Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday, have an amazing show for everybody today. What
Speaker 2: do we have, Krystal, It's.
Speaker 1: Right, a lot of big developments, especially on the Trump
Speaker 1: staffing front. Neo cons quite happy with some of the
Speaker 1: recent picks. We'll break all of those down for you.
Speaker 1: We're also going to take a look at the spending
Speaker 1: of the Kamala Harris campaign, which was wild. We will
Speaker 1: show you some of the craziest things and what they
Speaker 1: paid for them. Libs are also cooking over on TikTok
Speaker 1: with some major election conspiracies that we wanted to share
Speaker 1: with you as well. So yeah, that's a good one.
Speaker 1: We've got a look at the media. Liberal media really
Speaker 1: suffering in the wake of Kamala's loss actually some surprising outlets,
Speaker 1: including ones that are allied with US, are gaining quite
Speaker 1: a bit of strength, so interesting to look at that
Speaker 1: media rebalancing. Also, Chris Wallace making the choice to leave
Speaker 1: SEE and become a streamers pretty funny, Okay, pretty.
Speaker 3: Interesting, Yes, indeed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Zogbie is going to join us both to talk
Speaker 1: about the DNC and the massive overhaul that he thinks
Speaker 1: needs to happen there, and also to take a look
Speaker 1: at AOC. Actually went on Instagram and was like, listen,
Speaker 1: if you are an AOC Trump voter, I want to
Speaker 1: hear from you. I want to know why you picked
Speaker 1: me and Donald Trump. And the responses are quite interesting.
Speaker 1: A lot of them have to do frankly with Gaza,
Speaker 1: so we're going to talk to Jim about that as well.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that we haven't spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time discussing, which is how much Harris's support
Speaker 1: of the GASA genocide really impacted her electoral outcomes. I'm
Speaker 1: also taking a look at the failed ideology that doomed
Speaker 1: the Dems. It was not wokeism, and John Stewart had
Speaker 1: a good bit on that. To share some of that
Speaker 1: with you as well, and we're going to talk today
Speaker 1: to Andrew Yang get his postal action analysis your call.
Speaker 1: Yang was really on board with Dean Phillips. He was
Speaker 1: one of the people really early saying listen, Biden is
Speaker 1: too old, like, come on, guys, you got to do
Speaker 1: something different. So he deserves a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of credit for having that level of prescience. We're going
Speaker 1: to that for premium subscribers today. For everybody else, the
Speaker 1: free version will be out later this week. I think
Speaker 1: this weekend we'll feel that out for everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so sign up Breakingpoints dot com. You get early
Speaker 2: access to our Andrew Yang Interview OG for many people
Speaker 2: who are fans of the show. First to twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: yangan big inters region. Actually the first clip to ever
Speaker 2: cross over two thousand views, So I will always be
Speaker 2: very special for two thousand.
Speaker 3: That was the Yeah, it was a big deal for us.
Speaker 2: It's a big day. It was a big day. Indeed,
Speaker 2: I'll never forget it. So, Andrew Yang, You'll always have
Speaker 2: a place in my heart as long as the original
Speaker 2: Andrew Yang Gang. So, like Chrystal said, we're getting a
Speaker 2: lot of stuff that start to break late last night.
Speaker 2: The single most important appointment now so far, let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: from the New York Times. Everybody, keep in mind this
Speaker 2: is not yet one hundred percent official, but Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is expected to name Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as
Speaker 2: his Secretary of State. Now, as the Times cautions, mister
Speaker 2: Trump could still change his mind at the last minute,
Speaker 2: the People said, but he appears to have settled on Rubio,
Speaker 2: who he also considered choosing as his running mate earlier
Speaker 2: this year. I mean, this is arguably the most important
Speaker 2: pick so far. Secretary of State, of course, is such
Speaker 2: an important part of the US government. You're going to
Speaker 2: be in the situation room. You will be America's diplomatic
Speaker 2: ambassador to the world. And I mean there's no really
Speaker 2: sugarcoating this mark our Rubio is definitely more of a
Speaker 2: neo con persuasion than anybody else who was in the running.
