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.
Speaker 1: 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 1: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 1: Happy Thursday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have today? We do lots of interesting
Speaker 1: things breaking. We're going to give you a little update
Speaker 1: on what's going on with the whole border Ukraine, Israel deal,
Speaker 1: non deal, etc. Some question marks about what's going to
Speaker 1: happen in the Senate today, so we'll break that down
Speaker 1: for You've also got Nikki Haley losing to none of
Speaker 1: the above. Some amazing cope there, R and C also
Speaker 1: apparently in shambles. Ronnie McDaniel apparently leaving break that down
Speaker 1: for you as well. Trump is now saying, hey, maybe
Speaker 1: we should give bud Light a second chance. Hilarious be
Speaker 1: me rejecting a ceasefire deal and the us getting put
Speaker 1: on blast from Saudi Arabia for basically lying about what
Speaker 1: that country's position was with regards to normalization with Israel.
Speaker 1: Fox News aired what appeared to be a live hate crime.
Speaker 1: We'll show you that and tell you the background and
Speaker 1: what we have learned about what exactly the hell transpired there.
Speaker 1: Hillary is weighing in on Tucker's interview with Putin. You're
Speaker 1: gonna love that one, and we all needed and Sager
Speaker 1: Scott is Apple Vision Pro. That's right here on the desk.
Speaker 1: So we're going to do a little We're going to
Speaker 1: do a little.
Speaker 2: Live debut using in front of you guys. I recorded
Speaker 2: especially something at home just to show it to everybody.
Speaker 1: Give ale review.
Speaker 2: I am an Apple fan boy, to be fair, so
Speaker 2: this is not necessarily the most unbiased.
Speaker 1: Well I'm a cynic. Good, it'll be pretty bad.
Speaker 2: I will try and I will try and convince you
Speaker 2: as to why it's a great device and it's changing
Speaker 2: the world.
Speaker 1: I was saying, I have yet to see a single
Speaker 1: woman who's actually why we showed you. We showed you one,
Speaker 1: found one, we showed you one. Well, we have one
Speaker 1: on our side. That's all takes. That's how groundbreaking tech work. Anyway,
Speaker 1: lots to get into this morning before we get to
Speaker 1: any of that, though, Thank you guys so much for
Speaker 1: helping us get that Rfkjunior focus group together. Super excited
Speaker 1: to share the results with you next week. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: So we are going to be debuting it to everybody
Speaker 2: early next week. The full version is going to go
Speaker 2: out to our premium subscribers first. You guys can listen
Speaker 2: to that or watch it at your leisure if your
Speaker 2: premium early otherwise is going to post up much much later.
Speaker 2: So if you want to be able to watch it
Speaker 2: early and you want to be able to support that
Speaker 2: type of work breakingpoints dot com, you can go ahead
Speaker 2: and sign up for a premium membership.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It comes kind of a perfect time because it really
Speaker 1: I just was reading an article this morning about how
Speaker 1: the Biden team is like freaking out about the third
Speaker 1: party candidates and whatever. So it's about to be a
Speaker 1: really big story, and it'll be interesting to hear from
Speaker 1: the voters themselves about why it is that they're rejecting
Speaker 1: both Trump and Biden and instead opting for RFKAGINGI.
Speaker 2: I think you guys are really going to resonate with
Speaker 2: some of these people. Okay, let's go to the end
Speaker 2: of deal. There were some major developments in the United
Speaker 2: States Senate. Just yesterday we brought everybody the news that
Speaker 2: the border deal would appear to have collapsed but has
Speaker 2: now led to a new situation. Let's go and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, just we can give
Speaker 2: everyone and update. The Senate is currently in complete turmoil
Speaker 2: because they're both trying to advance two separate pieces of legislation.
Speaker 2: First and foremost is the quote border deal, which is
Speaker 2: then attached to the foreign aid deal, which we brought
Speaker 2: everybody the details of in our last show. Just a reminder,
Speaker 2: that includes sixty billion for Ukraine, fourteen one point billion
Speaker 2: for Israel, ten billion in quote unquote humanitarian aid, a
Speaker 2: pittance to Taiwan, and then an additional twenty billion.
Speaker 1: With some border reforms that would have passed.
Speaker 2: Now it does not appear that that bill is going
Speaker 2: to have this sixty votes to be able to even
Speaker 2: move to debate and consideration on the floor. Senator truck Schumer, though,
Speaker 2: has now decided to put four two separate votes Crystal
Speaker 2: one will be on this border deal, which they anticipate failing,
Speaker 2: although that actually is up in the air right now,
Speaker 2: currently has fifty eight votes.
Speaker 1: The vote is held overnight.
Speaker 2: The second piece of legislation is actually stripping away all
Speaker 2: of the border provisions and would include just foreign aid
Speaker 2: for Israel, for Ukraine, and for Taiwan humanitarian aid as well.
Speaker 2: Originally appeared to be a non starter, but there are
Speaker 2: some Republicans, people like Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and others
Speaker 2: who have said that they would be supportive of such
Speaker 2: a measure. So the big question is whether that gets
Speaker 2: to sixty. But I guess what belies this entire thing
Speaker 2: is the House of Representatives that this whole thing is
Speaker 2: dead no matter what. So right, in a certain point,
Speaker 2: this is all fake, but you know, we get to
Speaker 2: see Washington's real priorities. This is the sixty billion for Ukraine,
Speaker 2: fourteen billion for Israel. Well, remind everyone, by the way
Speaker 2: that the Israelids specifically says shall not be subject to
Speaker 2: congressional oversight. Imagine writing that in when you are the
Speaker 2: ones who are in Congress, you would expect the Israelis
Speaker 2: or the President to ask for something like that, not
Speaker 2: to just preemptively put it in there in the right.
Speaker 1: Congress be like, we don't want any authority, no thank you,
Speaker 1: we don't really know what's going on, no oversight.
Speaker 3: First take the bombs, drop it on whoever you want.
Speaker 1: It is incredible. I mean, obviously, I'm cheering for every
Speaker 1: one of these things to go down and flame, so
Speaker 1: the fact that it looks like it's headed in that
Speaker 1: direction is good either. The one that there's the biggest
Speaker 1: question marks about is the just foreign aid piece, the
Speaker 1: just Ukraine and just Israel peace, which is ironic. I
Speaker 1: mean again, listen, I'm glad this is all failing, so
Speaker 1: let me just be really clear about that. But it
Speaker 1: is sort of a hilarious situation because at the beginning
Speaker 1: of this Republicans were like, we're never voting for Ukraine
Speaker 1: unless it comes with border funding as well, and then
Speaker 1: the border one goes down, and yet just the Ukraine
Speaker 1: and is zero one seems to have a better shot
Speaker 1: at passage. But again, as you said, Soger, it doesn't
Speaker 1: look like these things are going to get through the House.
Speaker 1: Although I don't think Mike Johnson has been totally definitive
Speaker 1: about just the foreign aid package and what he would
Speaker 1: do on the other hand. You know, people like Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green and others have been very adamant that they
Speaker 1: will push for Mike Johnson. He pushed out of the
Speaker 1: speakership if he does bring any Ukraine aid to the floor.
Speaker 1: So that obviously puts him in a very tricky position.
Speaker 1: And this is not a man who has navigated tricky
Speaker 1: positions very effectively thus far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, listen, I want it both to go down for
Speaker 2: the same reason, so so for different reasons. So I
Speaker 2: guess we're definitely united on that one. A little bit
Speaker 2: of horseshoe theory.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the fun thing watch are our long immigration debate.
Speaker 1: If you want to really understand, we have to reopen that.
Speaker 2: I think I would probably slip my wrist. But that's
Speaker 2: a different, different scenario for another day. You were talking
Speaker 2: about Mike Johnson. Johnson has honestly humiliated himself. The last
Speaker 2: couple of days were an absolute disaster for any House speaker.
Speaker 2: And I'm talking you know, this isn't anything personal. It's
Speaker 2: just this is inexperience and chaos within the caucus. So
Speaker 2: I know Ryan and Emily covered a little bit of
Speaker 2: this yesterday. They had the failure of the majorcis impeachment vote,
Speaker 2: which was like the House Republican thing.
Speaker 3: I cannot tell you.
Speaker 2: My phone blew up whenever that impeachment vote failed. People
Speaker 2: in the House and others were like, I cannot believe this.
Speaker 2: They're like this everyone told me for weeks. They're like,
Speaker 2: it's done, deal, don't worry about it. You guys can
Speaker 2: cover it. Blah blah said, all right, you know, when
Speaker 2: it happens, we'll do a segment or whatever. And now
Speaker 2: the only it's a failure, and the reason is a
Speaker 2: failure is because he has no control on the caucus
Speaker 2: and he just the margin of votes that they have
Speaker 2: is so slim to none that you can have Al Green,
Speaker 2: who is the Houston Democrat, trotted in from literally from
Speaker 2: like the operating room table to vote and it changes
Speaker 2: their whole margin and then they lose one guy and
Speaker 2: that's it. Boom, they lose two back to back votes
Speaker 2: on the floor of the House. He's also under two
Speaker 2: major pressures right now, as you were saying, with regard
Speaker 2: to Ukraine. The thing is about Ukraine is that there
Speaker 2: is a House Ukraine Caucus which isn't chaired by a Republican.
Speaker 2: Mike Turner. Now, Mike Turner has previously said he wouldn't
Speaker 2: consider it without the border deal. But this is a
Speaker 2: diet in the wall neocon also one of the people
Speaker 2: blocking UFO transparency.
Speaker 1: Interesting, So we'll put those two things there.
Speaker 2: So that's about one hundred and so Republicans that are
Speaker 2: in that category.
Speaker 1: But then you've.
Speaker 2: Got Marjorie Taylor Green, You've got Steve Scalise who's in
Speaker 2: the House leadership as well others who are skeptical of
Speaker 2: Ukraine Eiden, and those are equally saying, if you bring
Speaker 2: this to the floor, we're going to go after you.
Speaker 2: He's in a near impossible position, and it's one of
Speaker 2: those where we genuinely have no idea what he's going
Speaker 2: to do. He gave kind of a sad press conference yesterday.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 5: We'll see what the Senate does. We're allowing the process
Speaker 5: to play out, and we'll hand as it is sent over.
Speaker 5: I have made very clear that you have to address
Speaker 5: these issues on their own merits, and Israel desperately needs
Speaker 5: the assistance. Everyone knows that things have changed pretty dramatically
Speaker 5: since we passed that first Israel package in the House
Speaker 5: three months ago. Everyone knows the tensions have escalated and
Speaker 5: we need to support it there on impeachment. Last night
Speaker 5: was a setback. But democracy is messy. We live in
Speaker 5: a time of divided government. We have a razor thin
Speaker 5: margin here and every vote count. Sometimes when you're counting
Speaker 5: votes and people show up when they're not expected to
Speaker 5: be in the building, it changes the equation. I don't
Speaker 5: think that this is a reflection on the leader. It's
Speaker 5: a reflection on the body itself and the place where
Speaker 5: we've come in this country. Look, the nation is divided.
Speaker 5: We lament that right. The difference is the chasm between
Speaker 5: the two parties right now is wider than it's ever been,
Speaker 5: and there are lots of emotions and we live in
Speaker 5: the age of social media and twenty four hour news cycle.
Speaker 5: You know, there were previous congresses where this a gaggle
Speaker 5: like this would not even have been possible. So we're
Speaker 5: in a different time.
Speaker 1: We're in a different time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess you could say that mister Johnson, mister speaker.
Speaker 2: Lookas I don't know what he's gonna do, but he's
Speaker 2: in a bad spot. The big question right now, you know,
Speaker 2: we thought that the votes were going to happen late
Speaker 2: last night. They've decided to delay it. I don't I
Speaker 2: genuinely have no idea which one's going to pass. It
Speaker 2: actually is conceivable that one of them could. But then,
Speaker 2: as Speaker Johnson just laid out there, he barely has
Speaker 2: any idea what his own votes are. He's very willing,
Speaker 2: which is very bizarre to bring votes to the floor
Speaker 2: which failed. I mean, this never happened under Bayner and
Speaker 2: under Pelosi, you know, save for I'm trying to think
Speaker 2: maybe tarp I mean that was back in two thousand
Speaker 2: and a seven, you know, the last time that we
Speaker 2: saw like dysfunction like this, and that was.
Speaker 3: A way higher stakes environment.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, this just shows a complete breakdown of
Speaker 2: the entire Republican institutional establishment.
Speaker 1: At the top.
Speaker 2: Really like the quote unquote like what is the inmates
Speaker 2: are running the asylum and Johnson is one of those
Speaker 2: people where you know, a shiit is waiting for him
Speaker 2: basically no matter what he does.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in that situation, arcas thing was the thing that
Speaker 1: was most amusing to me is afterwards, I think it's
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor. I think Ryan and Emiley covered this boat
Speaker 1: was so funny. She was like cleaning, you know, crying
Speaker 1: foul over the Democrats just getting their members to vote.
Speaker 1: She was like they were hiding members. Is like, no,
Speaker 1: you scheduled to vote for when you probably knew this
Speaker 1: man was going to be in surgery and just assumed
Speaker 1: that you could count him out. And you should probably
Speaker 1: assume the other side is going to bring their caucus
Speaker 1: and you know, on something that's a priority for them
Speaker 1: to try to vote it down and make sure you
Speaker 1: have the margins. I mean, it's just very it's just
Speaker 1: very rookie behavior. On the other hand, you know, the
Speaker 1: Republican Party isn't really about like governance at this point,
Speaker 1: especially not in the House, in the Senate. It's all
Speaker 1: a cold of personality around Donald Trump. He told him
Speaker 1: to vote down the border thing. They fell in line
Speaker 1: and did exactly what he wanted them to do. I
Speaker 1: think there's I'm enjoying watching the chaos. It's amusing to
Speaker 1: me to watch this man be like basically humiliated in
Speaker 1: real time. I am I have to admit I'm enjoying
Speaker 1: that spectacle. But I don't think anyone should either fool
Speaker 1: themselves about like this really meaning anything for twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four for the broader politics, et cetera. The last thing
Speaker 1: I'll say about whatever is going to happen today with
Speaker 1: the just Ukraine and Israel piece of this. The question
Speaker 1: marks are not only on the Republican side, although that's
Speaker 1: where the sort of the biggest question mark is. Is
Speaker 1: also some question marks about how many Democrats will refuse
Speaker 1: to back another blank check to Israel. You've already had
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, of course he's technically an independent, but coxes
Speaker 1: with the Democrats. Obviously he's a no. Elizabeth Warren put
Speaker 1: out something yesterday that seemed like it indicates she didn't
Speaker 1: say she's a no, but she said no more blank
Speaker 1: checks for Netanyahu. So that's sort of indicated maybe she's
Speaker 1: a no. And there's a handful of others, just a
Speaker 1: few others that could potentially bulk at another complete blank
Speaker 1: check for Israel. So that's another thing to I'm talking like,
Speaker 1: maybe you get another one, but when you have margins,
Speaker 1: that matters a lot. The difference between one versus three
Speaker 1: not voting for it is a big deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, So we could end up with nothing, which
Speaker 2: you know what, I'm pretty that's what I'm cheering for,
Speaker 2: especially whenever it comes to the situation going on in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Speaking of public humiliation, I enjoining Nikki Haley and Nevada
Speaker 1: managed to lose to none of the above. She's now
Speaker 1: given an interview explaining her cope of what exactly happened
Speaker 1: here and trying to justify her continued existence in this race.
Speaker 1: Let's take alism. Does that situation Nevada hurt a little bit?
Speaker 4: No, I mean Nevada. It's such a scam. They were
Speaker 4: supposed to have a primary. Trump rigged it so that
Speaker 4: the GOP chairman who's been indded would go and create
Speaker 4: a caucus. We knew months ago that we weren't going
Speaker 4: to spend a day or a dollar in Nevada because
Speaker 4: it wasn't worth it, and so we didn't even count Nevada.
Speaker 4: That wasn't anything we were looking at.
Speaker 1: We knew that was rigged from the start.
Speaker 4: Our focus is on South Carolina, Michigan Super Tuesday. So
Speaker 4: if you look what we did, and I when you
Speaker 4: look what we did in New Hampshire, we're continuing to grow.
Speaker 4: That's what matters, I think more than anything else. But
Speaker 4: look at what happened this week here you have Republicans
Speaker 4: lost a major vote on the border, Republicans lost a
Speaker 4: major vote on Israel. Donald Trump was found that he
Speaker 4: will not have immunity in all of these court cases
Speaker 4: coming up. The R and C chair is fired. All
Speaker 4: of this chaos is happening around us, and Donald Trump's
Speaker 4: fingerprints are on every bit of it. We can't continue
Speaker 4: as the Republican Party to go forward with this chaos.
Speaker 4: You don't defeat Democrat chaos with Republican chaos. And that's
Speaker 4: why we've got.
Speaker 1: To see a change.
