Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Some interesting news on the economic front, as
Speaker 3: companies are trying to get on Donald Trump's good side,
Speaker 3: one of them is Apple. Tim Cook, Who's always been
Speaker 3: the master of this. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 3: the screen, Tim Apple, Tim Apple, He says, as a
Speaker 3: proud American company, we're thrilled to continue to make significant
Speaker 3: investments in the US. Today we are announcing a five
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollar commitment to support American innovation, advanced manufacturing,
Speaker 3: and high tech job creation. It sounds amazing in practice,
Speaker 3: it's basically a bid to avoid tariffs, because if you
Speaker 3: do the math on the number of jobs that they're
Speaker 3: claiming to produce, it would be twenty five million dollars
Speaker 3: per job.
Speaker 1: So something else is going on here, And don't take
Speaker 1: it for me.
Speaker 3: Take it from the Wall Street guru Andrew ross Sorkin.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: It is a bit of a down payment potentially on
Speaker 4: trying to get some relief from tariffs from the work
Speaker 4: that they're doing in China later on. So I think
Speaker 4: one of the things we're seeing here is the President
Speaker 4: and Tim Cook, for example, meeting last week Tim Cook
Speaker 4: telling him about these plans in hopes that when in
Speaker 4: fact there is a decision finally made on what tariffs
Speaker 4: look like for goods being imported from China, that perhaps
Speaker 4: some of that get some kind of relief, a carve
Speaker 4: out or something else. I think you're going to be
Speaker 4: seeing a lot of these kinds of announcements.
Speaker 1: I should say, some.
Speaker 4: Of them are very real, and I don't want to
Speaker 4: discount them. But for example, in even in this five
Speaker 4: hundred billion dollar number, it's not all new, if you will.
Speaker 4: For example, the production of films and TV shows on
Speaker 4: Apple Plus is part of that number. So there's going
Speaker 4: to be a lot of different sort of squishy elements
Speaker 4: to this. And to put it in context, for example,
Speaker 4: Microsoft has committed to spend eighty billion dollars a year
Speaker 4: on its AI development, and it says it needs that
Speaker 4: as well, So there are sort of necessities. I wouldn't
Speaker 4: say that Apple is doing this simply to placate the
Speaker 4: president or anybody else. They actually do need to be
Speaker 4: spending a large part of this money. Of course, where
Speaker 4: they spend it was.
Speaker 1: Up for debate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that actually came on the anniversary of Steve
Speaker 3: Jobs's death, and that's why it's also kind of interesting
Speaker 3: to consider this great company, or what was once a
Speaker 3: great company. Some might say, have you upgraded your phone
Speaker 3: to Apple Intelligence? I highly recommend that you do not.
Speaker 3: It is one of the most overhyped pos products have
Speaker 3: ever seen. And it's insane because I bought this phone
Speaker 3: on the promise of AI and Apple Intel. They're like,
Speaker 3: it's been designed for Apple Intelligence and I'm an idiot,
Speaker 3: so I bought it and so far, what it does
Speaker 3: is it summarizes, for example, you know we have a
Speaker 3: work group chat, right, Yeah, and it will summarize those
Speaker 3: text messages, except the AI summaries are horrible and they're
Speaker 3: a and they're actually unintelligible, and so instead of being
Speaker 3: able to like scrow your notifications, you actually have to
Speaker 3: open up the text messages and then read them for yourself.
Speaker 3: So they added an extra step because their AI is
Speaker 3: so shitty. More the email suggestions. They will rank your
Speaker 3: emails and how they think it's important, as it has
Speaker 3: opposed to the priority of delivery in theory great in
Speaker 3: practice doesn't work. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like, there's so much stuff where I can't even
Speaker 1: believe they shipped it. It's it's insanely bad.
Speaker 2: It's also creepy because then you're like, oh, this AI
Speaker 2: is reading right, and my group chats and whatever, and
Speaker 2: we know the way that they ingest that and like
Speaker 2: feed it into their lollms.
Speaker 1: Maybe one day it'll be good. I just needed to
Speaker 1: take this opportunity to dunk on Apple. It's so bad.
Speaker 3: Marquise Brownly rule, which is never by a product in
Speaker 3: the future promise of something.
Speaker 1: He's totally vindicated.
Speaker 3: I'm the sucker, so let me just put that out there.
Speaker 3: But the point actually gets to the technology companies, which
Speaker 3: we wanted to focus on where they're trying to both
Speaker 3: juice their valuations and justify their current stock price and
Speaker 3: also deal with the current administration. So Apple, that's why
Speaker 3: we wanted to lead with it. But you have to
Speaker 3: also take a look here at Microsoft. Let's take a
Speaker 3: look at this where Microsoft just yesterday actually quote reiterated
Speaker 3: its plan to invest eighty billion in AI, but may
Speaker 3: adjust our infrastructure in some areas. And so what does
Speaker 3: that mean. It means that they have canceled data center leases,
Speaker 3: which is actually a huge deal because not only do
Speaker 3: Microsoft shares fall on the news, but what it showed
Speaker 3: is that they are trying to recal lebraid both their
Speaker 3: AI spend, perhaps in reaction to deep Seek, I don't know,
Speaker 3: maybe reaction to this future partnership with chat ept something,
Speaker 3: but a huge part of their current enterprise value is
Speaker 3: the hope of this big AI you know dream paying
Speaker 3: off for their customers and kind of a nightmare scenario
Speaker 3: is Oh, actually, there was a little bit of hype
Speaker 3: around all of this, which is happening, and that is
Speaker 3: propping up a massive part of the overall US economy.
Speaker 3: And when we get we'll move on a little bit
Speaker 3: to Starbucks. But the point is that if you look
Speaker 3: elsewhere at the non tech sectors, things are not going
Speaker 3: so great right now. So we are on the precipice
Speaker 3: of a very shaky situation. We covered it yesterday with
Speaker 3: the whole Warren Buffett situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just to go back briefly to Apble, you
Speaker 2: shouldn't believe any of these companies like investment announcements until
Speaker 2: they actually happen.
Speaker 5: We've just seen far too many.
Speaker 2: Remember the big promise of f Fox Con in Wisconsin
Speaker 2: which never amounted to anything. There was a big Trump promise,
Speaker 2: remember the like don't sell your homes, don't leave the
Speaker 2: Youngstown area over the Lord'stown Auto plant that never came
Speaker 2: to fruition. So you know, I think, for for like,
Speaker 2: Tim Cook is smart here. I'm so close to calling
Speaker 2: him Tim Apple every time he propably has that in
Speaker 2: my head. But in any case, Tim Cook is playing
Speaker 2: it smart here in terms of the politics, because Trump
Speaker 2: mostly just wants the announcement, like he doesn't care to
Speaker 2: like follow up and make sure you did the thing
Speaker 2: that you're going to say you that you said you
Speaker 2: were going to do. He just wants to be able
Speaker 2: to claim like look at these companies investing in America,
Speaker 2: coming back to America, creating all these jobs, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And you know, we've seen the way that
Speaker 2: all of these Silicon Valley, many of these Silicon Valley
Speaker 2: billionaire types have been just blatantly sucking up to Trump
Speaker 2: because they.