Speaker 2: It really was between him and Rick Grinnell. I mean,
Speaker 2: cars on the table. I would have far preferred Rick Grinnell.
Speaker 2: Grennell was Trump's ambassador to Germany. Probably most importantly, though,
Speaker 2: Grennell wrote op eds while he was the ambassador to
Speaker 2: Germany kind of justifying a lot of realism and of
Speaker 2: anti NATO skepticism. Where the truth is is that Rubio
Speaker 2: has really been on the other side of a lot
Speaker 2: of these issues all the way going back to two
Speaker 2: thousand and sixteen. There's Look, it's complicated because the supporters
Speaker 2: of this who are like, oh, this is not a
Speaker 2: betrayal or whatever. It's like, oh, well, Rubio voted against
Speaker 2: Ukraine and he's like, yeah in twenty twenty three. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: what about in twenty twenty two? And who were the
Speaker 2: people about That's actually such a and this is very
Speaker 2: important for me. Is it not about Ukraine today? Because
Speaker 2: we're about to talk about Mike Waltz, who was a
Speaker 2: new national security advisor. Fine, he's like, hey, you know
Speaker 2: what did he say? He's like, oh, well, now there's
Speaker 2: no path to victory. It's like, what were you actually
Speaker 2: saying at the time. Because the reason why it matters
Speaker 2: is what was your mindset going into twenty twenty two?
Speaker 2: Did you want war with Russia? And I think with
Speaker 2: Rubio and Mike Maltz what Mike waltzhe was about to
Speaker 2: get to he also basically supported a full on war, not.
Speaker 1: Basically his criticism was that the Biden administration was wholly
Speaker 1: three back, that they needed to immediately authorize long range
Speaker 1: missile strikes and ship war weapons to Ukraine. His criticism
Speaker 1: was from the hawkish direction. Viza vive Biden, and I
Speaker 1: think your analysis is important because it's not just okay
Speaker 1: now that the party has moved and it's clear what's
Speaker 1: going on, and even some of the liberals are like,
Speaker 1: I don't know if this Ukraine thing is really working
Speaker 1: out the way we wanted it to. It's another thing
Speaker 1: to have seen where this was going and then a
Speaker 1: critic when it was more difficult than when it took
Speaker 1: more courage.
Speaker 2: So I want to stick with you for two issues,
Speaker 2: Afghanistan and Ukraine, because here's the thing. It's fine to
Speaker 2: be dragged kicking and screaming to the correct position on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: which is okay, we got to wrap this stuff up.
Speaker 2: But I went back and I looked, let's put the
Speaker 2: next one to please up there on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is Mike Waltz. He will be the next National Security Advisor.
Speaker 2: Is again very confounding for a variety of reasons. The
Speaker 2: main one is I went and looked at all of
Speaker 2: the track record Mike Waltz was advocating for the quote
Speaker 2: unquote arsenal of democracy to be thrown at Putin and Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He also specifically basically implied we should go to war
Speaker 2: with Russia and unleashed the Ukrainian army to defend eastern
Speaker 2: Ukraine is a NATO expansionist of Sweden and Finland. Now
Speaker 2: he's like, okay, we don't need to increase it anymore.
Speaker 2: And now he says, okay, Ukraine should not be in NATO.
Speaker 2: But I also went back and I read his press
Speaker 2: release from February of twenty twenty, and he basically criticized
Speaker 2: the Trump press the Trump peace deal with Afghanistan. So
Speaker 2: those are very important test cases for me, because guys,
Speaker 2: this is not about the issues at hand right now.