Speaker 2: So it was rigged. Is that what she's saying. I'm
Speaker 2: pretty sure she's saying it was rigged.
Speaker 1: I love the part. My favorite part of that is
Speaker 1: when she's like, we weren't even counting Nevada. Like yes,
Speaker 1: begin well, and not only that, but like, you're not
Speaker 1: the one that gets to decide which states count and
Speaker 1: which states don't, so the fact that you weren't counting
Speaker 1: Nevada doesn't really count for much. I mean, listen, she
Speaker 1: is right. There was like a weird thing that happened
Speaker 1: with Nevada that I don't totally understand that led to
Speaker 1: there being a primary and a caucus and that's why
Speaker 1: Trump's name wasn't on the ballid or whatever. But if
Speaker 1: you are the basically the only current candidate who is
Speaker 1: on the ballot and you're getting destroyed by none of
Speaker 1: the above, it's like it shows you where the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is. And so it is hard for me to
Speaker 1: understand her justification for staying in the race at this point.
Speaker 1: Let's go and listen to Steve Kernaki on the night
Speaker 1: of this Nevada situation explaining what exactly was going down,
Speaker 1: because this is kind of funny. Take a listen.
Speaker 6: Haley, without Trump's name, even on the ballot, still loses
Speaker 6: to the Nun option by better.
Speaker 1: Than two to one.
Speaker 6: So that's that is a tough reality for her night.
Speaker 6: Trump you on the ballot and she loses, and it's
Speaker 6: a closed primary. So it really reinforces what we've been
Speaker 6: seeing that when you're just talking about Republican voters, she's
Speaker 6: really she's really getting clavered with Republican voters. She's had
Speaker 6: independence and Democrats to keep her in it.
Speaker 2: I love the way he's like, he's, yeah, we know, Steve,
Speaker 2: we agree, So.
Speaker 1: You know, after I don't remember I it was before
Speaker 1: new him. I think it was before New Hampshire. I
Speaker 1: was saying, you know, there's a chance that even though
Speaker 1: this ends up just being a long humiliation for her,
Speaker 1: that she stays in on the possibility with like the
Speaker 1: donor class backing her under the possibility that some black
Speaker 1: Swan event occurs and takes Trump out of the race,
Speaker 1: even though if that did happen, I'm not even sure
Speaker 1: how that would go down, if that would leave her
Speaker 1: as the heir apparent, or what would happen in that scenario.
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on the timing of when said
Speaker 1: black Swan event were to occur. And I think at
Speaker 1: this point that's the only real justification for her candidacy
Speaker 1: is like, you know, maybe something crazy happens, because if
Speaker 1: you are losing to none of the above, and Republicans
Speaker 1: in every contest are clearly with the other guy, in
Speaker 1: spite of the fact that you know Paul's do show,
Speaker 1: would she would destroy Joe Biden? You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any doubt if you're just looking at electability,
Speaker 1: you are taking a risk with Trump that you're not
Speaker 1: taking with Nikki Haley. But people are convinced Trump can win.
Speaker 1: I think there's a good chance Trump can win and
Speaker 1: they haven't been given a reason to move off the
Speaker 1: guy that they still really love.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, And look, I mean, when you've got the
Speaker 2: other thing is is that?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: But general elections don't happen in a vacuum. You have
Speaker 2: to win a primary with at least in the current system.
Speaker 2: I don't necessarily love it, but it is what it is.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. I mean,
Speaker 2: just look at this. In terms of the overall vote total,
Speaker 2: sixty three point two percent two thirds of the people
Speaker 2: who took time out of their day came to check
Speaker 2: none of them, thirty point five percent for Naki ham Okay,
Speaker 2: forty three eight hundred and ninety three American citizens took
Speaker 2: time out of their day to march their ass to
Speaker 2: the polling poll just to check none of the above,
Speaker 2: specifically to say screw you to Nikki Haley, and they
Speaker 2: outnumbered them two to one to the people who actually
Speaker 2: thought that they were going to go vote for her.
Speaker 1: That, I mean, how the hell.
Speaker 2: Are you supposed to compete with this? It's just literally impossible.
Speaker 2: It Also, you know, bringing back to what we were talking
Speaker 2: about in our a block Crystal about the demise of
Speaker 2: the Republican establishment for her to be defending the RNC
Speaker 2: and the collapse of that as some sort of sign
Speaker 2: of chaos.
Speaker 1: So let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Somebody sent me this yesterday and I've gone through and
Speaker 2: verified this through Red State, which was the original publisher.
Speaker 2: Look at RNC versus DNZ spending. Top line, the RNC
Speaker 2: spent one hundred and twenty eight million versus the DNC
Speaker 2: spent one hundred fifty six million. But when you break
Speaker 2: down what they were spending money on, it is shocking.
Speaker 2: The rn C spent seventy thousand dollars on floral arrangements.
Speaker 2: The DNC spent seven hundred and ninety five. The RNC
Speaker 2: spent two hundred and sixty three thousand dollars on a
Speaker 2: limousine service. The DNC spent seven grand. It's like, what, lady,
Speaker 2: you never heard of Uber Uber Black's not good enough
Speaker 2: for you? What is going on over here? I mean,
Speaker 2: the fact is is that you can see so clearly
Speaker 2: that they were squandering their budget to a historic degree,
Speaker 2: even in that management consulting line. Look at that one
Speaker 2: million dollars on management consultants.
Speaker 1: That's by far the motion, I totally agree, far worse
Speaker 1: out of the flowers or the thig whatever. The management
Speaker 1: insulting bad it's a shameful Yeah, a million.
Speaker 2: Bucks on management consulting. The DNC spent one hundred and
Speaker 2: fourteen grand office supplies. They're spending three hundred grand on
Speaker 2: office supplies that DNC is spending for it. What are
Speaker 2: they buying? Are they buying vision pros? You know, like
Speaker 2: what's happening? Well, are you buying the G.
Speaker 1: Two pens and not the top high level off? What
Speaker 1: are you people doing? The other thing you note there
Speaker 1: is the things that Democrats outspent them on were like
Speaker 1: voter outreach, like to your TV texting. But I mean,
Speaker 1: yes to all of that. But I also think it's
Speaker 1: such cope to think that the problems of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party are like the Lin nine homes of spending at
Speaker 1: the R and D. I know you agree with me,
Speaker 1: but I just want to like put that out there
Speaker 1: because I'm just remembering for vac at that debate that
Speaker 1: was like, oh, the reason we're losing is because of
Speaker 1: Rana and the R and B, and I think that's
Speaker 1: preposterous like, obviously, the overall political dynamics are backlash against Trump,
Speaker 1: backlash against extremism, and backlash against the dab's decision overturning
Speaker 1: Roe versus Weight. I mean, those are the big pieces.
Speaker 1: So in that way, Nikki Haley is right that, like
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of Republican and electoral prospects, they
Speaker 1: would be much better off if they moved past Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any doubt about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: the reason that they underperformed in the midterm elections, the
Speaker 1: reason that they're losing like every special election that comes up,
Speaker 1: the reason that they've definitely lost every single ballot initiative
Speaker 1: has anything to do with abortion rights. Those things are
Speaker 1: not about the RNC. They do stems sort of directly
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump or the Supreme Court justices that he
Speaker 1: put on the bench. So that is the big picture.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, this is an embarrassing profligate like
Speaker 1: profligate spending on all of the wrong things at the
Speaker 1: RNC as well on top.
Speaker 2: Of everything, right, I mean, and more, what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is that these people are morally bankrupt and oh and
Speaker 2: just not deserving of any sort of reverence Like within
Speaker 2: the Republican Party, which is part of why, Like it's
Speaker 2: one of those where you're right, Look, is it the
Speaker 2: rnc's fault they're losing. No, But at the same time,
Speaker 2: you can't be blowing people's money on florinal arrangements and
Speaker 2: on limousine services. It's shocking. And I'll put a modest
Speaker 2: defense in here. RNC and DNC. Yeah, they don't matter
Speaker 2: at a macro level, but you know, at a micro
Speaker 2: level they can matter. They can you know what, five
Speaker 2: ten thousand votes people who are canvassing, having the right
Speaker 2: software and all that stuff. Again, it is not determinative,
Speaker 2: like it is not the major thing that matters, but
Speaker 2: people do give money, and the allegedly are supposed to
Speaker 2: exist for a certain reason, and you shouldn't be spending
Speaker 2: that on floor arrangements and on.
Speaker 1: The thing they primarily exist for at this point is
Speaker 1: just to like control the process and make sure that
Speaker 1: you know, the flowers that be get their way, that
Speaker 1: you know, Joe Biden doesn't have to debate and he
Speaker 1: gets the lineup of states that he wants and that
Speaker 1: the process is completely controlled. And the RNC side the
Speaker 1: same thing. I mean, they were actually had much more
Speaker 1: of a democratic process than the Democrats did. But there's
Speaker 1: also no doubt that there was a lot of fealty
Speaker 1: from Ronald McDaniel to Donald Trump. You know, he gave
Speaker 1: her his blessing. She was allowed to stay in there
Speaker 1: so long as he felt that she served his purpose.
Speaker 1: And apparently that rain is coming to an end. Put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. Ronald looks like she is
Speaker 1: leaving after some criticism from Trump. She plans to step
Speaker 1: down on a Trump likely to back a supporter of
Speaker 1: his false cly sames of election fraud fraud Michael Wattley,
Speaker 1: the head of the North Carolina GOP. There's a quote
Speaker 1: in here from someone, you know, some insider, who said
Speaker 1: mister Trump likes mister Watley for one overwhelming reason according
Speaker 1: to people who have discussed him with the former president. Quote,
Speaker 1: he is a stop the steel guy, as one of
Speaker 1: the people described him. You also have some, uh it is,
Speaker 1: you know, not a guarantee that this dude will get it,
Speaker 1: even though this is Donald Trump's pick. But I think
Speaker 1: it's very very likely. But there could be internal dissent
Speaker 1: and it's not like Trump can just tap him on
Speaker 1: the head and appoint him. There does have to be
Speaker 1: some internal process, so we'll see how that plays out.
Speaker 1: I also thought this was amusing. Charlie Kirk, the founder
Speaker 1: of Turning Point UNS USA, has lobbied publicly to remove
Speaker 1: Miss Daniel, suggesting last week in an interview that some
Speaker 1: Trump family members, including Laura Trump, former president's daughter in law,
Speaker 1: could be potential picks for party leadership posts as well.
Speaker 1: So you're looking at staffing up the party with direct
Speaker 1: Trump relatives.
Speaker 2: To be honest, it would be logically consistent. If the
Speaker 2: whole party's going to be about Trump, then just put
Speaker 2: a Trump person, true, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's going to be a called, just
Speaker 1: get the loyalists, make.
Speaker 2: Clear to day right, let's just put the last name
Speaker 2: Trump and put you know.
Speaker 1: Is mke Don Junior the VP.
Speaker 2: Pay it is what it is. I don't support it,
Speaker 2: but I'm just like that clearly that's a Republican reality.
Speaker 2: I was once in the Trump hotel when Don Junior
Speaker 2: walked in, and it was literally like it was like
Speaker 2: being in a hundred years ago when a Habsburg prince
Speaker 2: must have walked into like a vdah.
Speaker 1: It was crazy.
Speaker 2: I mean I watched people grown men in Carhart jackets
Speaker 2: lose their minds over the son of the President. And
Speaker 2: I was like, do you think Chelsea Clinton is getting
Speaker 2: greeted like this anywhere?
Speaker 1: You know, she'd probably get walked into the.
Speaker 2: Rich Carlton or whatever New York and people are like,
Speaker 2: you know, they'll give it an acknowledgement, but they're not.
Speaker 1: There's no person now. Back in the heyday of like
Speaker 1: the Clinton Global Initiative, that's when she would walk into
Speaker 1: that room. I'm sure she was treated with, you know,
Speaker 1: fawning admiration back when she was being hired by NBC crews.
Speaker 1: What about Sasha Obama?
Speaker 2: Right Like I once walked past Stash Obama on the
Speaker 2: street in Georgetown. You would never have known it if
Speaker 2: it wasn't the Factor Secret Service guy was right behind her.
Speaker 2: It's just different, you know, in terms of the way
Speaker 2: that the parties are anyway.
Speaker 1: Sick country we live in. It's a crazy country. This
Speaker 1: was amusing as well. I'm interested in Sager's take on this.
Speaker 1: So Trump put this post up on true Social basically
Speaker 1: calling for people to forgive and forget when it comes
Speaker 1: to bud Light. Put this up on the screen so
Speaker 1: I can read this in its entirety quote the bud
Speaker 1: Light ad was a mistake of epic proportions, and for
Speaker 1: that a very big price was paid. But Anheiser Busch
Speaker 1: is not a woke company, but I can give you
Speaker 1: plenty that are and building a list. It might just
Speaker 1: release it for the world to see. Why not. The
Speaker 1: radical left does it viciously to well run conservative companies
Speaker 1: and people. Very nasty, but it's the way they play
Speaker 1: the game. On the other hand, Ann Heeiser Busch spends
Speaker 1: seven hundred million dollars a year with our great farmers,
Speaker 1: employ sixty five thousand Americans, of which fifteen hundred veterans,
Speaker 1: and is a founding corporate partner of Folds of Honor,
Speaker 1: which provides scholarships for families of fallen servicemen and women.
Speaker 1: They've raised over thirty million dollars given forty four thousand scholarships.
Speaker 1: Ann Heiser Busch is a great American brand that perhaps
Speaker 1: deserves a second chance. What do you think, perhaps since dead,
Speaker 1: we should be going after those companies that are looking
Speaker 1: to destroy America? Or your thoughts on this dagger?
Speaker 2: Well? First of all, who wrote that like an Anheuser
Speaker 2: Busch spokesperson twenty five thousand Americans, fifteen hundred of which.
Speaker 1: As like, who wrote that, just clearly somebody. He definitely
Speaker 1: didn't hit all these facts on the top of his head.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, it's like, listen, I met Trump. He
Speaker 2: he's not that coaching, all right. He definitely doesn't know
Speaker 2: things like that at the top of this.
Speaker 1: So what's going on here?
Speaker 2: That's upon some digging by some conservative activists, it turns out,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen that after
Speaker 2: the year long now boycott, it turns out that Trump
Speaker 2: not only is their top lobbyist, a major fundraiser for
Speaker 2: him Anheuser Busch, but that Trump himself actually owns up
Speaker 2: to five million dollars in Anheuser Busch stock. And why
Speaker 2: I think is hilarious is that Trump is just one
Speaker 2: of those people who has the ability to take.
Speaker 1: A conservative call.
Speaker 2: You know, if this was Marco Rubio, if this was
Speaker 2: if this was I mean even Ted Cruz, Marjorie any
Speaker 2: of these people.
Speaker 1: Matt Gates people who are literally anyone else.
Speaker 2: Anyone else, they would be savaged by the conservative faithful.
Speaker 2: But they give him a pass even when he does
Speaker 2: like blatantly liberal things, or he just like stabs conservative
Speaker 2: orthodoxy in the heart. In many cases it's very useful,
Speaker 2: like when we're talking about tax cuts or whatever, or tariffs.
Speaker 2: That's a better example because he was actually quite conservative
Speaker 2: on tax cuts traditionally.
Speaker 1: But whenever it's.
Speaker 2: Stuff like this, people who are like pro life, and
Speaker 2: you know, in this case anti bud Light are just
Speaker 2: left like shocked.
Speaker 3: They're like, this is all that I worked for and
Speaker 3: they just destroyed it.
Speaker 2: The perfect example is Matt Walsh, who over at the
Speaker 2: Daily Wire, let's put this please up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: He put this out there.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, we managed to organize the first effective
Speaker 2: conservative boycott ever. Nobody has given any good reason why
Speaker 2: we should surrender now without an apology or concession, and
Speaker 2: heiser Busch isn't even an American company. We would be
Speaker 2: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the sake
Speaker 2: of rescuing a foreign corporation from the consequences of its
Speaker 2: own action. Absolute madness. But you know what, I really
Speaker 2: noted The word Trump is not.
Speaker 1: In that true. It was greatly in a.
Speaker 2: Follow up that he says, Trump getting those strategic reason
Speaker 2: why abandoning this one single thing would be a good idea.
Speaker 2: Apparently we should back off because it would be a
Speaker 2: nice thing to do, and it's very important to be
Speaker 2: nice to people who push transgenderism. But you know, again,
Speaker 2: what's shocking to me is that if you look at
Speaker 2: the comments, if you look at the you know, the
Speaker 2: if you look at like the quote tweets and some
Speaker 2: of the replies and stuff, people are like, well, it's okay, guys,
Speaker 2: because Dana White over at UFC signed to deal with them,
Speaker 2: so they're cool. It's like everyone does jiu jitsu to
Speaker 2: justify why Trump can say something that any again, any
Speaker 2: conservative influencer, any Republican politician, anyone, Dan Crunch, whatever, they
Speaker 2: would be savage beyond belief. They would be mounting boycotts,
Speaker 2: they would be you know, pushing a primary candidate and
Speaker 2: all this other stuff. And here where he has a
Speaker 2: blatant conflict of interest and is going against something which
Speaker 2: was I mean, I can tell you from social media
Speaker 2: wise and all this stuff, this is the most successful
Speaker 2: conservative things I've ever seen. And Trump just comes out
Speaker 2: and he's like, no, we're not doing it anymore.
