Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. We have a great show for everyone today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We watched the third Republican debates so that you don't
Speaker 1: have to fold all the highlights you want to call
Speaker 1: them the We'll break it all down for you what
Speaker 1: it means, if it means anything at all.
Speaker 3: Also, there are some polls coming out of.
Speaker 1: How various viewers felt about the debate and who they
Speaker 1: thought quote unquote one, so we'll get into all of that.
Speaker 1: We also, of course have our eye continuing to watch
Speaker 1: closely the situation unfolding in Gaza. We've got some new
Speaker 1: comments both from Tony Blincoln laying out some us you
Speaker 1: might call them redlines, but our view the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: view of what the post war situation should look like.
Speaker 1: Some new comments from John Kirby that are also very
Speaker 1: revealing and sort of shifting the goalpost in terms of
Speaker 1: initially Biden said no Israeli occupation of Gaza. Well they're
Speaker 1: changing their tune a little bit there, so we'll talk
Speaker 1: about that. We also have some incredible clips of Republican
Speaker 1: cope post Tuesday nights election results, which were by and
Speaker 1: large very good for Democrats and very bad for Republicans.
Speaker 1: We'll give you those and let's tell you a little
Speaker 1: bit of what Sagar and I think of all of that. Also,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton popped up to make her case for Joe
Speaker 1: Biden why she still thinks that he is the best
Speaker 1: candidate in spite of.
Speaker 3: Very low pulling.
Speaker 1: And we have an interesting clip we wanted to break
Speaker 1: down for you between Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson centering
Speaker 1: around freespeed with regard to.
Speaker 3: The you know, Israel's war on Gaza.
Speaker 1: So we will get into all of that, and also
Speaker 1: a little teaser for later today. We've got Vi vike
Speaker 1: Ramaswami joining us after the main show, so we'll be
Speaker 1: posting that as soon as.
Speaker 3: We've got that writy for you.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right. Thank you so much for our premium
Speaker 2: subscribers you enable it, we will have avike. You guys
Speaker 2: will get it as soon as as soon as we can.
Speaker 2: We'll post it separately, both as a video and as
Speaker 2: a podcast, so stay tuned for that. It'll be fun.
Speaker 2: We'll get his initial reaction to the big scum moment
Speaker 2: that everybody is talking about. But let me not get
Speaker 2: too ahead of ourselves. Let's go ahead and start with
Speaker 2: this quote unquote highlights of the debate. So we picked
Speaker 2: some of the best moments, or at least some of
Speaker 2: the more illustrative moments, because I know many of you
Speaker 2: didn't want to stay up past your bedtime and watch it.
Speaker 2: I don't blame you, you know. I certainly don't feel
Speaker 2: better or wiser for having done so, but.
Speaker 3: Feel much worse actually for having done so.
Speaker 2: One credit to the moderators is this is that they
Speaker 2: asked some of the more important questions at the top.
Speaker 2: And actually the very first one was to Governor Ron
Speaker 2: DeSantis of why should I support you and not Trump?
Speaker 2: What is your pitch to Trump voters? Here's what he
Speaker 2: had to say.
Speaker 4: Now, if you look where we are now. It's a
Speaker 4: lot different than when we were in twenty sixteen. And
Speaker 4: Donald Trump's a lot different guy than he was in
Speaker 4: twenty sixteen. He owes it to you to be on
Speaker 4: this stage and explain why he should get another chance.
Speaker 4: He should explain why he didn't have Mexico pay for
Speaker 4: the border wall. He should explain why he racked up
Speaker 4: so much debt. He should explain why he didn't drain
Speaker 4: the swamp. And he said, Republicans, we're going to get
Speaker 4: tired of winning. What we saw last night. I'm sick
Speaker 4: of Republicans losing in Florida. I showed how it's done
Speaker 4: one year ago.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 4: We want a historic victory, including a massive landslide right
Speaker 4: here in Miami Dade County.
Speaker 2: That's how we have to do it. So, Chris Well,
Speaker 2: I'm calling this the effective in the electable case. I
Speaker 2: think it is the best case. I also don't think
Speaker 2: there's any evidence that people care. Unfortunately, honestly, unfortunately for him,
Speaker 2: I wish politics work this way. You have a guy
Speaker 2: who flipped a purple state to a red state. You
Speaker 2: have a guy who actually ly quote unquote did what
Speaker 2: he said he would do that's part of the pitch
Speaker 2: is that the other guy didn't do so you're supposed
Speaker 2: to put our records. But this is actual politics, and
Speaker 2: most people are not voting on that in fact at all.
Speaker 2: If anything, they're rejecting you simply because the other guy
Speaker 2: who you're critiquing, I think correctly in so many different ways,
Speaker 2: is just saying, like, what is he calling him? Rona
Speaker 2: sanctimonious and that's enough. So that's what loyalty, that's what
Speaker 2: CULTI personality, and so much of this looks like. And
Speaker 2: that's part of why in much of our analysis we're like,
Speaker 2: can you really win a debate where everybody is losing
Speaker 2: by fifty points? Yeah? Hard to say.
Speaker 1: Kyle and I were having this debate last night too,
Speaker 1: because he was very like, I think de Santas had
Speaker 1: the best night, and I was.
Speaker 3: Like, yeah, sure, I yes, I mean, I'm sure if.
Speaker 1: You want to say that, but what does that really
Speaker 1: mean in the grand scheme of things? But you know,
Speaker 1: on this Trump point in particular, I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think it's the best possible case that he can make.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's so much that Republican voters
Speaker 1: don't care about electability.
Speaker 3: I think some of them definitely do.
Speaker 1: But you know, they're looking at the same poles we're
Speaker 1: looking at of Trump beating Biden in five on a
Speaker 1: six swing states even according to the New York Times,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, hey, we're not that worried. Looks pretty
Speaker 1: good for our guy right now.
Speaker 3: So there's that.
Speaker 1: There's the fact that the attacks that have been made
Speaker 1: against Trump from this entire group of contenders have been
Speaker 1: few and far between. They've been a little lackluster, and
Speaker 1: when they have packed more punch, like recently, you had
Speaker 1: Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christy both trying to make the
Speaker 1: case to a Republican audience that like, listen, things may
Speaker 1: look okay for Trump now, but you look at the
Speaker 1: polls if he's actually not just indicted but found guilty,
Speaker 1: and things look a lot different. And they didn't want
Speaker 1: to hear that at all. So the case that would
Speaker 1: actually make sense in terms of why Trump is a
Speaker 1: problem from an electability perspective, no one in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Very few people in the Republican Party actually want to
Speaker 1: hear that case made.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you'd laid the groundwork for it from the
Speaker 1: beginning and you've been prosecuting the case relentlessly, or your
Speaker 1: attack dogs have been prosecuting the case relentlessly, maybe then
Speaker 1: they might, you know, start to get a little nervous
Speaker 1: about what this all might look like. But you can't
Speaker 1: this late in the game, come in and try to
Speaker 1: make that case and expect it to land on anything
Speaker 1: the deaf hear. So I think that's the problem. The
Speaker 1: other thing saga that made this debate so weird to me,
Speaker 1: This was really one of the only mentions of Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, he came up a few times, but he's
Speaker 1: the elephant hanging over all of this. And the fact
Speaker 1: that there were, you know, there were no questions about him,
Speaker 1: the candidates weren't really bringing him up. It added to
Speaker 1: the sort of surreal nature of this of like what
Speaker 1: are we even really doing the religiousist debate even really
Speaker 1: about this sort of like existential question hanging over this
Speaker 1: third Republican debate, which I have to imagine once we
Speaker 1: get the ratings are going to be very low.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, I mean there's no question about that. And
Speaker 2: it's one of those where I understand where they're coming from,
Speaker 2: because this is the impulse that I would want to have.
Speaker 2: I'd be like, man, we're going to get him on
Speaker 2: the issues, We're going to get him on the contract,
Speaker 2: and you can do that. But it's also basically negligent
Speaker 2: to ignor not acknowledge and spend a ton of time
Speaker 2: on the contender, the former president of the United States
Speaker 2: leading in every poll, and now your whole case against
Speaker 2: him is, like you said, electability. He's beaten Biden five
Speaker 2: out of six poles. Why should anybody vote for you?
Speaker 2: Whenever both I like the guy, he makes me laugh,
Speaker 2: he delivered on what I wanted, which is driving liberals crazy,
Speaker 2: and he might win. So you know, this is an
Speaker 2: irrelevant side show to that point, though, there was one
Speaker 2: big moment, and actually to the extent that there was
Speaker 2: a substance at all, kind of came during some of
Speaker 2: the contrasts on Israel, on Ukraine and on TikTok and
Speaker 2: so there was one particular moment where Vivek Ramaswami, who
Speaker 2: will be joining us later today on the show, called
Speaker 2: out Nikki Haley, calling her Dick Cheney with three inch heels,
Speaker 2: although there is some speculation that he may have included
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis in that moment as well. Here's what he
Speaker 2: had to say.
Speaker 6: You have the likes of Nikki Haley, who stepped down
Speaker 6: from her time at the UN bankrupt or in debt
Speaker 6: was her family. Then she becomes a military contractor, she
Speaker 6: joins the board of Boeing and otherwise and is now
Speaker 6: a multi millionaire. So I think that that's wrong when
Speaker 6: Republicans do it or Democrats do it. That's the choice
Speaker 6: we face. Do you want a leader from a different
Speaker 6: generation who's going to put this country first? Or do
Speaker 6: you want Dick Cheney in three inch heels?
Speaker 1: All right, we've got two of them on stage in the.
Speaker 2: Slamdi we got two of them. I don't think it's
Speaker 2: fair to call Ron Dick Cheney in three inch heels.
Speaker 2: The heels is fine, It's just he can't be called dictator.
Speaker 2: Cheney is a pejorative. We should reserve only for the
Speaker 2: biggest scum. Note that what I'm saying there. The thing
Speaker 2: is is that what that eventually led to with a
Speaker 2: Dick Cheney in three inch Hell's comment, which I thought
Speaker 2: was hilarious, is when Haley was given the chance to respond,
Speaker 2: she immediately calls for war with Iran and then is
Speaker 2: bolstered by her South Carolina colleague to also call for
Speaker 2: war with Iran. I am not exaggerating. We have the
Speaker 2: clips of the two in their response. Here's what they
Speaker 2: had to say.
Speaker 7: That's first like to say, there's five inch heels and
Speaker 7: I don't wear them unless you can run on them.
Speaker 1: We've got two of you on school.
Speaker 7: Second thing that I will say is I wear heels.
Speaker 7: They're not for a fashion statement, They're for ammunition. What
Speaker 7: we need to be doing for Iraq and Syria is
Speaker 7: first of all, the idea that our men and women
Speaker 7: could be targeted. We need to understand this is Iran
Speaker 7: giving the green light telling them what to do, and
Speaker 7: we shouldn't be doing the tip for tat like what
Speaker 7: Joe Biden has done. We need to go and take
Speaker 7: out their infrastructure that they are using to make those
Speaker 7: strikes with so they can never do it again.
Speaker 3: Iran responds to strength.
Speaker 1: You punch them one, and you punch them.
Speaker 3: Hard and they will back off.
Speaker 2: But what we don't.
Speaker 7: Need is Biden falling all over himself to get back
Speaker 7: in the Iran deal.
Speaker 8: You have to strike in Iran if you want to
Speaker 8: make a difference. You cannot just continue to have strikes
Speaker 8: in Syria on warehouses. You actually have to cut off
Speaker 8: the head of the snake, and the head of the
Speaker 8: snake is Iran and not simply their proxies. In order
Speaker 8: for us to have a powerful response from America, we
Speaker 8: have to be in a position of strength as preside
Speaker 8: United States. My foreign policy is simple. You cannot negotiate
Speaker 8: with evil. You have to destroy it so.
Speaker 2: As you can see their crystal. She said, First of all,
Speaker 2: I don't understand this heels thing. You're gonna have to
Speaker 2: explain that I can't. First, why is it a pride
Speaker 2: point of pride to be able to run in heels?
