doors, zero democratic input. I mean, at this point,
Speaker 2: I'm not particularly hopeful that there's even a chance to
Speaker 2: turn it back, because a lot of this has already
Speaker 2: a lot of the direction has kind of already been set.
Speaker 2: That this is all happening with a handful of elites
Speaker 2: with no democratic input whatsoever, and it is.
Speaker 4: Deeply, deeply troubling.
Speaker 2: So here is the anthropic CEO talking about how the
Speaker 2: thing he's happy about with AI is that it will
Speaker 2: render all humans useless ultimately if he accomplishes his goal.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7: Oh no, exactly when it'll come, I don't know if
Speaker 7: it'll be twenty twenty seven. I think it's plausible it
Speaker 7: could be longer than that. I don't think it will
Speaker 7: be a whole bunch longer than that. When AI systems
Speaker 7: are better than humans at almost everything, better than almost
Speaker 7: all humans at almost everything, and then eventually better all
Speaker 7: humans than everything, even robotics. We make good enough AI systems,
Speaker 7: they'll they'll enable us to make better, better robots. And
Speaker 7: so when that happens, we will need to have a
Speaker 7: conversation at places like this, right, at places like this
Speaker 7: this event about you know, how do we organize our economy? Right?
Speaker 7: How do humans find find meaning? Right? There are a
Speaker 7: lot of assumptions we've made when humans were the most
Speaker 7: intelligent species on the planet that that are going to
Speaker 7: be invalidated by what's happening with AI. And I think
Speaker 7: the only good thing about it is that we'll all
Speaker 7: be in the same boat. I'm actually afraid of the
Speaker 7: world where thirty percent of human labor becomes fully fully
Speaker 7: automated by AI and the other seventy percent that's going
Speaker 7: to cause this This just incredible, you know, class war
Speaker 7: between the groups that have been in the groups that
Speaker 7: haven't been, if we're all in the same boat.
Speaker 2: Yes, so yeah, I mean listen, maybe they're high on
Speaker 2: their own supply and this is preposterous and it's never
Speaker 2: going to be this transformational thing that they think.
Speaker 4: But he's like, oh, when it happens, we'll have that conversation.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should have that conversation now, whether to your point,
Speaker 2: we even are interested in moving in a direction where
Speaker 2: all human labor is irrelevant and you know that being
Speaker 2: a concerted goal now being led pushed by our government,
Speaker 2: but led by a bunch of self interest did corporate
Speaker 2: oligarchs with driven by a profit motive? Maybe that's something
Speaker 2: we should be talking about right now instead of, you know,
Speaker 2: years down the road when it is far too late
Speaker 2: to change anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And not only that, you had these images here
Speaker 3: of like what AI is currently better at humans for,
Speaker 3: So let's put those on the screen please, just to
Speaker 3: give everybody an example. You say Amazon used AI to
Speaker 3: automatically fire low productivity workers, the lavender of the AI
Speaker 3: machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza, and United Health
Speaker 3: uses faulty AI to deny elderly patients medically necessary coverage
Speaker 3: lawsuit claim. The point is is that any large scale organization,
Speaker 3: either bureaucratic or corporate, which relies on data to make
Speaker 3: quote unquote better decisions, and by better they mean increasing
Speaker 3: the bottom line, is something that AI is really good at.
Speaker 3: If you've ever used I use it all the time,
Speaker 3: you know, whenever trying to calculate a budget or something
Speaker 3: like that, or doing financial projections, looking at like retirement savings.
Speaker 1: It's really good. And crunching big amounts of data.
Speaker 3: Where it would have taken me hours in Excel to
Speaker 3: do something like that, it can build me a model
Speaker 3: in seconds. It's like, well, now imagine that at scale,
Speaker 3: but for what end and what purpose? And that's exactly
Speaker 3: the issue is when you really see what's happening. China
Speaker 3: is a very good example. They use AI, facial recognition,
Speaker 3: all of that to increase censorship and citizen control. It's
Speaker 3: really good at that. By being able to remember in China,
Speaker 3: they are able to predict almost with ninety nine percent
Speaker 3: accuracy based off of their cameras to surveil the entire
Speaker 3: population and keep people on their best behavior. You can
Speaker 3: actually watch videos online of people crossing the crosswalks and
Speaker 3: they're being identified with their name and their social credit
Speaker 3: score and all of that.
Speaker 1: That pops up. It's out there, it's open. We saw
Speaker 1: a lot of that during COVID.
Speaker 3: That is the dream of the security state and of
Speaker 3: the corporate you know, the big corporations, because it's very
Speaker 3: good at increasing profit. The question is is about what
Speaker 3: about all of us, and it's our country. We should
Speaker 3: be able to get to decide.
Speaker 4: That's exactly right.
Speaker 2: And that technology is also deployed in the US and
Speaker 2: not just at airports. But there was an example I
Speaker 2: think we talked about on the show of someone who
Speaker 2: was wrongfully arrested accused of I think stealing like a
Speaker 2: purse or something like that, based on this facial recognition
Speaker 2: technology no other evidence than that. It wasn't they got
Speaker 2: the wrong guy. It wasn't even it wasn't the right person.