Speaker 1: It's amazing.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like even guy like Walsh I would say relatively
Speaker 2: consistent in his views and all that he knows, like
Speaker 2: he's like, I'm gonna get chin On for this. It's
Speaker 2: just it's nuts the way that Trump just gets a
Speaker 2: pass by his voters.
Speaker 1: I mean, if Nikki had done that tress.
Speaker 8: And especially if she owns stock in that corporate can
Speaker 8: you believe forget about Instagram accounts and all these people
Speaker 8: constantly talk about Nancy Pelotzi and con which we agree with.
Speaker 2: We're one of the people who started that movement. You
Speaker 2: can go back and roll the tape. But it's like
Speaker 2: with Trump, it's he just gets everything.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 2: I was just at the Trump well the Waldorf for
Speaker 2: story Now, and I was walking around and just remember
Speaker 2: like the Bonanza what it was at the time. I
Speaker 2: remember seeing foreign diplomats and all these people blowing all
Speaker 2: this money at the hotel, and at that time, I
Speaker 2: was like, this is so disgusting and so crazy. And
Speaker 2: of course only Democrats cared right at that time. And
Speaker 2: then you know Biden or Hunter whatever, oh mum's the word.
Speaker 2: Nobody says yeah when.
Speaker 1: It's Kushner, then suddenly oh yeah, yeah Kushner, than we don't,
Speaker 1: or when it's literally Trump getting money directly through his
Speaker 1: hotels and whatever. Don't care. I mean, this is like
Speaker 1: a typical of classically swampy behavior. It's terrible regard obviously,
Speaker 1: Like I so, just so people recall in case you follow,
Speaker 1: all the ins and outs of this all was sparked
Speaker 1: by one like trans influencer at that but Late Light
Speaker 1: decided to do and it caused this whole thing. But
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, being effect like it genuinely
Speaker 1: was a huge thing on social media. It genuinely impacted
Speaker 1: their stock price, they pulled the ads, There was a
Speaker 1: whole thing at the corporate level, and it also sparked
Speaker 1: these follow on trends of then going after Target and
Speaker 1: going after this and that other company. So you know,
Speaker 1: if those if that's what you're into, He's right that
Speaker 1: it was successful, and it's just it is just another
Speaker 1: instance of how much pull Trump has with this entire party.
Speaker 1: And the other thing is, though, you know, you have
Speaker 1: to think about now, he's very clearly heading into a
Speaker 1: general election, and he doesn't need freaks and weirdos like
Speaker 1: Matt Walsh to love every move that he's making them
Speaker 1: a vote for him. Of course they're gonna vote for him.
Speaker 1: They're going to rally the faithful, They're going to rally
Speaker 1: all their audiences for him. So he doesn't need to appease. I mean,
Speaker 1: he doesn't care. He can do what he wants and
Speaker 1: appear much more of a He has a good sensibility
Speaker 1: of like normy impulse and some a lot of this
Speaker 1: right wing influencer stuff is just completely off the rows,
Speaker 1: like the Taylor Swift sigh up stuff, which is noteworthy.
Speaker 1: This comes at that moment too, because bud Light is
Speaker 1: tied into the whole, that whole thing because I guess
Speaker 1: Travis Kelsey did some bud light ad Oh you didn't
Speaker 1: know that. Yeah, it was drinking, but that there was
Speaker 1: some bud light situation here as well. That was part
Speaker 1: of the bud Light necklace. There you go. It's part
Speaker 1: of the whole conspiracy around Taylor and Travis Kelcey and
Speaker 1: so which makes the look like such crazy freaks and
Speaker 1: weirdos that they're like obsessing over these weird you know,
Speaker 1: deep state sigh up conspiracies. And he also has fingers
Speaker 1: on the pulse of like this is not going to
Speaker 1: resonate with normal people whatsoever. So I think there's an
Speaker 1: element of that as well, of like he doesn't have
Speaker 1: to care about those people anymore.
Speaker 2: I would be curious to see what happens with the
Speaker 2: tailor thing because I could see Trump be because the
Speaker 2: only reason is that the people around Trump have been
Speaker 2: tweeting about this tailor thing, and I actually think it's
Speaker 2: one of those things that he would pick up at
Speaker 2: dinner at mar a Lago and he might fire off
Speaker 2: a truth. So I'm not convinced yet that he may
Speaker 2: not trash Taylor Swift eventually, even if she does not
Speaker 2: endorse me.
Speaker 1: I think that work. You might be right. I think
Speaker 1: he's too smart to do it personally.
Speaker 2: You know what. The one thing is that Trump does
Speaker 2: understand is he understands media, and he understands when somebody
Speaker 2: is more powerful than him. By all accounts, the person
Speaker 2: who he feared most and he was resident was Oprah.
Speaker 2: He was always like, if she runs against me, I'm toast.
Speaker 2: It's one of those smart like But you know, he
Speaker 2: probably was right, so I guess we should give him
Speaker 2: another media credit. Any Anyways, this whole thing is just
Speaker 2: you know, these concervative infludentals. Other people, It's like they
Speaker 2: have no backbone like you know, wall shure he stood
Speaker 2: upgainst them, But how many of these people who were cheering.
Speaker 2: I saw people make YouTube channels that went to one
Speaker 2: and a half million just shitting on bud light and
Speaker 2: it was fun.
Speaker 1: Listen. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: It was a fun thing to watch and to all
Speaker 2: that take place. But they'd have no word, you know,
Speaker 2: not one whenever it comes to Trump or something like this.
Speaker 2: And as I said, if it was Nikki, if it
Speaker 2: was anybody else, they would savage them.
Speaker 3: And the icing on the cake, not only that is
Speaker 3: the stock and.
Speaker 2: The fact that that is such an obviously ghost written
Speaker 2: tweet by some lobbyists, it's craziness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's when of the you know, writing was always
Speaker 1: on the wall with regards to the Republican primary because
Speaker 1: this has always been the dynamic. It is true, it's
Speaker 1: always been the case. And that's why I was never
Speaker 1: convinced that anything Ronda Santis could say, or anything Nicki
Speaker 1: Haley could say, we're going to move people off of him,
Speaker 1: because they just you know, they still really like this
Speaker 1: guy and they're gonna go down with the ship if
Speaker 1: that's what it takes. They're going to stick by him
Speaker 1: no matter what he says, what he does, how contradictory, whatever,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Absolutely so, guys, as we've been reporting,
Speaker 1: there have been active negotiations for another ceasefire agreement, a
Speaker 1: temporary or even a potentially permanent ceasefire. Hamas returned their
Speaker 1: counterproposal and bb Netna, who has rejected it completely out
Speaker 1: of hand. Let's take a listen to some of his comments.
Speaker 9: I came here this evening to say, we are on
Speaker 9: our way to that decisive victory. It is in our hands.
Speaker 9: It's not a matter of perhaps weeks, but it is
Speaker 9: in a matter of months. The IDF for working systematically,
Speaker 9: and they will achieve all the objectives of the war.
Speaker 9: They're going to release all the hostages, eliminate Hamas, and
Speaker 9: Gaza will no longer be a threat to Israel. The
Speaker 9: achievements of the IDF are unprecedented. Within four months, the
Speaker 9: Ideaf have wounded and killed over twenty thousand terrorists. In
Speaker 9: other words, we're talking about all those brigades that we
Speaker 9: have actually achieved to eliminate.
Speaker 1: There is, first of all, no evidence that they have
Speaker 1: killed twenty thousand fighters, and even independent analysts, even a
Speaker 1: former general from the US said that their success has
Speaker 1: been incredibly limited. They have not taken out the top
Speaker 1: top Hamas leadership, they've not destroyed the tunnel system. So he's,
Speaker 1: you know, really trying to convince the Israeli people that
Speaker 1: victory is just around the corner, just months away, just
Speaker 1: at hand, and they're going to get the hostages released,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, and so it's fine to reject
Speaker 1: this deal. Of course, the reality is that they've killed
Speaker 1: more of their own hostages by quite a number at
Speaker 1: this point, than they've been able to rescue through military operations.
Speaker 1: The only time hostage releases were secured was during the
Speaker 1: last temporary ceasefire. So I want to give you a
Speaker 1: sense of what the Hamas counterproposal was because you know,
Speaker 1: the media doesn't cover it in depth, and also because
Speaker 1: the US is saying it contains non starters quote unquote
Speaker 1: non starters. Yeah, one of those non starters is that
Speaker 1: they actually want the war to end, and the US
Speaker 1: and Israel do not want the war to end. Let's
Speaker 1: go and put this up on the screen. The basic
Speaker 1: idea here. I'm not going to read all of this, guys,
Speaker 1: ab I'll give you the top line. The basic idea
Speaker 1: here is for a three stage deal, with different groups
Speaker 1: being released in each of those stages. In the first stage,
Speaker 1: they say they would see a temporary cessation of military operations,
Speaker 1: and the two parties will release Israeli detainees from among
Speaker 1: women and children under the age of nineteen, not conscripted,
Speaker 1: the elderly, the sick, in exchange for a number of
Speaker 1: Palestinian prisoners, ensuring the release of all individuals whose names
Speaker 1: are pre agreed upon during this stage. Also critical here
Speaker 1: they say they want to start reconstruction of hospitals across
Speaker 1: the strip, and that last bullet this part is also
Speaker 1: really important beginning of indirect negotiations regarding the requirements necessary
Speaker 1: for restoring complete calm. So effectively, in the first stage,
Speaker 1: you'd start some reconstruction, you have a total pull out
Speaker 1: of the Israeli military, you'd have this first batch of
Speaker 1: hostages released in Palestinian prisoners exchange, and you would start
Speaker 1: negotiations to a complete end of the conflict. That's the
Speaker 1: part that really is the non starter quote unquote for
Speaker 1: the Israelis in the US. Let's put the next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen here regarding second stage, it would
Speaker 1: be another forty five days. This stage aims to release
Speaker 1: all detained men, civilians and conscripts in exchange for specific
Speaker 1: numbers of Palestinian prisoner's continuation of humanitarian measures. So the
Speaker 1: basic idea here is you sort of continue the projects
Speaker 1: of reconstruction and the continued negotiations while men and idea
Speaker 1: of soldiers are released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Put
Speaker 1: the next piece up on the screen. In the third stage,
Speaker 1: you'd have a complete cessation of military operations from both sides,
Speaker 1: read deployment of Israeli forces away from populated areas. Both
Speaker 1: parties will release all Israeli detainees from among women and
Speaker 1: children under the age of nineteen, not conscripted, elderly sick,
Speaker 1: in exchange for all prisoners and the occupations prisons, including women, children, elderly.
Speaker 1: Let's put the last piece up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: is also the stage where any hostage dead bodies, because
Speaker 1: there's somewhere around fifty hostages who have been killed at
Speaker 1: this point, unsurprising given that they're in the Gaza strip
Speaker 1: under heavy bombardment. At this point. There's some other pieces here,
Speaker 1: like stopping the incursions and aggression by Israeli settlers on
Speaker 1: Al Azamas, returning the situation all Oxamas to what it
Speaker 1: was before two thousand and two. That may not sound
Speaker 1: like a big deal, that is considered kind of a
Speaker 1: big ass return of displaced persons, ensuring opening of all crossings,
Speaker 1: lifting an Israeli restrictions on the movement of travelers, patients
Speaker 1: and the wounded through that Rafa crossing, resupplying the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: and the occupations commitment to supplies supplying Gaza with its
Speaker 1: electricity and water needs. So that was a lot, guys.
Speaker 1: But basically the idea from the Hamas proposal was these
Speaker 1: three stages, different types of hostages released in each stage,
Speaker 1: with the idea that the negotiations would be ongoing to
Speaker 1: bring about a complete end of the conflict. And so
Speaker 1: howber that's the piece that's really considered a non starter.
Speaker 1: We can also get Tony Blincoln responded to these negotiations.
Speaker 1: He's claiming the negotiations aren't dead. I don't know whether
Speaker 1: that's true or not. You can't really leave a word
Speaker 1: that comes out from any of these people's mouths, by
Speaker 1: the way, but let's take a listen to his response
Speaker 1: to the Hamas proposal.
Speaker 7: We've looked very carefully at what came back from Hamas,
Speaker 7: and there are clearly non starters in what it's put forward,
Speaker 7: but we also see space in what came back to
Speaker 7: pursue negotiations to see if we can get to an
Speaker 7: agreement with regard to Rafa. Look, as I said before,
Speaker 7: Israel has the responsibility, has the obligation to do everything
Speaker 7: possible to ensure that civilians are protected and that they
Speaker 7: get the assistance they need in the course of this conflict.
Speaker 7: Any military campaign, military operation that Israel undertakes needs to
Speaker 7: put civilians first and foremost in mind, and I suggested
Speaker 7: again some ways to do that. And that's especially true
Speaker 7: in the case of Rafa, where there are somewhere between
Speaker 7: one point two and one point four million people, many
Speaker 7: of them displaced from other parts of Gaza. So we
Speaker 7: want to make sure again that in anything that's done
Speaker 7: in any military operations, the situation for civilians is first
Speaker 7: and foremost in mind, and that necessary steps are taken
Speaker 7: to make sure that they're protected and they have the
Speaker 7: assistance they need.
Speaker 1: So a few things there, I mean. First of all,
Speaker 1: Gany describes the Hamas proposal as a non starter, and
Speaker 1: largely because you can read into that they want the
Speaker 1: war to end. And I'm going to show you some
Speaker 1: pulling in just a minute that shows you exactly why
Speaker 1: bb Netyahu does not want the war to end, which
Speaker 1: is because Israelly citizens overwhelmingly want his ass out of
Speaker 1: there once the war does end, So that's always been
Speaker 1: his posture. The other piece that's really important there, though,
Speaker 1: is he's talking about Rafa. And the reason that's so
Speaker 1: significant is because as Palestinians were forced out of Gaza City,
Speaker 1: they were forced down to communis then they were forced
Speaker 1: down to Rafa. Now you have over a million people
Speaker 1: clustered at the border, and Israel signaling that they are
Speaker 1: planning to widen their operation to that Rafa border. Well,
Speaker 1: you can only imagine, I mean, it's already a total
Speaker 1: humanitarian catastrophe there. You can only imagine if you start
Speaker 1: having scenes of battle and intense bombing and all of
Speaker 1: that on top of this incredibly densely packed civilian population
Speaker 1: clustered now in Rafa, what kind of a catastrophe that
Speaker 1: would be. I mean, even given the levels of destruction
Speaker 1: and chaos and atrocities that we've seen, it could be
Speaker 1: the case that we haven't seen anything yet compared to
Speaker 1: what could unfold in Rafa.
Speaker 2: That's actually where obviously, that's also why Blinkn is so concerned,
Speaker 2: at least privately.
Speaker 1: Let's put this sump there on many end.
Speaker 2: He's got it up here, Tony, Sorry, Tony, Blinkn was
Speaker 2: actually directly this is from Axios yesterday by the Defense
Speaker 2: Minister that if they do have a rejection of the ceasefire,
Speaker 2: that the operation into Gaza quote will expand in the
Speaker 2: city that have now mostly remained unharmed. Blincoln told the
Speaker 2: Lot told Blincoln during this meeting that this will push
Speaker 2: them into continuation of the ground operation, and that the
Speaker 2: response they said was drafted in a way that they
Speaker 2: believe that Israel World rejected the Hamas position will just
Speaker 2: lead to the continuation of the war and our forces
Speaker 2: to enter more places in Gaza soon.
Speaker 1: So pretis rallies never have any responsibility for their actions.
Speaker 2: The clear point that they're making there is that they're like,
Speaker 2: this is going to continue. Part of the reason why
Speaker 2: that this could actually be the most explosives.
Speaker 1: It was like, look, we've already had what.
Speaker 2: Tens of thousands of civilians who have been killed two
Speaker 2: to one, maybe in three to one in ratio. Nobody
Speaker 2: even really knows what it is. But because the civilian
Speaker 2: population is so densely populated here, it is actually conceivable
Speaker 2: that if air strikes and ground operations were to be continued,
Speaker 2: especially if they were going to operate the same way
Speaker 2: they did in Communis in Gaza. No reason to think
Speaker 2: they're not, that the civilian population or the civilian death
Speaker 2: toll would actually be even higher. There's also way more
Speaker 2: tunnel mileage under the Rafa crossing than there is anywhere
Speaker 2: else in the rest of the Gaza strip, which means
Speaker 2: that it will be deadlier for the IDF and then
Speaker 2: more likely that they would have to use or will
Speaker 2: use bombs that will.