Speaker 2: Is that like a thing? Second of all the ammunition
Speaker 2: I've been thinking about it, I went to sleep thinking
Speaker 2: about it. Mean, it was one of those things in
Speaker 2: miamient memory, being like what does this mean? And so
Speaker 2: much they tweeted it out. Nobody can decipher it. So
Speaker 2: you're the heels expert in it.
Speaker 1: I think she should challenge Rodney Santas to raise in
Speaker 1: their five inch heels. The whole thing to me was perplexing,
Speaker 1: the not to guarantee do with this, But she also.
Speaker 3: Like she had time to come up with her mind.
Speaker 1: It's not like it was like immediately in the moment,
Speaker 1: and then I don't know why it's a point of
Speaker 1: pride that they're five inches seat of three inch number one,
Speaker 1: number two, I don't know why.
Speaker 3: The running thing, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And then on the their ammunition, they're not a fashion
Speaker 1: seme and their ammunition, I guess she's she was trying
Speaker 1: to go for like deadly, they're a weapon there.
Speaker 3: Dead I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 1: It was bizarre, but on the war part, more substantive fasier.
Speaker 1: The number of wars that were advocated for last night
Speaker 1: was deeply disturbing. And I'm not the only one. And Coulter,
Speaker 1: who is making an appearance later in the show as well,
Speaker 1: who I don't normally favorably cite, but listen when she's right,
Speaker 1: she's right. She said, so far three of the five
Speaker 1: Republicans want to start wars against China, Russia, Syria, and Iran.
Speaker 1: These people are lunatics and I could not possibly agree
Speaker 1: more with that. And that's before we even get to
Speaker 1: the war that they you know, also some of them
Speaker 1: want to start with Mexico as well. So yeah, this
Speaker 1: has been the drum beat since the beginning of you know,
Speaker 1: the Hamas massacre in Israel and then the Israeli response,
Speaker 1: there has been this real war drum beating of we
Speaker 1: actively want to start his hostilities with a raw and
Speaker 1: that has been the critique of the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: basically like they're not going after Irun hard enough, They're
Speaker 1: not doing enough effectively to start World War three, and
Speaker 1: I think, I mean, it's just completely insane. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure it lands with some segment of the Republican base,
Speaker 1: but even if you're pulling the Republican base on, like, hey,
Speaker 1: how do you feel about a broader war in the
Speaker 1: Middle East and our sons and daughters being sent over
Speaker 1: to fought and die, they're like, hell no. So it's
Speaker 1: just amazing to me, Sager. I guess I shouldn't be surprised,
Speaker 1: but you know, there was an idea that like the
Speaker 1: neocons had kind of been checked after the failures in
Speaker 1: Iraq and the failures in Afghanistan and Trump coming on
Speaker 1: the scene and winning on this like, you know, pretending
Speaker 1: like he was always opposed the Iraq war thing, and
Speaker 1: really rebuking the Bushes over the direction of the war
Speaker 1: on terror. They never went away, they never changed their views.
Speaker 1: They are still just as itching for war in all
Speaker 1: kinds of corners of the planet as they have always been,
Speaker 1: and it has never been a parent than it is
Speaker 1: right now in this moment.
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean, they're blood thirsty psychopaths. Like, let's be
Speaker 2: super real about it. This is they have never seen
Speaker 2: a war they didn't want to get us into. It's
Speaker 2: a religious doctrine to them. And I really realize that
Speaker 2: because I'm like, look, these people are politicians at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, they're supposed to care about getting elected.
Speaker 2: But i mean, can you read a poll. The vast
Speaker 2: majority of Republicans at this point are against Ukraine aid.
Speaker 2: Veak Ramaswami the only guy on the entire stage who's
Speaker 2: against aid to Ukraine, and the way Chris Christy and
Speaker 2: them talk about it, they've got like they're getting choked
Speaker 2: up over Ukraine and Kiev. And I'm like, wow, you
Speaker 2: really look. I know it's a trope and it's often
Speaker 2: trotted out, like caring more about for like other countries'
Speaker 2: borders than our own. In this case, it's actually real.
Speaker 2: They really do like it's a religious doctrine in terms
Speaker 2: of the fate of Ukraine. It's like they think that
Speaker 2: Dounyetsk and la Hansk. They're like, this might as well
Speaker 2: be the border of Oklahoma or something like that. It's
Speaker 2: incredible to me, and you know that they believe it
Speaker 2: because there's no nothing politically advantageous to do so in
Speaker 2: terms of the polls now, in terms of but don't money. Yeah,
Speaker 2: well all that stuff comes from that's a whole other story.
Speaker 1: Care a lot more about that. Often times that they
Speaker 1: do what the people actually want.
Speaker 2: And that's what it really showed to me is you know,
Speaker 2: I couldn't help but come through and look you clip
Speaker 2: it if you want. Thankful for Trump. I was like,
Speaker 2: you know what, listen, the man has a lot of problems,
Speaker 2: but if that's the alternative to whatever the hell this
Speaker 2: mess is with this going on like these people, it
Speaker 2: is shocking to me. I mean, somebody even put it
Speaker 2: out and they're like, that was a great Republican debate
Speaker 2: performance from two thousand and four, and I was like, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's true. I mean it's it's so it's basically the
Speaker 2: exact same line Dick cheneing three in chills is not
Speaker 2: really unfair. Those are all positions that he advocates for
Speaker 2: today and advocated for at the time. And how have
Speaker 2: we not learned from his own personal failure here.
Speaker 1: I don't see Trump as being much different, even rhetorically
Speaker 1: at this point with regards to, you know, hawkishness on
Speaker 1: Iran and Ukraine now is like at a stalemate, and
Speaker 1: even the Biden administration is trying to come to some
Speaker 1: sort of deal. I don't really see him as being significant.
Speaker 2: But he was against. He was against that didn't start
Speaker 2: a war with Iran. Sherry bomb Solimani.
Speaker 7: He didn't.
Speaker 2: He almost started working, okay, but he didn't.
Speaker 1: But he was I mean, he pulled us out of
Speaker 1: the Iran du Leriy.
Speaker 3: He was very hawkish towards Iran. I don't think you
Speaker 3: can deny it.
Speaker 2: I am not going to deny it. I think rhetorically
Speaker 2: he was mixed. He had all the people who were
Speaker 2: under him off related the drone. He tried to get
Speaker 2: out of Syria. The people who were there would live
Speaker 2: and let him. Now, is it on him that he
Speaker 2: was too dumb to get lied to by General Manis? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I agree with you. He didn't get us out of Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: He wanted to get US out of Afghanistan. I will
Speaker 2: take at least somebody who's incompetent and has a restraint
Speaker 2: or has at least like some instinct of restraint, than
Speaker 2: somebody who is both probably incompetent but also completely unrestrained
Speaker 2: in their rietoric. And I'm talking, of course, within the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. That's only the realm of which we can
Speaker 2: have the discussion. At the very least, I would say this,
Speaker 2: it's definitely better than whatever was this mess going on
Speaker 2: with Nicky Haley with regard.
Speaker 1: To the specific flashpoint right now, which is this potential
Speaker 1: broader war in the Middle East. I see zero evidence
Speaker 1: that Trump would be better than any of the people
Speaker 1: that were on the stage, who were all like jockeying
Speaker 1: to be the most bloodthirsty and the most pro Israel
Speaker 1: out of all of them. And you know, Trump gave
Speaker 1: netnyah who everything he wanted while he was in office,
Speaker 1: So again, I don't really see that he would be
Speaker 1: any different on foreign policy, and I think he would
Speaker 1: be Ryan said on Twitter, I think this is probably right.
Speaker 1: Like the difference between Democrats and Republicans on Israel right
Speaker 1: now is basically like Democrats will like handring about the genocide,
Speaker 1: and Republicans will just be like, yay, let's go for it.
Speaker 1: So it's not like it's that much of a difference.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I don't I don't see Trump as being
Speaker 1: superior to any of the folks on stage. Really when
Speaker 1: it comes to foreign policies.
Speaker 2: It's Israel main. Well, I really don't think this is fair. First,
Speaker 2: because he was against the Ukraine consensus really from day one.
Speaker 2: Now that said, like, look, defend saying that we should
Speaker 2: have firstie said that we should send Chinese planes in
Speaker 2: order to start a war with But then second eventually
Speaker 2: did come I think a month or two out he
Speaker 2: came out against in terms of sending weapons to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So listen, I'm going to say, I think he's an
Speaker 2: inconsistent I don't think he particularly cares. I think he
Speaker 2: was a bad president, and I don't think he was
Speaker 2: a good commander in chief because he didn't actually know
Speaker 2: what was going on underneath. Instinctually was against this. So
Speaker 2: for me, like on this stage, that's enough.
Speaker 1: His whole thing was after so he and he still
Speaker 1: continues to this day to both critique Biden as not
Speaker 1: being like hawkish enough on Ukraine, but then also like
Speaker 1: not supporting the military aid. He's just going wherever he
Speaker 1: thinks the right. The politics of.
Speaker 2: The moment are we listen well for now, especially where
Speaker 2: the politics are right now. I'm fine with that. But anyway,
Speaker 2: we'll say this debate, I'm sure we'll have it a
Speaker 2: lot whenever we have two different nominees. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next part here in terms of the debate around
Speaker 2: campus anti semitism, how to respond and censorship. So there
Speaker 2: was an interesting and I actually want to get into
Speaker 2: this a little bit with fake whenever he joins the show.
Speaker 2: But they calling out Ron DeSantis for banning the Students
Speaker 2: for Palestine oranization on the University of Florida campuses and
Speaker 2: then eventually leading to a big ideological schism over whether
Speaker 2: you should have free speech and free expression or shutting
Speaker 2: down these student groups. Here is what DeSantis had to
Speaker 2: say when he was challenged.
Speaker 4: Joe Biden should have the Department of Justice on these
Speaker 4: college campuses and holding the universities accountable for civil rights
Speaker 4: violations when you should not have money going to these places.
Speaker 4: I already acted in Florida. We had a group of
Speaker 4: students for Justice of Palestine. They said they are common
Speaker 4: cause with Hamas they said, We're not just in solidarity.
Speaker 1: This is what we are.
Speaker 4: We deactivated them. We're not going to use Tate tax
Speaker 4: dollars to fund jihad, no way. And what is Biden doing?
Speaker 4: Not only is he not helping the Jewish students who
Speaker 4: are being persecuted, he is launching an initiative to combat
Speaker 4: so called Islamaphobia. No, it's the anti Semitism that's spiraling
Speaker 4: out of control.
Speaker 2: So I was very intrigued by this exchange in terms
Speaker 2: of calling out for the DOJ and actually DeSantis use
Speaker 2: language has made my blood curl. He said. He said,
Speaker 2: these students don't feel safe on campus, and I was like, brother,
Speaker 2: we have now spent a decade successfully, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: you can tell me fighting against the language of safetyism
Speaker 2: and convincing the majority of the Republican Party that nobody
Speaker 2: is owed a write to quote unquote emotional safety whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to issues. Now, physical safety is a different story,
Speaker 2: and I think everybody can agree with that. But in
Speaker 2: terms of the safe spaces, I mean, how much have
Speaker 2: we spent mocked correctly again, correctly mocking the idea of
Speaker 2: like emotional safetyism about safe spaces, about safe zones, about
Speaker 2: free speech and hate speech, and how they're oh they're
Speaker 2: supposed to be a difference, is not a difference, Just
Speaker 2: to be very clear about that in terms of what
Speaker 2: looks like in First Amendment law. And then on a dime,
Speaker 2: he completely flips around and changes. So if anything, that
Speaker 2: just shows me who what DeSantis is really all about,
Speaker 2: especially given how can you talk such a big game
Speaker 2: about campuses and all that He just brought Ben sass
Speaker 2: believe is the chancellor of the University of Florida system
Speaker 2: again with the we're going to be all about free
Speaker 2: speech and all that and listen, cool, you know, but
Speaker 2: as long as these organizations aren't hurting anybody, well, it's
Speaker 2: a free country. Like I don't understand why we can't
Speaker 2: just allow it to be. Look the dumb asses sign
Speaker 2: on to a letter, all right, I mean, you know, okay,
Speaker 2: look their names Republic. You know, if you want to
Speaker 2: go out against him, I wouldn't recommend it, but if
Speaker 2: you want to, you can. But if these people want
Speaker 2: to continue to do so, there's nothing particularly wrong with that.