Speaker 2: He had even been in the state, and they arrested
Speaker 2: him and he was held for quite a while under
Speaker 2: you know false like under just something that was totally
Speaker 2: wrong and false simply because this police department was using
Speaker 2: some of this facial recognition technology. Well, whatever's been dabbled
Speaker 2: in thus far, they want to take nationwide, global, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Here's oracles Larry Ellison talking about how AI will make
Speaker 2: sure that quote, citizens will be on their best behavior.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: The police will be on their best behavior because we record.
Speaker 6: We're constantly recording, watching and recording everything that's going on.
Speaker 6: Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly
Speaker 6: recording and reporting everything that's going on, and it's it's unimpeachable.
Speaker 6: The cars, the cars have camera, you know, cameras on them,
Speaker 6: all right, we have I think we have a squad
Speaker 6: car here someplace, but those kind of applications using AI,
Speaker 6: if we can use AI, and we're using AI to
Speaker 6: monitor the video. So if that altercation had occurred, that
Speaker 6: occurred in Memphis, the chief of police would be immediately notified.
Speaker 4: You guys want that? Do you want?
Speaker 2: You want to at least be able to have some
Speaker 2: input into whether or not that's the direction you want
Speaker 2: the society to go in. And so you know what
Speaker 2: I really want people to understand, is that a lot
Speaker 2: of the actions and the posturing that you see from
Speaker 2: these tech barons, what it really is about is AI development,
Speaker 2: the amount of money that's at stake, the amount of
Speaker 2: prestige that is at stake, and some of these people,
Speaker 2: it truly is like a religion. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 2: even kidding when I say many of these people think
Speaker 2: that they will be immortal because they'll be able to
Speaker 2: use AGI to upload their consciousness to the cloud and
Speaker 2: live forever. I mean it really has this like cult
Speaker 2: like religious dimension. Not to mention massive billions trillions of
Speaker 2: dollars at stake. And so to bring it back to
Speaker 2: the beginning here, when you see Sam Altman do a
Speaker 2: political one to eighty like that and give Trump a
Speaker 2: million debby at the inauguration, Oh my god, mister Trump,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for so amazing, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera,
Speaker 2: that's what it is really all about. The H one
Speaker 2: B fight too, oh huge. That's this is the real
Speaker 2: ballgame here. So keep your eye on these developments because
Speaker 2: they could end up being truly the most consequential, generational
Speaker 2: type developments that shape all of our future for better
Speaker 2: for work.
Speaker 3: I am also hoping that this is an area where
Speaker 3: Elon can be helpful and just be like just so
Speaker 3: you know, mister President Sam Altman is you know, look
Speaker 3: at his track record, big democrat has gone from nonprofit
Speaker 3: and talking greatly about humanity to enriching himself and Microsoft
Speaker 3: and turning it into the greatest big data tool.
Speaker 2: How do you think Trump though, likes him undercutting him
Speaker 2: on this and being like that on the money.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, I'm actually curious to see that's
Speaker 1: how that was old.
Speaker 3: Well, it's incredibly I mean, you know, in some sense
Speaker 3: it's nice because this is an og Elon issue and
Speaker 3: I know maybe we wouldn't be even able to talk
Speaker 3: about it or whatever if he wasn't be able to
Speaker 3: get behind it. This is again where where some of
Speaker 3: the battle lines are not so clear. For example, like
Speaker 3: you have Andresen and his people being much more in
Speaker 3: favor of you know, free and open like open source
Speaker 3: ai as an Ewon is kind of like that, even though.
Speaker 1: He's got groc going on.
Speaker 3: But Altman and Sachia Nadella and all those and Larry Ellison,
Speaker 3: et cetera, they don't care about they don't want open source,
Speaker 3: they want all the money for themselves, they want the data.
Speaker 1: Obviously Nvidia and these other companies.
Speaker 3: I mean, we didn't have time to get into this,
Speaker 3: but there was this huge thing behind the scenes where
Speaker 3: the Biden administration in the very very last days made
Speaker 3: it more difficult to export chips to China, and Nvidia
Speaker 3: was openly campaigning against it because they care about money.
Speaker 3: Like even though this is the company on our soil,
Speaker 3: manufactured in Taiwan, all right, so they don't care about
Speaker 3: fi geopolitics.
Speaker 1: And even though their stock is up what by like
Speaker 1: ten thousand percent or.
Speaker 3: Whatever, they know they want even more. They need this,
Speaker 3: they need to keep this thing going, the money train.
Speaker 3: And so this is where the Democratic you know, input
Speaker 3: and all of that is really really important. And I
Speaker 3: am curious to see how the White House is going
Speaker 3: to handle some of this because already you see major
Speaker 3: magas skepticism, not just over Sam Altman, but that clip
Speaker 3: like of Larry Ellison talking.