Speaker 1: Try to collapse him. I'm interested.
Speaker 2: So there's a piece of news that just flashed, and
Speaker 2: I wanted to know what your take was. Here they
Speaker 2: say Israel will allow the exile actually of Ya Sinoar
Speaker 2: from Gaza in exchange for the release of all remaining
Speaker 2: of all the remaining one hundred and thirty six hostages.
Speaker 2: NBC is reporting now, citing six Israeli officials and senior advisors.
Speaker 1: Do you think that could be a way out of this. Oh,
Speaker 1: go ahead. I mean, they're just my understanding of the proposal,
Speaker 1: and you can crack me if I'm wrong, because I
Speaker 1: just saw the headline as well. But is that basically
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, we'll let you live if you know,
Speaker 1: basically like give up. And I can't imagine that he
Speaker 1: would agree to those sort of terms. So no, I
Speaker 1: don't see it is likely to you know, lead to
Speaker 1: any sort of padforward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that was just the only Well, I
Speaker 2: guess it's one of those counters where they want the
Speaker 2: release of all in exchange for one and that would
Speaker 2: be exile and then you know, it's not like it
Speaker 2: would actually give anything up and he likely would be
Speaker 2: killed anyway, you know, after he left, so he Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't seem like there's going to be
Speaker 2: any sort of negotiation. The real thing is is that
Speaker 2: the reason why I think that this is just all
Speaker 2: kind of just arguing over rhetoric is do these Raelies
Speaker 2: really believe that you're going to have a two month
Speaker 2: seas fire and resumption of military operations. I can't think
Speaker 2: of a single time in the past of modern conflict
Speaker 2: where you have sixty whole days of no fire and
Speaker 2: you have then a resumption of military hostilities. It just
Speaker 2: doesn't especially even more ramped up comas. I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: they took those hostages for a reason. They know it's
Speaker 2: an emotional issue. Number one, They're not gonna give up
Speaker 2: all their leverage, you know, if it doesn't mean to
Speaker 2: have a complete end to this. I am not justifying this.
Speaker 2: I think they should all be released. I'm just saying,
Speaker 2: like you know, from a pure cold calculation perspective, if
Speaker 2: they know this is the one chance that they have
Speaker 2: basically from total annihilation, If they haven't even you know,
Speaker 2: whatever they faced, it could be a lot worse. So
Speaker 2: they didn't have hostages or within them because of the
Speaker 2: Israeli populous which, as you said, polling indicates how important
Speaker 2: that issue is to the Israelis themselves.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a pull that just came out of
Speaker 1: Israeli society that asks, hey, what do you think the
Speaker 1: goals of the military operation should be? What should take precedence?
Speaker 1: And a majority actually put fifty one percent put bringing
Speaker 1: home the hostages over destroying Hamas. Only thirty six percent
Speaker 1: said destroying Hamas. And I mean, of course neither goal
Speaker 1: has been accomplished. Neither has been the real goal of
Speaker 1: the net Nyahu government. As we've discussed at length, they've
Speaker 1: been incredibly ineffective at actually eradicating Hamas. They've only been
Speaker 1: effective at complete destruction of civilian infrastructure and massive civilian
Speaker 1: death tolls. That's what they have been very effective doing.
Speaker 1: You know, even the tunnel system has not been remotely destroyed.
Speaker 1: So and of course, as I said before, you know
Speaker 1: a lot of hostage families from the beginning, they have
Speaker 1: been saying, hey, we would take a deal that's all
Speaker 1: hostages released for all Palestinian prisoners release what they call
Speaker 1: all for all. So while the US government and the
Speaker 1: net Yahoo government are saying the Hamas deal is a
Speaker 1: non starter, please understand that many Israelis, even you know
Speaker 1: who don't have to be peace necks, but even you know,
Speaker 1: families of the hostages, they would be very open to
Speaker 1: a deal like this if it meant that they're family members.
Speaker 1: That all one hundred and thirty six of the hostages,
Speaker 1: those who remain alive, because a number of them somewhere
Speaker 1: around estimates are around fifty have been killed during this conflict.
Speaker 1: But some sort of deal of what Hamas has offered
Speaker 1: here that would bring all of the hostages home. They
Speaker 1: would be very open to. But again, the domestic political
Speaker 1: calculus for Biebe is he's got to keep the war
Speaker 1: going because if he doesn't, then his political ragin is
Speaker 1: going to be at an end. So please understand when
Speaker 1: they say it's a non starter, that's what they consider
Speaker 1: to be a non starter, the idea that the war
Speaker 1: would actually end. We have another thing I can put
Speaker 1: up on the screen. I mean, to me, this is
Speaker 1: just more theater, but put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Netanyahu reacting to President Biden's like little pitoy sanctions on
Speaker 1: four settlers, he called them inappropriate and highly problematic. You know,
Speaker 1: does he is he really upset about this? I don't know, Probably,
Speaker 1: I guess, But also I think it benefits him for
Speaker 1: his right wing base to act like he's outraged. It
Speaker 1: benefits actually President Biden for the Israelis to act outraged
Speaker 1: because it makes this pitily you know, sort of pathetic
Speaker 1: virtue signaling action that they took. It makes it a
Speaker 1: year morning meaningful than it actually was. So anyway, that's
Speaker 1: his reaction as they were quote unquote inappropriate and highly
Speaker 1: problematic at the same time, there's some really significant developments
Speaker 1: unfolding vis a vis Saudi Arabia's role in all of this.
Speaker 1: So the Biden administration has been trying to float what
Speaker 1: Thomas Friedman labeled the quote unquote Biden doctrine for the
Speaker 1: future of the Middle East and essentially involved Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: normalizing relations with Israel at the end of all of this,
Speaker 1: even though the Saudis have really indicated, hey, we're not
Speaker 1: interested in that unless there is a Palestinian state, something
Speaker 1: that of course net Nyaho rejects completely out of hand
Speaker 1: also as a non starter. So Kirby, John Kirby put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, had just said recently that, oh,
Speaker 1: we received positive feedback from Saudi Arabia and Israel that
Speaker 1: they're willing to continue to have normalization discussions. These were
Speaker 1: ongoing before October seventh, to recall was according to again
Speaker 1: White House National Security spokesman John Kirby. This apparently really
Speaker 1: pissed off the Saudist because they felt the need to
Speaker 1: put out a statement directly in response and even sort
Speaker 1: of like calling out John Kirby directly that this does
Speaker 1: not reflect their position at all. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So this is a statement from the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Foreign Affairs regarding the discussions between Saudi Arabia, USA
Speaker 1: and the Arab Israeli peace process. Let me read this
Speaker 1: isn't all that long, they see. The Ministry of Foreign
Speaker 1: Affairs stated that regarding the discussions between Saudi and USA
Speaker 1: and the Arab Israeli peace process, and in light of
Speaker 1: what has been attributed to the US National Security spokesperson
Speaker 1: that would be Kirby, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms
Speaker 1: that the position of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always
Speaker 1: been steadfast on the Palestinian issue and the necessity that
Speaker 1: the brotherly Palestinian people obtain their legitimate rights. The Kingdom
Speaker 1: has communicated its firm position to the US administration that
Speaker 1: there will be no diplomatic relations with Israel unless an
Speaker 1: independent Palestinian state is recognized on the nineteen sixty seven
Speaker 1: borders with East Jerusalem as is capital, and that the
Speaker 1: Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip stops and all Israeli
Speaker 1: occupation forces withdraw from the Gaza Strip. The Kingdom reiterates
Speaker 1: its call to the permanent members the UN Security Council
Speaker 1: that have not yet recognized Palestinian state, to expedite the
Speaker 1: recognition of the Palestinian state on the nineteen sixty seven
Speaker 1: borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, so that the
Speaker 1: Palestinian people can obtain their legitimate rights, and so that
Speaker 1: a comprehensive and just peace is achieved for all. I
Speaker 1: mean it's somewhat diplomatic language, but sagur in the like
Speaker 1: diplomatics speak. This is as much of an over the
Speaker 1: top SmackDown as you could possibly get in the situation.
Speaker 2: The reason it matters is because Saudi normalization is something
Speaker 2: that the Israelis have wanted for years. Look the Saudi
Speaker 2: royal family themselves, they don't care about the Palestinians and
Speaker 2: they don't even care about Israelis. But Saudi Arabia is
Speaker 2: a big country. They have a big population, yeah, their population.
Speaker 2: They care a lot about the Palasts. This is the
Speaker 2: thing that many people don't understand is that the golf
Speaker 2: monarchies and even you know, the monarchy of Jordan for example.
Speaker 2: These people are educated in the West. I mean they
Speaker 2: you know, they're real politique. As long as they can
Speaker 2: hang out on the south of France, they don't care.
Speaker 1: But they're people.
Speaker 2: I mean, in many cases they're poor, and they're very
Speaker 2: identified with the Palestinian cause they are not as integrated
Speaker 2: with Western society and all that. And for them this
Speaker 2: is a deeply emotional issue such that if the Saudis
Speaker 2: are seen to leave the Palestinians behind in any way
Speaker 2: by normalizing relationship, it's just it's a.
Speaker 1: Complete non starter.
Speaker 2: It would actually put the monarchy at risk, something that
Speaker 2: they will never withstand. Part of the reason that they've
Speaker 2: been and taken the posture that they've had. It's something
Speaker 2: that the US and in my opinion diplomats often forget
Speaker 2: in our dealings with them, is like the Saudi king
Speaker 2: does not speak for.
Speaker 1: The Saudi people.
Speaker 2: Sometimes he does, but you know, in cases like this,
Speaker 2: definitely not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he didn't get edged.
Speaker 2: Most of these people ain't educated in the Sandhurst or
Speaker 2: Georgetown or whatever.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 2: They are Arab and their very identification with the Arab
Speaker 2: with Arab nationalism, with Arab cause, and they hate Israel
Speaker 2: with the fiery passion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there was a uh, there was a
Speaker 1: I think it was a league or maybe an administration
Speaker 1: official officially said this on the record, but they put
Speaker 1: out to the press like, oh, just before October seventh,
Speaker 1: we totally were going to work on with Saudi this
Speaker 1: track to Palestinians statehood, and then October seven just ruined
Speaker 1: every It's total nonsense. The Saudi thought they could get
Speaker 1: away with normalization when the Palestinians were being erased as
Speaker 1: an issue, and when they're completely on the back burner.
Speaker 1: No longer possible because of all of the energy in
Speaker 1: Saudi and throughout the region on behalf of the Palestinian people.
Speaker 1: And as I said to you before, Sager, you know
Speaker 1: a lot of these countries have been sort of humiliated
Speaker 1: by South Africa who stepped up and they were the
Speaker 1: ones that filed the charges with the ICJ and accused
Speaker 1: Israel of genocide. Any one of these countries could have
Speaker 1: done the same, but they didn't. And so even though
Speaker 1: it's a monarchy, it's not anything close to a democracy,
Speaker 1: they still have to respond to pressure from their people.
Speaker 1: And if they were seen so for John Kirby to
Speaker 1: be out there like, oh yeah, they're still interested in
Speaker 1: normalizing with Israel without having a clear cut Palestinian state
Speaker 1: Along nineteen sixty seven porters, they felt the need to
Speaker 1: be like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That is not
Speaker 1: our position at all. We told you that's not our position.
Speaker 1: We are very clear about where we stand on all
Speaker 1: of this, and so it really is once again extraordinary
Speaker 1: humiliation and rebuke of the US and our posture in
Speaker 1: the region. The last thing that I want to share
Speaker 1: with you with regard to Israel, because there was a
Speaker 1: lot of interesting polling that recently came out about the
Speaker 1: Israeli people themselves put this up on the screen. So
Speaker 1: it continues to be the case that majority of Israelis
Speaker 1: safety do not want a Palestinian state or peace with
Speaker 1: Arab countries. Half of Israelis would oppose a deal to
Speaker 1: end the war in Gods if it includes Palestinian statehood
Speaker 1: and peace agreements with other Arab countries. Only thirty nine
Speaker 1: percent think Israel is ensuring the security of its citizens
Speaker 1: as well. So there's you know, real indictment of the
Speaker 1: current Israeli government that's kind of across the board. In addition,
Speaker 1: this again understated scores the weakness of Netnyahu's position. About
Speaker 1: seventy one percent of Israelis would like to see early elections.
Speaker 1: Their current elections are scheduled for November twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Seventy one percent are saying no, no, no, no, no, we
Speaker 1: can't wait till then. We got to either have them,
Speaker 1: and there's a split in opinion between we should just
Speaker 1: have them right now, which is of what the quote
Speaker 1: unquote left in Israel once and the Arab population in
Speaker 1: Israel once, or hey, we can wait till the war's over,
Speaker 1: but then we need to have elections, so that polling
Speaker 1: is in the back of Netanyahu and the rest of
Speaker 1: the war cabinet by the way of their mind when
Speaker 1: they're making all of these decisions about how to proceed.
Speaker 1: And then I reference this before, but I want to
Speaker 1: underscore it again. They also asked about the main goals
Speaker 1: of the war in Gaza, whether bringing home the Israeli
Speaker 1: hostages are Topplinghamas should be the priority. About half said
Speaker 1: bringing home the hostages fifty one percent should be the
Speaker 1: main focus, while thirty six percent said it should be
Speaker 1: destroying the terror group in the strip. But you know,
Speaker 1: you have a majority of Israeli societies as we do
Speaker 1: not want a Palestinian state. And what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: It tells you that if it is going to be.
Speaker 1: If that's going to be a real thing and not
Speaker 1: just a thing that US politicians say to pretend like
Speaker 1: they give a shit about Palestinians, then the US is
Speaker 1: going to have to really use some muscle and basically
Speaker 1: force a solution on the Israelis. That's really the only
Speaker 1: way that this would ever happen. And even then it
Speaker 1: would be, you know, not a certain situation absolutely.
Speaker 3: I mean, the thing is is that emotions run hot.
Speaker 2: I would say that if you are in the middle
Speaker 2: of a hostage situation in a full blown war, and
Speaker 2: you've still got the polling where it is right now,
Speaker 2: a couple of years from now, guns are not there,
Speaker 2: some hostages get returned, I could see a difference in
Speaker 2: the opinion. I mean, it's one of those where I
Speaker 2: actually was shocked by the numbers, considering I thought it
Speaker 2: would be two thirds or you know, maybe even three
Speaker 2: forts who were opposed to a Palestinian state. I think
Speaker 2: people there are going to get to a point too
Speaker 2: where look, right now you're in but war fever. You
Speaker 2: know you're in the middle of it. Take a year, Israelis.
Speaker 2: You guys love to travel.
Speaker 1: And I'll meet you all over the world.
Speaker 2: Try traveling a little bit see what the global reaction
Speaker 2: is like. You know, if you get denied from a
Speaker 2: few countries, get meet people in a hostel or whatever.
Speaker 3: They're like, oh, you know, you're you know, something like that.
Speaker 2: That's going to start to sting, and then you're gonna
Speaker 2: have to get to a situation where you have to
Speaker 2: reconcile yourself to the international community on top of US pressure.
Speaker 2: And I could see things going to fifty percent or
Speaker 2: so not that long from now.
Speaker 1: You're you're right, like, we're gonna have to there's no
Speaker 1: question you're gonna have to force their hand.
Speaker 2: But I also could see democratic sentiment in Israel, especially
Speaker 2: when bb is finally gone, Smo, trit Bent, all these
Speaker 2: other people no longer given you know, the bully pulpit.
Speaker 2: We're not in the middle of a war, you don't
Speaker 2: have a baby being held hostage and all that.
Speaker 1: I could see things changing.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Good, maybe, I mean, there's no guarant It is worth
Speaker 1: remembering that there have been many previous situations in world
Speaker 1: history where you had two groups of people, you know,
Speaker 1: killing each other totally at odds. Seems like an intractable conflict,
Speaker 1: and it's actually not that long after you're able to
Speaker 1: negotiate some sort of settlement where there really is like
Speaker 1: genuine ped every reports to Ireland. I was going to
Speaker 1: be the perfect example.
Speaker 2: When we were in graduate school for my security thing,
Speaker 2: one of the papers very rarely school assignments stick with you,
Speaker 2: but it was this like statistical study where and this
Speaker 2: sounds weird, but the more attempts at ceasefire that there are,
Speaker 2: the more likely peace is there in the end. And
Speaker 2: it sounds trite, but what it really means is that
Speaker 2: the mere act of talking, even though most talks will
Speaker 2: fall apart, is a precursor to an eventual piece. It
Speaker 2: actually makes sense, which is if you don't talk at all,
Speaker 2: then you can ever arrive at piece. And so even
Speaker 2: though most talks are intractable, they fail, they fall apart.
Speaker 2: I think the vast majority of ceasefires actually have resumption
Speaker 2: of conflict, not two months like what I was talking about.