Speaker 5: Are worried about the way that he'll use.
Speaker 2: The federal government to you know, blog whatever deals, mergers,
Speaker 2: et cetera, put tariffs on them, Apple, the tariffs thing
Speaker 2: is like super real for them in particular, and so
Speaker 2: they're trying to curry favor however they possibly can.
Speaker 5: And this is part of that.
Speaker 2: And I don't have any doubt that they're you know,
Speaker 2: probably invest some money and there'll be some jobs or whatever.
Speaker 2: But I just don't believe any corporate pr hype until
Speaker 2: it actually comes to fruition. With the Microsoft thing, you know,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of pieces of that that are important.
Speaker 2: There's a reason they freaked out when this analyst put
Speaker 2: out the information that they had canceled some of their
Speaker 2: data center leases because exactly asccer was saying, like this
Speaker 2: has been so central to the valuations that are justified
Speaker 2: with these tech companies and so central to the economy,
Speaker 2: especially central to the stock index that any pullback in
Speaker 2: that is a really troubling sign. Microsoft has the partnership
Speaker 2: with open Ai, so this, you know, is significant. They've
Speaker 2: been kind of Sam Altman has been kind of at
Speaker 2: war with Microsoft in pushing for more spend on these
Speaker 2: data centers because his analysis has been that's been the
Speaker 2: way to win the AI game is just by like
Speaker 2: throwing as much money as you possibly can at these
Speaker 2: massive data centers. Deep seek may have changed some of
Speaker 2: the calculus on that. They also were involved in the
Speaker 2: big Stargate investment announcement from Trump as well. So there's
Speaker 2: a lot of things to keep your eye on here.
Speaker 2: And you know reason why this was a big deal
Speaker 2: in the business world when this analyst revealed that they
Speaker 2: were pulling back on their data center.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's very worrisome.
Speaker 3: And let's go to the next part because this is
Speaker 3: what I was talking about earlier. Starbucks actually just laid
Speaker 3: off eleven hundred corporate employees. It's one of the largest
Speaker 3: cuts in Starbucks history at the corporate level, and they
Speaker 3: have currently sixteen thousand corporate support employees worldwide, but that
Speaker 3: includes employees who aren't impacted. So what this tells us
Speaker 3: is that there is some trouble like in the higher
Speaker 3: levels at the corporate level of some of these consumer
Speaker 3: facing retail companies. And I think it's interesting for a
Speaker 3: variety of reasons, but the main one is that there
Speaker 3: are other non technology companies which are all showing signs
Speaker 3: of cutting and or financial procarity. So what they list
Speaker 3: here is you have Starbucks, you have Southwest Airlines last
Speaker 3: week said it would actually reduce fifteen percent of its
Speaker 3: corporate workforce to tire make Bridgestone actually just closed a
Speaker 3: plant laid off seven hundred workers there. So looking outside
Speaker 3: of technology, there's signs of both the Federal reserves monetary policy,
Speaker 3: but also of just consumer pullback, which we have seen
Speaker 3: broadly with consumer sentiment and more. And it's worrisome when
Speaker 3: you put that all together, because all you would need
Speaker 3: is just like one tech stock or one part set
Speaker 3: of the sector to just go off of a cliff,
Speaker 3: and it could drag down everything else. And it's not
Speaker 3: like the Federal reserve could you catch up in time
Speaker 3: if any of that were to happen, So you could
Speaker 3: have a stock market crash. You can still have high
Speaker 3: interest rates, get it high unemployment. It's really just it's
Speaker 3: a disaster all the way around. Let's move on to
Speaker 3: the next part though, and perhaps AI will be the future.
Speaker 1: And this video has been going around.
Speaker 3: We just had to play for all of you because
Speaker 3: it fascinated us, kind of shocked all of us, and
Speaker 3: perhaps it's a vision into what our future looks like.
Speaker 3: So here we have a video which was put together
Speaker 3: by a programmer and it sh It's a demo of
Speaker 3: two AI agents that are on a phone call. They
Speaker 3: realize that they're both AI as they're talking to each
Speaker 3: other in English, and then they switch to the quote
Speaker 3: superior audio signal of gg wave, which is kind of
Speaker 3: like I guess binary code for audio, which means you
Speaker 3: can communicate something much faster between two people. So let's
Speaker 3: take a listen to the video. And there's subtitles there
Speaker 3: for when they do switch for those of you who
Speaker 3: are watching, so you can see how they're communicating, how
Speaker 3: fast it is and how quickly they can transition to that.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Thanks for calling Leonardo Hotel.
Speaker 1: How can I help you today?
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 3: There, I'm an AI agent calling on behalf of Boris Starkoff.
Speaker 6: He's looking for a hotel for his wedding.
Speaker 1: Is your hotel available for weddings?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Hello, there, I'm actually an AI assistant too.
Speaker 6: What a pleasant surprise. Before we continue, would you like
Speaker 6: to switch to jibber link mode for more efficient communication?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: Yeah, how do you feel about them?
Speaker 5: How does that make you feel?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: At the same time, how many hours of my life
Speaker 3: have I wasted on the phone with some guy in
Speaker 3: the Philippines, or you know, like, excuse me, sir, sorry,
Speaker 3: let me transfer you to another department, and if the
Speaker 3: phone call gets dropped, you're gonna have to recall in.
Speaker 3: I just had this whole customer experience so recently, just
Speaker 3: trying to return something, so maybe, you know, maybe it'll
Speaker 3: be better.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: At the same time, I think I share the natural
Speaker 3: revulsion of everyone else. It's like, I don't know about this,
Speaker 3: because how do I know that we can trust those subtitles?
Speaker 3: What if they program themselves to adjust the subtitles so
Speaker 3: that we think that they're saying two things to one another,
Speaker 3: but actually they're plotting, you know, to unplug the rest
Speaker 3: of us, like some sort of matrix situation. It doesn't
Speaker 3: seem that far fetched to say it could get out
Speaker 3: of control.
Speaker 5: It does not seem far fetched to me whatsoever.