Speaker 1: About We're gonna be able to have mRNA vaccine.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, good luck, good luck, you know, telling
Speaker 3: people that, or look, Trump was elected you know with
Speaker 3: the most working class Republican coalition literally ever, do you
Speaker 3: think those guys in the Rio Grande Valley who are working,
Speaker 3: you know, working class, or the guys in the Permian
Speaker 3: basin who are sitting there like you know, like pumping oil,
Speaker 3: they really want to be replaced, you know, by machine like.
Speaker 1: No, this is a very common concern. Anybody who doesn't have.
Speaker 3: A college degree, which is sixty two percent of the
Speaker 3: US population is in danger. And actually, the crazy thing
Speaker 3: about AI is it also means that people with college degrees,
Speaker 3: who are entry level.
Speaker 2: Even sooner probably than the blue collar work.
Speaker 3: Are also really vulnerable to all of this. So unless
Speaker 3: you're super rich, you know, you should be afraid. And
Speaker 3: even if you are, they might be able to take
Speaker 3: that from you too.
Speaker 2: And again maybe they are full of it and high
Speaker 2: on their own supply, and they will never achieve their
Speaker 2: dreams and goals and ambitions. It will never be come
Speaker 2: to be what they think. But I want you to
Speaker 2: understand their goal is to replace you. That is what
Speaker 2: this money is about. That is the goal, as explicitly
Speaker 2: stated by them at times. That's what they're trying to
Speaker 2: do here is to replace your labor and make you
Speaker 2: completely irrelevant. And this is all being decided by a
Speaker 2: few oligarchs behind closed doors with hundreds of billions of
Speaker 2: dollars to throw at it.
Speaker 4: So good luck humanity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I really do think this will be one of
Speaker 3: the central stories of the Trump administration, and it will
Speaker 3: there's gonna be some big democratic questions that actually have
Speaker 3: to happen here and when the scale and the fights
Speaker 3: of this come, you know, really, I think in a
Speaker 3: couple of years as well, really crescendo too, just because
Speaker 3: that's when the alleged breakthroughs and all that we'll actually
Speaker 3: know a little bit whether it's their screen, whether they
Speaker 3: were bluffing or not. The geopolitics are going to get
Speaker 3: real messy because it's only January twenty third. Tariffs and
Speaker 3: all that can come as soon as February first, and
Speaker 3: maybe all the way up until March, but all of
Speaker 3: that is going to have significant impact on this. And
Speaker 3: then bigger questions too about who's coming up.
Speaker 1: With all this money? Is this Saudi money, a UAE money?
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't remember the Saudis or I don't
Speaker 3: know a similar power, super rich nation in World War
Speaker 3: Two investing in the Manhattan Project. You know, I think
Speaker 3: that's bad. Actually, Yeah, right, So let's think about that too.
Speaker 3: Let's get to immigration. There's been a number of moves
Speaker 3: in the last seventy two hours which have really showed
Speaker 3: how much of a different political landscape that were in.
Speaker 3: First and foremost was this, let's put it up there
Speaker 3: on the screen. The Lake and Riley Act has now
Speaker 3: passed the House of Presentatives. The vote was two hundred
Speaker 3: and sixty three to one hundred and fifty six. Forty
Speaker 3: six Democrats joined with every Republican to support that bill,
Speaker 3: and it will now be the very first bill that
Speaker 3: President Trump will sign into law. Just in terms of
Speaker 3: how you guys can see the vibe shift, Lincoln Riley Act,
Speaker 3: as a reminder, is one that allows the federal government
Speaker 3: to deport individuals illegal immigrants who are here who have
Speaker 3: been convicted, have been charged with a crime, even a
Speaker 3: misdemeanor offense.
Speaker 2: It's a little different than that. It requires them to
Speaker 2: detain undocumented immigrants even.
Speaker 4: Before they're tried, even before they're convicted.
Speaker 2: So if they're accused of a crime, even something low
Speaker 2: level like shoplifting or something like that, then they are
Speaker 2: required to detain them and.
Speaker 4: To expedite their deportation.
Speaker 1: So that's what the bill does right ahead. In previously
Speaker 1: that's legal standard. It not previously existed. You know what's crazy.
Speaker 4: Because there's no due process, but.
Speaker 3: Oh right, the process applies to US citizens. Right, forgot
Speaker 3: about that. But if we think about how different that
Speaker 3: this changes is it's the first bipartisan piece of immigration
Speaker 3: legislation that has passed the US Congress in almost twenty years.
Speaker 3: Just to give people the scale of how much of
Speaker 3: a change that has now happened. So that's crazy, first
Speaker 3: and foremost, Past the House, past the Senate, the House
Speaker 3: of Representatives, the forty six Democrats joining on is a
Speaker 3: little bit.
Speaker 1: You know, it makes sense, but it's not like it's
Speaker 1: a big part of the coalition.