Speaker 2: You could say it's a pr inter morally objectionable or whatever,
Speaker 2: but he's outright wanting to ban these places on campus.
Speaker 2: So clearly they've learned nothing, and I think he's viewed.
Speaker 2: I think he has been exposed completely, is full of
Speaker 2: it on this issue, which may make correctly I think called.
Speaker 1: Him out for Vivic was the only person on the
Speaker 1: stage who had a divergent view on this issue. Everybody else,
Speaker 1: I mean, basically the whole Republican Party, with very few exceptions,
Speaker 1: has gone all in. They sound like the woke college
Speaker 1: kids who were like roundly mocked for their language about
Speaker 1: microaggressions and safe deism and the need for safe spaces,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And then you know, the minute it serves
Speaker 1: their political cause of the moment, they're all in on
Speaker 1: the exact same language. And I'm not surprised because it
Speaker 1: has always been the case that even when they were
Speaker 1: at their height peak of like talking about this canceled
Speaker 1: culture and PC culture and all of this stuff, and
Speaker 1: you know, people being snowflakes, et cetera, they never would
Speaker 1: call out when people were getting canceled for a divergent
Speaker 1: view on Israel Palestine. They were always silent on this stuff.
Speaker 1: So I always knew it was very one sided and
Speaker 1: that it was more about controlling speech and having their
Speaker 1: speech be uncensored than it was a truly principled take
Speaker 1: in favor of free speech on campus or anywhere else.
Speaker 1: And so so again I'm not surprised, but it's also
Speaker 1: just it is really something to see how quickly they
Speaker 1: flip on a dime and how much they just immediately
Speaker 1: adopt all the language of like the silliest parts of
Speaker 1: left lilf liberalism in service of their own political goals.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it was it's wild to see it all
Speaker 1: laid out there, and I just don't it really is
Speaker 1: hard for me to wrap my head around how they
Speaker 1: don't see the blatant hypocrisy in it and don't at
Speaker 1: least try to message around it, or use some different language,
Speaker 1: or draw some different boundaries, some way of distinguishing themselves.
Speaker 1: But no, I mean, once again, absolutely nothing has been learned.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I mean, I think the reason why you
Speaker 2: get away with it is very simple is that the
Speaker 2: right wing industrial complex is not built to be consistent.
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, neither is the democratic media organization, so
Speaker 2: it's not particularly unique. But when you live in an
Speaker 2: ideological bubble, it's just all about going with the team.
Speaker 2: There's no the terms of like external enforcement being like, hey,
Speaker 2: you're being hypocritical. I bet it does not even pass
Speaker 2: his mind because it's within the donor bubble, and it's
Speaker 2: within the Daily Wire ecosystem. You've got like Ben Shapiro
Speaker 2: like probably cheering this on from the sideline. So if
Speaker 2: that's the ecosystem that you're swimming in, like, why do
Speaker 2: you need to be considered like you pay no price
Speaker 2: for being inconsistent? Right, And that's part of the problem
Speaker 2: with the race to the bottom around all of this,
Speaker 2: And you know, I guess that's a lot of reason
Speaker 2: why we try and do what we do here. It's
Speaker 2: a good way of STA actually saying in check. So anyways, guys,
Speaker 2: that's the highlights, the low lights or whatever, if you will.
Speaker 2: As we said, we've got that clip with vivik Ramaswami.
Speaker 2: We're gonna be talking to him after the show wraps
Speaker 2: and we'll be posting that asap. Let's get to the
Speaker 2: next part here, the winners and the losers. Can there
Speaker 2: be such a thing as a win? It's a nice
Speaker 2: meta question. Well we asked or not weedn't asked? The
Speaker 2: Daily Mail had a snappole, let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen, please, They asked five hundred
Speaker 2: and forty four viewers immediately after the debate wrapped, who
Speaker 2: do you think won the debate? And interestingly enough, the
Speaker 2: viewing audience overwhelmingly going with Ron DeSantis. And I could
Speaker 2: see it, Crystal. He didn't have a bad moment, he
Speaker 2: didn't get drawn into the mud quote unquote. You know,
Speaker 2: in terms of the whole Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswami thing,
Speaker 2: they had twenty nine percent a secondary, say Niki Haley.
Speaker 2: That actually tracks for me, because the thing is is
Speaker 2: that if you are one of these people who is
Speaker 2: never Trump, that's gonna be what twenty maybe twenty percent,
Speaker 2: thirty percent or whatever at max within the Republican Party,
Speaker 2: then I think Nikki is a great candidate for you, Like,
Speaker 2: if you are someone who is against Trump for rhetorical
Speaker 2: reasons and on policy grounds, she's as good as it
Speaker 2: gets right whenever it comes to a return to like
Speaker 2: two thousand and four, to the Bush era. That's as
Speaker 2: she basically embodies that in a candidate. It totally makes
Speaker 2: sense to me that she is coalescing as the anti
Speaker 2: Trump candidate, specifically with Dessant dislike in this very odd
Speaker 2: middle part of the reason why I think his candidacy
Speaker 2: doesn't truly have a lot of strength to it because
Speaker 2: there's not as much of a coherent case. So the
Speaker 2: top one of the top two slot it makes sense
Speaker 2: to me. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, let me dis react that. First of all, the
Speaker 1: poll they did was only Disanta s and Nikky Haley.
Speaker 1: They just wanted to see, like who was the top
Speaker 1: contender of those two because they've kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: separated themselves a little bit from the rest of the pack.
Speaker 1: So it's like, all right, who's the top Trump alternative.
Speaker 1: And I feel like Nikki's performance was I'm putting substance aside.
Speaker 1: We're just talking about theatric synoptics here and whatever. It's
Speaker 1: very uneven. Yeah, I mean, even like her comeback about
Speaker 1: the heels, You're like, wait, what what what does that
Speaker 1: even mean? And it was all a little bit like that.
Speaker 1: There's another moment she clearly I mean she detests vivic almost.
Speaker 1: I mean there's like I think she has taken it,
Speaker 1: like the Amy versus Pete level animosity. I do believe
Speaker 1: she has taken it to a whole other level. And
Speaker 1: so there's other moment where they're going back and forth
Speaker 1: about TikTok and Vek was trying to call her a
Speaker 1: hypocrite because her daughter's on TikTok and she is.
Speaker 2: We can talk about that reasonable reason anyway.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, I can understand some other
Speaker 1: way you're reacting to your daughter being brought into this debate.
Speaker 1: But she said this thing, keep my daughter's name out
Speaker 1: of your voice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I think she was trying to go for
Speaker 2: that violin of keep out of your mouth. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of like typifies her whole thing
Speaker 1: was a little uneven, a little messy, not really sticking
Speaker 1: the landing. And then it also felt kind of tired
Speaker 1: because a lot of the same talking points that had
Speaker 1: worked for her previously, especially on abortion, she was rolling
Speaker 1: them all out again. So she didn't come across particularly
Speaker 1: well in this debate. And I mean to an extent
Speaker 1: that it matters at all. There was a chance she's
Speaker 1: had a lot of donor interests, a lot of media
Speaker 1: interest before her. There was a chance she could really
Speaker 1: eclipse DeSantis as the top Trump alternative. And I think
Speaker 1: this debate makes it harder for her to be able.
Speaker 3: To do that.
Speaker 1: I think Ron hangs on bites fingertips to his number
Speaker 1: two slot that he typically has in most of the polls,
Speaker 1: and so you know, from that perspective, I guess it
Speaker 1: maybe matters. But yeah, Ron DeSantis lives to fight another
Speaker 1: day as the top Trump alternative. Nikki Haley probably stays
Speaker 1: more or less static, and the race just basically stays
Speaker 1: where it is, which is great for Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, it's great for Trump. When we were talking
Speaker 2: about speaking time and all that, this is one of
Speaker 2: those it's a good metrics sometimes. Let's gohea and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen in terms of who
Speaker 2: spoke the most. So Tim Scott clocked in eighteen minutes
Speaker 2: and fifty five seconds. I was telling you before it
Speaker 2: only makes sense to me because he takes so goddamn
Speaker 2: long to finish a sentence, and because the moderators you
Speaker 2: were saying, actually have a soft spot form and we're
Speaker 2: allowing him to talk over now Hailey Ramaswami, that tracks completely.
Speaker 2: You got seventeen fifty and seventeen minutes and twenty seven
Speaker 2: seconds those two because they were battling it out and
Speaker 2: they were both trying to lob attacks. Not only we
Speaker 2: had each other, but at DeSantis, it makes sense Desanta
Speaker 2: is coming in at sixteen thirty six. Again, I don't
Speaker 2: think he came through scathed. I don't think he came
Speaker 2: through unscathed.
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's just the entire thing. Again, it just seems like
Speaker 2: a little bit farcicle. Whenever you have Trump, who was
Speaker 2: doing a rally in Hilea in Florida and which was
Speaker 2: dominating in terms of actual like enthusiasm with Republicans. Chris Christy,
Speaker 2: the fifth man on the stage, got sixteen minutes and
Speaker 2: fifteen seconds. I don't think anybody had to particularly breakthrough moment.
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody had, you know, particularly great moment
Speaker 2: or any of that. Let's go to the next one. Please.
Speaker 2: Here on the screen, here you could see the actual
Speaker 2: like subjects that were discussed. There was like abortion, economy, Ukraine,
Speaker 2: fence and all China. This doesn't make one hundred percent
Speaker 2: sense because they didn't combine Israel with the anti semitism conversation.
Speaker 2: There was a decent amount, but I thought this one
Speaker 2: was a useful one who was attacked the most, and
Speaker 2: it was Nikki Haley DeSantis in Ramaswami almost really almost
Speaker 2: as a tie in terms of the attacks, with Haley
Speaker 2: slightly edging them out. Nobody had the nobody had the
Speaker 2: what just wanted to waste the time of attacking Tim
Speaker 2: Scott and Chris Christy. I got to say, and I'm
Speaker 2: curious what you think?
Speaker 3: Uh huh.
Speaker 2: I think Christy is the biggest disappointment of this whole side.
Speaker 2: He's had three moments to redo his twenty sixteen magic.
Speaker 2: What happened to this guy? You know what I mean?
Speaker 2: He he had I know, like some vigor I think about.
Speaker 2: I was like, where did the right hand come? Where
Speaker 2: did it go? Man? Did you get old?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 1: Yes, he'd be something on the debate stage, you know,
Speaker 1: of all of them. I have always respected his talent.
Speaker 1: And the other thing that's weird to me is not
Speaker 1: only did he have some of those moments in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: but he also has had some of those moments in
Speaker 1: this campaign, not on.
Speaker 3: The debate stage.
Speaker 1: You know, he'll like go on Newsmax and fight with
Speaker 1: Eric Bowling or he just had that I was talking
Speaker 1: about earlier speaking to a Republican group and like jousting
Speaker 1: with the audience about Trump's electability and telling them, listen,
Speaker 1: you may not want to.
Speaker 3: Hear it, but this is reality.
Speaker 1: And it's again. I don't think it would like elevate
Speaker 1: him in terms of his pulling, but it's at least
Speaker 1: an interesting moment. He's just so flat in these debates
Speaker 1: and I don't really understand it. I don't know where
Speaker 1: his feistiness. You know, back in New Jersey he came
Speaker 1: to prominence. Republicans fell in love with him because he'd
Speaker 1: do these town halls and like fight with union teachers
Speaker 1: and stuff.
Speaker 3: That was his whole thing. So I don't know what
Speaker 3: happened there.
Speaker 1: It was interesting to me on that graphic we had
Speaker 1: about who was taking the most attack, Vivek was definitely
Speaker 1: like number one or close to number one in all
Speaker 1: three debates. He was the one who was most consistently
Speaker 1: the center of attention throughout all of these debates.
Speaker 3: And you know, the first time.