Speaker 2: You know, for example, in Syria, we negotiate a seasefire
Speaker 2: and we have one two days later it kept, we
Speaker 2: had nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
Speaker 1: Whatever.
Speaker 2: The whole point though, is that the mere act of
Speaker 2: talking eventually does lead to breakdown to breakthroughs and populations
Speaker 2: can shift very very quickly whenever they are led by people.
Speaker 2: So that's one that sticks with me here. And part
Speaker 2: of the reasons why I think talking even the mere
Speaker 2: act as maddening and all this is to cover is
Speaker 2: that it can be very beneficial in the future. A
Speaker 2: part of the reason I'm rooting for some sort of
Speaker 2: cease fire agreements actually come.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, I mean, you know, on the flip side,
Speaker 1: there's no guarantee that whatever comes after net Nyahuo will
Speaker 1: be more open to peace than Net Naho is. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's basically his entire career on blocking Palestinian state. There's
Speaker 1: a reason why you know, he's been able to ascend
Speaker 1: to power multiple times while staking out that position. It's
Speaker 1: because it's a position that is widely held in Israeli society.
Speaker 1: I do think it's noteworthy that in spite of October seventh,
Speaker 1: I mean, these poll numbers about statehood basically haven't really
Speaker 1: moved during this current conflict, which is, you know, I
Speaker 1: probably would have predicted right after October seventh that, you know,
Speaker 1: those in favor of a Palestinian state, I mean, it
Speaker 1: would just be like sort of completely wiped down. So
Speaker 1: the fact that you even have like roughly a third
Speaker 1: that is still like okay, but we should you know,
Speaker 1: look towards statehood or I would accept at least statehood,
Speaker 1: you know, and that that hasn't further deteriorated. I guess
Speaker 1: I can take that as like a positive sign that
Speaker 1: there is some potential for peace because the reality is, like,
Speaker 1: there is no military solution to this conflict of course, period,
Speaker 1: end of story. The only way that Israelis and Palestinians
Speaker 1: are going to be able to live in you know,
Speaker 1: peace and with some relative security, etc. Is through a
Speaker 1: negotiated settlement is the basic rights of the Palaestinian people
Speaker 1: and provide them with some sort of a of statehood,
Speaker 1: you know, that's legitimate, that's not like fake like Biden's
Speaker 1: also like floating these ideas that would effectively result in
Speaker 1: what they call like state minus, which wouldn't be real sovereignty.
Speaker 1: I mean, it has to be something approaching genuine statehood
Speaker 1: for the situation to be resolved.
Speaker 2: But one yeah, we can look back to, yeah, is
Speaker 2: disengagement from Gaza Aerosharone. I mean, he's you know, by
Speaker 2: many war criminal, right, but he was the guy behind
Speaker 2: the disengagement from Gaza.
Speaker 1: I have it here in front of me.
Speaker 2: Sixty five percent of voters in a referendum on May second,
Speaker 2: two thousand and four oppose the disengagement plan. Government went
Speaker 2: through it anyway, you know why because the Bush administration
Speaker 2: was like, you're doing this, it's going to happen. So
Speaker 2: it's one of those where we have the ability and
Speaker 2: they can buck their own thing. And now in retrospect,
Speaker 2: you know, look, there's a lot of things to say
Speaker 2: about disengagement from Gaza and all that, but it's a
Speaker 2: good example of how they rooted their people, settlers out
Speaker 2: of the Gaza Strip and they're like you're getting kicked out, period,
Speaker 2: And the story that could be, uh, you know, that
Speaker 2: could be one of a precursor for what the West
Speaker 2: would look like in the future and their ability.
Speaker 1: You know, if the government wants to do it, they
Speaker 1: can get it done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just going to require some political capital and
Speaker 2: then diplomatic pressure on our end.
Speaker 1: Yeah, your point being not that that was good for Palestinians,
Speaker 1: because it wasn't. I mean, the good conditions and Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip dramatically deteriorator. They are an incomplete blocking and siege
Speaker 1: machine guns pointed in at them, et cetera. But that
Speaker 1: they did something that was unpopular with the popular Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: The Israelis can do it if they want to. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the end result, I mean, there's a lot of people
Speaker 2: to blame for that one, mostly Bush. But we'll get
Speaker 2: to that first.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, As you probably know by all of
Speaker 1: the videos circulating of people looking absolutely ridiculous on the street,
Speaker 1: the Apple Vision pro has been released. And prepare yourself, guys,
Speaker 1: go ahead and show the two shot because Sager just
Speaker 1: got his mail.
Speaker 2: We're here here, it is ready. How's my pass through?
Speaker 2: Can you guys see my eyes?
Speaker 1: No, we can't see your eyes at all. We just
Speaker 1: see the reflections of like our You know what's great.
Speaker 2: I can see all of you. I can see you
Speaker 2: all be digitally rendered right here in front of me.
Speaker 2: I got my laptop screen over there. I've got some
Speaker 2: fun stuff going on over here. But I'm still about
Speaker 2: the studio.
Speaker 1: What does it feel like on your head? Like? It
Speaker 1: seems like it's pretty heavy.
Speaker 2: It's a bit heavy. Yeah, I'll be honest, I think
Speaker 2: that the most comfortable. So I worked for a couple
Speaker 2: of hours. Yesterday's just literally deliberate. I was actually on
Speaker 2: the phone with you whenever I have worked for a
Speaker 2: couple of hours. Yesterday, after three hours, I was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: you get like kind of a.
Speaker 1: Red area that arrives on the forehead.
Speaker 2: So the best way is if you're on the couch
Speaker 2: and you're just kind of leaning.
Speaker 1: Back a little bit, like resting on your face. It's
Speaker 1: just totally amazing. Okay, that's even makes it even a
Speaker 1: little more dystopian, and we're all just gonna be laying
Speaker 1: on our couches in another world in these things.
Speaker 2: My favorite thing and I saw crysl I'm curious what
Speaker 2: you saw is a guy who had an infant who
Speaker 2: was napping on his chest and he's like, usually I
Speaker 2: can't watch TV because I can't use my hands.
Speaker 3: So he had his vision pro on and he could
Speaker 3: watch TV.
Speaker 1: But we'll get to God forbid. We'd just be like
Speaker 1: present with our loved ones while joining the moment of
Speaker 1: your precious baby sleeping on your chest. I can't say
Speaker 1: I've seen any favorite things. I've seen lots of things
Speaker 1: I've found very disturbing and dystopian. And also it's like
Speaker 1: for me this thing fits in this weird space of
Speaker 1: both being kind of dystopian but also kind of like
Speaker 1: ridiculous and lame. But you can try to change my mind.
Speaker 1: Let's Sager did record a video, but first I want
Speaker 1: to show you some of the videos that have been
Speaker 1: circulating of other people out in the world using this monstrosity.
Speaker 1: So here we have the dude who got the first one.
Speaker 2: Yes, being cheered as a hero, which he is he is.
Speaker 1: He I wonder if he really used better. He's going
Speaker 1: to resell it because the resale has got to be
Speaker 1: a lot. Here's someone who is skateboarding down the streets
Speaker 1: of what appears to be New York City. That's case.
Speaker 1: He's a YouTuber. Oh for reality he's reviewing that looks terrifying.
Speaker 1: Here's the guy this is even more terrifying, who's doing
Speaker 1: He's in a Tesla self driving, so his hands are
Speaker 1: not on the wheel and he was like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: clicking is the guy on the subway who's clicking and people,
Speaker 1: you know, doing their thing And he just looks kind
Speaker 1: of like a goober, because that's what you look like
Speaker 1: when you have this thing on. As we can tell
Speaker 1: from Sagary others, I'm not so sure. Look at me
Speaker 1: over here, my life. You look really cool there we're
Speaker 1: looking here on my computer, So soccer, where do you
Speaker 1: put this intern of? You know, there's people like myself
Speaker 1: who were like, this just seems like another way to
Speaker 1: have more screens in front of your face, not particularly revolutionary.
Speaker 1: There are other people who think that this is like groundbreaking,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the whole new thing, new era.
Speaker 1: Where do you fall on that spectrum? What do you
Speaker 1: find to be the most sort of like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: revolutionary about the technology.
Speaker 3: So for me, this is just v one of the future.
Speaker 3: I love gadgets.
Speaker 2: So my dad and I were Google Glass guys, like
Speaker 2: just just so people know, you know, like we Google Glass.
Speaker 1: Are those guys or freaks?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So we're one of those now.
Speaker 2: The real reason that I bought this and wanted to
Speaker 2: use it and cashed out some ethereum just to be
Speaker 2: able to buy it was specifically because I thought this
Speaker 2: is the best piece of enterprise tech that I had
Speaker 2: seen yet. So Oculus, which is the meta Quest headset
Speaker 2: that they have out there, that one is much more
Speaker 2: geared towards gaming, And I'm not a gamer.
Speaker 1: I don't particularly care, but what.
Speaker 2: I do love love about this is entertainment is secondary
Speaker 2: to me for the enterprise application. And what I mean
Speaker 2: by that is my sheer ability to be able to
Speaker 2: do work wherever the hell that I want to. I
Speaker 2: recorded a video actually here on the Vision Pro at home,
Speaker 2: showing everyone how it was working on my monologue yesterday
Speaker 2: and kind of the cool setup that I had literally
Speaker 2: while I was sitting on my couch in my living room.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 2: Hello, everybody, I am coming to you from my living room.
Speaker 2: As you can see, I want to give a little
Speaker 2: demo of how I would use the Apple Vision Pro.
Speaker 2: This is quite literally what I am doing right now. First,
Speaker 2: I want to show everybody one of my coolest and
Speaker 2: favorite things about this thing, which is called the environments.
Speaker 2: So currently I am fully immersed now in Joshua Tree.
Speaker 2: So as you guys can see, I literally was just there,
Speaker 2: and even though I'm in my house, I swear to God,
Speaker 2: I feel like I am right right there and you
Speaker 2: can see a little bit of the pass through that's
Speaker 2: happening here right now. So what I have here in
Speaker 2: front of me is actually the script for my monologue,
Speaker 2: which I can am right, I can do some editing.
Speaker 2: This is fully functional with my laptop keyboard, which is
Speaker 2: right in front of me. If I want to watch
Speaker 2: a little bit of Apple TV, I can have it
Speaker 2: all right here as you guys can see. And then
Speaker 2: here I've got what you can use in terms of
Speaker 2: YouTube for Safari.
Speaker 1: This is just on the browser.
Speaker 2: As you guys can see, I'm like scrolling, we can
Speaker 2: look this way, et cetera. If you guys want to
Speaker 2: get a little preview of the actual like the keyboard
Speaker 2: and all that, you could see here you get the
Speaker 2: keyboard that pops up right here in front of you.
Speaker 2: It's actually really really cool. So for me, this is
Speaker 2: just the ultimate desktop experience. I've got full three sixty
Speaker 2: degree vision everywhere I look, as you guys can see
Speaker 2: you with me. Even though I am right here. I'm
Speaker 2: also using the optical insert so I don't even have
Speaker 2: my glasses that are on me right now.
Speaker 3: So anyways, that's why I love this thing so far.
Speaker 2: There's my video, Crystal, What do you think You're not
Speaker 2: a little bit in transpi.
Speaker 1: It now, Okay, you the biggest desktop in the world.
Speaker 1: You can do anything this This thing.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't need more things to disconnect me or my children,
Speaker 1: by the way, especially my son. I would not like
Speaker 1: kids anyone near this, I will tell you from reality,
Speaker 1: Like I already have enough ways to disconnect myself from
Speaker 1: reality and be constantly distracted by work and Twitter and
Speaker 1: YouTube and whatever. So and then also, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean some of the videos I saw. I saw one
Speaker 1: of this dude who was you know, It's like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, I'm using the maps in Apple Vision Pro
Speaker 1: and it's actually amazing, and you see the vision of
Speaker 1: what is and he's just like walking down the street
Speaker 1: in the map instead of being here on his phone.
Speaker 1: It's just like, oh, it's right there. It's like, that's
Speaker 1: not revolutionary. It's just makes you you are even more
Speaker 1: disconnected from your surroundings and even more in your own
Speaker 1: bubble and have exactly the same access to tech that
Speaker 1: you already had on your phone. So no, I'm not excited.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm the opposite of excited. I am anti excited
Speaker 1: about I'm sort of like dreading the possibility that this
Speaker 1: thing could take off and we all be even more
Speaker 1: sort of like remote and distant from each other. Here's
Speaker 1: the case I would give.
Speaker 2: The case is is that at the very least, Apple
Speaker 2: is not committed to quote unquote virtual reality.
Speaker 1: They're committed to augmented reality.
Speaker 2: The idea being that I can see you, I'm interacting
Speaker 2: with you right now, but I can also click this
Speaker 2: button and I can throw like I've got my text
Speaker 2: messages right now that you can't see.
Speaker 3: But that I'm literally like throwing up like here, and
Speaker 3: I can look at you.
Speaker 1: When you're with someone you want to be able to
Speaker 1: talk about, see their eyeballs.
Speaker 2: How many times do you go out to eat and
Speaker 2: you see what are two people who are sitting across doing.
Speaker 3: They're sitting on their phones already.
Speaker 1: Right, and then we'll be like, we do that more.
Speaker 1: Let's just put it like right in front of our
Speaker 1: eyeballs instead of having a surreptitiously It's like, I think
Speaker 1: it's better.
Speaker 3: It's better I can be here.
Speaker 2: So look, this is V again, this is V one,
Speaker 2: Like it's going to be a lot small three to
Speaker 2: five years from now, think about iPhone one versus iPhone
Speaker 2: four is a completely different change. Again, I would say
Speaker 2: that the enterprise application of this is amazing now just
Speaker 2: in terms of the sheer tech. The first time that
Speaker 2: you see something appear in front of your eyeballs that
Speaker 2: has been placed there through is is insanity. I can
Speaker 2: barely describe how what it feels like. It's like magic.
Speaker 2: I honestly, it feels like magic. Whenever the first time
Speaker 2: that you open it and you put it on, the
Speaker 2: Hello that usually comes up on your desktop screen flashes
Speaker 2: in front of your eyes.
Speaker 1: I was taking it back. I was like, oh my god.
Speaker 2: You know you've seen video and all that, but it's
Speaker 2: difficult to uh to comprehend. So I mean, listen, we're
Speaker 2: already in a world of tech. We've we're already addicted
Speaker 2: to our phones and all that. This is just what
Speaker 2: the next jump could look like. I would be much
Speaker 2: I would be much more in favor of the augmented reality,
Speaker 2: the spatial computing that Apple is doing, which is an
Speaker 2: extension of your already existing ecosystem and or work as
Speaker 2: opposed to fully going ready player one like living in
Speaker 2: a different world. So for that, I think that this
Speaker 2: accomplishes that quite well. And I mean, if you like,
Speaker 2: if you're a video editor, or if you have something
Speaker 2: that you want to get really up close with, it's
Speaker 2: really useful. I mean, I'm telling you like, I had
Speaker 2: stuff right in front of me, and I was trying to,
Speaker 2: you know, look at a video actually, the one that
Speaker 2: I shot, just frame by frame, just to see what
Speaker 2: it would look like. I can't imagine you for people,
Speaker 2: for the guys who work on our show, the ability
Speaker 2: to like zoom in with your hands. It's just like
Speaker 2: Minority Report. It feels like Minority Report is actually real.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I think it's really cool. I definitely
Speaker 2: think that three to five years from now, when this
Speaker 2: tech is fully deployable, it could completely replace both the laptop, computer,
Speaker 2: and the television, so then you have a combined thing. Also,
Speaker 2: I have a flight later today, so I'm actually really
Speaker 2: pumped to try to actually use it on the airplane.
Speaker 2: So the downsides, I would be remiss if I didn't
Speaker 2: give the downsides. It's heavy, let's be real. Also, this
Speaker 2: Dongo battery thing, it's annoying because you have to put
Speaker 2: it in your back pocket and it's only got two hours,
Speaker 2: so it costs more money if you want to buy extra.
Speaker 2: The other thing I didn't realize is that you know,
Speaker 2: when you download a movie or whatever on your phone,
Speaker 2: it's like four hundred megs. These they are like four
Speaker 2: gigs because you have to be able to throw it
Speaker 2: up in a full ten ADP or four KHD like
Speaker 2: one hundred screen TV. So the hard drive on mine
Speaker 2: I got the cheapest one is like two hundred fifty
Speaker 2: six gigs or whatever. But I mean, honestly, if you're
Speaker 2: trying to consume download content, you're going to need.
Speaker 3: A hell of a lot of space or something like that.
Speaker 2: But overall, I mean, listen, you know, for a first try,
Speaker 2: it's a risky device, and I like that.
Speaker 1: I think it's cool. Mark me town as a hater skeptic.
Speaker 3: We haven't even tried it on yet.