Speaker 3: The crazy part is it was after enough to get
Speaker 3: a filibuster proof majority through the through the Senate. That's
Speaker 3: actually the big hurdle that happens. So Trump will sign
Speaker 3: that piece of legislation into law. Let's continue here, Let's
Speaker 3: go to the next part just to show people like
Speaker 3: who voted for the bill, so you can actually see
Speaker 3: all of the states. I mean, it really does go
Speaker 3: the gamut in terms of both the House Democrats, people
Speaker 3: like Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey. By the way, chrisl
Speaker 3: I don't know if you know this, he's been passing
Speaker 3: around packets of salt around the house because he's so
Speaker 3: enthusiastic way.
Speaker 4: The Republican support.
Speaker 3: Well, he gives them the immigration thing and then maybe
Speaker 3: they'll give him an increase in the stalt cap for
Speaker 3: his rich constitution.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, you've got him.
Speaker 2: You got Richard torres On there, quare folk?
Speaker 4: What's that?
Speaker 1: Who are some other high profile folks here?
Speaker 4: Kaars there makes sense though.
Speaker 2: Well, and I mean I was also right wing, consistently
Speaker 2: sort of right wing. So my new congressman, Congressman Vinman,
Speaker 2: Oh no, I don't know.
Speaker 4: So he's an ally with you in this one.
Speaker 2: Terry Sewell, she's an African American woman congressman from Alabama
Speaker 2: Jared Golden, who also is one who's kind of like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, his politics are a little hard to describe.
Speaker 2: Lucy McBeth Lake and Riley's was from Georgia, So you
Speaker 2: had a number of Georgia members here, plus both Georgia senators.
Speaker 4: We're not gonna off both vote for it as well.
Speaker 3: Right, Let's continue along that there has been a glut
Speaker 3: of polling now after the election around immigration and some
Speaker 3: of the individual actions, and mass deportation in particular has
Speaker 3: been one that's been polled, but also all of kind
Speaker 3: of the sub ideas of immigration, running from ending birthright
Speaker 3: citizenship up to just deporting illegal immigrants who came here
Speaker 3: under the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: CNNs Harry Enton broke some.
Speaker 6: Of that down.
Speaker 1: Some of it is popular, some of it is very unpopular.
Speaker 8: Let's take a listen, all immigrants who are here illegally
Speaker 8: fifty five percent of the New York Times Marquette sixty
Speaker 8: four percent, CBS News fifty seven percent, ABC News with
Speaker 8: a slightly different question fifty six percent.
Speaker 9: So what you're seeing essentially here is very clear indication
Speaker 9: that a majority of Americans, in fact, when they're asked
Speaker 9: this one question, which I believe gets that the underlying feelings,
Speaker 9: do in fact want to to port all immigrants who
Speaker 9: are here illegally. There's no arguing with these different numbers
Speaker 9: because they're all essentially the sam us four different posters.
Speaker 9: You go back to twenty fifteen, I'm gonna come to
Speaker 9: your side screen, it's forty two percent. Hello. Go to
Speaker 9: twenty sixteen, it was thirty six percent. Look at where
Speaker 9: we are now, this was taken at the end of
Speaker 9: last year, fifty six percent. This is twenty points higher
Speaker 9: than it was just before Trump got to office the
Speaker 9: first time.
Speaker 3: There you go, that's as clear as day in terms
Speaker 3: of mass deportation. But like I said, I got to
Speaker 3: present all sides of the picture. Birthright citizenship, though, is
Speaker 3: significantly underwater. Ending birthright citizenship what I mean one of
Speaker 3: those executive orders that Donald Trump signed on the first
Speaker 3: day of office.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to Harry on that.
Speaker 9: I mean, Look, I think Donald Trump is by pushing
Speaker 9: policies like this or just trying to eliminate his honeymoon
Speaker 9: period completely because this is just not a popular policy.
Speaker 9: And birthright citizenship for children born to immigrants illegally here
Speaker 9: look at this, just thirty five percent support the clear
Speaker 9: majority fifty three percent of pose. And I've looked at
Speaker 9: multiple polls, looked at the question, asked multiple different ways.
Speaker 9: If anything, this under sells the opposition by a little bit.
Speaker 9: If you don't in fact mentioned for tiltren born to
Speaker 9: immigants here legally and just and ask about ending birthright citizenship,
Speaker 9: the opposition shoots all the way up to about seventy percent.
Speaker 9: But this fifty three percent is clearly indicative of a
Speaker 9: country that does not want to end birthright citizenship. Simply put,
Speaker 9: this is not a popular policy. And if Donald Trump
Speaker 9: pushes policies like this, his honeymoon period will squeeze and
Speaker 9: be even shorter than it was back in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 4: Okay, have opinion.
Speaker 3: So you can see there that definitely opinion runs the gamut,
Speaker 3: and it all shows you that's not necessarily as a
Speaker 3: rosy as I might like it to be. Let's put
Speaker 3: this up there from the New York Times, because they
Speaker 3: also did a good job of breaking down each one
Speaker 3: of these individual questions. So, for example, which of the
Speaker 3: following comes closest to your opinion about our nation's political system?