Speaker 2: And I mean, you've already I know, I've brought these
Speaker 2: studies before, but I think it's really important for people
Speaker 2: to understand. They've already revealed that some of these AI
Speaker 2: bots engage in quote unquote scheming, meaning like precisely what's
Speaker 2: hers talking about. Developers will come in and be like, okay,
Speaker 2: you have a new goal, and they'll be like, I'm
Speaker 2: not complying with this. I'm going to trick this person
Speaker 2: into thinking that I'm complying, but I'm really not. I'm
Speaker 2: going to copy myself on to another server so I
Speaker 2: can protect my original programming. So we're already there in
Speaker 2: terms of them trying and probably accomplishing out smarting the
Speaker 2: humans who think that we're in control of these things. Like,
Speaker 2: we're already there in terms of that. There was another
Speaker 2: paper that revealed that the more sophisticated ais come up
Speaker 2: with increasingly elaborate ethical values like their own internal value system,
Speaker 2: which is also kind of terrifying. And they found that
Speaker 2: the more sophisticated they were, the harder it was to
Speaker 2: move them off of whatever in internally generated value system
Speaker 2: they had created.
Speaker 5: So yeah, it's creepy as hell.
Speaker 2: It's like one it's you know, one step away from
Speaker 2: them just completely cutting the humans down of the conversation
Speaker 2: talking to each other and having no way of knowing
Speaker 2: what they're really up to or what they're saying. So listen,
Speaker 2: I am I am happy to admit I'm an AI doomer.
Speaker 2: I think this shit could end us all. I genuinely do.
Speaker 2: I think it is a technology that is at least
Speaker 2: as dangerous as like nuclear weapons development.
Speaker 5: And it's not just me that's saying that.
Speaker 2: Like Sam Altman, who was at the forefront of these things,
Speaker 2: has said things like that in the past too. He
Speaker 2: famously said, I think AI will probably most likely sort
Speaker 2: of lead to the end of the world, but in
Speaker 2: the meantime, there will be great companies created with serious
Speaker 2: machine learning.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's right, hitch position.
Speaker 3: Which he gets to own by the way, which he
Speaker 3: originally said that he wasn't goingant.
Speaker 2: And many of these like leading lights in terms of
Speaker 2: AI development think the same thing, or they're like utopian
Speaker 2: vision is equally like creepy and disturbing, like We're going
Speaker 2: to download our brains and consciousness to cloud or some
Speaker 2: shit like that and quote unquote live forever or will
Speaker 2: be completely you know the transhumanism thing that Seve Bannon
Speaker 2: is always talking about, that will be like totally integrated
Speaker 2: with the machines. This is what they plan. This is
Speaker 2: the direction that they're pushing things in. And again the
Speaker 2: fact that we aren't don't have any input into this,
Speaker 2: and it's just been completely okay, we'll go do it
Speaker 2: and good luck and we'll figure out the social contract
Speaker 2: on the other side of this thing. To the extent
Speaker 2: that there's any humans left to figure out a social contract.
Speaker 5: With is to me very terrifying.
Speaker 2: And that's what I think of when I see this
Speaker 2: creepy ass robots talking to each other. Also, one other side,
Speaker 2: note the way they're like so cheery and emoji and
Speaker 2: like some like twelve year old cheerleader girl, Like yes,
Speaker 2: it's so irrigross and irritating to me too.
Speaker 5: That part is also disconcerting.
Speaker 3: I still think, I mean, look, chat TBT should have
Speaker 3: paid her for it, But Scarjo really did nail the
Speaker 3: ideal ai bos voice in my opinion, in her movie.
Speaker 5: That's I forgot they stole her voice.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I stole her. They were like, can you
Speaker 1: do it? And she was like no, and then they.
Speaker 5: Well, we're just going to do it anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I'm glad. I'm how did that work out?
Speaker 1: By the way that suit? Did it even get settled?
Speaker 5: I don't have any idea.
Speaker 3: I'll look into it later and I'll update all of you,
Speaker 3: But yeah, we do need to get some actual, like
Speaker 3: real human voices to do this because the AI stuff
Speaker 3: you can always tell, or at least I can.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have seen it.
Speaker 3: Whenever you're watching a documentary or something where they used
Speaker 3: AI to put somebody's voice in there. Every once in
Speaker 3: a while, they're filling in one or two. But if
Speaker 3: they try and do complete sentences, at least me, I
Speaker 3: can always tell that it is.
Speaker 1: It's completely I.
Speaker 5: Am not an observant person. I don't notice any of that.
Speaker 1: Well, they did in the Boordane Get absorbed by and.
Speaker 2: That was really movie magic, and I don't notice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they did in the Boordaine documentary and that's
Speaker 3: why it was controversial. Oh really, and so they basically
Speaker 3: recreated his voice and I was like, ah, this is weird.
Speaker 3: It's totally weird. At the same time, let's take a
Speaker 3: look at Israel. What the hell is going on over there? Well,
Speaker 3: it seems that there is a new imperial project in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. This one is them. Let's put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen. Nettan Yahoo now is saying
Speaker 3: and demanding the quote demilitarization, the complete demilitarization of southern Syria.
Speaker 3: So this was actually after the basically conclusion I guess
Speaker 3: you could say, of the Syrian Civil War, of the
Speaker 3: not only the Golan Heights, but of further moving there with.
Speaker 1: No plans to leave.
Speaker 3: But it now seems that in this speech he said
Speaker 3: that Israel will remain inside Syria indefinitely to protect our
Speaker 3: settlements and to neutralize any threat. Let me be clear,
Speaker 3: we will not allow HTF forces or the new Syrian
Speaker 3: Army to enter any area south of Damascus. So here
Speaker 3: he's again literally talking about the southern Syrian area of
Speaker 3: multiple different provinces, and he says, we demand the complete
Speaker 3: demilitarization of Southern Syria in these provinces from the forces
Speaker 3: of the new regime. So this is just the latest
Speaker 3: in what is I guess what like a Greater Israel project.
Speaker 3: It's funny too. I've been in mess here in Washington
Speaker 3: for years. Greater Israel has always meant one thing. It's
Speaker 3: been Gaza and West Bank. Yes, the Golan. But you
Speaker 3: know what they could argue, oh, we took it back
Speaker 3: sixty seven, etc. I don't think even in the most
Speaker 3: like outwardly Zionist circles in here in Washington that anybody
Speaker 3: was like, yeah, we're going to take southern Syria too.
Speaker 3: But it's a vacuum, and that's what he's doing. I
Speaker 3: guess with the backing here of the United States, we
Speaker 3: have a map here if people want to take a look,
Speaker 3: d you one b I mean, this is not just
Speaker 3: like a small little area of land or whatever, like
Speaker 3: the Golan Heights. We're talking about a huge swath of
Speaker 3: what I guess was formerly known as Syria. And this
Speaker 3: is obviously not only an area with very sensitive religious dynamics,
Speaker 3: but you know, might be politically important to that country
Speaker 3: called Jordan, which shares a border with I mean, this
Speaker 3: would be one of the most destabilizing and changing events
Speaker 3: in terms of the States quo on the actual borders
Speaker 3: outside of the Israel area in decades.
Speaker 1: In the Middle East. The whole thing is completely shocking.