Speaker 1: We really felt like, oh, this is going to be
Speaker 1: good for him because he's in there, he's mixing it up,
Speaker 1: he's unafraid. He's really you know, fearless and forceful and
Speaker 1: grabbing everybody's attention. But it didn't wear well with voters. Actually,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's kind of awkward to ask him about
Speaker 1: but I actually do want to kind of ask him
Speaker 1: about this when we have him on today. So now
Speaker 1: when I see him again the center of attention, and
Speaker 1: this like really nasty back and forth between him and
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley where she called him scum, and the moderators
Speaker 1: didn't even give him a chance to respond to that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe they didn't hear it because it
Speaker 1: was a little bit off. But that was the other
Speaker 1: thing I noticed in the speaking time is the moderators
Speaker 1: really seem to favor Tim Scott Nikki Haley, and they
Speaker 1: were always looking for a way to like, Nikki, do
Speaker 1: you want to respond to what was said about you?
Speaker 1: But then when she literally calls Vavek scum, which is
Speaker 1: that's another level of nasty, that's like Trump level of nastiness,
Speaker 1: you know, and then they did there's no like, hey, Vivek,
Speaker 1: you want to say anything to that. So anyway, my
Speaker 1: big takeaway is you've got all of these second rate politicians, sorry,
Speaker 1: tearing each other to shreds in a debate that is diminishing,
Speaker 1: Yes for all of them, Yes, it can only benefit Trump,
Speaker 1: it can only bend it, like there is only one
Speaker 1: person who could No matter really what happened to that debate,
Speaker 1: there was only one person who could win it. So
Speaker 1: at this point, it's hard to say anything other than
Speaker 1: it was a loss for everybody on that stage. You know,
Speaker 1: they all I don't even think any of them are
Speaker 1: jockeying really for vice president at this point. I don't
Speaker 1: even know if I'm even really jockeying for an administration
Speaker 1: position at this point. I don't even know what the
Speaker 1: point of these things are really, Given that Trump was
Speaker 1: absent and he wasn't mentioned, They're not really taking that
Speaker 1: many shots at him, and so it just seems kind
Speaker 1: of pointless, waste of time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, unfortunately, I think you're probably right, although it should
Speaker 2: be different. Trump did have a rally, as I mentioned,
Speaker 2: am I saying that correctly? Probably not the Floridans can
Speaker 2: get out of me. I don't know. Good hileah, heileah,
Speaker 2: whatever the hell it is, whatever you guys call it.
Speaker 2: Down there, he had a rally. Sarah Sanders was there,
Speaker 2: the current governor of Arkansas's former press secretary. She endorsed
Speaker 2: him fully on the stage here's what happened.
Speaker 10: Biden and the Left have failed over and over again,
Speaker 10: and they know it, and you know it, and it
Speaker 10: is time for a change. That is why tonight I
Speaker 10: am so proud to endorse my former boss, my friend,
Speaker 10: and everybody's favorite President Donald J.
Speaker 4: Trump.
Speaker 2: Sarah Sanders back at the podium where I remember her,
Speaker 2: just to endorse Trump, although she's got some other podium
Speaker 2: is Shue.
Speaker 9: He and I were talking a little bit about that podium.
Speaker 9: If it ever elevates to the national level, maybe we'll
Speaker 9: talk about it. The details are genuinely kind of funny.
Speaker 9: The issue I think here is DeSantis.
Speaker 2: He had this big endorsement come in into this debate,
Speaker 2: which we didn't even really mention. He got the freaking
Speaker 2: Iowa governor to endorse him. I mean, once upon a
Speaker 2: time that was it. You're done, You're gonna win the
Speaker 2: Iowa caucuses. I mean, that's awesome. In the Trump era,
Speaker 2: it barely rates, especially with Israel pala sign. And the
Speaker 2: reason why this was significant is Sanders, even though she
Speaker 2: worked for him behind the scenes, Trump has been on
Speaker 2: her for a long time. He's like, you need to
Speaker 2: endorse me, you need to endorse me. She wasn't doing it.
Speaker 2: She was holding out because maybe she was going to
Speaker 2: endorse DeSantis. I mean, they're part of the RGA, the
Speaker 2: Republican Governors Association. They probably gotten to know each other
Speaker 2: all that stuff. And you know, she's a younger person too,
Speaker 2: and even though she worked for him, she can maybe
Speaker 2: she wanted to see where the party goes. The fact
Speaker 2: that she's willing to endorse him on the stage in Florida,
Speaker 2: De Santa's home state, I mean, that's the biggest middle
Speaker 2: finger you got, right, like in terms of saying who
Speaker 2: I'm with and what I'm doing. So they did it
Speaker 2: for a reason, just to roll it out. They did
Speaker 2: it in the same state, same home state for these
Speaker 2: two men, and guess who had a ton of people.
Speaker 2: They're chanting his name at one point, even in the
Speaker 2: debate states they were chanting Trump. That's how potent this
Speaker 2: man is. Wow, Yeah, that's how he is. That is wild.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it is interesting.
Speaker 1: You might think if you're just watching on the surface level, like, oh,
Speaker 1: of course Sarah Huckby Sanders, like she worked for him,
Speaker 1: of course she's going to endorse him. But there's a
Speaker 1: reason why she held out this long as you said
Speaker 1: through the RGA. Also, I mean Asa Hutchinson, who she
Speaker 1: has to know well, you know, for the state of
Speaker 1: Arkansas was running as well, and so maybe out of
Speaker 1: a little bit of respect for him, she held back.
Speaker 1: So it is one of those you take note because
Speaker 1: you can just see everyone now is accepting, all right,
Speaker 1: this is inevitable. I better make my peace with it.
Speaker 1: I better like get in good with this political machine
Speaker 1: because this man might be president of the United States again.
Speaker 1: So let me go ahead and jump on board while
Speaker 1: this is still while that's still possible to do, which
Speaker 1: is part of why it was surprising actually that Kim Reynolds,
Speaker 1: the governor of Iowa, decided to endorse DeSantis now because
Speaker 1: it's so clear he's going to lose. It was like,
Speaker 1: maybe this maybe would have helped him or at least
Speaker 1: give him a positive news cycle early on.
Speaker 3: How the writing is so on the wall. There's no
Speaker 3: drama around this whatsoever.
Speaker 2: I think it's an abortion thing. Actually, I think she
Speaker 2: probably took it very personally, as I understand she's quite religious,
Speaker 2: and there's.
Speaker 1: A lot of religious rights, very ideological.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so basically Trump attacked her and DeSantis right for
Speaker 2: signing the similar bit in a six week bill. What
Speaker 2: did he call it cruel or something like that? And
Speaker 2: so I think, you know, just reading the tea leaves
Speaker 2: based on people I've spoken to and stuff, that a
Speaker 2: lot of it is ideological in terms of where her
Speaker 2: base of support comes from. I mean, I was on
Speaker 2: a Maga state in terms of its traditional Republican coalition.
Speaker 2: People there like Trump, but they've been Republicans there for
Speaker 2: a long time. They you know, they voted for Michelle
Speaker 2: Oh no, so for Rick Santorum. Yeah, And at one
Speaker 2: point Bachmann was leading, was doing well there, that type
Speaker 2: of candidate, and all the exactly also.
Speaker 1: Did it well there. Yeah, So I think I think
Speaker 1: that's right. Yeah, I just you know, there is I
Speaker 1: guess the biggest surprise of both the Democratic and the
Speaker 1: Republican primaries is there really is no surprise.
Speaker 3: There's very little drama. Things can change, you never know,
Speaker 3: anything can happen one of these dudes. Look, they're both old.
Speaker 1: You never know if they're helping to hold that or whatever. Right,
Speaker 1: who knows. But at this point it looks like most
Speaker 1: of the drama is going to come in the general election.
Speaker 1: And that's something we've been talking a lot about, is
Speaker 1: the fact that RFK continues to pull. You know that
Speaker 1: New York Times poll, Ryan and Emily covered it yesterday
Speaker 1: that we noted we started pulling out the cross tabs
Speaker 1: and going, wait a second, they did pull RFK, and
Speaker 1: he is beating them among young voters in all of
Speaker 1: these swing states. He's clocking what was it, twenty four
Speaker 1: percent overall in these swing states. I mean that is
Speaker 1: a massive percentage. So there is going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of drama and intrigue going into the general election.
Speaker 1: I just don't know if we're going to have any
Speaker 1: real drama or suspense around who the major party not.
Speaker 2: No, I think you're right, and you've actually you were
Speaker 2: the per first person flag it around RFK, and I
Speaker 2: think it's a huge story. This is only a personal anecdote.
Speaker 2: But I posted, you know whatever, the tweet on Instagram
Speaker 2: and I was like, oh, this is just interesting. It's
Speaker 2: one of the most viral things I posted in a
Speaker 2: long time. And look, it's the smallest ample size, but
Speaker 2: I was just like, oh, that's but it's not the
Speaker 2: only pis showing exactly. It's just like, oh interesting in
Speaker 2: terms of the support, like all the people sharing it
Speaker 2: being RFK, and I had all these rfk people who
Speaker 2: were sharing on there and got thousands and thousands of shares. Again,
Speaker 2: I have a good sense sometimes of like what the
Speaker 2: media is not covering and then what is like a
Speaker 2: real organic phenomenon. And I'm telling you, I think that
Speaker 2: man's support is very real and without fail, almost none
Speaker 2: of it has to do with vaccines or any of
Speaker 2: this other stuff. It's I hate hate Joe Biden, Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I am doing this purely as a support to say
Speaker 2: screw you to the both party system, to the GOP
Speaker 2: and the Democratic establishment. And he's a Kennedy It's like
Speaker 2: every single time and without fail. And I think that.
Speaker 2: And then also if you combine some of this hardcore
Speaker 2: support around the vaccine issue and all that, I mean,
Speaker 2: he's just some of most organized people on the planet.
Speaker 2: So you put that together, like real organized, die hard
Speaker 2: folks with you know this sentiment which is probably the
Speaker 2: most widespread one of the country. Seventy eighty ninety percent
Speaker 2: of people can say they're not satisfied with the current system.
Speaker 2: And I think you're you're really signing yourself up for
Speaker 2: a big story. So we'll continue to watch it, and
Speaker 2: we're working on our folks group right now to get
Speaker 2: an RF focus group.
Speaker 1: I am very interested, and there's been very little reporting
Speaker 1: or analysis of like, Okay, we're guessing about who his
Speaker 1: base is, and that a lot of it has to
Speaker 1: do with just discussed with these two candidates, and his
Speaker 1: name is Kennedy, right, and doesn't go a lot deeper
Speaker 1: than that, although there is certainly a group of people
Speaker 1: for whom they know everything about him and they are
Speaker 1: affirmatively on board with everything he stands for. But I
Speaker 1: think the level of his support mostly comes from that,
Speaker 1: just like he's a Kennedy. I like the name and
Speaker 1: screw these two guys, but we.
Speaker 3: Don't really know that.
Speaker 1: And so I really want to talk to some of
Speaker 1: his supporters and hear from them directly about what it
Speaker 1: is that they see in him, and also see how
Speaker 1: solid that support is, because that's the other big question
Speaker 1: with the third party candidate. Typically the polls really fall
Speaker 1: off for them as you get closer your election nay,
Speaker 1: and people kind of realize, like, all right, it's really
Speaker 1: going to be one of these two dudes, So let
Speaker 1: me just suck it up and pick them or stay home.
Speaker 3: Or whatever.
Speaker 1: A lot of his support comes from people who don't
Speaker 1: vote a lot, so are they as committed to him,
Speaker 1: you know, sufficiently committed to him to actually show up.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of questions about what's going on, none
Speaker 1: of which has been explored in the press at this point.
Speaker 1: So that's something we're definitely going to continue to dig
Speaker 1: into as things progress. And he could very even if
Speaker 1: he doesn't get twenty percent of the vote, if he
Speaker 1: gets ten percent, that still could be the deciding factor
Speaker 1: depending on who he takes from and how this all
Speaker 1: shakes out. So anyway, something to continue to watch. We
Speaker 1: have our eye on what is unfolding in Gaza with
Speaker 1: Israel's war on Gaza, as we brought you previously. So
Speaker 1: the one thing that Biden has said kind of consistently
Speaker 1: from the beginning is it would be a quote big
Speaker 1: mistake if Israel was to reoccupy Gaza after this war.