Speaker 3: It has been broken for decades, It has been broken
Speaker 3: only for the last few years.
Speaker 1: It is not broken. I can report that only nine
Speaker 1: percent of US adults say it is not broken. I
Speaker 1: need to meet these.
Speaker 4: Days, you know, I really interviewed those folks.
Speaker 1: But on im creation actually is where things get really interesting.
Speaker 3: So from the New York Times, do you support or
Speaker 3: oppose each of the following deporting immigrants we're here illegally
Speaker 3: and have criminal records eighty seven percent, ten percent of POSE.
Speaker 3: Deporting immigrants who are here illegally and arrived over the
Speaker 3: last four years sixty three percent, three thirty three percent
Speaker 3: of POSE. Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally aka
Speaker 3: mass deportation fifty five percent, forty two percent of POSE.
Speaker 3: Then ending birthright citizenship for born to immigrants who are
Speaker 3: here illegally is forty one percent. And then finally the
Speaker 3: least popular one is ending protection from deportation for immigrants
Speaker 3: who were children when they entered the US illegally, otherwise
Speaker 3: known as DACA recipients and or dreamers. So you can
Speaker 3: see here that what Trump I believe has happened and
Speaker 3: from my speaking people who are around the administration is
Speaker 3: they're trying to flood the zone strategy. So what do
Speaker 3: you do when you're doing something unpopular, You also need
Speaker 3: to do something that's really popular. So they are trying
Speaker 3: to keep it so that the conversation is not around
Speaker 3: any one issue, but is just a flood of executive
Speaker 3: orders and a major change to the status quo. That's
Speaker 3: where mass deportation and some of the actions we're about
Speaker 3: to talk about really come into play in addition to
Speaker 3: things like the Lake and Riley Act. But really, what
Speaker 3: I see is a basic collapse of the democratic argument
Speaker 3: around immigration. I mean, I'm happy to see it, but
Speaker 3: it is really interesting because I think it just demonstrates
Speaker 3: how fake democratic opposition has been on this issue now
Speaker 3: for so long. It's like we've talked about, I mean,
Speaker 3: maybe this is where we can find some common ground.
Speaker 3: It's like, hey, people don't believe anything. You went from
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen weeping outside of these you know, deportation camps
Speaker 3: or whatever, and the screeching, you know, and the and
Speaker 3: just oh, the fascism argument to voting for the Lake
Speaker 3: and Riley Act, a position that you all opposed on
Speaker 3: the stage. You remember in twenty nineteen on the Democrat
Speaker 3: every single candidate on that stage opposed what is now
Speaker 3: being passed in the Lake and which is passed a
Speaker 3: super majority through the Senate and through the House of
Speaker 3: Representatives to send to Donald Trump's desk here, So what's
Speaker 3: happening exactly with that or we just we're all supposed
Speaker 3: to have amnesia.
Speaker 2: They're cowards by and large, Like obviously there are you know,
Speaker 2: there are some Democrats who there are most of the
Speaker 2: Democrats a opposed as blah blah blah, but certainly the
Speaker 2: level of consistent opposition to Trump immigration hawkishness is gone.
Speaker 4: It's gone. I mean, and this happened even before Trump
Speaker 4: was elected.
Speaker 2: You remember, they decided like, oh, we're going to show
Speaker 2: the Republicans, we're going to get behind this like hawkish
Speaker 2: border security owned only bill with no pathway to citizenship.
Speaker 2: We're going to show them that we're the ones who
Speaker 2: are really tough on the board. I mean, think about
Speaker 2: how much Kamala Harris positioned herself as like, I'm the
Speaker 2: only person here who's prosecuted transnational gangs. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: the real border hawk blah blah blah. So I mean,
Speaker 2: the bottom line is that they are mostly cowards who
Speaker 2: don't really many of them have their own ideology or
Speaker 2: have things that they're willing to fight for even when
Speaker 2: it's a little uncomfortable or even when at that particular
Speaker 2: political moment it's you know, a little unpopular. They and
Speaker 2: this is this is a core rot of neoliberal brain
Speaker 2: which infects you know, corners of both parties, but notably
Speaker 2: not Trump. Trump is willing to like bulldozer through whatever
Speaker 2: he wants to.
Speaker 4: Even if you know, ending.
Speaker 2: Birthright citizenship is dramatically unpopular, He's going to go ahead
Speaker 2: and do it, even hardening j sixers who beat cops
Speaker 2: obviously wildly unpopular.
Speaker 4: But he'll just bouldoze through and do it.
Speaker 2: And you know, on the the neoliberal brain says basically
Speaker 2: like I don't have any values of my own. I
Speaker 2: outsource all of my thinking to markets and polls. And
Speaker 2: the extension, the political ideology extension of that is quote
Speaker 2: unquote popularism, where it's just let me rather than having my.
Speaker 4: Own like vision and view of the world.