Speaker 1: I'm already a hater. I'm going full like get off
Speaker 1: my lawn on this one. That's good. Listen, listen, listen.
Speaker 1: Just my view, every technology comes with pluses and minuses, right,
Speaker 1: this has so much is so much of an advance,
Speaker 1: so much. You know, there's so much benefit to this,
Speaker 1: and even it has massive drawbacks some of what you're
Speaker 1: talking about in your model today as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: So you always have to weigh, like do the pluses
Speaker 1: outweigh the minuses? And who knows, maybe I'm just not
Speaker 1: creative enough to imagine the possibilities of it. But the
Speaker 1: idea of like, oh, I can multitask better, or I
Speaker 1: can be more consumed in my work, or I can
Speaker 1: be more distracted while I'm having a conversation with people
Speaker 1: right in front of me, That benefit benefit does not
Speaker 1: outweigh the cons of increasing disconnection increasing like insolerity increasing,
Speaker 1: you know, remoteness from the actual real world. My personal view.
Speaker 2: Well, listen, Crystal, whenever you've done a multiple FaceTime call
Speaker 2: and you're all just hanging out together and you're r
Speaker 2: it feels like you're right there. We can all go
Speaker 2: visit Joshua Tree together and we don't even have to go.
Speaker 1: It's that lovely. Or you could actually, yeah, you should
Speaker 1: visit v you could actually touch grass as the other alternative.
Speaker 2: So anyway, thank you guys for sticking with us. This
Speaker 2: is a fun review. We will what's next? Oh wet,
Speaker 2: Look right, we've got media.
Speaker 1: I can still read. See he's not even connected to
Speaker 1: our show right now. He doesn't even know where he
Speaker 1: is or what comes next in our show.
Speaker 3: I'll pull it up right here.
Speaker 1: Anyway, all right, We're going to take a second, so
Speaker 1: Saga can take these ridiculous things off of his face,
Speaker 1: and then we're going to talk about what just happened
Speaker 1: on Fox News. So an absolutely insane situation unfolded live
Speaker 1: on Fox News on Sean Hannity's program. He was in
Speaker 1: the middle of interviewing the head of the quote unquote
Speaker 1: Guardian Angels in New York, This dude, Curtis Lee White.
Speaker 1: You guys probably heard of him. They're this sort of
Speaker 1: like street vigilante group. And in the middle of the
Speaker 1: live interview, they turned the cameras to the Guardian Angels
Speaker 1: like beating up and putting in a headlock and throwing
Speaker 1: on the ground some random dude. Take a look at
Speaker 1: how all of this unfolds.
Speaker 10: If you divide fifty three million by five hundred, that's
Speaker 10: one hundred and six thousand dollars debit card. Not a
Speaker 10: bad deal. I don't think they're given them to vetsa
Speaker 10: that are homeless in New York City, not that I've heard, Curtis.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 10: In fact, guys have just taken down one of the
Speaker 10: migrant guys right here on the corner forty second and
Speaker 10: seventh while did you pan the camera.
Speaker 5: They've taken over, They've taken over, Like the camera.
Speaker 1: Over there fit all possible. Yep, you got your key open, guys,
Speaker 1: he is Idi control Bartie control there all right now.
Speaker 10: Eric Adams often complains he's getting no support from the
Speaker 10: federal government to help him with the surge of Joe
Speaker 10: Biden's unvetted illegals in New York, and that could be
Speaker 10: because of the so called borders.
Speaker 1: Are is a little distracted right now.
Speaker 10: According to a report, Vice President Harris has now suddenly
Speaker 10: quote found her footing.
Speaker 1: So for those of you who are just listening, what
Speaker 1: you see is the camera pans over to this group
Speaker 1: of quote unquote Guardian angels in red jackets wrestling this man,
Speaker 1: putting him in a headlock to the ground. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: what happens on screen, and then you can hear their
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity sort of quickly changes the subject interview over
Speaker 1: and moves ones of whatever Kamala Harrison when he has
Speaker 1: up next. So later on, apparently they go back to
Speaker 1: Curtis Leewa to get an explanation of like what the
Speaker 1: hell just happened here? His story about this quote unquote
Speaker 1: migrant guy that he claims is, you know, one of
Speaker 1: these illegals that Joe Biden is letting into the city.
Speaker 1: He says he had been shoplifting. First, the Guardian Angel
Speaker 1: spotted him, stopped him, he resisted, and let's just say
Speaker 1: we gave him a little pain. Compliance His mother back
Speaker 1: in Venezuela felt the vibrations. He's sucking concrete. The cops
Speaker 1: scraped him off the asphalt. He's on his way to jail,
Speaker 1: but they'll cut him loose. We've got to take forty
Speaker 1: second street Backshawn. These illegals think they own the street.
Speaker 1: They think they ruled the night. This is our country.
Speaker 1: Hannity goes on to describe the role of the Guardian
Speaker 1: Angels as quote unquote amazing. Well, it turns out all
Speaker 1: of that was completely a lie. First of all, put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, so this is NBC News.
Speaker 1: First of all, the man that they said was a
Speaker 1: quote unquote migrant is in New Yorker from the Bronx.
Speaker 1: Let's start there. He's from the US Number two. They
Speaker 1: talked to the cops. The cops said they had no
Speaker 1: proof of the shoplifting claim. They did give this guy
Speaker 1: some disorderly conduct citation because they said he was disrupting
Speaker 1: a live TV interview. So apparently what actually happened here
Speaker 1: is that the Guardian Angels decided, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if this dude was really like disrupting the live
Speaker 1: TV shot shot or whatever, but they just effectively picked
Speaker 1: him out of the crowd, thought that he you know,
Speaker 1: looked brown and maybe was possibly speaking Spanish and then
Speaker 1: just like tackle him and wrestle him to the ground.
Speaker 1: And the NYPD has stopped answering questions about, Hey, what
Speaker 1: about the Guardian Angels basically like open public assault and
Speaker 1: hate crime, targeted hate crime that occurred on camera. Is
Speaker 1: there any responsibility or accountability for them whatsoever? Completely insane situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, slie Wes said he believed the man was
Speaker 2: a migrant because he had been speaking Spanish and because
Speaker 2: other guardians had encountered people with Spanish speakers on previous vituals.
Speaker 1: Have you never been to New York City before? Like,
Speaker 1: what are you talking about? People who speaking Spanish there
Speaker 1: for one hundred years speaking It doesn't mean that you
Speaker 1: can like beat a person up and put them in
Speaker 1: a headlock and throw them on the ground.
Speaker 2: The whole situation is totally nuts. I actually was not
Speaker 2: familiar with the group. Apparently traces back you were explaining
Speaker 2: to me from nineteen seventy nine, whenever Sliwa founded them
Speaker 2: to quote patrol the streets and subways during the high
Speaker 2: crime days have drawn criticism since that time, I think
Speaker 2: fairly for allegations of targeting, you know, people of color
Speaker 2: and criminals. So they say vigilantism is not the answer.
Speaker 2: One of the city council members. Yeah, the whole situation
Speaker 2: is nuts. Like, look, you know, people know my views
Speaker 2: on immigration. I'm not supportive of illegal migration or any
Speaker 2: of these people being in New York City.
Speaker 3: But this man is a US citizen.
Speaker 2: You can't be rough enough as a private citizen random
Speaker 2: people just because they're speaking Spanish. First of all, my
Speaker 2: peoples deserve to be beat up. Okay, that's the job
Speaker 2: for the authorities.
Speaker 1: That's not for you.
Speaker 2: If he was a shoplifter or whatever. Number two, it's like, guys,
Speaker 2: you can't be just be rough enough random people who
Speaker 2: are speaking Spanish. And have you ever been a Times Square,
Speaker 2: it's the norm not to hear English. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like it's mostly tourists, it's people.
Speaker 3: From everywhere else.
Speaker 1: Only people who are in The only people in New.
Speaker 2: York who are in Times Square who are like from
Speaker 2: New York are the people who like work in those
Speaker 2: downtown office buildings who have a misfortune of having to
Speaker 2: go there. Everybody else is just a tourist.
Speaker 1: Nobody else is saying that. If you actually live in
Speaker 1: New York, which I did for many years, you avoid
Speaker 1: time saying they're at a play with God. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean there's a lot to say about it. First of all,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole thing from Sleewas, Oh my god,
Speaker 1: it's chaos and these migrants would take the over blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. Meanwhile, tourists are casually walking by and everything's fine.
Speaker 1: The only disturbance is your goons roughing up for no reason,
Speaker 1: targeting this man, throwing him on the ground. And again,
Speaker 1: I just want to say, the shoplifting thing is bullshit.
Speaker 1: There is no credence to that whatsoever. There's no evans
Speaker 1: the cops are saying that didn't happen, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: I don't want to give any credence to that, not
Speaker 1: that even if he was shoplifting, that the answer is to,
Speaker 1: you know, put him in a headlock and throw him
Speaker 1: on the ground, et cetera, et cetera. So the criminals
Speaker 1: here are the quote unquote Guardian Angel vigilante hate crime
Speaker 1: perpetrators out in broad public on Handity Show second half,
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if on MSNBC they had something like,
Speaker 1: you know, Reverend Sharpton leading a gang of people to
Speaker 1: just randomly assault some white guy on the street live
Speaker 1: on camera. Can you imagine the freak ount over that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's exactly like the parallel of what we
Speaker 1: watched unfold over on Fox News, And it's complete insanity.
Speaker 1: I mean, they lost their minds on this one. And
Speaker 1: I just the fact that there obviously this went viral online,
Speaker 1: but the fact that it hasn't been an even bigger
Speaker 1: deal to me speaks to a real sort of double
Speaker 1: standard that's going on here, because this was completely insane
Speaker 1: to watch unfold Well, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 1: What do you mean by double standard? Well, like I said,
Speaker 1: if it was Reverend Sharpton and leading a gang of
Speaker 1: black people to beat up some like random white dude
Speaker 1: on the street, what do you think you think that
Speaker 1: would be national news right now?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, one hundred percent, we would never hear the
Speaker 1: end of it. They would be arrested. The cops wouldn't
Speaker 1: be saying like, oh, it's fine, we just we gave
Speaker 1: the white dude a disorderly conduct charge because he was
Speaker 1: disrupting a live TV broadcast. As a total double standard,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I agree with that.
Speaker 2: I mean, people literally burned, rioted, and looted for two
Speaker 2: years straight or like on camera broadcast live supported by
Speaker 2: the media, and no, and they.
Speaker 1: Were prosecuted, no, very very they were prosecuted. Very few people,
Speaker 1: the people who were violent were prosecuted. No. That is
Speaker 1: how do you think how do you think it would
Speaker 1: go down? It's the situation that I described. Do you
Speaker 1: think they'd be let off with, oh it's fine and
Speaker 1: it just would like go viral online but no one
Speaker 1: would report on it, and that they would face no
Speaker 1: charges or whatever. Course I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not quite listen, I'm not defending these guys whatsoever.
Speaker 2: But I'm not quite so sure that this would be
Speaker 2: like some major thing, especially if there was a racial
Speaker 2: angle to it. The other way, Let's say they were like, oh,
Speaker 2: well he beat up somebody and they beat him up,
Speaker 2: like I'm not quite sure that those people would be
Speaker 2: prosecuted quote unquote to the full extent of the law
Speaker 2: because of liberal pressure.
Speaker 1: So you're crazy you think that that Reverend Sharpen could
Speaker 1: lead a gang of dudes to beat up a white
Speaker 1: dude on the street on camera on MSNBC and everyone
Speaker 1: would just be like, no big deal.
Speaker 4: Leaving up.
Speaker 1: I did a riot against Jews and the eight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a big deal. And we still know about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I know still walking around about it
Speaker 3: to we know all about it.
Speaker 1: Sure, Yeah, yeah, it was a massive news story. There
Speaker 1: was a big deal and there were consequences here. They
Speaker 1: just let off Scott free and nothing that the dude
Speaker 1: that they beat up is the one who got the citation.
Speaker 2: It's in the New York Times, it's in the Guardian,
Speaker 2: It's spent like every major paper. We're covering it. You know,
Speaker 2: It's like it's not like it's getting totally ignored. Now listen,
Speaker 2: I think these guys should be arrested. Like, don't get
Speaker 2: me wrong, I support the rule of law, but I'm
Speaker 2: not going to say that, you know, quote unquote liberal
Speaker 2: violence or whatever would be equally treated, just because I
Speaker 2: did not live through that experience.
Speaker 1: A couple of years ago, during BLM. It was just massive.
Speaker 1: The violence of BLM is massively covered, massively covered the people. Yes,
Speaker 1: they were prosecuted, Absolutely, they were prosecuted.
Speaker 2: I mean there are people here in Lafayettes where trying
Speaker 2: to bring down a statue and never face a single charge.
Speaker 2: People who broke down looted cities, people who burned down charges.
Speaker 2: So some people face people who burned down Minnesota police station. Like, look,
Speaker 2: liberal violence got plenty of passes in this country.
Speaker 3: And I again want to be one hundred percent clear,
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: You imagine, but hold on a second. Can you have
Speaker 1: an imagine m SBC playing something like that. No, no,
Speaker 1: no you can't.
Speaker 2: But they already did broadcast violence in the past.
Speaker 1: This was just this quote unquote amazing. Yeah, I could amazing.
Speaker 2: I'm not supporting it, but I mean, how many how
Speaker 2: many people were on TV either in the BLM riots.
Speaker 3: Being like, well, you know, the riot is the voice
Speaker 3: of the young.
Speaker 1: That they're dumned. Yes, they were by Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: all every Democrat. We're actually the ones who want to
Speaker 1: fund the police, and it's the Republicans who want to
Speaker 1: fund them.
Speaker 2: Months later, in the moment they were supported dramatically by
Speaker 2: every liberal commentator, every.
Speaker 1: But you don't have to remember it was, especially at
Speaker 1: the beginning, the overwhelming percentage of Black Lives Matter protests
Speaker 1: were peaceful. There were protests all over the country, and
Speaker 1: many of them were peaceful, and the vast majority people
Speaker 1: participate in them were peaceful. So it's also not fair
Speaker 1: to hear the whole thing it's like they were all
Speaker 1: violent people.
Speaker 2: Who marched silently. Great, right, you know, I have no pride,
Speaker 2: no issue with you. I sat by and watched them.
Speaker 2: I said, hey, good to go people who burned out.
Speaker 2: But this is the thing. Look, they burned down that
Speaker 2: Minnesota police station, what six days or whatever into the
Speaker 2: whole George Floyd thing. It's not like it just kicked
Speaker 2: off and it was like all kumbaya.
Speaker 1: At the beginning.
Speaker 2: You know, things went bad very very quick. Look, I'm
Speaker 2: not there's not a lot of disagreement. I don't think though,
Speaker 2: that there is a double standard in the way that
Speaker 2: you're saying.
Speaker 1: Given what we all had to live for, I cannot
Speaker 1: imagine a situation reverse that unfolds on camera that first
Speaker 1: of all, the hosts are just like that was incredible,
Speaker 1: and it's a blip on the radar, and the person
Speaker 1: who got attacked is the one that gets the citation.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine it. Listen, you can't argue a counterfactual.
Speaker 1: Who knows how it went on. But I again, I
Speaker 1: can't even imagine that same thing happening on MSNBC or CNN.
Speaker 2: Let me give you an example. These migrants who just
Speaker 2: beat up NYPD cops. They were just arrested. Yeah, the
Speaker 2: guy flipped them off.
Speaker 3: I mean, how many people watching MSNBC no about that story.
Speaker 1: That's what has been massively cop It's been massively covered
Speaker 1: by the right wing. No gotten, No, that is nice, huge.
Speaker 2: Fox News New York post. It is barely covered by NBC.
Speaker 1: Even then.
Speaker 3: It's because it's like Kathy Hope.
Speaker 1: You know what, Actually, I saw rymend Sharfton commenting on
Speaker 1: that exact same thing on msmb I don't watch it.
Speaker 1: I don't either. I saw the headline about it, so
Speaker 1: it got did get covered on m SMBC. Anyway, we
Speaker 1: can stop arguing about the counterfactual. That was an absolutely
Speaker 1: insane thing to unfold on Fox News. And for the
Speaker 1: dude who got beat up because he was brown and
Speaker 1: speaking Spanish. Apparently to be the one that ends up
Speaker 1: with the citation and the cops cover for these assholes,
Speaker 1: you know, vigilante hate crime perpetrators on the street. I'm
Speaker 1: with you on that one.
Speaker 2: You know, to my brothers who were out there, who
Speaker 2: were walking around speaking Spanish, you know, you don't you
Speaker 2: don't deserve to be wrapped up on the street.
Speaker 1: I think that's totally nuts. All right. I hope the
Speaker 1: guys who did go to jail. Let's move on to Yes,
Speaker 1: let's move on to Tucker his big interview with Putin.
Speaker 1: I think when does the job in today or tomorrow?
Speaker 1: It is nobody knows.