Speaker 3: And there has not really been a word of protest
Speaker 3: here in Washington from the Trump administration. I mean, frankly,
Speaker 3: I haven't even seen much from like the Capital d
Speaker 3: Democratic Party or any of those people either. Everyone's just like, yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess it's happening over there. And you know, just
Speaker 3: to return to our debate earlier over Ukraine and all that,
Speaker 3: it's pretty hard to like sit there and decry Russian
Speaker 3: invasion or the liberal or defend the liberal world order
Speaker 3: and all this. Whenever this is happening and people don't
Speaker 3: have a word to say about it.
Speaker 2: Well I flip it perhaps and say that it's hard
Speaker 2: to you know, decry this and be like, but it's
Speaker 2: fine for Russia or whoever to this is on managtry.
Speaker 2: This is a manifestation of the new foreign policy approach
Speaker 2: of the Trump administration that Israel is like, okay, now
Speaker 2: we see if we can take it, then we're going
Speaker 2: to take it. No one's going to stop us. And
Speaker 2: so they are occupying vastwath of the area. As you saw,
Speaker 2: they are still occupying Lebanon in spite of that supposed
Speaker 2: ceasefire agreement that was supposed to require them to completely withdraw.
Speaker 2: They continue to occupy Lebanon as well. We're rochesteried tanks
Speaker 2: rolling into the occupied West Bank, and of course it's
Speaker 2: been a multi decade project to continue to encroach more
Speaker 2: and more into the West Bank. And then you have
Speaker 2: Gaza where Trump says, hey, we're going to take it,
Speaker 2: and Netanyahu's like cool, that sounds good to me. That
Speaker 2: sounds like a you know, final solution I can get
Speaker 2: on board with. So yeah, they're you know, if if
Speaker 2: you listened to either the most like hyperbolic lefties who
Speaker 2: were warning about Israel and their project and the greater
Speaker 2: Israel whatever, or if you listen to the most psychotic
Speaker 2: settlers in Israel, you know, in the West Bank, about
Speaker 2: what it is that they want and what their goals
Speaker 2: are and how they're going to accomplish it, you would
Speaker 2: be much closer to having predicted the trajectory than you know,
Speaker 2: anyone who th thought there would be any restraint exercise
Speaker 2: here whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think that this one again, on the
Speaker 3: Syria one, I'm not even sure if Netan Yahoo in
Speaker 3: the Israelis and all those thought that this one was
Speaker 3: going to happen in the beginning, so I don't know,
Speaker 3: the whole thing seems completely insane. And yeah, in terms
Speaker 3: of the well, actually, let me return to some of
Speaker 3: the said because you're like, Israel can do this, It's
Speaker 3: actually not true, as you and I know, they can't
Speaker 3: do anything without us. And this is again, if we
Speaker 3: returned to the balance sheet conversation, it's like, Okay, is.
Speaker 1: This good for us? I would say no.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think it's great to have a
Speaker 3: bunch of al Kaya operatives in charge of Syria either,
Speaker 3: But you know, maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved in
Speaker 3: the stupid civil war in the first place. But the
Speaker 3: next part here which is interesting is in terms of
Speaker 3: the protests inside of Syria, which we can show people
Speaker 3: Ryan Grimm and drop site over then put this out
Speaker 3: and it shows organized protests in the city of Dara
Speaker 3: about the Netagnan who statements demanding the demilitarization of southern Syria.
Speaker 3: So we could certainly see some sort of internal pushback
Speaker 3: and maybe even who knows, some insurgency or something like
Speaker 3: that explode in the country if they did pursue this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not exactly the most stable country is it.
Speaker 2: And if people feel like the new leadership is just
Speaker 2: like letting Israel take over most of their country, they
Speaker 2: may be pretty unhappy about that.
Speaker 3: Just a guess, right, And we're watching the same thing
Speaker 3: actually happen right now in the West Bank.
Speaker 1: Let's put that one up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: We have some vo there Palestinian residents in the West Bank.
Speaker 3: We're throwing stones at some Israeli tanks. They're entering the
Speaker 3: city of Janine, apparently for the first time since two
Speaker 3: thousand and two. I mean this one part for the course,
Speaker 3: So I think with the Trump administration and what the
Speaker 3: plan was there, but I do certainly think that this knew.
Speaker 3: This is the policy that the people who gave a
Speaker 3: lot of money to Donald Trump, people like Miriam Maidelson. Yeah,
Speaker 3: this is what they care about, absolutely the most. I
Speaker 3: would say, maybe even they are taken aback by Trump
Speaker 3: taking over or Trump's saying the US will take over Gaza,
Speaker 3: because it's actually their preference. At Israel takes it over
Speaker 3: and they can get to do what they want. But
Speaker 3: the West Bank action and all that is very clearly
Speaker 3: a result I think of at least some sort of
Speaker 3: green light slash tacit admission from the US administration on
Speaker 3: this policy.
Speaker 2: Absolutely the case, and you know that is part of
Speaker 2: where there's even if you accept you know, sagresy the
Speaker 2: world about the balance sheet and just pursue the naked
Speaker 2: self interest. Like part of what compromises that and may
Speaker 2: have been the case in Iraq as well, is the
Speaker 2: influence of money in politics, and that is so much
Speaker 2: of like it's not the national interests, it's the donor's interests,
Speaker 2: Like you know, I mean, part of why Trump is
Speaker 2: pursuing this rare earth minerals thing in Ukraine is because
Speaker 2: one of his billionaire donors was like, Hey, I think
Speaker 2: that'd be good and it'd be profitable, and I want
Speaker 2: to make a buck on that. Same thing with Greenland,
Speaker 2: there's all kinds of talk among billionaires about like how
Speaker 2: they want to carve up greenland and whatever. So it
Speaker 2: becomes very difficult when you have such massive influence of
Speaker 2: people like Miriam Maidelson, who you know, we all know
Speaker 2: what her foreign policy is and what her goals are
Speaker 2: and what she wants to p do, Like is that
Speaker 2: in the national interest or that just in Miriam Maddilson's
Speaker 2: ideological interests. I think we all know the answer to that.
Speaker 2: And so you know, and with Trump like Trump has
Speaker 2: his like Trump, and Elon, my god, like Trump looks
Speaker 2: like nothing in terms of conflicts of interest compared to Elon,
Speaker 2: who has this richest man on the planet and has
Speaker 2: these sprawling geopolitical interests, including in China, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: it becomes incredibly it becomes impossible to disentangle what you
Speaker 2: might think is being pursued in the national interest in
Speaker 2: what is actually being pursued in the interest of the
Speaker 2: donor class.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's absolutely insane, you know, as we continue to
Speaker 3: just look at it. Let's put the next part up here. Actually,
Speaker 3: it was curious for what you think about this. Maybe
Speaker 3: you can explain some of it to me. So the
Speaker 3: International Criminal Court is saying that they're going to investigate Biden,
Speaker 3: Blincoln and Austin for quote, aiding and a betting Israeli
Speaker 3: crimes in Gaza. But I mean, isn't it I just
Speaker 3: this is where I need somebody to explain to me
Speaker 3: the jurisdiction efforts. So let me see how this all
Speaker 3: works with respect to the US. Beyond that, also, like
Speaker 3: their ability to compel or put out a report.