Speaker 2: I'm going to take a poll, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: treat that poll as gospel as to what people think
Speaker 2: and where they are, and I'm just going to cater
Speaker 2: to that in the focus groups whatever. It is a
Speaker 2: completely failed way of doing politics. And this is what
Speaker 2: I've been trying to shout for the rooftops. And you
Speaker 2: know two people who are very different ideologically who seem.
Speaker 4: To understand this are number one, Donald Trump, who will.
Speaker 2: Just relentlessly push his view and his vision of the world,
Speaker 2: however it polls and however people may you know, complain
Speaker 2: about it, and Bernie Sanders, who has his own very
Speaker 2: specific and clear cut vision of the world and isn't
Speaker 2: buffeted around bio. A pole says this today, or a
Speaker 2: pol says that last week, or oh it's a little uncomfortable.
Speaker 4: Et cetera, et cetera. And guess what, people respect that.
Speaker 2: And that's how if you care about actually implementing your
Speaker 2: principles and ideology, you have to be a leader and
Speaker 2: make the case to people and push them to your position.
Speaker 2: And that's what Republicans on mass deportation have successfully done,
Speaker 2: and specifically Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Has successfully done.
Speaker 2: Part of that is, yes, the reality of war people
Speaker 2: come into the border, although at this particular moment in
Speaker 2: this drop happened even before the election, we're at like
Speaker 2: a five year low in terms of number of illegal crossings.
Speaker 2: But you know, there was the reality migrants getting bus
Speaker 2: to staties, et.
Speaker 4: Cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And it was also Democrats abandoning the principles that five
Speaker 2: seconds ago they claimed they stood by.
Speaker 4: So of course the public's going.
Speaker 2: To look into well, both parties basically agree that this
Speaker 2: whole immigration thing is like a real problem. These migrants
Speaker 2: are a big issue. So where do you think the
Speaker 2: polling is going to go? So this is the piece
Speaker 2: the part of politics that liberal Democrats are fundamentally incapable
Speaker 2: of really wrapping their heads around.
Speaker 4: You have to be a leader.
Speaker 2: People's opinions are not set in stone. I mean, even
Speaker 2: the immigration like polling that we're showing you right now,
Speaker 2: which put the AP poll up on the screen as well,
Speaker 2: it's not you know, depends on how people are asked
Speaker 2: the question, and it depends on how you frame it
Speaker 2: and what particular part of the policy you're asking about.
Speaker 2: Most people are not like hardcore ideologues the way that
Speaker 2: frankly you and I are sager. Most people are like
Speaker 2: you know, it depends on kind of the vibes and
Speaker 2: the moon and what they heard and how the questions asked,
Speaker 2: et cetera. You can move people and change public opinions.
Speaker 2: So in this poll, about four and ten American adults
Speaker 2: support deporting all immigrants living in the US illegally, and
Speaker 2: a similar share are post So it's pretty much like
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty here or forty forty, and I guess
Speaker 2: the other twenty percent like I don't know, but another
Speaker 2: they test in another policy that it was just announced
Speaker 2: that they're lifting the restrictions on deportations from quote unquote
Speaker 2: sensitive places. That's places like churches in school, wildly unpopular
Speaker 2: to do that. Only twenty percent support arresting immigrants at church.
Speaker 2: Eighteen percent support, you know, pulling kids out of school
Speaker 2: to deport them. Relatively few Americans, only three and ten
Speaker 2: in this particular pole somewhat are strongly f change in
Speaker 2: the constitution so kids born in the US are not
Speaker 2: automatically granted citizenship. That's the birthright citizenship thing that we
Speaker 2: were talking about. So there is even within the Trump
Speaker 2: policy right now, if Democrats decided to have a principle,
Speaker 2: there are plenty of things to go after. But to
Speaker 2: your Pointzager, the flood zone strategy is not just to
Speaker 2: try to counterbalance the things that are unpopular with the
Speaker 2: things that are popular. It's also to try to keep
Speaker 2: the opposition from settling on one consistent attack and to
Speaker 2: keep them sort of like scattered. And you know, the
Speaker 2: crazy thing to me is, like, you know, looking at
Speaker 2: a political party, is they a lot of these executive
Speaker 2: orders that he signed. It's not like they were a surprise.
Speaker 2: Many of them were in Project twenty twenty five. Many
Speaker 2: of them are things that he's been advertised and I've
Speaker 2: been leaked to the press for weeks and weeks now,
Speaker 2: and where is there is really no consistent, like sort
Speaker 2: of unified democratic plan to attack any of these things
Speaker 2: right now, let alone imm ag So anyway, that was
Speaker 2: a long Seriit about like sort of my political you know,
Speaker 2: meta political views and how these things work. But the
Speaker 2: Republicans wanted to make the country more nativists and more
Speaker 2: hawkish on immigration. They did that, and the Democratic opposition
Speaker 2: completely collapsed, and not only did they lose the battle
Speaker 2: on the issue, but they also showed themselves to be
Speaker 2: fundamentally on principled.