Speaker 2: They're already on the downswing, right Nobody at this point,
Speaker 2: even Biden was advocating for like full on war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: The point is is what were you going to do
Speaker 2: in office? What we're you going to do in the
Speaker 2: situation room? What judgment are you going to have when
Speaker 2: these situations arise? So, for example, when Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: trying to sign a peace deal with the Taliban, Mike
Speaker 2: Walts spoke against it. Mike Walt's actually was booed at
Speaker 2: SEAPAC back it was several years ago where he said
Speaker 2: that we should stay in Afghanistan forever and it should
Speaker 2: be a multi generational war. Mark Rubio as well. I've
Speaker 2: covered him for a long time, and I don't want
Speaker 2: to misconstrue he is not a Tom Cotton figure. He
Speaker 2: is not you know, a full on hardcore neocon as
Speaker 2: ideologically as others. But his persuasion and his intellectual kind
Speaker 2: of framework around the issue, especially Latin America, oh my god,
Speaker 2: but Latin America, Uba, Venezuela, all this stuff, but especially
Speaker 2: on Russia, on Iran, these are he I mean, there's
Speaker 2: no you know, getting away from it. He's a major
Speaker 2: hawk and he definitely comes twenty fifteen twenty sixteen campaign.
Speaker 2: I covered him extensively. He was probably the most hawkish
Speaker 2: candidate in the twenty sixteen race. Did not support, you know,
Speaker 2: the peace deal with Afghanistan. And you know, so far,
Speaker 2: there is only one voice in the room that like
Speaker 2: passes those two tests for me at least, and that's
Speaker 2: Jade Vanc's the vice president. And that's great, But the
Speaker 2: truth is the vice president only has as much power
Speaker 2: as the president gives him. The Secretary of State is
Speaker 2: going to run the Department of State, you know, the
Speaker 2: national security. This is another thing people really need to understand.
Speaker 2: It's not just about the advice in the room. A
Speaker 2: national security advisor's job is something called interagency cooperation. And
Speaker 2: I'm going to get deep, so everybody stick with me.
Speaker 2: But there's a great book called The Essence of Decisions,
Speaker 2: one of the foundations of political science, and it looks
Speaker 2: at the Cuban missile crisis through various different lenses of
Speaker 2: how John F. Kennedy arrived at the correct decision in
Speaker 2: the Cuban missile crisis, and they're one of those that
Speaker 2: I think is so important is called the organizational theory,
Speaker 2: And really what it means is that it really wasn't
Speaker 2: up to Kennedy. It was about the options that were
Speaker 2: presented to Kennedy. For a guy like Trump, who, let's
Speaker 2: be honest, is old and also never took great interest
Speaker 2: in the issues. The people who are his advisors, who
Speaker 2: are presenting him the options to choose from, they have
Speaker 2: a lot of power. So let's say it is February
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two and Russia does invade Ukraine, and Trump
Speaker 2: is presented with three options, and the least, the least
Speaker 2: hawkish option is the insane sanctions regime that we pursued
Speaker 2: on Russia. Well, that's still a really bad option. That's
Speaker 2: actually a really dumb option. Now the president can override that,
Speaker 2: But in the moment, you've got everybody in the situation room,
Speaker 2: and the National Security Advisor's job is running the meeting,
Speaker 2: and he says, all right, mister President Rubio, you're up first.
Speaker 2: Here are the three different things, the packages that we
Speaker 2: presented to you, and Trump, uneven beknownst to him, honestly
Speaker 2: and unbeknownst to most presidents, picks what is already a
Speaker 2: hackish option unless he has really rock solid like intuitions
Speaker 2: and says, no, we're going to do totally something different. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, we're in for a bad way. So in
Speaker 2: both of these cases, like and like I said about yesterday,
Speaker 2: at least Dephonic, I think, honestly, that's a lot of bullshit.
Speaker 2: That's just some Israel Whatever the Israelis serve steps with
Speaker 2: un fine, whatever she lives in New York, she's not
Speaker 2: particularly part of the apparatus. But here we're talking about.
Speaker 2: I mean, Secretary of State is arguably the most important
Speaker 2: part of the the entire the cabinet, traditionally looked upon
Speaker 2: by the founders. Thomas Jefferson was our secretary of State.
Speaker 2: He was looked at as a path to the presidency.