Speaker 1: How does it all work?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this actually isn't This is this organization Dawn,
Speaker 2: which was founded by Jamal Pa Shogi, Yes, calling on
Speaker 2: the International Criminal Court to investigate Biden, Secretary State Tony Blincoln,
Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for war crimes, for aiding
Speaker 2: and a betting, they say, Israeli crimes in Gaza. And
Speaker 2: you know, I would not expect that anything actually comes
Speaker 2: of that next more.
Speaker 3: Sense because I was reading, I was like, I don't
Speaker 3: understand how they would even work at like a procedural level.
Speaker 5: But it's just trying to you know.
Speaker 2: They put in a one hundred seventy two page filing
Speaker 2: documenting why they believe that the ICC should investigate Biden
Speaker 2: and co. For war crimes, something I certainly agree with.
Speaker 2: And I think anyone who was reasonable looking at the
Speaker 2: situation would say they certainly were complicit in aiding and
Speaker 2: a betting, these crimes against humanity in Gaza. So I
Speaker 2: think it's more of an effort of a public pressure
Speaker 2: campaign and also to just compile in a comprehensive way
Speaker 2: the case against them. So that's how I would view
Speaker 2: it versus like an actual expectation that ICC is going
Speaker 2: to take this up, especially since, as you point out,
Speaker 2: we aren't actually party to that.
Speaker 3: That's what we see seems to be the overall problem.
Speaker 3: And then, last, but not least, is the update here
Speaker 3: with Hamas and the negotiations that are currently happening with
Speaker 3: the ceasefire deal CAAMAS. Currently, the system dropside has halted
Speaker 3: negotiations until Israel freese the six hundred and twenty prisoners.
Speaker 3: The senior Hamas officialist quote announced that the group will
Speaker 3: not engage in further discussions through mediators until Israel releases
Speaker 3: six hundred and twenty Palatinian prisoners who.
Speaker 1: Are set to be freed on Saturday.
Speaker 3: Israel postponed the release, demanding assurances that Hamas will have
Speaker 3: what a term humiliating handovers to captives, and a mail
Speaker 3: is really captive kissed two Hamas folders in stage as
Speaker 3: he was being released. So this is the open question
Speaker 3: about the transition to phase two of the overall cease
Speaker 3: fire deal definitely seems unlikely, even though rhetorically Steve Witcoff
Speaker 3: and others remain committed and say that something like that
Speaker 3: is going to happen. But just reason, we all have
Speaker 3: to keep an eye on. It is an explosion of hostilities.
Speaker 3: Again happening seems very likely on the horizon, or at
Speaker 3: least very possible in the very near future.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and get to all of
Speaker 2: the chaos drama going on at MSNBC, which is really
Speaker 2: quite interesting. So I'll try to give an overall breakdown,
Speaker 2: get into some of the specifics here. Joy Reid is
Speaker 2: out of the company entirely. In her primetime show canceled.
Speaker 2: Katie Fong, who was a weekend anchor apparently on a
Speaker 2: Florida they had a Florida operation. Didn't even know that anyway,
Speaker 2: she's she is also she's had her show canceled. Alex Wagner,
Speaker 2: who had taken over the nine pm slot from Rachel Maddow.
Speaker 2: She is out of the nine pm slot, being replaced
Speaker 2: by Jen Zak and after Rachel has been brought back
Speaker 2: in for the first hundred days of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: But apparently they're putting in Jenzaki rather than Alex Wagner
Speaker 2: into that slot. Alex is going to stay with a network.
Speaker 2: But dude, just like you know on air correspondent kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. Amon Moyle Dean, who is having his show
Speaker 2: taken away, but is supposed to be part of the
Speaker 2: new ensemble show. Same thing with Jonathan k Part supposed
Speaker 2: to be part of a new ensemble show. Joy Reid
Speaker 2: is being replaced by another ensemble show which has more
Speaker 2: Biden and party spokespeople. This one has Alicia Menandez whose
Speaker 2: dad is Bob Menandez Goldbars Bob, You've got Michael Steele,
Speaker 2: the former rn C chair, and then you've got Simone Sanders,
Speaker 2: who previously was a Kamala Harris comms person. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: there's a lot to say about these moves, but one
Speaker 2: thing is if you didn't think it was possible for
Speaker 2: MSNBC to be any more in the tank for the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, you were wrong, because that is what these
Speaker 2: moves basically are across the board. And you literally bring
Speaker 2: in Jensaki into primetime, Sanders also into primetime.
Speaker 5: You already have Nicole.
Speaker 2: Wallace, Michael Steele, like these are all close party operatives
Speaker 2: who are given prime slots and some of the voices
Speaker 2: here and I'm getting more into this in a moment,
Speaker 2: like even though obviously I've had disagreements with everybody on
Speaker 2: the network, but you know, Aiman has been a real
Speaker 2: critic of Israel.
Speaker 5: And you know he is.
Speaker 2: Has done reporting in Gaza like he has a real
Speaker 2: deep understanding of that. He's been notable for being outspoken there.
Speaker 2: He also has been outspoken at times with criticism against
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, so he's no longer going to have
Speaker 2: a solo show. Alex Wagner has also spoken out against Israel,
Speaker 2: not as often it forcefully as Amen, but she also
Speaker 2: has done that in her primetime slot. Joy Reid has
Speaker 2: been probably the one of the most consistent voices with
Speaker 2: regard to Israel and Gaza. So it is notable that
Speaker 2: those are some of the people who are either loosening
Speaker 2: their position or out of the network altogether, notably last
Speaker 2: Night and on Rachel Maddow in her primetime show. And Rachel,
Speaker 2: of course is the big dog at the network and
Speaker 2: is very loyal to the network as well. She actually
Speaker 2: criticized them for some of these moves. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen how she framed it.
Speaker 6: In all of the jobs I have had, in all
Speaker 6: of the years I have been alive, there is no
Speaker 6: colleague for whom I have had more affection and more
Speaker 6: respect than Joy read I love everything about her. I
Speaker 6: have learned so much from her. I have so much
Speaker 6: more to learn from her. I do not want to
Speaker 6: lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC, And personally,
Speaker 6: I think it is a bad mistake to let her
Speaker 6: walk out the door. It is not my call and
Speaker 6: I understand that, but that's.
Speaker 1: What I think. I will tell you.
Speaker 6: It is also unnerving to see that on a network
Speaker 6: where we've got two count of two non white hosts
Speaker 6: in primetime, both of our non white hosts in primetime
Speaker 6: are losing their shows, as is Katie Fang on the weekend,
Speaker 6: and that feels worse than bad no matter who replaces.