Speaker 1: We brought you earlier in the week that Netanyahu went
Speaker 1: on one of the Sunday shows here in America and said,
Speaker 1: we will occupy Gaza.
Speaker 3: We will likely occupy.
Speaker 1: Gaza indefinitely until we figure out the security situation that
Speaker 1: seems to have caused a shift in way that the
Speaker 1: administration is framing their recommendations here and their expectations for Gaza.
Speaker 1: So this isn't going to play you a response from
Speaker 1: John Kirby, who's the ANC spokesperson. And also then on the
Speaker 1: other side of that, we have Netanyahu's original comments just
Speaker 1: for reference.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen the.
Speaker 11: Secreary state of these comments today.
Speaker 4: Also, we came to a transition.
Speaker 2: Period after this conflict.
Speaker 6: Could you expand on that and explain what does a
Speaker 6: transition through re right to the s administration.
Speaker 12: I think he was referring to this idea, and it
Speaker 12: came up yesterday were Prime mister n Yah who talked
Speaker 12: about an indefinite period where they would be on the ground.
Speaker 12: I think he was referring to the idea the fact
Speaker 12: that in the immediate aftermath of conflict, it's it's certainly
Speaker 12: plausible that for at least some period of time Israeli
Speaker 12: defense forces are still going to be in Gaza to
Speaker 12: manage the immediate aftermath and the security situation. But that
Speaker 12: nothing's changed about our view that that shouldn't be the
Speaker 12: long term solution, that it shouldn't be about idea of
Speaker 12: reoccupation of Gaza as a long term governance solution.
Speaker 2: Who should govern Gaza when this is over?
Speaker 13: Those who don't want to continue the way of Hamas
Speaker 13: and certainly is not the I think Israel will for
Speaker 13: an indefinite period, we'll have the overall security responsibility, because
Speaker 13: we've seen what happens when we don't have it. When
Speaker 13: we don't have that security responsibility, what we have is
Speaker 13: the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we
Speaker 13: couldn't imagine.
Speaker 1: So you can see the shift there, Sager. Originally it
Speaker 1: was this would be a big mistake. Reoccupation would be
Speaker 1: a big mistake. To now John Kirby going, well, I
Speaker 1: mean for some period of time maybe, Yeah, we actually
Speaker 1: are okay with it.
Speaker 2: Get and flashback to the Coalitional Provisional Authority and we
Speaker 2: were only supposed to be there for a year or so.
Speaker 2: Rumsfeldt said we were going to get out. L Paul
Speaker 2: Bremmer is going to roll in. He worked for Kissinger.
Speaker 2: What could go wrong? Right, he was one of the best,
Speaker 2: the best, and the brightest. Oh only took twenty years
Speaker 2: or so, and we're still dealing with the problems that
Speaker 2: were there. So yeah, it's all happening. It's all happening again.
Speaker 2: And even if you listen to the words very carefully
Speaker 2: of Anthony blinkn around what he says here, they are
Speaker 2: leaving themselves a lot of room for what occupation is.
Speaker 2: They can't have occupation, but then they said they might
Speaker 2: have some occupation. And he had some comments here that
Speaker 2: we're at the g seven. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 14: The only way to ensure that this crisis never happens
Speaker 14: again is to begin setting the conditions for durable peace
Speaker 14: and security, and to frame our diplomatic efforts now with
Speaker 14: that in mind. The United States believes key elements should
Speaker 14: include no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, not now,
Speaker 14: not after the war. No use of Gaza as a
Speaker 14: platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of
Speaker 14: Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or
Speaker 14: besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza. We
Speaker 14: must also short, no terrorist threats can emanate from the
Speaker 14: West Bank. We must also work on the affirmative elopments.
Speaker 2: To get to a sustained peace.
Speaker 14: These must include the Palestinian people's voices and aspirations at
Speaker 14: the center of post crisis governance in Gaza. It must
Speaker 14: include Palestinian led governance and Gaza unified with the West
Speaker 14: Bank under the Palestinian authority. And it must include a
Speaker 14: sustained mechanism for reconstruction in Gaza and a pathway to
Speaker 14: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in states of
Speaker 14: their own with equal measures.
Speaker 1: So the US government previously saying, you know, no red
Speaker 1: lines in terms of what Israel can do, that's really
Speaker 1: the messaging that matters here. Now he's trying to say, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't want any forcible displacement now, not after the work.
Speaker 1: You can look at the videos yourself. Forcible displacement of
Speaker 1: probably more than a million people has already happened, So
Speaker 1: too late.
Speaker 3: For that one.
Speaker 1: No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism, of course,
Speaker 1: everyone supports that.
Speaker 3: No reoccupation of Gaza.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, maybe respond to what mister Natanyahu just said
Speaker 1: to blockade or besieged Gaza. Also, I don't know where
Speaker 1: you've been, buddy, about what reality in Gaza has looked
Speaker 1: like for quite a long time. So in any case,
Speaker 1: to me, the shows just again Sagar the level of
Speaker 1: weakness from the US as long as there is no
Speaker 1: willingness to use the you know, leverage that we have
Speaker 1: at our disposal in terms of the huge amount of
Speaker 1: aid that we have provided to Israel and are continuing
Speaker 1: to provide to Israel, and the fourteen billion dollars that
Speaker 1: we're planning to send. These all constitute effectively empty words.
Speaker 1: And the Natanyahu government has already shown they're going to
Speaker 1: do whatever it is that they want.
Speaker 2: The real problem I'm beginning to see is to compare this,
Speaker 2: you know, there's gonna be a lot of oracknology. Sorry,
Speaker 2: the most recent Middle Eastern occupation around this Ahmed Chalabi
Speaker 2: type gambit. They're like, we're going to put the Palestinian
Speaker 2: authority in charge. The Palestinian authority has barely any legitimacy
Speaker 2: left in the West Bank, that's right, not alone, let
Speaker 2: alone in Gaza. I mean they people have now lived
Speaker 2: apart for seventeen years. Also, these people are old as hell.
Speaker 2: They're viewed as corrupt and in the pocket of the
Speaker 2: West because they have no legitimacy. Now, look, maybe they
Speaker 2: could have something if they were you know, put in
Speaker 2: some sort of quasi government, and they could affirmatively deliver
Speaker 2: on a two state solution. But I mean, come on,
Speaker 2: who actually believes that that is going to happen. So
Speaker 2: then who's going to have actual governing authority? And look
Speaker 2: at what's happening right now in the West Bank. The
Speaker 2: Palestinian authority is viewed as impotent and weak because they
Speaker 2: can't keep their own people safe from Israeli settlersself ken
Speaker 2: the Netsunahu government with a straight base claim there will
Speaker 2: be no settlers or at all inside of Gaza. At
Speaker 2: the same time, I mean, what about Israeli soldiers. Think
Speaker 2: about the incendiary nature of that one. Two years, three
Speaker 2: years out of providing the security situation on the streets
Speaker 2: and them trying to claim that they are legitimate. That
Speaker 2: is why the Iraqis turned against the people that we
Speaker 2: put in charge in the first place, because they were
Speaker 2: viewed as a tool of the West and not able
Speaker 2: to stand up to us and not looking out for
Speaker 2: their best interests or their security. So mean, I just see,
Speaker 2: this is a nightmare situation. And part of the problem
Speaker 2: too is if we put if we install the PA
Speaker 2: with international authority and all of this, and the population
Speaker 2: turns against them, the exact same thing that happened in
Speaker 2: Iraq is going to happen. We're going to see a
Speaker 2: full blown secretarian war like we did in two thousand
Speaker 2: and five, the war between Fatah and Hamas. We're gonna
Speaker 2: see it times fifty at this point because Iran and
Speaker 2: all the other proxies are going to back up Hamas
Speaker 2: to retry and regain control of the government. The Israelis
Speaker 2: are gonna get caught in the middle of it if
Speaker 2: they're doing the security situation, and worse, they want us
Speaker 2: to come in and occupy Gaza. Don't forget that little plan.
Speaker 2: American peacekeepers and French keepers, our guys getting blown up
Speaker 2: in the middle of all this. So I say hell
Speaker 2: no to this whole plan. This is part of the problem.
Speaker 2: You know. This is regime change. Like, let's just all
Speaker 2: be honest about it. This is straight up regime change.
Speaker 2: And I hate the regime in Gaza too, don't get
Speaker 2: me wrong, But you know, if you're gonna go in,
Speaker 2: you're gonna roll them. You better have a good plan
Speaker 2: for day two, and I don't see one right now.
Speaker 1: Let's say, and you all know I think this is
Speaker 1: magical thinking. Let's say you're able to eradicate Herbass whatever
Speaker 1: that even actually means.
Speaker 3: What kind of.
Speaker 1: A political group do you think is going to organically
Speaker 1: rise to power in Gaza, given the you know, blockade,
Speaker 1: given the fact that something like a third of northern
Speaker 1: Gaza has already been destroyed, given the radicalization, the increased
Speaker 1: radicalization that is going on, with the.
Speaker 3: Brutality of the Israeli.
Speaker 1: Response, what sort of political project do you think is
Speaker 1: going to have appeal and legitimacy in such a situation,
Speaker 1: given what these people have suffered through. So that's number one,
Speaker 1: number two on the Palestinian authority. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: just that they're seen as in the pocket of the
Speaker 1: West like that's that's real. That perception is real because
Speaker 1: they cooperate with the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's commonly accepted within the West Bank
Speaker 1: that actually when you see the Palestinian Authority their police
Speaker 1: officers pull back, you better run and hide, because that
Speaker 1: means they're basically making way for the IDF to come
Speaker 1: through in some sort of a rate. That's the level
Speaker 1: of cooperation collaboration that is ongoing there. And you have
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, you've had over I think one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty people in the West Bank killed since
Speaker 1: October seventh, and that isn't That is indicative of the
Speaker 1: way that the PA doesn't do anything to keep them safe,
Speaker 1: so they feel completely on their own. So, yeah, the
Speaker 1: PA has no legitimacy in the West Bank, it has
Speaker 1: no legitimacy in Gaza.
Speaker 3: And the idea that you're going to.
Speaker 1: Somehow the US and Israel are going to bestow them
Speaker 1: with legitimacy the Palestinian people like, give me a break,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense, which is exactly why you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's so likely that Israel is going to
Speaker 1: continue to try to pursue what has been laid out
Speaker 1: in that you know, Israeli government memo of what we
Speaker 1: really want is to push them all, all of the
Speaker 1: Palestinians out of Gaza into Egypt and make that the
Speaker 1: only possibility that will really work, and force it on
Speaker 1: Egypt and force it on the US. And it may
Speaker 1: seem like a long shot now and maybe it doesn't
Speaker 1: ultimately happen, but we already know from reporting that's what
Speaker 1: they're actually pushing behind the scenes, and you can you know,
Speaker 1: like that's part of the net Nahu's Lacud party and
Speaker 1: his right wing coalitional partners.
Speaker 3: That has been part of their longtime goals. So it's no.
Speaker 1: Surprise that that's what they would be pushing for. But
Speaker 1: it also when you have the impossibility and impracticality of
Speaker 1: every other possible situation and a gaza that you know,
Speaker 1: the parking lot memes coming to Fruition, they're going to say, well,
Speaker 1: what else can we do?
Speaker 3: What else is possible?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I listen in terms of at least
Speaker 2: pushing them out. That means war. The Egyptian's already told
Speaker 2: us that, and so we should listen to them. They
Speaker 2: take this stuff very serious, and the people inside Goswel
Speaker 2: are going to take it seriously too. If it becomes
Speaker 2: a fight right now, it's a fight with Hamas. If
Speaker 2: it becomes a fight for being able to stay well,
Speaker 2: I think a lot of those people are going to
Speaker 2: take up arms. Again. It's the exact same thing playbook
Speaker 2: in Iraq. It's not difficult to see it. It literally
Speaker 2: happened in all of our living memory. In fact, Nantayah
Speaker 2: who encouraged us to go into a rock, he said
Speaker 2: we would be greeted, you know, with the open arms,
Speaker 2: and he got to see firsthand how all that worked out. Anyway,
Speaker 2: maybe you should listen.