Speaker 2: National security Avisor is hands down one of the most
Speaker 2: important national security musicians, and he's decided to go in
Speaker 2: this direction. So look, you know, for a lot of
Speaker 2: people out there, you you it's funny. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of people who got into politics over the last
Speaker 2: four years, especially who got into Trump over the last
Speaker 2: four years, and I you know, they always got mad
Speaker 2: because I was like, look, I was there, I remember
Speaker 2: when he was actually president, and I saw a lot
Speaker 2: of this happening behind the scenes. And I've always worn
Speaker 2: you should have no illusions. You know what is an
Speaker 2: RFK Junior allegedly didn't want Marco Rubio to be Secretary
Speaker 2: of State. I tried to tell you, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of the power that these people have and Trump,
Speaker 2: I mean, if we're really being honest, did ideology even
Speaker 2: play a role in this? Or was it? Mike Waalts
Speaker 2: is a former Green Beret and he goes on Fox News,
Speaker 2: and look, he's not stupid. He's a smart guy. I
Speaker 2: listened to several interviews with him last night. Smart, he's
Speaker 2: got an ideology. He worked for Dick Cheney, he was
Speaker 2: his counter terrorism advisor, he worked for Donald Rumsfeld. Everyone's
Speaker 2: in the White House. He knows what he's doing. And
Speaker 2: in fact, you know, you should probably fear competence in that.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, I think you would actually
Speaker 1: prefer that he'd be dumb, because then he would be
Speaker 1: less effective and pushing what has been I mean, like
Speaker 1: you said, he worked for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Speaker 1: Like that's what we're talking about. So yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: Michael Tracy pointing out five seconds ago, everyone pretending like
Speaker 1: there was some giant golf ideologically between the Cheney's and Trump,
Speaker 1: like you were tricked, you were fooled. That was always
Speaker 1: obvious based on his track record in the first administration,
Speaker 1: that that was preposterous. He liked using the anti war
Speaker 1: labor label and having people like RFK Junior and Toulci
Speaker 1: Gabbard who were willing to abandon all the previous criticism
Speaker 1: they had of him to get closer to power and
Speaker 1: will have nothing to say, by the way, about any
Speaker 1: of these clear neocon war mongering picks. He liked having
Speaker 1: the anti war mantle placed upon him because he thought
Speaker 1: it was politically useful. Did he ever ideologically buy into that? No,
Speaker 1: there's never right John Bolton in the last administration and
Speaker 1: my compeo in the last administration. Like actually, and again
Speaker 1: follow Michael Tracy because he digs into the details on
Speaker 1: all this stuff and is very consistent calling out Republicans
Speaker 1: Democrats alike on this issue in particular. But actually, as
Speaker 1: Tracy points out, this is a more interventionist administration that
Speaker 1: Trump is starting with than he did last time around,
Speaker 1: because you've got Marco Rubio, who is you know, an
Speaker 1: ideological hawk, like you said, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: a ron or any sort of Latin American country. Much
Speaker 1: more interventionists and much more ideological than the last time
Speaker 1: we had Rex Tillerson.
Speaker 3: I'm like business.
Speaker 1: Guide, like have an ideology whatsoever. So when you put
Speaker 1: together at least Stephonic, who I think it was Tracy
Speaker 1: called basically like Nicky Haley two point zero, they effectively
Speaker 1: have like the same ideology. So Trump makes a big
Speaker 1: show of saying no, Mike pompeiout, no Nicky Haley and
Speaker 1: then swaps in people who have basically the identical ideology.
Speaker 1: You know, between Stephonic Rubio and Mike Waltz. You got
Speaker 1: people who have been actively itching for war with Russia, China, Iran,
Speaker 1: and Mexico. So you know that's where we are. Everybody
Speaker 1: who deluded themselves. I don't have to talking about regular people.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the influencers out there, like deluted themselves
Speaker 1: or deluded their followers into thinking that this was going
Speaker 1: to be an anti war administration, Like sorry, you got played?
Speaker 3: Who got played? And you've been warning people?
Speaker 2: Yes, wow, you've been warning people.