Speaker 3: Yes, I agree half of that in terms of there
Speaker 3: are unprincipled. As I always say, I think reality played
Speaker 3: a role of the people. Actually reality played a role
Speaker 3: fair enough, but I'm saying Biden was a huge part
Speaker 3: of it. He could change the immigration status quote more
Speaker 3: than any president in modern American history in terms of
Speaker 3: the number of illegals who entered under his watch. So okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: of course that's going to radically change the way that
Speaker 3: I mean. You know, it's funny if you look at
Speaker 3: support for mass deportation. It was underwater in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: as Harry played, even with Republicans, people were not bought in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but when you have the border.
Speaker 3: Basically have ten million people who come here illegally in
Speaker 3: a four year period, well, yeah, that's going to completely change.
Speaker 3: Well here Trump also played a big role in that, right,
Speaker 3: the status quo change on top of the argument it
Speaker 3: basically aligned perfectly then with also the popular vote, and
Speaker 3: then the collapse of democratic argumentation means that they are
Speaker 3: I mean, people who are immigration restrictionsts like myself have
Speaker 3: never been in a more powerful posiness. This went from
Speaker 3: a fringe position of Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions in
Speaker 3: two thy fifteen, ten years ago, one member of the
Speaker 3: United States Senate and a guy named Stephen Miller to
Speaker 3: the policy of the United States government.
Speaker 2: And here's what I want people to understand. That position
Speaker 2: was wildly unpopular at the time. Did that make them go, oh,
Speaker 2: we can't We just got to we got to do
Speaker 2: you know, we got to do a gang of eight immigration,
Speaker 2: We got to move to the.
Speaker 1: Left on this, We got to accept kill a gang
Speaker 1: of eight was was a part of that.
Speaker 2: No, it did not did not cause the Stephen Millers
Speaker 2: and the Steve Bannon's and the Donald Trumps and the
Speaker 2: Jeff Sessions of the world to suddenly change their position
Speaker 2: and bend to the current political moment. Instead, they made
Speaker 2: it a project of over years pushing a consistent vision
Speaker 2: and message, and guess what, You're right, Sager, they won.
Speaker 2: And you can see democratics democrat pathetic, like just complete capitulation.
Speaker 4: To this worldview.
Speaker 2: Now, what I would say is the caution is that
Speaker 2: after Trump was elected and began implementing, you know, child
Speaker 2: separation policy, and we had those you know, horrific like
Speaker 2: I would say, cruel images coming out from the detention center,
Speaker 2: kids being intentionally taken away from their parents, etc. And
Speaker 2: orphaned in certain instances, and the public had a revulsion
Speaker 2: to that. The support for those immigration policies dropped even further,
Speaker 2: so that there was the lowest level we've had in
Speaker 2: the past number of decades. It's for hawkish immigration policy
Speaker 2: that we've seen. And that's what Democrats responded to in
Speaker 2: that twenty twenty primary, and why they were all in
Speaker 2: a very different place was because the pulling was in
Speaker 2: a very different place at that point. So there is
Speaker 2: a risk here because they are planning on you know,
Speaker 2: they got rid of the restrictions on the pulling people
Speaker 2: out a church or pulling kids down at school. Obviously
Speaker 2: child separation is going to be back. They actively well,
Speaker 2: I don't think you would disagree with this. They actively
Speaker 2: want some of those images of you know that are
Speaker 2: aggressive and unsettling and you know, cruel and all of
Speaker 2: those things, because part of the goal is they don't
Speaker 2: have the resources to deport everyone who's in the country.
Speaker 2: So what part of their ideology is, is you want
Speaker 2: to scare people into number one, not coming in number
Speaker 2: two quote unquote self deporting.
Speaker 1: Well, that's already working.
Speaker 3: Actually already we see images from the border where people
Speaker 3: are like, without CBP one, it's never going to happen.
Speaker 1: I should just go back. I actually just read a.
Speaker 2: People they were I mean, but those articles, those are
Speaker 2: people who are trying to come legal, trying to follow
Speaker 2: a legal process. So yeah, if there's no legal process,
Speaker 2: they're like, okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think it's great.
Speaker 3: And it's like, well, if you can go back, you
Speaker 3: weren't really fearing for your life, were you, It's not
Speaker 3: so untenable.
Speaker 1: Let's put this.
Speaker 3: Up there on the screen. Yeah, fine, go make your
Speaker 3: own country great again. We wish you the best. Let's
Speaker 3: put the ap up on the screen. The Pentagon is
Speaker 3: sending up fifteen hundred active duty troops to help secure
Speaker 3: the US Mexico border. That will be in addition to
Speaker 3: the twenty three hundred troops that Donald that President Biden
Speaker 3: sent actually to the border.
Speaker 1: It's actually less than Biden.
Speaker 3: Ironically, these troops apparently will be helping with some ISR
Speaker 3: and a few other things.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of legal restrictions.
Speaker 3: That apply to active duty US military troops operating in
Speaker 3: the United States. They can't actually participate in law enforcement.
Speaker 3: All they can really do is support it.