Speaker 1: So, as we've been discussing, you know, the Israeli ground
Speaker 1: defensive is preceding a pace on. What we can tell
Speaker 1: is that they're you know, really working their way into
Speaker 1: Gaza City and sort of encircling that city. Obviously, first
Speaker 1: of all, a lot of journalists have been killed in
Speaker 1: Gaza who lived there, so very hard to get reports
Speaker 1: out from the ground. They've had these communications blockouts, blackouts.
Speaker 1: Foreign journalists are only allowed in with the express permission of.
Speaker 2: The ideas and security review of their footage.
Speaker 1: Security review and but yeah, before anything gets posted, the
Speaker 1: Israeli military gets to take a look and decide what
Speaker 1: is allowed in and what is allowed out. However, there
Speaker 1: was a report that came out that seemed pretty solid
Speaker 1: from a Channel four news just to give you a
Speaker 1: sense of what it even.
Speaker 3: Looks like in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Inside the city.
Speaker 1: Yeah, inside got the city, and it is pretty stunning
Speaker 1: to behold. Let's take a look at a little bit
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 11: The war ravaged outskirts of embattled Gaza City, an apocalyptic
Speaker 11: landscape now firmly under the control of Israeli soldiers. We're
Speaker 11: here with members of Infantry Division eight to eight. The
Speaker 11: most intense fighting of this bloody conflict is beginning now
Speaker 11: in the heart of this city, under the watch of
Speaker 11: Israeli soldiers. Desperate Gazan civilians, whole families, some holding white flags,
Speaker 11: are fleeing their homes for the south. One man drags
Speaker 11: and elderly women along in a chair. Soldiers call out
Speaker 11: in Hebrew in case some of the two hundred and
Speaker 11: forty Israeli hostages are being smuggled out too. Footage filmed
Speaker 11: on the Salahidian Road by Andalestinian journalists gives you a
Speaker 11: true sense of scale. They're young, there are old, clutching
Speaker 11: whatever's left of their lives. Across Gaza. One and a
Speaker 11: half million people, three quarters of the population have been
Speaker 11: displaced from their homes. This is the hell they're running from,
Speaker 11: fleeing south. There's no guarantee of safety. This hospital in
Speaker 11: carn units where many have fled to.
Speaker 1: So three quarters of the population already displaced. And you
Speaker 1: can see there, I mean, the city's rubble like, so
Speaker 1: much of it has already been destroyed. Of course, these
Speaker 1: people think they're never going to be able to go home.
Speaker 1: For many of them, there is no more home there
Speaker 1: to go back to. It's rubble, it's destroyed. So I
Speaker 1: mean that's just a little glimpse of the horror that
Speaker 1: is unfolding for more than two million people who are
Speaker 1: there on the ground.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he actually clarified also, he actually said, while
Speaker 2: we are clear our report was not censored or subject
Speaker 2: even to editorial approval, we would never agree to that.
Speaker 2: Only the pictures from the military visits were subject to
Speaker 2: security review e g. To prevent maps or certain specific
Speaker 2: parts of a military vehicle. So secunder CARMANI I thought
Speaker 2: he did a fantastic job of actually laying it out there.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean, look, we're getting to the point
Speaker 2: where it's becoming very clear that we are entering the
Speaker 2: next phase of the campaign, because as you guys could
Speaker 2: see there, prior to this, it's just bombing and tanks.
Speaker 2: We're rolling, we're isolating, we're getting making sure we're cutting
Speaker 2: off we're trying to get as many civilians out. Now,
Speaker 2: these guys were out on the ground. You saw how
Speaker 2: they're outside. They're all doing security. They're forming a perimeter
Speaker 2: around that rubble. They're trying to see if there's a
Speaker 2: stronghold in there, and there's a bunch of tunnels that
Speaker 2: are underneath. Now we're getting into the hand to hand combat,
Speaker 2: and now we need to start looking at the casualty
Speaker 2: numbers very closely, because this is one IDF casualties if
Speaker 2: they ever are going to start spiking. Now we're about
Speaker 2: to play you a video. We're going to play some
Speaker 2: of this, and let's be very clear this was straight
Speaker 2: up released by Hamas where not. This is not an
Speaker 2: endorsement or any of that because we lack journalistic footage.
Speaker 2: This is the footage they are putting out of them
Speaker 2: their fighters engage in hand to hand combat or in
Speaker 2: you know, small arms fire RPGs and all these other things,
Speaker 2: trying to take out Israeli tanks, just to give people
Speaker 2: a sense of what the actual battle looks like. We
Speaker 2: just saw from the Israeli side. We're playing it here.
Speaker 2: You could see here you've got Israeli tanks that are
Speaker 2: in the middle of the city. This is all being
Speaker 2: zoomed in. The Isis used to edit and their stuff
Speaker 2: all like this. Part of the reason is that they
Speaker 2: try to cut only the you know, the most exciting
Speaker 2: parts quote unquote where they're heroic looking, and they also
Speaker 2: edit it. It's just watching this, it's getting total flashbacks
Speaker 2: to ISIS. Isis also used to cut it this way
Speaker 2: in order to entice younger guys to come and join
Speaker 2: them and try to make it look as much as
Speaker 2: call of duty as possible, and that's basically what they're
Speaker 2: doing here. But you can see they're zooming in, they're
Speaker 2: highlighting tanks, they're showing them, you know, trying to take
Speaker 2: them out. Nobody knows whether how many have been taken
Speaker 2: out or not. You could see they're inflicting some damage,
Speaker 2: but like who knows, you know how much these these
Speaker 2: are pretty well armored and well supplied in terms of
Speaker 2: the Israeli military. The only point being that where now
Speaker 2: at that turning point where we're going to start to
Speaker 2: see a lot more casualties, both on the Hama side
Speaker 2: and on the Israeli side, where when you've got to
Speaker 2: come in, you've got to clear rubble. When you're rolling
Speaker 2: tanks down the street and you're coming in too, you know,
Speaker 2: you've got two p huge things of rubble here, and
Speaker 2: you've got all these positions where somebody can take a
Speaker 2: shot at you and then maybe you've guys got you've
Speaker 2: got guys outside of the tank, we're behind you and
Speaker 2: all that. And this is nic this is World War Two.
Speaker 2: We saw this type of combat Stalingrod, you know, mo Soul,
Speaker 2: so many of these different places, and this is where
Speaker 2: I think things can get start to get really gnarly,
Speaker 2: especially when you consider that you've got this massive three
Speaker 2: hundred mile tunnel network which is underneath that. So the
Speaker 2: Israeli still have not they have not released a lot
Speaker 2: of the data, and I think one of the reasons
Speaker 2: they're taking to keep such a tight control is I
Speaker 2: think some I think we are some of the battles
Speaker 2: that are happening on the ground there which we're not
Speaker 2: able to see. Our vish brutal stuff is happening there
Speaker 2: between these fighters and between the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's easy for a modern military
Speaker 1: like Israel to go in and carpet bomb. It's easy
Speaker 1: to roll in with tanks, and even when tanks are
Speaker 1: fired on like, they are so well armored that it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to you know, very difficult to take out
Speaker 1: one of these tanks, especially given the types of weapons
Speaker 1: that Humas has access to, so you know all of
Speaker 1: those things, you're unlikely to take significant casualties. It's when
Speaker 1: you actually have to get out and do this sort
Speaker 1: of like direct hand to hand commet that things really change.
Speaker 1: There was one piece that really caught my attention with
Speaker 1: regards to the hostages that Humas is still holding.
Speaker 15: Here.
Speaker 3: Put this up on the screen from the New York Times.
Speaker 1: It shows you that there is a real tension between
Speaker 1: the Israeli ground offensive and the goal of bringing these
Speaker 1: hostages back safe and sound. So apparently of this reporting,
Speaker 1: Israel and Hamas actually almost had a deal to free
Speaker 1: roughly fifty hostages. This was focused on the civilian hostages.
Speaker 1: A number of the hostages are also Israeli military. Indirect
Speaker 1: talks mediated by Katar snagged after Israel's ground invasion of
Speaker 1: Gaza on October twenty seventh.
Speaker 3: They have resumed, but hopes for a quick.
Speaker 1: Release have faded so effectively, they, according to this report,
Speaker 1: were very close to securing this deal for the release
Speaker 1: of fifty hostages. But when they started in earnest the
Speaker 1: ground defensive on October seventh, and it.
Speaker 3: Was like, all right, well, the deal's off.
Speaker 1: You have a statement here from Israel's Defense minister in
Speaker 1: response to this report, Yoev Galant says there will be
Speaker 1: no pause without the return of hostages and missing persons.
Speaker 1: The only way of saving the hostages is if Israel
Speaker 1: continues its ground operation. You know, that's what they want
Speaker 1: to say to try to erase what is a very
Speaker 1: clear tension between the goal of getting these hostages back
Speaker 1: safe and sound and the goal of just like destruction
Speaker 1: of Gaza City. There's another piece here, though, saga that
Speaker 1: really jumped down at me, which it's incredible to me
Speaker 1: that this isn't more of a subject of reporting, but
Speaker 1: somewhere buried, like the eighth paragraph of this report, they say,
Speaker 1: so far, the negotiations have only focused on releasing civilian hostages.
Speaker 1: According to these officials. As I was just saying, the
Speaker 1: Israeli soldiers held in Gaza may eventually be part of
Speaker 1: a separate track of negotiations, possibly to be exchanged for
Speaker 1: hundreds of Palestinian women and miners who are held without
Speaker 1: charge in Israeli prisons. And it's astonishing to me that,
Speaker 1: first of all, I don't know how they're not called
Speaker 1: hostages when there are women and miners who are held
Speaker 1: without charge in Israeli prisons, and how this isn't a
Speaker 1: subject of more conversation that this is going on on
Speaker 1: the Israeli side. So they're saying, potentially some future deal
Speaker 1: may trade the Israeli soldiers for these women and children
Speaker 1: who are being held by the hundreds without charges in
Speaker 1: Israeli prisons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't even know much about them. There's some
Speaker 2: speculation they might have been guest workers, people who are
Speaker 2: coming across Israeli as acclaiming that they were involved in
Speaker 2: October seven. So who knows. But yes, you are right.
Speaker 2: And part of the reason why that they're separating off
Speaker 2: those IDF soldiers is that Israeli society and I think,
Speaker 2: you know, even the rules of war and others are
Speaker 2: very distinguishing between people who are straight up civilian into
Speaker 2: people in uniform. I'm not justifying them taking hostage, but
Speaker 2: you know, POW is very different status, internationally protected Red
Speaker 2: Cross all of that. I don't know if AMAS is
Speaker 2: abiding by all of those by the way, I hope
Speaker 2: that they are. They probably are not, But even in
Speaker 2: terms of negotiation at the Israeli government, they're looking at
Speaker 2: it differently let's go to the next part here, just
Speaker 2: because this is also important and I thought the Financial
Speaker 2: Times has been doing really good work here. We can
Speaker 2: put up their piece exactly about the military briefing in
Speaker 2: the battle for Gaza City, highlighting some of the things
Speaker 2: that I was talking about exactly. As you can see
Speaker 2: in their map for those who are watching, you can
Speaker 2: see where the damaged areas are the most, and you
Speaker 2: can also see where the damaged areas are viewed so
Speaker 2: that there is a total circle around Gadza City. The
Speaker 2: problem for Gaza City and for where a lot of
Speaker 2: those tunnels are, is that they have not actually inflicted
Speaker 2: all that much damage outside of the outskirts, so inside
Speaker 2: the city where the majority not only of the population was,
Speaker 2: but also where the tunnel network, the main infrastructure and
Speaker 2: all that. It appears they it might have held off
Speaker 2: Crystal because there's hostages there. They might have held off
Speaker 2: for who knows variety of reasons. But that's where a
Speaker 2: lot of the battle is about to be going into.