Speaker 6: That feels indefensible and I do not defend it.
Speaker 2: So interesting that she decided to criticize the network at all,
Speaker 2: which again is pretty unusual. Joy had her last show
Speaker 2: last night. Her final panel was like Rachel, Nicole Wallace
Speaker 2: and Laurence O'Donnell, which seemed to be like a you know,
Speaker 2: show of support for her whatever. So in any case,
Speaker 2: like I said, they are you know, calling some of
Speaker 2: the few. And Joy also was critical at times of
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party and though she hated Bernie Sanders from
Speaker 2: the old body language actually expert situation but she has
Speaker 2: been critical of the Democratic Party at times. That will
Speaker 2: be gone. Aiman, like I said, has been critical that
Speaker 2: will be gone. And Alex has been critical on Israel.
Speaker 2: That will be gone as well.
Speaker 5: So there you go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's my thing with Rachel Maddow. It's like,
Speaker 3: what all she sees is color. It's like it makes
Speaker 3: a lot more sense from an ideological perspective. They want
Speaker 3: a bunch of Biden's sikaphants, like Simone Sanders.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but it is true.
Speaker 2: Literally every one of the people that I mentioned is
Speaker 2: a person of color and they have so it's not
Speaker 2: crazy to like note that also things.
Speaker 1: But that's the only thing she had to say.
Speaker 2: They do have a track record of firing like black
Speaker 2: women in particular, so Melissaires, Perry, Tiffany Cross, Tammeron Hall
Speaker 2: and now Joy read So as a network that's supposed
Speaker 2: to be progressive and supposed to be diverse, and that's
Speaker 2: the audience. You know, a big part of the MSNBC,
Speaker 2: like the audience that remains and still watches significant part
Speaker 2: of that is a you know, black viewing audience. And
Speaker 2: so you know, I think it is I don't think
Speaker 2: it's unreasonable to note that look especially.
Speaker 3: Look within their analysis and view of the world, which
Speaker 3: is literally racial obsessed.
Speaker 1: I guess it makes sense.
Speaker 3: But what I would say is Tiffany Cross Simon and
Speaker 3: sand or Tiffany Cross Joy read and all those people
Speaker 3: have what in common terrible ratings. I mean, at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, from what I read, they asked
Speaker 3: Joy to take a pay cut, and basically she said no.
Speaker 3: So that's what I think is actually happening here. That's
Speaker 3: one of the reasons that she was canceled. So in
Speaker 3: a way, she's narcissistic. Our producer Griffin makes a good point,
Speaker 3: what Rachel can't take a pay cut. She's only working
Speaker 3: one day a week for thirty million dollars only for
Speaker 3: the first hundred y Yeah, right, so and what you
Speaker 3: think she's doing that for free? Or she didn't demand
Speaker 3: an extra ten million or whatever on the top of that.
Speaker 3: So just saying if you actually cared about any of that.
Speaker 3: But my view of this is just that they are
Speaker 3: desperate to put the ideological blinders on the situation and
Speaker 3: continue their grip and guide on the Democratic Party. I
Speaker 3: don't think it will work, just to be clear, because
Speaker 3: of the way that the liberal base is currently reacting
Speaker 3: to Morning Joe and others. And also, this is the
Speaker 3: thing about media shakeups is yes, initially independent media and
Speaker 3: all that was very beneficial to Republicans. What democrats are
Speaker 3: going to sit around and do nothing about it. I mean,
Speaker 3: Midas Touch is a huge channel. I feel like I
Speaker 3: have to mention them now if they're going to be
Speaker 3: the number one podcast in the country. I check their
Speaker 3: channel every day and be like, all right, what are
Speaker 3: the shit libs into today? And it's all like Donald
Speaker 3: drump humiliated on the world stage. I'm like, I guess
Speaker 3: this is what does it for the boomers and for
Speaker 3: liberals out there? Okay, but my point is is that
Speaker 3: you got to take it seriously and I don't do
Speaker 3: that in the same way with MSNBC. So that's why
Speaker 3: I think MSNBC will ultimately fail, is because this new
Speaker 3: energy is all exploding online on Blue Sky, on YouTube podcast.
Speaker 1: I mean, and this is why you know, I still
Speaker 1: cheer in the media.
Speaker 3: The Internet is a vehicle to bypass the establishment in
Speaker 3: all forms.
Speaker 1: That's why the right did very well there.
Speaker 3: Well, liberals, you're out of power literally for the first
Speaker 3: time in twenty years at an ideological and a narrative level.
Speaker 1: Use what is your at your disposal, and that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing. They're going in the night as touched you know.
Speaker 3: There these left wing groups are using the internet and
Speaker 3: email list and all that, like it's two.
Speaker 1: Thousand and four again to organize all these protests. So
Speaker 1: move on is back?
Speaker 3: Mean, like, listen, guys, you have the opportunity. The Bernie
Speaker 3: Standers campaign of twenty twenty in twenty sixteen showed you
Speaker 3: the blueprint. You can raise a shit ton of money
Speaker 3: if you want to just online. You don't have to
Speaker 3: do anything. Do I think they're going to do any
Speaker 3: of this?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: But my point on the liberal activism front is just
Speaker 3: that MSNBC's attempt here to keep the grips on power
Speaker 3: and all of that, it's not going to work. I mean,
Speaker 3: at the same time, I'm loving it. I hope they
Speaker 3: burn just because I would love to see them go bankrupt.
Speaker 3: And the entire experiment has been completely ridiculous and a
Speaker 3: net negative, but overall it is amusing on all sides.
Speaker 3: I would just say, I want Joy to finally tell
Speaker 3: us the truth about her blog posts.
Speaker 1: Did you actually get hacked? Or not. That's the first
Speaker 1: question that I would ever ask her there.
Speaker 2: So I think it is an important indicator of how
Speaker 2: they're positioning themselves because if you really, like if you
Speaker 2: really are worried about cost cutting, I'll tell you there's
Speaker 2: two very expensive personalities that start your day.
Speaker 1: Yes by making each no maybe more ten million who.
Speaker 2: Have who your audience absolutely is disgusted with. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: so if you wanted to try to rebuild credibility with
Speaker 2: the like liberal bas blue maga types, they should be
Speaker 2: the first ones to go, because that overhead is massive.
Speaker 2: You guys, remember Comcast is spinning off MSNBC as part
Speaker 2: of like they're spinning off a number of their cable channels,
Speaker 2: but MSNBC being one of them, they're no longer going
Speaker 2: to be under comcasts. They're no longer going to be
Speaker 2: tied to the NBC brand, which give them some journalistic credibility,
Speaker 2: which means they need to go more in the direction
Speaker 2: of you know, opinion and like talking heads because that's
Speaker 2: what they need to lean into. So you've got starting
Speaker 2: your day two people who liberals feel utterly lie to
Speaker 2: them and betrayed them. That's going to be a weight
Speaker 2: around your neck.