Speaker 2: It has been foretold by the Russians that it will
Speaker 2: be happening tonight at six pm.
Speaker 1: All right, So listen, whatever you think about Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: the reaction to this has been completely insane, including there's
Speaker 1: some EU politician, diplomats, whatever you want to call him now,
Speaker 1: who are floating that he should be sanctioned and banned
Speaker 1: from the EU. Put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: is from Newsweek. This is the second element, guys that
Speaker 1: we have here. E three. Tucker Carlson could face sanctions
Speaker 1: over the Putin interview. One European diplomatic official didn't wish
Speaker 1: to be named as they were not authorized to speak publicly,
Speaker 1: told Newsweek any future travel restrictions would like to require
Speaker 1: proof he's linked to Moscow's aggression, something that is absent
Speaker 1: or hard to prove. So they're saying it's kind of
Speaker 1: a long shot that this would actually come through. But
Speaker 1: the same person who says it's a long shot says
Speaker 1: that they support it. Yes, they agree with the stance quote.
Speaker 1: He's no longer a newsman but a propaganda's for the
Speaker 1: most heinous regime on European soil and the one which
Speaker 1: is most dangerous to our piece and security, this diplomat
Speaker 1: said to the Newspeak of Carlson. At the same time,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton weighing in on her thoughts on the whole situation.
Speaker 1: Less they listen to that.
Speaker 11: He's like a puppy dog, you know, he somehow has
Speaker 11: after having been fired from so many outlets in the
Speaker 11: United States. He I would not be surprised if he
Speaker 11: emerges with a contract with outlet because he is a
Speaker 11: useful idiot.
Speaker 1: He says things that are not true.
Speaker 11: He parents Vladimir Putin's pack of lies about Ukraine so
Speaker 11: I don't see why Putin wouldn't give him an interview
Speaker 11: because through him, he can, you know, continue to lie
Speaker 11: about what is you know, objectives are in Ukraine and
Speaker 11: you know.
Speaker 1: What he expects to see happen.
Speaker 11: It's really quite sad that not just somebody like Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 11: who has, as I said, been fired so many times
Speaker 11: because he seems unable to, you know, correlate his reporting
Speaker 11: with the truth, but also because it's a sign that
Speaker 11: there are people in this country right now who are
Speaker 11: like a fifth column for Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: And why I don't know.
Speaker 11: I mean, why are certain Republicans throwing their lot in?
Speaker 11: Why are you know, other Americans basically believing Putin? Why
Speaker 11: did Trump believe Putin more than our eleven intelligence agents.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Do you have a working theory? You have a working theory.
Speaker 1: So I mean it's just she's still.
Speaker 3: On Russia, the insane, both of them too, They're still
Speaker 3: on it.
Speaker 1: And she just lets that all go. Of course, yes,
Speaker 1: and listen, I mean my first thing with all of
Speaker 1: this is in yeah, I know, like and I mean
Speaker 1: people on both like the people who are like this
Speaker 1: is going to be amazing, and the people who are
Speaker 1: like this is terrible, It's like, can we just wait
Speaker 1: and judge the interview? Number one not agree with you more.
Speaker 1: But that being said, even if it's complete propaganda, which
Speaker 1: I think is very possible, if not probable, if not likely,
Speaker 1: we hear the US Western propaganda all the time, you
Speaker 1: know what, it's a benefit to hear the other side
Speaker 1: propaganda too and understand their perspective how they're spinning it
Speaker 1: to their population. So even if it's one hundred percent propaganda,
Speaker 1: then it still is a good thing for the American
Speaker 1: population to hear what the Russians are saying and how
Speaker 1: they are explaining this conflict in their position, even that
Speaker 1: would be beneficial. I'm glad you said that, because that's
Speaker 1: basically what I was going to pick up on.
Speaker 2: Everyone's like first, okay, So first of all, they're like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, uh, he has to challenge him or otherwise
Speaker 2: it's not real. I'm like, yeah, you guys been slobbering
Speaker 2: over Zelenski for the last two years and apple Bomb,
Speaker 2: you know, literally with tears in her eyes talking about
Speaker 2: the goddamn hero of democracy. I would just watch the
Speaker 2: clip of a CNN reporter literally nearly in tears talking
Speaker 2: with Zelensky.
Speaker 1: So shut up about propaganda.
Speaker 2: Number one, You people have been the propagandast in this
Speaker 2: war from the beginning. Number two, as you said, now, look,
Speaker 2: I hope that Tucker actually does challenge him on a
Speaker 2: couple of things. Number One is the detention of the
Speaker 2: American journalist Evan Gersovich, who is currently in prison unjustifiably
Speaker 2: and needs to be released. I will be very disappointed
Speaker 2: if he doesn't bring that up. But maybe it was
Speaker 2: a precondition or something like that. I personally would not
Speaker 2: have agreed to that. We'll see. As you said, the
Speaker 2: literal thing is not aired yet. Two is on the
Speaker 2: justification and be like you said, you're doing this to
Speaker 2: make Russia safer. Now listen, I don't agree that the
Speaker 2: United States should be.
Speaker 1: All that involved.
Speaker 2: That said, you've killed three hundred thousand of your men,
Speaker 2: you know, maybe more of the people here.
Speaker 1: Do you? How do you sleep at night?
Speaker 2: You know? What do you tell those moms who lost
Speaker 2: their sons and daughters who were there?
Speaker 3: What's the justification? I want to hear that.
Speaker 2: But then even if it wasn't challenging, as you said, Okay,
Speaker 2: so I have been subjected to the biggest Ukrainian si
Speaker 2: up the of like war in my lifetime since Iraq.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to hear a little bit of what
Speaker 3: the other side is.
Speaker 2: I'm a fully functioning, capable adult who can see Putin
Speaker 2: talking about the Treaty of Breslatovsk and be like, that's bullshit,
Speaker 2: that's not actually what happened.
Speaker 3: Many people can do that too.
Speaker 2: So if we're Subechia is subjected our own propaganda, Ukrainian
Speaker 2: propaganda now for over two years, a little bit of
Speaker 2: Russian propaganda ain't gonna hurt anybody, if anything, is just
Speaker 2: gonna be in the mix, and people who already agree
Speaker 2: or disagree or whatever will likely fall on that side.
Speaker 2: The other thing is is that you have to be
Speaker 2: able to understand the goals and the impetus of what
Speaker 2: they are saying.
Speaker 3: And that's part of the other thing.
Speaker 2: Where on the history and all of that Putin speaks
Speaker 2: as a Russians are as I just reference a Treaty
Speaker 2: of Bresolatos. How many people who have people a strong opinion,
Speaker 2: even here in Washington, can even tell you about the
Speaker 2: independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.
Speaker 1: The historical Soviet Empire.
Speaker 2: I'm not I don't agree with Putin at all, but
Speaker 2: I need to understand where the guy is coming from.
Speaker 1: Period.
Speaker 2: If we want, you know, I don't want to go
Speaker 2: to nuclear war, I would like to be able to
Speaker 2: understand where he comes from. In the same thing, the
Speaker 2: Chinese interpretation of the Opium Wars and all that stuff
Speaker 2: is nuts. Like they literally think themselves currently as the
Speaker 2: as the inheritors of like the whatever, the king dynasty
Speaker 2: or something like that. But if we are to be
Speaker 2: rivals and all this stuff, I better understand how their
Speaker 2: self conception of their national identity goes back. Even if
Speaker 2: you do not agree, Like, think about what's happened since
Speaker 2: the war.
Speaker 1: We've had RT be banned.
Speaker 2: We've had like what spot they can on these many
Speaker 2: of these journalists have been expelled here from Washington for
Speaker 2: for what reason. It's like it's one of those where
Speaker 2: I again would much rather hear what these people have
Speaker 2: to say. I used to watch when I cover the
Speaker 2: Pentagon and the State Department. We had we had straight
Speaker 2: up Russian spotnik people who were right next was asking
Speaker 2: all kinds of BS questions. But it was actually very
Speaker 2: useful because I'd be like, oh, that's what's pissing the
Speaker 2: Kremlin off. Whenever they would ask a question or something
Speaker 2: like that. It was very useful to be able to
Speaker 2: just get into mind again. You know, you don't have
Speaker 2: to agree with somebody. That's that's just how I see
Speaker 2: this whole situation. Yeah, I mean that was crazy.
Speaker 1: I also would like to know from him what he
Speaker 1: would say that he would publicly accept in terms of
Speaker 1: a peace settlement. Yeah, this totally Like that would be
Speaker 1: really you know, that would be extremely important to know.
Speaker 1: All that being said, I don't think we should also
Speaker 1: harbor ring in a lotus about why they allowed Tucker
Speaker 1: to conduct this interview, which is they certainly think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a softball and think it's going to
Speaker 1: be easy for them to manage. It's the same reason
Speaker 1: why Hillary Clinton accepts an interview from Alex Wagner and
Speaker 1: I'm the same six exact exact same reasons, and Tucker
Speaker 1: did kind of step in this is I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the part where like, I don't put yourself out
Speaker 1: there like, oh, I'm some brave journalists when there are literal,
Speaker 1: actual Russian journalists who have had to flee the freaking
Speaker 1: country because they were willing to stand up to power
Speaker 1: and to expose this dude. So don't put that out there,
Speaker 1: and you can put this up on the screen. Even
Speaker 1: sort of stepped in it with the Kremlin because he
Speaker 1: said in this thing that you know, why is it
Speaker 1: that not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview Putin?
Speaker 1: And Dmitri Peskov, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, came back
Speaker 1: and said, mister Carlston's not correct. In fact, there's no
Speaker 1: way he could tell this. But we received numerous requests
Speaker 1: for interviews with the president all the time, and there
Speaker 1: were a number of other journalists who came out where
Speaker 1: like dude, I've asked to interview Putin any number of times,
Speaker 1: and of course they always rejected. And it's not an
Speaker 1: accident that they're allowing you to come in and do
Speaker 1: this interview because they think it will serve their purposes.
Speaker 1: So let's just you know, keep it one hundred on
Speaker 1: that front as well. He's got to sell memberships, you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. I would not have said it.
Speaker 2: Just because it's very obvious that many people do actually
Speaker 2: want to interview Putin. People were in the West, there
Speaker 2: was something though, I want to comment on this. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you just said where they're like, oh, they only agreed
Speaker 2: to it. I'm like, yeah, guess what, guys, you want
Speaker 2: to interview with VIP.
Speaker 3: That's just how it goes.
Speaker 2: Sometimes, it's not all you know, they don't have to
Speaker 2: sit with you in these things. When I would interview Trump,
Speaker 2: I played every card I could get to try and
Speaker 2: get in there.
Speaker 3: So did every other journalist who was there.
Speaker 2: That's why Hillary sits with Alex Wagner so they could
Speaker 2: giggle over Russia Gate there at the end. I'm not
Speaker 2: justifying it, but to a certain extent, guys, we're all
Speaker 2: playing the same game. You know. Trucker said in his
Speaker 2: thing that he had requested an.
Speaker 3: Interview with Zelensky. You think Zelensky's gonna sit with him?
Speaker 2: Or does Lensky set with NBC News because he knows
Speaker 2: he's gonna get a slob job in the same way
Speaker 2: that he has been for the last two years.
Speaker 3: So at a certain point, I mean, let's all.
Speaker 1: Be honest about me. The game that we're all playing.
Speaker 1: I'm not playing that game. You're not playing that game.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why Joe Biden and Hillary, right That's
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, though, is there's a reason why Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and Hillary Clinton would never sit with us. There's
Speaker 1: a reason why, you know, putin, we're not like, there's
Speaker 1: a reason why many elected officials won't come on here
Speaker 1: because we won't agree. They don't expect just to get
Speaker 1: a softball interview. And kudos to the ones who are
Speaker 1: willing to. But unfortunately it's not the normans exception of
Speaker 1: people who are actually willing to come on and mix
Speaker 1: it up.
Speaker 2: And it was going to like that kind of spirit
Speaker 2: business model, which is set up so that we can
Speaker 2: talk about stuff and we can occasionally build enough of
Speaker 2: the platform and people will come here. But if you
Speaker 2: are in the game of interviewing, like elect access journalism,
Speaker 2: how it works period.
Speaker 1: Look, it's the same as access journalism here in the US. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's the exact same it's exact same thing. I do
Speaker 1: think that the there's a lot to the panic over it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think it's emblematic of the fact
Speaker 1: that they're so afraid that something he says, because any
Speaker 1: good propaganda is going to have some kernel of truth,
Speaker 1: that something might land, that something might actually click changed
Speaker 1: that and They're already on thin ice with their whole
Speaker 1: narrative of the Ukraine conflicts. Even here they're on thin ice,
Speaker 1: let alone around the world. Nobody's ever bought that this
Speaker 1: is some grand like project of democracy and human rights
Speaker 1: and whatever. Are like, No, it's never been about that
Speaker 1: in our conduct visa the Ukraine, Russia versus Israel Palestine
Speaker 1: really shows you how that's complete bs that we care
Speaker 1: about any of those things. So I think they feel
Speaker 1: like their narrative is already at kind of a breaking point,
Speaker 1: no pun intended. When this interview chops, and obviously it's
Speaker 1: going to get tons of eyeballs. Plenty of people who
Speaker 1: will never admit that they watch it are definitely gonna.
Speaker 2: Watch for as well, you know, And that's the I
Speaker 2: think really what they're afraid of is listen. I don't
Speaker 2: like Putin. I'm no Futin fan or any of that.
Speaker 2: He's a smart guy. You know, he may be crazy
Speaker 2: and many respects has done some irrational things, but I've
Speaker 2: listened to a lot of speeches.
Speaker 1: He's a well read man.
Speaker 2: He's been a world leader for over twenty five years,
Speaker 2: and he's very you know, you don't become the iron
Speaker 2: ruler of Russia because you're an idiot.
Speaker 1: Like these guys, they know who they're talking to.
Speaker 2: I've seen past interviews that he's given real throw January
Speaker 2: sixth or whatever in the face of the interview where
Speaker 2: they're like shure circuit because they don't know what they're
Speaker 2: dealing with.
Speaker 1: He knows how to navigate American politics.
Speaker 2: He speaks perfect English, like he reads all of our
Speaker 2: news and all that. And I think they're honestly afraid
Speaker 2: that he'll say something which could convince people in a
Speaker 2: different direction. But again, even if so, so, what you know,
Speaker 2: we if we allow Zelenski or you know, I would
Speaker 2: love to see shishing Ping sit for an interview.
Speaker 1: MBS is set for interviews.
Speaker 2: You know, all these are great, These are all good things,
Speaker 2: you know, NBS was I believe he was challenged on
Speaker 2: koshogi to his face by a US interviewer.
Speaker 1: I forget who it was. That's a great moment.
Speaker 2: You know, that's one of those where we should have
Speaker 2: the exact same thing, and we need to hear exactly
Speaker 2: what they think. It's helpful for us, it's helpful for them.
Speaker 2: You know what if Putin makes a fool out of himself.
Speaker 2: It could be definitely helpful in terms of the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: I'm sure they can use clips for it, even if
Speaker 2: they're super upset about it.
Speaker 1: So anyway, more information, not less. That's kind of the
Speaker 1: maxim all right, sorryy looking at well.
Speaker 2: A crazy phenomenon that I've observed in the last few
Speaker 2: years is a concerted mainstream effort to target online mail
Speaker 2: spaces for or self improvement. Much of it can be
Speaker 2: traced back to gamer mitgait and the fake moral panics
Speaker 2: about the so called pickup movement, but in recent years
Speaker 2: it's transformed into something else entirely. The latest iteration that
Speaker 2: you will all famously recall is the infamous MSNBC article
Speaker 2: about fitness to somehow fascist. But at a deeper level,
Speaker 2: the demonization has been in many.
Speaker 1: Forms for recent months and years.
Speaker 2: The targeting of any discussion and about testosterone, about people
Speaker 2: doing their own research when it comes to medical procedures.
Speaker 2: My personal favorite latest it recommends that people eat less
Speaker 2: protein because it goes against what the US government recommends
Speaker 2: on nutrition. The tilt to all of it is a
Speaker 2: fear of self discovery, self mastery, and self improvement, mostly
Speaker 2: by men who are issuing official recommendations by medicine and government.
Speaker 2: The latest and the most shocking attack on this front
Speaker 2: occurred a few days ago by NPR, which ran a
Speaker 2: hit piece on a community of men online who are
Speaker 2: dedicated to shunning pornography and spreading the concern about its
Speaker 2: widespread usage of young men. The way that you know
Speaker 2: it is a hit piece as it relies on testimony
Speaker 2: of so called sexual experts, as if there is such
Speaker 2: a thing, and appears to basically endorse widespread porn usage
Speaker 2: by young men. They write quote, many researchers and sex
Speaker 2: therapists worry that online communities that have formed in response
Speaker 2: to fears often endorse inaccurate medical information, exacerbate mental health problems,
Speaker 2: and in some cases overlap with extremists and hate groups.