Speaker 2: And they quote some military experts here in the story
Speaker 2: and they say the IDF is getting dragged into urban
Speaker 2: fighting in a packed, dense city. Below that you have
Speaker 2: these tunnel systems that profer every advantage to defense. They
Speaker 2: are going to encounter layers upon layers of complexity. It
Speaker 2: is very tough, and they have not even started. They
Speaker 2: point to the fact that this really is a reversion
Speaker 2: now to straight up guerrilla warfare urban tactics, quote unquote,
Speaker 2: back to guerrilla one on one. You've got hostages, you've
Speaker 2: got these two hundred and forty people. RPGs are one
Speaker 2: of the weapons that they're going to have to contend
Speaker 2: the most with. It's something that Hamas has an untold
Speaker 2: amount that they've been able to supply themselves a stockpile
Speaker 2: over the years. And really what they say is this
Speaker 2: is the preview. Infantry will be required to leave their
Speaker 2: armored vehicles maintained roadblocks trying to protect themselves from Hamas.
Speaker 2: The Financial Times has reported last week. Dozens of building
Speaker 2: have already been destroyed by air strikes. Hamas has been
Speaker 2: denied using some of their staging areas and all of
Speaker 2: that by the Israelis at least so far, but enough
Speaker 2: of the infrastructure remains that it's going to be a
Speaker 2: hellish fight. They also point crystal exactly to what you
Speaker 2: were talking about with those tanks and where they have
Speaker 2: some particular vulnerability to RPGs, and where the Hamas fighters
Speaker 2: will be aiming towards. So if you want like a real,
Speaker 2: just straight up like military tactical briefing, I do recommend
Speaker 2: reading this. It does point out some of the IDF advantages.
Speaker 2: They've got drones, they've got air power. Obviously, they have artillery,
Speaker 2: but a lot of that starts to go away whenever
Speaker 2: you get real close, you've got close enough to your
Speaker 2: enemy that you can actually see them. And that's unfortunately
Speaker 2: where I think we're headed right now.
Speaker 1: They have a little bit of the military strategy here
Speaker 1: that Israel plans to employ to try to limit their casualties.
Speaker 1: They say their aim will not be to fight street
Speaker 1: by street, as US led forces did in Fallujah during
Speaker 1: the Second Rock War. Instead, its plan is to clear
Speaker 1: up pockets of territory use them as basis for urban raids.
Speaker 1: Results will be a series of small battles and skirmishes
Speaker 1: for different sections of the territory. They go on and
Speaker 1: say the aim for each raid is to gather fresh
Speaker 1: intelligence on Hamas and its military infrastructure. Israeli forces will
Speaker 1: then withdraw and call in air strikes, then those will
Speaker 1: lead to more raids in an iterative process. I also
Speaker 1: thought this was interesting eyebrow raising. Israeli military has shifted
Speaker 1: the focus away from targeting the high ranking HAMAS planners
Speaker 1: behind October seventh to include mid level level field lieutenants
Speaker 1: leading the fight against Israeli troops. They say this would
Speaker 1: significantly undermine Hamas's capabilities to carry out counter attacks.
Speaker 3: So I thought that was kind.
Speaker 2: Of interesting anyway. Yeah, I agree, we are going to
Speaker 2: continue to see some of this evolve, and I think
Speaker 2: some of the tactical analysis and all that going in
Speaker 2: is a preview of how some of the worst has
Speaker 2: still yet to come. Especially, you know, the Israelis really
Speaker 2: need to start girding themselves for this death toll. It's
Speaker 2: going to start to go up. There's just no way
Speaker 2: around it if you're going to go ahead and fight
Speaker 2: this way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And to bring it back around to the hostage piece,
Speaker 1: like these hostages are many of them likely held in
Speaker 1: Gaza City and very much at risk.
Speaker 6: Ye.
Speaker 1: So there's also you know, much of the Israeli population. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I'm just talking about the polls that we've seen
Speaker 1: coming out of Israel is very little concern for Palestinian
Speaker 1: civilian life coming out of the Israeli public at this point.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of concern for the hostages and
Speaker 1: bringing them back safe and sound.
Speaker 3: So, you know, if you.
Speaker 1: Have a lot of hostages who are also you know,
Speaker 1: quote unquote collateral damage in this fighting, and you already
Speaker 1: see that they you know, they sort of blew up
Speaker 1: a hostage deal that they had in hand to move
Speaker 1: forward with this ground offensive. That can also be very
Speaker 1: difficult politically for net Yahoo within his own populace.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to a little bit of the reaction
Speaker 1: to Tuesday's election night results, just as a brief recap.
Speaker 1: I mean, basically, Democrats kind of romped everywhere. They were
Speaker 1: able to hold on to the state Senate in Virginia
Speaker 1: and also win the House of Delegates in Virginia. You know,
Speaker 1: the pro choice position on that abortion abortion ballot initiative
Speaker 1: in Ohio succeeded. The legalizing weed in Ohio also succeeded
Speaker 1: by a large margin.
Speaker 2: My friend joyed the smell.
Speaker 1: In Kentucky, Andy Basheer, who is Democratic governor. He is
Speaker 1: an incumbent by many metrics, the most popular Democratic governor
Speaker 1: in the entire country defeated by a pretty sizable margin
Speaker 1: Daniel Cameron, who was a Mitch McConnell acolyte and the
Speaker 1: current Attorney general.
Speaker 3: So that was a big win.
Speaker 1: And there were some others around the country Pennsylvania state
Speaker 1: Supreme Court seat as well, But in general, just over
Speaker 1: big picture, big night for Democrats in spite of, of course,
Speaker 1: people feeling bad about the economy and really not being
Speaker 1: super psyched about Joe Biden. So that is the context
Speaker 1: in which Republicans had you come in and try to
Speaker 1: make sense of these results, come up with some reason
Speaker 1: why this happened, and explain away what was once again
Speaker 1: a bad and very disappointing night for them. Let's start
Speaker 1: with We've got Rick Santorum here on Newsmax giving his
Speaker 1: assessment of the problems with this election night.
Speaker 3: Result of Sigal isn't that you put.
Speaker 16: Very sexy things like abortion in marijuana on the ballot
Speaker 16: and a lot of young people come out and vote.
Speaker 16: It was a secret sauce for disaster in Ohio. I
Speaker 16: don't know what they were thinking, but that's why I
Speaker 16: thank goodness that most of the states in this country
Speaker 16: don't allow you to put everything on the ballot, because
Speaker 16: pure democracies are not the way to run a country.
Speaker 16: So you're but Democrats are trying to scare women into
Speaker 16: thinking Republicans don't want to abortion legal under any circumstances.
Speaker 1: So we've also got Hannity there, Democrats trying to scare people,
Speaker 1: and a Thingian Republicans are against abortion under any circumstance
Speaker 1: was really in the Republican party platform. So it's not
Speaker 1: without any justification. And of course Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: do what they can because this issue has proven to
Speaker 1: be very potent. But I really enjoyed Rick Santorum there.
Speaker 1: First of all, his framing of abortion as being a
Speaker 1: very sexy thing on the ballot was entertaining to me.
Speaker 1: But the big piece there was him being very upset
Speaker 1: about voters having a direct say, which goes counter to
Speaker 1: the Republican narrative over many years in favor of overturning
Speaker 1: Roe versus Way. The line was always let's return it
Speaker 1: to the states, Let's let voters decide.
Speaker 3: What they think the rules should be.
Speaker 1: Now that voters in every single ballot initiative that has
Speaker 1: had to do with abortion, voters have chosen the pro
Speaker 1: choice side. Now that that has happened, suddenly they're not
Speaker 1: so keen on voters deciding anyone.
Speaker 2: It's not so foolish.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, by the way, I actually agree with a
Speaker 2: lot of the states thing. I've been like, yeah, that's great, okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: let people decide if they want to. And it's obvious,
Speaker 2: it was always obvious, has been from day one. That's
Speaker 2: a dramatically unpopular position in all but maybe six states,
Speaker 2: you know, in the entire country. The rest of it
Speaker 2: really relies on state legislature control. And I think over time,
Speaker 2: the vast majority of red states will roll this back
Speaker 2: because of referendums like these, and a lot of voters
Speaker 2: are weaponized it not even weaponizing using the current political process,
Speaker 2: referendums in others in order to enshrine, like in the
Speaker 2: case of Ohio, a literal constitutional right to be able
Speaker 2: to have an abortion. And I mean, my personal favorite
Speaker 2: I think on all of this is all of the
Speaker 2: pro life activists just grappling with the fact that this
Speaker 2: is so dramatically unpopular and bad for Republicans that they
Speaker 2: have to come up with scapegoats. This is my personal
Speaker 2: favorite example. Let's go and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen, Matt Walsh, He says, before you tell me
Speaker 2: the pro life message is a political loser, answer me
Speaker 2: this how many Republican candidates fought back hard and effectively
Speaker 2: on the issue, actively went after the left ran ads
Speaker 2: attacking their opponent for supporting the dismemberment of fully developed infants,
Speaker 2: and actually countered the left's pro abortion narrative with a
Speaker 2: strong and affirmative pro life narrative. It seems to me
Speaker 2: the pro life message is being blamed in races where
Speaker 2: the pro life message was never even articulated. I am
Speaker 2: calling this real. Pro life has never been tried. As
Speaker 2: we would accurately make fun of some of the annoying
Speaker 2: communists that you meet when you're like nineteen years old,
Speaker 2: and yeah, that's what this is. It's like, no, dude.
Speaker 2: It turns out that when the vast majority, and this
Speaker 2: is a big structural problem, the majority of the GOP
Speaker 2: commentariat and professional class is dramatically more Catholic and evangelical
Speaker 2: in a capital are like religious sense than the average
Speaker 2: Republican voter. Now, listen, a lot of Republican voters are religious.
Speaker 2: Don't get me wrong. A lot of them do go
Speaker 2: to church, but a full one third of the people
Speaker 2: who voted for Trump are straight up pro choice. And actually,
Speaker 2: the Trump coalition itself is built on the backs of secular,
Speaker 2: non college educated whites who are not religious, who explicitly
Speaker 2: don't give a shit about gay marriage and on abortion.
Speaker 2: And they're like, yeah, it's icky, but you know, if
Speaker 2: you force me to choose, I'm gonna go ahead and
Speaker 2: choose the pro choice side. So it's not that you know,
Speaker 2: even this fifteen week thing. I keep saying everyone, these
Speaker 2: people remind me of defund the police activists. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: if you parse the polling, the majority of people support
Speaker 2: fifteen weeks. And I'm like, hey man, you lose on
Speaker 2: the fifteen week convo because the fact that you're even
Speaker 2: talking about abortion and you're on the side of some
Speaker 2: people who genuinely do want to ban it. You're done.
Speaker 2: That's a coalitional problem at a very basic level. The
Speaker 2: other side just wants to return to the status quo.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you might be right in California or Blue States
Speaker 2: or whatever, they've got different abortion laws, but like in Virginia,
Speaker 2: we're not talking about California. We're talking about Virginia. In Virginia,
Speaker 2: you've got a blue state already, a Biden plus eight
Speaker 2: or whatever. Everybody trying to parse all of this, oh,
Speaker 2: maybe a fifteen week ban or any of that, And
Speaker 2: you're always pointing this out, and I think you're right.
Speaker 2: The fifteen week ban has become less popular since the
Speaker 2: whole Row versus way was struck down because people just
Speaker 2: when you're trying to change the consensus, people don't want that.
Speaker 2: And if anything, really, what I think the pro life
Speaker 2: people are going to find out is we're going to
Speaker 2: end up with more legal abortion in shrine and law
Speaker 2: post Row than we probably did pre Row. So I mean, congratulations,
Speaker 2: I guess it'd certainly return it to the democratic process.
Speaker 1: This is certainly the first time the pro choice side
Speaker 1: has really been on offense and consistently winning in quite
Speaker 1: a long time. I mean, most of the story of
Speaker 1: my political adulthood has been more and more abortion rights
Speaker 1: being rolled back state after state after state, and now
Speaker 1: this is the first time things are really going in
Speaker 1: the opposite direction. To the point on fifteen weeks in
Speaker 1: Virginia and Matt Walsh being like, oh, you need to
Speaker 1: lean into it harder that was Glen Youngkin's yea, he
Speaker 1: tried like his pack was pushing it. They were pushing
Speaker 1: their candidates to lean into this fifteen week abortion message,
Speaker 1: thinking like, Okay, this is we've done the polling, we've
Speaker 1: done the focus grouping, this is the place where we
Speaker 1: might be able to find a consensus. So let's just
Speaker 1: lean into it and actually talk about abortion, not be
Speaker 1: afraid of it, et cetera, et cetera. But the thing
Speaker 1: is when you've got a party that, again their national
Speaker 1: platform says we want to get rid of abortion, and
Speaker 1: you have these Republican legislators who are like, oh, I
Speaker 1: want restrictions, but that's it. No further than I promise,
Speaker 1: pinky promise, no further than fifteen weeks. Like voters, of course,
Speaker 1: are not really going to believe you. And so I think,
Speaker 1: you know, the Virginia one, I don't want to overread
Speaker 1: it as being one hundred percent about abortion, because I
Speaker 1: don't think that it is. I think it's also just
Speaker 1: somewhat of a reversion to the mean of where Virginia is.