Speaker 1: But I also had like, yeah, you know, what does
Speaker 1: this say about who has Trump's ear, who's actually influential?
Speaker 1: Because supposedly Don Junior was pushing against these sort of picks,
Speaker 1: Jade Vance would theoretically be pushing against these sort of picks.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson would theoretically be pushing against these sort of picks,
Speaker 1: and yet we've got, you know, an administration that has
Speaker 1: now stocked with unreconstructed neogons.
Speaker 2: It's always been this way, and this is why, if anything,
Speaker 2: it's just exactly like it was last time around. So
Speaker 2: for everybody who will remember, Trump would what was it
Speaker 2: when he strikes Syria? Asad right, Tucker go on TV
Speaker 2: and be like this is terrible and it's a bad idea.
Speaker 2: Tucker would be then he would put up lists of
Speaker 2: Republicans who were neo cons who were betraying the Magabas.
Speaker 2: Did Trump ever make them pay a price? No? Tucker
Speaker 2: has been consistent on this, always has been. Has who else?
Speaker 2: Jd for example? But at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: he's the vice president. What can he do? I mean,
Speaker 2: Trump is the man in the office. This is also
Speaker 2: I would be remiss if I didn't say it's a
Speaker 2: coalition party. And the truth is is pro Israel came
Speaker 2: in big for Trump, and I actually think this is
Speaker 2: where they are cashing in their chips more than anywhere else.
Speaker 2: I mean, Rubio has been a darling of the Paul
Speaker 2: Singer Network for ten years now at this point. You
Speaker 2: know all those free trips to Israel, Like there ain't free.
Speaker 2: They come at a cost, Miriam Adelson. They don't give
Speaker 2: you one hundred million dollars for free, okay, Like you
Speaker 2: get what you pay for, and what you pay for
Speaker 2: really is this both Walst and Walt in particular on
Speaker 2: Iran is like unhinged. I went and I was looking
Speaker 2: at some of this and frankly, you know, that's kind
Speaker 2: of scary for what that looks like for in the future.
Speaker 2: I mean, Tucker tried to elevate you know, my friend
Speaker 2: Bridge Colby. I thought he maybe he had a shot,
Speaker 2: just because I didn't think he had a shot until
Speaker 2: he went on Tucker's show, and then I was like,
Speaker 2: oh shit, you know, maybe this is real. And the
Speaker 2: truth The problem too is on the campaign trail, Trump
Speaker 2: actually did present himself as anti war, and he did
Speaker 2: run with Tulsi and with RFK Junior and all these
Speaker 2: other people. I warned people because of how he presented
Speaker 2: himself in office last time. But in terms of the
Speaker 2: people on his campaign, I think it's fair to say
Speaker 2: Rick Grinnell and all these other people, Grick led the
Speaker 2: outreach of the Muslim community, which worked obviously against les change.
Speaker 2: He won the vote in Dearborn, Michigan, and seems to
Speaker 2: he literally won the vote in Dearborn in many of
Speaker 2: the other places. But this is the issue is that
Speaker 2: Trump also is a creature of the Republican coalition of
Speaker 2: the donor class and also of television and Marco one
Speaker 2: of the things, he's a deeply narcissistic individual. Like Mike
Speaker 2: Wallace has been on to Marco, were both actually not Marco.
Speaker 2: Mark is a pretty umble guy. I like Marco will
Speaker 2: be on on a personal level. I've talked to him before.
Speaker 2: He's again, he's a smart guy. He's somebody who he
Speaker 2: thinks about the world, and he's not you know, he's
Speaker 2: not like a total establishment act in the way that
Speaker 2: a lot of people might think he's. He's good on
Speaker 2: the child tax credit and I act like that. Actually
Speaker 2: not a bad thing to mention that.
Speaker 1: Obviously I'm not a big Rubio fan, but he is
Speaker 1: one of the Republicans who can be a little bit
Speaker 1: unorthodox in terms of economics. Yes, and so it's also
Speaker 1: a loss to lose him from the Senate in terms of, like,
Speaker 1: you know, any sort of new right populist direction in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Instead, you've elevated him on the issues where
Speaker 1: he's the worst and taken him out of play on
Speaker 1: you know, places like the child tax credit where he
Speaker 1: might be more interesting and more transformational.