Speaker 2: That's a little unclear because well, in terms of so
Speaker 2: the number is roughly equivalent to what Biden sent in
Speaker 2: terms of active duty troops, Biden used them purely in
Speaker 2: those support roles that you know, are more sort of
Speaker 2: clear cut in terms of you don't want to run
Speaker 2: a foul of possecoma tatis, which is a restriction on
Speaker 2: you can have the military doing domestic law enforcement effectively.
Speaker 4: But Trump is.
Speaker 2: Declaring a national border emergency, and Wall Street Journal is
Speaker 2: reporting that part of the reason for doing that is
Speaker 2: to try to get around those laws that prohibit troops
Speaker 2: from engaging in law enforcement functions. So even though it's
Speaker 2: the same roughly number of people, the goal and the
Speaker 2: plan in terms of how they're used is quite different.
Speaker 2: Now that will certainly face legal obstacles, and it's yet
Speaker 2: to be seen whether Trump actually you know, deploys them
Speaker 2: in that way where they would be the ones detaining
Speaker 2: migrants and you know, holding them and rounding them up
Speaker 2: and all those sorts of things which normally has been
Speaker 2: completely out of bounce, but the declaration of a national emergency,
Speaker 2: which says, oh, this is a national security issue, ergo.
Speaker 4: I can use my military.
Speaker 2: Part of the goal is to directly enlist the military
Speaker 2: in those sorts of you know, typically law enforcement functions.
Speaker 3: A lot of this is also just because the border
Speaker 3: patrol just there's a lot of funding problems, like that's
Speaker 3: all controlled by Congress.
Speaker 1: The exact number of the people that they're allowed to hire.
Speaker 3: So if you do we even want to change the
Speaker 3: status quo, they don't have the employees at ice at
Speaker 3: border patrol, at DHS, so it would require you not
Speaker 3: just it would require basically a bipartisan act of Congress
Speaker 3: to change that status quo.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the next one. Here is a change
Speaker 1: in policy.
Speaker 3: We had previewed some of this where they say US
Speaker 3: border agents have instructed to summarily deport migrants without asylum hearings.
Speaker 3: What they have done is they have resurrected that Title
Speaker 3: forty two Law of Public Health concern and two twelve
Speaker 3: F that allows the presidents to suspend the entry of
Speaker 3: foreigners whose entry is deemed to be detrimental because of
Speaker 3: public health concerns. This was one that the Biden administration
Speaker 3: used for the first what was it two years, I
Speaker 3: think the first two years of the Biden administration with
Speaker 3: COVID as a justification.
Speaker 4: Trump had put it in place and they.
Speaker 3: Maintained the policy going forward. It's a public the document
Speaker 3: site the public Health related to twelve F. It applies
Speaker 3: to quote aliens that have traveled through a country with
Speaker 3: a communicable disease, and given that there are communicable diseases
Speaker 3: in Guatemala, Mexico, and Central America, it's pretty easy to justify.
Speaker 3: It's basically just a legal workaround to enforce the remain
Speaker 3: in Mexico policy. As the only viable path for asylum
Speaker 3: status in the United States. And what it means is
Speaker 3: that not only will there be deportations to Mexico, but
Speaker 3: remain in Mexico. Requires these people to remain in Mexico,
Speaker 3: as it means as they adjudicate their asylum claim, only
Speaker 3: after being legally approved they allowed to enter the United States.
Speaker 3: It's part of the reason why you know, you were
Speaker 3: saying that there has been a drop off, but the
Speaker 3: drop off from the drop off is even crazier. So
Speaker 3: the day before Joe Donald Trump took the office, four
Speaker 3: thousand people entered the United States under this CBP one
Speaker 3: asylum app It's dropped to five hundred. So we're talking
Speaker 3: about like, what is that am an eightfold decrease in
Speaker 3: the span of two days for what the policy looks
Speaker 3: like in practice, this, I want to be clear, will
Speaker 3: all face insane legal scrutiny. So for anyone who thinks
Speaker 3: that this is policy law of the land, yeah, that's
Speaker 3: not how it works. Title forty two and all that
Speaker 3: will make its way to SCOTUS, I'm sure very soon.
Speaker 3: That's what the immigration groups are doing to biden the
Speaker 3: PASTA coomatatis stuff is absolutely going to be under legal
Speaker 3: review birthright citizenship. I believe multi what was it, twenty
Speaker 3: five states have already filed suit against that, which means
Speaker 3: it will almost start, it'll be blocked by court tomorrow,
Speaker 3: almost certainly, and by that time it'll take a year
Speaker 3: and a half to go to the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 3: none of this is to be taken as this is
Speaker 3: one hundred percent what's happening. It is a preview of
Speaker 3: what they want to do and are trying to do,
Speaker 3: but what will inevitably face a lot of legal scrutiny
Speaker 3: from the courts and what they are allowed to do
Speaker 3: and and whatnot.
Speaker 1: So I do want people to keep that in mind
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 8: M m mmmmmmmmm