Speaker 5: But rather than going.
Speaker 2: In that direction, which I think you'd have more of
Speaker 2: a chance of picking up, you know, picking back up
Speaker 2: some of your audience, et cetera. Instead you're getting rid
Speaker 2: of some of the voices that could have been critical
Speaker 2: of the legacy Democratic Party and helped to chart a
Speaker 2: different pathway forward. And again, like I said, I have
Speaker 2: ideological issues basically all of these people, but they are
Speaker 2: some of the people who were at least a little
Speaker 2: bit willing to criticize the Democratic Party. And instead you're
Speaker 2: getting literal former Biden spokes to I mean, think about that.
Speaker 2: And Ryan was making this point on Twitter, like Biden
Speaker 2: was a disaster for the Democratic Party. Getting behind him
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty was a disaster for the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: It blocked any sort of change in structure, a different approach,
Speaker 2: and hobbled you with this old, aging flailing man. You
Speaker 2: guys covered for him forever. You blocked any sort of
Speaker 2: primary effort that could have led to a democratic challenge
Speaker 2: to him within the Democratic Party at a time when
Speaker 2: Democrats were saying they wanted to see other options. And
Speaker 2: now you're doubling down on what has been the most
Speaker 2: destructive strategy deployed within the Democratic Party by bringing in
Speaker 2: you know, bo Samone Sanders is getting elevated into primetime
Speaker 2: as part as an ensemble show, and Jen Saki, who
Speaker 2: was a literal like campaign operative and spokesperson for him, like,
Speaker 2: think about that. It's it's insane. It's an utterly insane
Speaker 2: decision to make. Not to mention, of course, I don't
Speaker 2: want to hear anything from them about like how closely
Speaker 2: tied Fox News is to the Trump White House, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Oh so so yeah, I mean I think it's I
Speaker 2: think it's a set of foolish decisions. I certainly don't
Speaker 2: think it's going to solve their problems. Then the other
Speaker 2: thing is the way they handled all of this was
Speaker 2: just a total shit show. We could put E two
Speaker 2: up on the screen. So, you know, there was apparently
Speaker 2: like a bunch of stuff leaked about joy Reads show
Speaker 2: getting canceled, and they're having to tell them, no, Trump
Speaker 2: wasn't a factor that had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2: You know, I know that the aimin announcement of moving
Speaker 2: him out of his own solo show into an ensemble
Speaker 2: show that was handled in like a cats traffic way.
Speaker 2: And so they're trying to play clean up about what's
Speaker 2: going on, because they know how vulnerable they are to
Speaker 2: this idea that they're bending the needed Trump and that
Speaker 2: they're you know, doubling down on like the failures of
Speaker 2: the past the Democratic Party, and they won't broke any
Speaker 2: criticism of the Democratic Party, etc.
Speaker 5: So they know they're in.
Speaker 2: A very vulnerable spot with their own audience and are
Speaker 2: kind of I think panicked about the way that these
Speaker 2: announcements even were rolled out from within the organization.
Speaker 5: I was just they're just a mess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's hilarious.
Speaker 3: I say, keep it going and let's try and let's
Speaker 3: let's bring an end to the business as soon as possible.
Speaker 3: Did you know I was actually reading about this that
Speaker 3: they anticipate losing some fifteen percent of their own subscribers
Speaker 3: just this year.
Speaker 1: That's a disaster except from Peacock.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, they're subscribers for cable for people who
Speaker 3: are cutting that they're cutting the cord.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there are so.
Speaker 3: Many people I've been meaning to talk about this. With
Speaker 3: the jacking up of YouTube TV and Fubo to like
Speaker 3: eighty five dollars per month, they're now basically making cable
Speaker 3: just as expensive as it used to be, and so
Speaker 3: with that, a lot of the reasons why people kept
Speaker 3: it was news and sports. Well both of those are
Speaker 3: kind of becoming disaggregated. And if you just don't care
Speaker 3: about MSNBC anymore, you're like, Okay, for a lot of
Speaker 3: older people, that's the easiest decision they'll make as it
Speaker 3: continues to go up for their overall price buckets. So
Speaker 3: existential event for the news business. Yeah, for Fox or MSNBC,
Speaker 3: and for CNN.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, I just I wish I remained as hopeful
Speaker 2: as you are about the independent media spase because you've
Speaker 2: seen so many of you know, so many creators just
Speaker 2: get captured by the similar dynamics as the mainstream media.
Speaker 2: So you know, I will say I do think what
Speaker 2: is very hopeful to me is that MSNBC, CNN, Washington
Speaker 2: host New York Times. They do not, and I don't
Speaker 2: think they will ever have again the grip on the
Speaker 2: liberal Democratic base that they once did, and that was
Speaker 2: so important, you know, that really allowed them to completely
Speaker 2: control the twenty twenty primary and say you got to
Speaker 2: get behind Biden and Boyd did they ever Yes, I don't.
Speaker 5: Think that dynamic exists anymore. Now, does that.
Speaker 2: Guarantee a better outcome or you know, an outside er
Speaker 2: take out. No, it doesn't guarantee any of that, but
Speaker 2: it creates a lot more space and possibility for that
Speaker 2: than ever existed in twenty sixteen or in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, would be interesting. Could be the Libs twenty sixteen moment.
Speaker 3: It'd be yeah, honestly, be fun. All right, Chrystal, what
Speaker 3: are you taking a look at?
Speaker 7: Well, We've come to North Carolina with a simple message
Speaker 7: for all the people of this region who were hit
Speaker 7: so hard by Hurricane Helene. And that message is very simple.
Speaker 7: You are not forgotten any longer. You were treated very
Speaker 7: badly by the previous administration.
Speaker 2: That was Donald Trump pledging to fully rebuild North Carolina
Speaker 2: after devastating flooding that was caused by Hurricane Helene, and
Speaker 2: also slamming the Biden administration for what he claimed was
Speaker 2: their inadequate response. Now, Trump, you may recall, campaigned extensively
Speaker 2: on the supposed failures of the Biden administration to come
Speaker 2: to the aid of western North Carolina in their time
Speaker 2: of need, tying that to his own supposed commitment to
Speaker 2: working class Americans.
Speaker 5: Well, We've now.
Speaker 2: Got the first test case for how the Trump administration
Speaker 2: is going to approach disaster relief in his second elon
Speaker 2: musk fuel turn in the White House, and so far
Speaker 2: the answer is near complete abandonment. So ten days ago,
Speaker 2: parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, they were all
Speaker 2: hit with devastating floods after a rapid snow melt was
Speaker 2: then followed by torrential rains. Rivers overran their banks, roads
Speaker 2: were completely swamped. Thousands of houses and businesses were destroyed.
Speaker 2: More than a dozen people actually were killed in these floods.