Speaker 1: Virginia is dominated by the Northern Virginia suburbs. They've become
Speaker 1: increasingly you know, liberal and War Blue. Over time, there
Speaker 1: were key battles fought in places like Laden County, which
Speaker 1: are kind of exurban, which Glenn Youngkin had done well
Speaker 1: in when we were talking about COVID school closures and
Speaker 1: things like that, that suburban moms where I think justifiably
Speaker 1: very upset about. But it's a different landscape now. So
Speaker 1: in any case, I think they tried the Matt Walsh
Speaker 1: approached actually in Virginia, and you can see what the
Speaker 1: results are.
Speaker 2: Listen. Ohio is as an even better example. It was
Speaker 2: straight up, up or down. People campaigned hard against you know. Actually,
Speaker 2: Jadie Vance put out a very thoughtful threat I thought
Speaker 2: for from the pro life perspective, where he's like, we got,
Speaker 2: we straight up lost, and here's what it's going to
Speaker 2: look now. Personally. Listen, he's a friend of mine. I
Speaker 2: don't agree with him really on the issue at all.
Speaker 2: I think as a political loser straight up, but you
Speaker 2: know he's a religious guy. So good luck to you
Speaker 2: in terms of trying to win on the issue. Let's
Speaker 2: put the next one up there. We've got a couple
Speaker 2: of examples of cope that we still have to continue
Speaker 2: to show you. Daniel Cameron lost this is from Trump.
Speaker 2: Even though he endorsed Daniel Cameron, he came out and
Speaker 2: he disavowed him, and he blamed it all on Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 2: Even though Crystal. In Daniel Cameron's last ad he literally
Speaker 2: ran as a pro Trump guy. He was like, I'm
Speaker 2: endorsed by Trump, I'm all about Trump, Trump Trump. The
Speaker 2: very last three second spot he had was all about
Speaker 2: how Trump loved him. And now Trump immediately comes out
Speaker 2: stabs him in the back. Yeah, the moment that he lost,
Speaker 2: he's like, no, no, it's not my fault, it's Mitch's fault.
Speaker 1: And he's celebrating that the Republican Republican governor of Mississippi
Speaker 1: was able to hang on by the skin of his teeth.
Speaker 1: Or shows you what a bad night it was were Republicans.
Speaker 1: Just as a reminder, just days before election Day, Trump
Speaker 1: had posted on true Social Wow, Daniel Cameron of Kentucky
Speaker 1: has made a huge search now that they see my
Speaker 1: strong endorsement and the fact that he's not really a
Speaker 1: McConnell guy.
Speaker 3: He puts in quotes.
Speaker 1: They only try to label him that because he comes
Speaker 1: from the great state of Kentucky. Anyway, go Daniel great
Speaker 1: future for you in your state. You will bring it
Speaker 1: to new levels of success and I will help you.
Speaker 1: So that was like, literally, I think, three days before
Speaker 1: election day and then immediately is like, it's because he's
Speaker 1: a McConnell guy. It's Mitch McConnell's. It's because what abu here.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not my fault.
Speaker 2: It's all on me anyway, So it was some fun. Cope,
Speaker 2: let me.
Speaker 1: Let me just because I'm obsessed with Kentucky, I have
Speaker 1: to say one thing about this. So putting abortion aside,
Speaker 1: which actually the fact that Andy Basher in the state
Speaker 1: of Kentucky is religious and conservative as that state is,
Speaker 1: ran a campaign on abortion rights in Kentucky tells you
Speaker 1: something about this issue. But the other thing that really
Speaker 1: jumped out from you know, his results, which he outperformed
Speaker 1: even his first run for governor, which was against a
Speaker 1: very unpopular Republican incumbent, Matt Bevin. And so he was
Speaker 1: able to outperform if you look at the numbers, the
Speaker 1: places where he did the best and outperformed the most
Speaker 1: had been really hard hit.
Speaker 3: By natural disasters.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of flooding in eastern Kentucky, and
Speaker 1: then there were tornadoes and storms in western Kentucky and
Speaker 1: Andy Basher, who has a very famous last name in
Speaker 1: the state as well, which helps in Kentucky, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's a small state and people feel connected to the
Speaker 1: Basher name, etc.
Speaker 3: But he really made a point of showing up.
Speaker 1: In these areas that were hard hit by natural disasters,
Speaker 1: and it seems that that was really rewarded by voters.
Speaker 1: So there's also a real argument to be made here
Speaker 1: just in favor of being on the ground, paying attention
Speaker 1: to what your constituents are actually going through, staying focused
Speaker 1: on what you might call bread and butter, life and
Speaker 1: death issues that are immediate and locality specific, and that's
Speaker 1: how he was able to overcome overwhelming Republican tilt in
Speaker 1: the state at this point. So I think that piece
Speaker 1: is interesting as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, let's move on to the free speech part. We
Speaker 2: wanted to be able to include some of this in
Speaker 2: our show. There was an interesting moment between Tucker Carlson
Speaker 2: and Glenn Greenwald on Tucker's new show on x or
Speaker 2: Twitter formerly known as Twitter, about the censorship that is
Speaker 2: currently going on against the pro Palestinian movement here in
Speaker 2: the United States. Here's what they both had to say.
Speaker 5: What's so terrifying to me, though, is that the right,
Speaker 5: the American political right, which really was to this kind
Speaker 5: of weird transformation that's happened over the past dozen years,
Speaker 5: has become the lone defenders of the First Amendment. They've
Speaker 5: abandoned that in the last month, like instantly. So I
Speaker 5: think you could say, you know, I strongly support Israel,
Speaker 5: I strongly dislike.
Speaker 2: A moss I'm rooting.
Speaker 5: Maybe I think we should commit troops to the region.
Speaker 5: I mean, whatever, you can have any.
Speaker 2: View you want.
Speaker 5: However, American citizens have a right to express their opinion,
Speaker 5: period and that supersedes any other event in any other country.
Speaker 5: It's like, that's a core right. And I don't hear
Speaker 5: many conservatives saying that, and so you sort of wonder, like,
Speaker 5: if they're not defending it, who will.
Speaker 15: I mean, there are people who have built their careers,
Speaker 15: Tucker over the last five six years standing up and
Speaker 15: saying we can't have cancel culture, we can't have censorship.
Speaker 15: College students aren't entitled to feelings of safety. We don't
Speaker 15: censor in order to protect people from views.
Speaker 2: They find threatening.
Speaker 15: Mocking the notion that minority groups are vulnerable and we
Speaker 15: have to censor in order to protect them. Turn on
Speaker 15: a dime and now become the leading voice of saying
Speaker 15: because American Jews feeling safe, that's valid in a way
Speaker 15: that say claim is from black people or LGBTs or
Speaker 15: Latinos aren't valid.
Speaker 2: And because of that we need to censor. Show me
Speaker 2: the lie.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he is right.
Speaker 2: I'm glad to hear Tucker on that. It's a tragedy
Speaker 2: that's not getting mainline to the Fox News boomers and
Speaker 2: they're getting Jesse Waters instead. I can't even imagine what
Speaker 2: the hell is going on over there. But it does
Speaker 2: show you a massive split, you know, in the conservative
Speaker 2: movement right now where for you know, And I think
Speaker 2: Glenn's point is so important. It's what I was talking
Speaker 2: about in our a block. When you adopt the language
Speaker 2: of safetyism, you immediately fail. And it's because it goes
Speaker 2: into the framework of like you deserve, like complete emotional
Speaker 2: certitude and not to be able to be challenged. As
Speaker 2: Tucker said, if you're an American citizen, you can say
Speaker 2: anything that you want and should be protected by the law.
Speaker 17: We should go out of our way, even the abhorence
Speaker 17: this is what the beauty the ACLU case is that
Speaker 17: even the speech we find the worst, the most objectionable
Speaker 17: out you know, outside the bounds of polite conversation, many
Speaker 17: standard deviations away straight up Nazis, we still protect it
Speaker 17: because the precedent itself is so important and unfortunately, actually,
Speaker 17: really what we've done is we are emboldening these campus
Speaker 17: apparatics because now they can be like, well, you wanted
Speaker 17: us to, You called us in to protect against the
Speaker 17: Hamas people.
Speaker 2: So next time there's some George Floyd bs, we're gonna
Speaker 2: do whatever we want. Whenever it comes to censoring somebody
Speaker 2: or driving them off campus or posting their photo like
Speaker 2: this is a person who didn't sign on, they didn't
Speaker 2: put up the black square. You know how far away
Speaker 2: are we from that it already happened.
Speaker 3: And you know, I mean college kids. That's one case
Speaker 3: the opportunity.
Speaker 1: But the piece that is more disturbing is where the
Speaker 1: nexus of censorship and state power come into play. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and so when you have you know, Rhonda Santa sound there,
Speaker 1: like the DOJ needs to investigate and actively going after
Speaker 1: these student groups. And also this really gross conflation of
Speaker 1: I do not deny that there are people that are
Speaker 1: out there that are saying atrocious, directly anti Semitic things.
Speaker 1: I think it's disgusting. I think it needs to stop
Speaker 1: directly advocating or celebrating Hamas and the atrocities on October seventh. Disgusting, right,
Speaker 1: But there's also this conflation of anyone that has a
Speaker 1: critique of US government policy or Israeli government policy as
Speaker 1: being an anti semi or being in collaboration or celebration
Speaker 1: of Hamas. And that's wrong and it's disgusting, and it's
Speaker 1: something that Biden administration is engaged in as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: they called calls for a ceasefire a position held by
Speaker 1: two thirds of Americans. They called that position repugnant. They
Speaker 1: likened people who are attending pro Palestinian protests, all of them,
Speaker 1: not just like the fringe extremists, to the neo Nazis
Speaker 1: that marched in Charlottesville. It's insane and this is happening
Speaker 1: all over them. I mean, Republicans have gone all in.
Speaker 1: You just have to listen to the debate last night
Speaker 1: aside from Vivaigue to hear that sort of language. Although
Speaker 1: he also goes pretty far in terms of condemning everybody
Speaker 1: who has any sort of a dison interview on this
Speaker 1: as well. He just doesn't want them to be censored
Speaker 1: or like arrested or whatever. But to go back to
Speaker 1: what is going to continue to be a consistent theme.
Speaker 1: Have we learned nothing after the War on Terror? Have
Speaker 1: we learned nothing after our failed response to nine to eleven?
Speaker 1: Have we learned nothing about how dangerous it was to
Speaker 1: give the state so much power of surveillance, so much
Speaker 1: power of censorship, and say and justify it all.
Speaker 3: In the name of national security.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's effectively what we're doing here all over again,
Speaker 1: and giving them all the tools that they could possibly need.
Speaker 1: And do you think it's just going to be used
Speaker 1: against the people you don't happen to like, No, never
Speaker 1: stays in that one lane. The tools they acquired in
Speaker 1: the War on Terror have been used against many different
Speaker 1: ideological groups. They have been consistently expanded over time, and
Speaker 1: we're just handing them even more power to weaponize those
Speaker 1: very same tools.
Speaker 2: I think you are absolutely correct. That's a great place
Speaker 2: to end it. We really appreciate all of you. We're
Speaker 2: just on the time crunch because we got Vivig Ramaswami,
Speaker 2: but we'll be posting that later, as we said earliest.
Speaker 2: For our premium subscribers, it's going to be posted a
Speaker 2: separate interview and a separate podcast, so you could check
Speaker 2: your feed in a little bit. We're excited, we're about
Speaker 2: to go do it, so we'll see you later