Speaker 2: Extremists and hate groups my god. So, by the way,
Speaker 2: if you're wondering.
Speaker 1: What those ties are.
Speaker 2: The NPR reporter relies on Reddit users making jokes in
Speaker 2: comments about the illuminati and global elite, as well as
Speaker 2: an alleged anti feminist bent to caution around pornography. But
Speaker 2: what actually shocked me about the piece is not that
Speaker 2: it ran, but what I found out from one of
Speaker 2: the organizers behind the movement, and how this piece fits
Speaker 2: into a concerted and multi billion dollar effort in recent
Speaker 2: months by pornography companies to demonize men who are trying
Speaker 2: their best to stay away from them and institute guardrails
Speaker 2: for teenagers. Much of the machinery behind this story appears
Speaker 2: to have been orchestra by the so called Free Speech
Speaker 2: Coalition in the United States. The so called expert and
Speaker 2: the urologists who are quoted in the story both either
Speaker 2: have ties to the porn industry or have been supporters
Speaker 2: in the past. In fact, when I spoke to a
Speaker 2: person involved in the so called no Fat movement who
Speaker 2: worked with NPR on the story, they revealed to me
Speaker 2: that NPR did not reach out to many of the
Speaker 2: people that they recommended they reach out to who have
Speaker 2: been positively impacted from abstaining from pornography. They instead decided
Speaker 2: to highlight a few examples of their own, only one
Speaker 2: who spoke positively, and including two who said that they
Speaker 2: were no longer followers of the movement. By the way,
Speaker 2: as evidence for one of their former adherents who is
Speaker 2: now healthy, they pointed out to an individual who previously
Speaker 2: had ditched pornography now consumes pornography regularly and indulges in
Speaker 2: a cross dressing fetish. According to them, that is supposedly
Speaker 2: healthy and cool, while ditching.
Speaker 1: Pornography is bad.
Speaker 2: Those that I spoke with at no Fab also notified
Speaker 2: me that NPR was provided with a list of twenty
Speaker 2: two separate urologists that they could interview who would support
Speaker 2: their health claims. Their NPR instead interviewed their own, who,
Speaker 2: as I said, is a verified friend of the pornography industry.
Speaker 2: None of this is happening in a vacuum. Much of
Speaker 2: it is tied directly to a recent government action that
Speaker 2: is attempting to put age limitations on pornography usage. In
Speaker 2: the last year, eight states have now enacted legislation requiring
Speaker 2: porn companies to verify the age of users attempting to
Speaker 2: access their content. This has caused major showdowns now between
Speaker 2: Pornhub and its affiliates with these states in some cases
Speaker 2: who are resulting blocking access in states entirely who enact
Speaker 2: this legislation. Laws very simple. Any website which has more
Speaker 2: than one third of its content classified as adult must
Speaker 2: verify that the users are over the age of eighteen. Naturally,
Speaker 2: The porn companies are freaking out about this new legislation
Speaker 2: because they rely on hooking teenagers as early as possible
Speaker 2: and keeping them as lifetime customers. Now, you may say
Speaker 2: that I'm stupid and the teenagers will seek out porn
Speaker 2: if there's.
Speaker 3: A law or not, and you are You're probably right.
Speaker 2: But does that stop us from having drinking age verification
Speaker 2: when you order liquor online or when you buy nicotine products. No,
Speaker 2: we recognize as society, while some may see carmful substances
Speaker 2: or in this case, content out of the side of
Speaker 2: the law. The purpose of the law is to try
Speaker 2: and protect children wherever possible. This is not, and I repeat, not,
Speaker 2: a substitute for parenting. It is an effort by states
Speaker 2: to protect children from what we used to recognize as
Speaker 2: something that's harmful. The NPR article purpose is simple. Concerns
Speaker 2: about pornography are unfounded. If they're unfounded, then age verification laws,
Speaker 2: which states are rushing to adopt, are bad.
Speaker 1: You could call me a prude if you wish, but.
Speaker 2: Ask yourself, why is it all that controversial when every
Speaker 2: person who has ever seen a child interact with an
Speaker 2: iPad can instantly recognize we are in uncharted territory with
Speaker 2: the nature of addictive tech, nature of today's technology.
Speaker 3: I write this as secular and non.
Speaker 2: Extremists who has long been concerned about the unchecked power
Speaker 2: of the porn industry in the United States. I don't
Speaker 2: think they should be banned. I believe adult can make
Speaker 2: choices for themselves, but I do certainly believe that the
Speaker 2: media should speak up for those who find themselves at
Speaker 2: the mercy of these forces, working to keep them weak,
Speaker 2: rather than as a defender of them. So I'm curious
Speaker 2: what you think, Crystal. After all of that, I thought
Speaker 2: the way that it was written was absolutely I think
Speaker 2: there's a way that you could have written it where
Speaker 2: you could have given more of a balanced approach. But
Speaker 2: the way that it was, you know, the people who
Speaker 2: they highlighted and all of that, the ties were just
Speaker 2: so clear to me, Especially when I spoke with the
Speaker 2: guys who were a target of this. They were like,
Speaker 2: we tried to work with her, she would not get
Speaker 2: she was not giving us a single chance. They didn't
Speaker 2: reach out to any of the people we spoke to.
Speaker 2: It was like a completely unidirectional It's like when you
Speaker 2: set out to write a story that you know you
Speaker 2: want the headline to be, and then you just just
Speaker 2: you know, rely on the people for that.
Speaker 1: But I find your monologue I'm just going to a
Speaker 1: little confusing because the overwhelming part of the article had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with porn. It was about masturbation, and
Speaker 1: it was about these cult like these groups like no FAP,
Speaker 1: which you know, you guys probably know what that means,
Speaker 1: which are all about telling men the solution to their
Speaker 1: problems is to never masturbate and backing it up with
Speaker 1: all these completely bullshit health claims and so, you know,
Speaker 1: totally opposite the idea that this is an attack on
Speaker 1: men who are trying to self actualize or whatever. I
Speaker 1: see it more as an attack on these people who
Speaker 1: are trying to take advantage of men and lie to
Speaker 1: them and add more stress to their lives. I mean
Speaker 1: the interview people who were like, yeah, I thought that,
Speaker 1: you know, if I did this like ninety day no
Speaker 1: Masturbation Cleanse, then like all my problems would be solved. Instead,
Speaker 1: I just ended up with more problems because I was
Speaker 1: so constantly stressed down about trying to figure out how
Speaker 1: not to jerk off basically for me, so I just
Speaker 1: found it kind of like strange that that was your
Speaker 1: takeaway when porn was very incidental to this very long piece.
Speaker 2: The reason why is that, the first of all, no
Speaker 2: fat whatever, this is hilarious to talk about.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are ripters, These are rifters who are
Speaker 1: lying to do like that's a legitimate target.
Speaker 2: That is not actually what the organization is based on.
Speaker 2: The organization is not based on masturbation.
Speaker 1: CLIs. It's called no fab no no. It als like
Speaker 1: what it's about.
Speaker 2: It traces back to your brain on porn, which is
Speaker 2: the original website, and the movement overall, which is dynamically
Speaker 2: dynamically is targeted to keeping people away from pornography.
Speaker 1: There are many schools of the.
Speaker 2: Whole likeno masturbation, stemen, retention, all this other nonsense, which
Speaker 2: I yeah, but that's what the.
Speaker 1: Article is focused on. But that's what's focused It's not
Speaker 1: focused on the porn part of it. It's focused on
Speaker 1: these communities of dudes who have convinced themselves that like
Speaker 1: the secret to their problems is not masturbating, which is
Speaker 1: stupid and wrong and just going to stress you more out.
Speaker 2: The article for me, was trying to undermine the overall movement,
Speaker 2: which is not focused nearly as much on the whatever
Speaker 2: all this nonsense about testosterone increasing or you know whatever.
Speaker 2: It was much more an attempt at least, this is
Speaker 2: the way I read it to try and undermine the
Speaker 2: overall you know, the overall movement, which is almost entirely
Speaker 2: if you were to engage and to go on the space,
Speaker 2: is centered around pornography. It o has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with any of these claims about masturbation or about semen
Speaker 2: rich to whatever test.
Speaker 1: It's called noot dot com. I mean, there's clearly an
Speaker 1: am of that. I just I think you're reading a
Speaker 1: lot into it that isn't there. I read the whole piece.
Speaker 1: It's lengthy. It's all about this, like you know, pseudoscience
Speaker 1: about how you know your testasternal increase and girls will
Speaker 1: love you and you'll feel better and you'll be like
Speaker 1: a real man if you don't jerk off anymore, which
Speaker 1: is like predatory. That's like predatory to men. So I
Speaker 1: just viewed it through the total opposite lens of it
Speaker 1: didn't really take a position on pro pornography or anti pornography.
Speaker 1: That was like incidental to the whole thing, and.
Speaker 2: Only it's true because if you look at the quote
Speaker 2: unquote survivors and the people who are no longer adherents,
Speaker 2: all of them talk about consumption of pornography, because again,
Speaker 2: pornography is the one that is upstream of this entire discussion.
Speaker 1: What they said, it's nothing.
Speaker 2: To do with many many of the clip look like
Speaker 2: I said, NoFap dot com and all that, the vast
Speaker 2: majority of the content is not focused by what we're
Speaker 2: talking about here.
Speaker 1: It is all about pornography. Now.
Speaker 2: The people I spoke to have been under attack now
Speaker 2: for years by the porn industry, largely because they understand
Speaker 2: that any abstention from masturbation or sexual behavior or whatever
Speaker 2: is itself obviously an attack on the porn industry.
Speaker 3: And I don't think it's an accident that it happens.
Speaker 2: Whenever the North Carolina law Virginia up where we both live,
Speaker 2: both considering legislation on this. They're actually fourteen now states
Speaker 2: that are thinking about adopting.
Speaker 3: This has all happened in the last several months.
Speaker 2: For me, though, again the way I read it and
Speaker 2: I thought it was dwelling telling that they focus on
Speaker 2: pornography amongst us quote unquote survivors of the survivors or
Speaker 2: whatever of this thing is that they're trying to make
Speaker 2: a straw man of acclaimant of a movement which is
Speaker 2: not the vast majority of people who are engaging with
Speaker 2: this type of content.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. I mean again, when I read it,
Speaker 1: the parts where they talk about pornography, I think is
Speaker 1: also makes a lot of sense of basically, like, you know,
Speaker 1: these people had been convinced that like all pornagre, you
Speaker 1: have to completely abstain and you have an addiction if
Speaker 1: you're watching porn like once a week or once a
Speaker 1: month or whatever, and that that was adding a lot
Speaker 1: of shame and pure to their lives that didn't belong.
Speaker 1: I don't see anything the farious in that. Well, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: it depends more.
Speaker 2: What I would say is like if we can have
Speaker 2: a again, I'm a secular person.
Speaker 1: I got no Christian undertones to all of us.
Speaker 2: But I think we you know, at least when we
Speaker 2: use our phone, at least when we use any sort
Speaker 2: of technology that we can understand as addictive alcohol, anything
Speaker 2: we can see at the beginning from the outset where
Speaker 2: like this is a trade off. I don't think that
Speaker 2: is baked into teenagers and others, especially men who are
Speaker 2: well into the thirties forties now, who have grown up
Speaker 2: on the internet, the norms and all of the other
Speaker 2: things that people have internalized around things that are harmful
Speaker 2: that does not exist with pornography. And I think that's
Speaker 2: what most of the no FAP quote unquote movement, people online,
Speaker 2: people on Instagram and others who talk about this are
Speaker 2: trying to get into people's heads. So for me, this
Speaker 2: is way like whatever this is, I think is a
Speaker 2: very very small part of abstention from pornography movement, which
Speaker 2: is widespread, increasingly taking off, and I hope it continues
Speaker 2: to do so for people who are young and is
Speaker 2: a strong man to try and target them to seem
Speaker 2: as freaks and weird. In my opinion, it is much
Speaker 2: more freakish and weird to celebrate like widespread pornarchy usage
Speaker 2: and again to come after and to advocate for legislation,
Speaker 2: which is what the people who are in the quoted
Speaker 2: in this article believing is you shouldn't have age verification
Speaker 2: if you do out there, it's.
Speaker 1: Not even a part of the article. Age verification thing
Speaker 1: isn't even in there. I mean that's not even argument
Speaker 1: that's being made here, but the I think it is
Speaker 1: entirely appropriate to expose basically predator grifters who are lying
Speaker 1: to dudes about, you know, some solution that is just
Speaker 1: going to create more stress, some quote unquote solutions, so
Speaker 1: only it's going to create more stress and anxiety in
Speaker 1: their lives. I think that's an entirely appropriate like lane
Speaker 1: to investigate. And you may not one hundred percent love
Speaker 1: you know, the piece that they wrote or the people
Speaker 1: they talked to or whatever, but to say it's illegitimate
Speaker 1: to even talk about that and say, hey, this isn't
Speaker 1: a solution and you're getting lied to, I just I
Speaker 1: actually think that's a disservice to men.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's so legitimate. I think that it
Speaker 2: was biased. I think that the person behind it was
Speaker 2: clearly used. I don't think she understood the Free Speech
Speaker 2: Coalition much of the ties that these doctors and advocates
Speaker 2: who have been largely appearing at pornography events, which I
Speaker 2: have evidence if people want to go and look at
Speaker 2: it and are openly talking and using their power articles
Speaker 2: like this to advocate specifically against age verification laws, which
Speaker 2: I'm talking about I was trying to I.
Speaker 1: Know they use this is what they use.
Speaker 2: They're like, hey, look, these people are all grifters, the
Speaker 2: people behind this. You want to be aligned with the freaks,
Speaker 2: Like that's why you can't support something like this, Like
Speaker 2: for me, it's a big it's a part of a tool.
Speaker 2: It's the same way as if you look at the past,
Speaker 2: like the Fitness is a fascist article that we infamulously
Speaker 2: remember from MSNBC. That whole article was about how some
Speaker 2: Nazis or whatever like fitness. What I mean, sure, is
Speaker 2: that a legitimate point, Yeah, but what are what's the subtext?
Speaker 1: Like, what are they.
Speaker 2: Trying to say is that gym obsession and all of
Speaker 2: this is hyper masculine, can have ties quote unquote to
Speaker 2: right wing movements and is coded as bad. It's I'm
Speaker 2: reading this in the same like social commentary.
Speaker 1: That's not what the article saying is. I don't think
Speaker 1: I think you're reading too much into it. Maybe, I mean,
Speaker 1: this reporter is not responsible for that piece, right, This
Speaker 1: person is writing their own thing about something they seem,
Speaker 1: you know, is provably harmful to men. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I think I think that is a service to men
Speaker 1: to say Hey, this is a pack of lies, and
Speaker 1: ending your days of jerking off is first of all,
Speaker 1: you're not going to be able to accomplish it, and
Speaker 1: second of all, it's only going to create more stress
Speaker 1: in your life and is not any sort of a
Speaker 1: solution for whatever problems you might actually be facing.
Speaker 2: I think you're being charitable, and maybe that's good. Maybe
Speaker 2: I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist here. For me,
Speaker 2: it's a matter of emphasis. It's a matter of where
Speaker 2: the quoe unquote medical establishment falls down on what's good
Speaker 2: and what's not. And then in general, it's like, we're
Speaker 2: really going to be policing the thought of a small
Speaker 2: segment of overall hundreds of thousands of people who are online,
Speaker 2: who again, this is we're talking about policing Reddit comments
Speaker 2: inside the threads, as opposed to the overwhelming thing is
Speaker 2: just hey, stay awake with this is a.
Speaker 1: Whole organization that's set up dedicated to like, go on
Speaker 1: this ninety day no masturbation like cleansed situation.
Speaker 2: But I don't know that is about being away from pornography,
Speaker 2: and it's specifically about resetting your relationship to that.
Speaker 1: That's not what this article is really pornography is so
Speaker 1: incidental to this, and the age verification thing isn't here whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So I just think you've concocted like an elaborate conspiracy
Speaker 1: that isn't there in terms of what's actually in the article.
Speaker 2: We'll see, Crystal, We'll see when when they use one
Speaker 2: of these articles in the state legislator to argue against
Speaker 2: the laws I think.
Speaker 1: Well, And I also have issues with the idea of
Speaker 1: everybody having to upload their driver's license before they jerk,
Speaker 1: don't it's let me put that on the record as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, well we could talk about that another day, all right, guys.
Speaker 2: As you can see, we enjoy having our fun debates.
Speaker 2: There are quite a few right last couple.
Speaker 1: Of days lately.
Speaker 2: But for breaking points, I think you guys can support
Speaker 2: us at Breakingpoints dot com. And we've got the RFK
Speaker 2: Junior Focus Group which is coming up, which will again
Speaker 2: be exclusively available.
Speaker 1: Other than that, we will see you all later.