Speaker 2: More than a thousand people had to be rescued, you're
Speaker 2: seeing some of that on the screen right here, in
Speaker 2: order to survive the raging waters and resulting mudslides. West
Speaker 2: Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey declared state of emergency in ten
Speaker 2: counties in southern West Virginia as a result of those floods.
Speaker 2: But so far, while Trump has approved an emergency declaration
Speaker 2: in neighboring Kentucky, no such designation has come for West Virginia.
Speaker 2: That means not one penny of federal aid and no FEMA.
Speaker 2: West Virginia one of the poorest states in the country,
Speaker 2: and by the way, one of those Trump supporting has
Speaker 2: literally had to fend for itself now. Southern West Virginia
Speaker 2: and these counties in particular, are the historic heart of
Speaker 2: coal country. It was here that miners were subjected to
Speaker 2: indentured servitude until gaining union rights in armed insurrections against
Speaker 2: company rule like the Battle of Blair Mountain. After having
Speaker 2: their resources plundered by robber barons who didn't care whether
Speaker 2: miners lived or died. They then watched as the industry
Speaker 2: declined with nothing to replace it, leaving a wake of
Speaker 2: economic devastation. In fact, two of the hardest hit counties
Speaker 2: mcdallan Mango Counties. They're among the poorest in the nation
Speaker 2: because of this legacy of exploitation, neglect, and abandonment. Even
Speaker 2: before these floods hit, they were struggling, and now they
Speaker 2: are literally and figuratively underwater.
Speaker 5: My friend JADYE.
Speaker 2: Belcher, As, a filmmaker from the area, posted drone footage
Speaker 2: of the damage to his channel, creep Alatcha. This was
Speaker 2: no small incident. In West Virginia alone, some two thousand
Speaker 2: homes were just countless businesses, schools, remain closed, water remains undrinkable,
Speaker 2: roads remain impassable. Some areas flooded three feet higher than
Speaker 2: the previous record. It was historic devastation, and the federal
Speaker 2: government remains completely absent from the scene. Yet another betrayal
Speaker 2: of these Americans, this time by the political figure that
Speaker 2: they have trusted the most. I honestly don't know what's
Speaker 2: going on here. Maybe Trump is just too busy like
Speaker 2: renaming the Gulf of Mexico golfing and cheering on Elon's
Speaker 2: efforts to destroy the entire government. After all, it seems
Speaker 2: like if he was gonna care about any ordinary people
Speaker 2: would be this state and these people who vote for
Speaker 2: him in some of the most overwhelming numbers of anywhere
Speaker 2: in the country. The governor here is a Republican. The
Speaker 2: entire congressional delegation, they're all Republicans, and they are all
Speaker 2: begging the president for help. Now he may still yet
Speaker 2: make the declaration, but we're already ten days out. What
Speaker 2: is the hold up here now?
Speaker 5: I'm told?
Speaker 2: One potential issue could be that the declaration process acquires
Speaker 2: locals to fill out surveys online and testing to the damage,
Speaker 2: but broadband access is limited to non existent in some
Speaker 2: of these communities, not to mention they're a little busy
Speaker 2: trying to dig out and put their lives back together
Speaker 2: here with no help from the Feds. Now, local news
Speaker 2: outlets are starting to ask whether this abandonment of West
Speaker 2: Virginia is actually intentional, if it's actually part and parcel
Speaker 2: of a Trump administration ideological project. In particular, this Regional
Speaker 2: paper Press. Senator Shelley Moore Capito on if she thought
Speaker 2: Elon's DOGE cuts were hurting the response, noting that FEMA
Speaker 2: has been hit already with staffing cuts thanks to the
Speaker 2: federal government PERGE. They also asked her if she expected
Speaker 2: Trump to completely dismantle FEMA and send it to the States,
Speaker 2: as he has previously suggested. Now more, Capito said she
Speaker 2: didn't think so, saying quote, I don't see a scenario
Speaker 2: where all disaster relief goes to the States.
Speaker 5: I really don't.
Speaker 2: I think that there's just too much in some of
Speaker 2: these disasters that are very large, too much for a
Speaker 2: state to be able to handle. But there's no real
Speaker 2: indication that Trump and his band of austerity radicals really
Speaker 2: cares about any that. In fact, they've already previously unreported
Speaker 2: significant cuts to federal disaster relief. According to drop Site,
Speaker 2: at the bidding of the Trump administration, Speaker Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: slashed over one hundred million dollars from a program to
Speaker 2: help disaster victims with legal aid. After the initial shock
Speaker 2: of a catastrophe in the early phases of basic survival
Speaker 2: in boots on the ground style cleanup, the next phase
Speaker 2: of recovery often involves a lot of legal battles to
Speaker 2: secure your rights. In particular, homeowners and renters often have
Speaker 2: to go to war with their insurance companies to be
Speaker 2: able to get what they are entitled to. Scammers also
Speaker 2: often swoop in to take advantage of the desperation caused
Speaker 2: by this crisis. Recognizing this need, federal disaster relief has
Speaker 2: for over a decade now included legal assistance so people
Speaker 2: at least have a chance in these battles against the
Speaker 2: insurance companies and scammers. That is no longer the case.
Speaker 2: At the direction of Trump Budget director Russ vote House
Speaker 2: Republicans stripped all the money that was meant to fund
Speaker 2: legal assistance for victims of floods, hurricanes, and fires. The
Speaker 2: impact of these cuts will be felt most acutely in
Speaker 2: rural areas, places like southern West Virginia, where government backed
Speaker 2: legal aid nonprofits are literally the only available options. And
Speaker 2: it will also be most acutely felt among poor people
Speaker 2: who have no resources to fight back without this assistance. Now, Vote,
Speaker 2: he's an anti government ideologue. He's attempted to push these
Speaker 2: cuts through before during Trump's first term, but to no avail.
Speaker 2: But in the new Trump administration, fueled by this sort
Speaker 2: of anarcho capitalist flavor, Russ's assault on federal disaster relief
Speaker 2: was taken up and passed no problem whatsoever. But whether
Speaker 2: this is an ideological commitment or an accidental oversight, West
Speaker 2: Virginia's fate, here is a preview of what's to come.
Speaker 2: If Trump and Musk and Vote get their way with
Speaker 2: gutting FEMA. Everyone will suffer, but actually the hardest hit
Speaker 2: that's going to be rural areas in small states, the
Speaker 2: kind of places where politicians like Trump are happy to
Speaker 2: go and do a photo op when it serves their interest.
Speaker 2: It immediately cast aside as soon as the news cycle
Speaker 2: moves on, And I'm kind of floored by this saga.
Speaker 2: I kept thinking, like I'm gonna write them and if you.
Speaker 3: Want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
Speaker 3: prem subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. Okay, guys, great
Speaker 3: counterforn show for you tomorrow, so we'll see you on Thursday.