Speaker 2: Well, it's good, it's actually, you know, we will get
Speaker 2: to this. But unfortunately, because DeSantis now gets to a point,
Speaker 2: you know, whoever he wants for the Florida Senator, there's
Speaker 2: almost no chance that Marco Rubio would be a voice
Speaker 2: for any of this. Next time. On the child tax
Speaker 2: credit in the TC Rubio actually held up the entire
Speaker 2: t CJA bill last time around. That's a big the
Speaker 2: Tax Cuts Act specific to try and get some earned
Speaker 2: income tax credit and other CTC stuff. He actually increased
Speaker 2: the corporate tax rate, which they were furious to him for,
Speaker 2: in order to try and get more family stuff. So
Speaker 2: that's sad. Also, JD was one of the only other
Speaker 2: people who probably would have push him in the Senate,
Speaker 2: and he's now he's the Vice president. So that's the
Speaker 2: secondary thing. But look at this point, really what you're
Speaker 2: you should be betting on personnel is policy, and I'm
Speaker 2: not going to erase that. Really, what you should be hoping,
Speaker 2: if you're really anti war, is that when Trump is
Speaker 2: in the room and he gets presented with a lot
Speaker 2: of this nonsense that he says no. But you know,
Speaker 2: that's a lot of faith to put in a.
Speaker 3: First track record.
Speaker 2: That's a lot of faith to put into a person.
Speaker 2: And you know, even all of this stuff about again
Speaker 2: like Iran, Ukraine and all this these are entrenched conflicts.
Speaker 2: I'm not that worried about full blown there. But the
Speaker 2: thing is is that when you're in the office, shit happens.
Speaker 2: October seventh happens, nine to eleven happens. Nobody voted for
Speaker 2: George W. Bush, who by the way, ran on the
Speaker 2: restraintest foreign policy in two thousand and had any idea
Speaker 2: that the people who would be in office like Donald
Speaker 2: Rumsfeldt and Dick Cheney would be responsible for overseeing the
Speaker 2: mass transformation and invitation of the United States into the
Speaker 2: Global War on Terror and the disastrous prosecution of that.
Speaker 2: That's why you always should have to think really hard
Speaker 2: about the people you put in because you never know
Speaker 2: what could happen. Trump likes to say Ukraine Russia never
Speaker 2: would have happened on his watch. Maybe, but you know
Speaker 2: it could. Yeah, another one good October seventh never would happen.
Speaker 2: Maybe you know that.
Speaker 1: One's could That one is the least credible. I can
Speaker 1: understand the case more on Russia.
Speaker 2: Wood because he had a maybe maybe we.
Speaker 1: Don't know, but maybe on October seventh, like a big
Speaker 1: part of the reason why Hamas you know, organized and
Speaker 1: perpetrated October seventh had to do with the Abraham Accords
Speaker 1: that were, of course, you know, started and signed under Trump,
Speaker 1: because they felt like that was just completely taking the
Speaker 1: Palestinian issue off the table and creating this normalization that
Speaker 1: just ignored them and you know, invisibilized them completely. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're right in that assessment, obviously wrong in the execution
Speaker 1: with regard to killing innocent civilians. But you know, so
Speaker 1: I don't even see the case how why Hamas would
Speaker 1: be deterred from October seventh if Donald Trump was there.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make any sense to me. But you know,
Speaker 1: a few things, like, you're absolutely right every one of
Speaker 1: these picks. Not that this is a surprise because Apak
Speaker 1: always wins whether it's a democratic or Republican administration. But
Speaker 1: I mean these are some hardcore ideological Zionist believers. There's
Speaker 1: a clip going around of Mark or Ruvio engaging with
Speaker 1: Code Pink and media Benjamin of Code Pink, and you know,
Speaker 1: he's quite aggressive. He's like, I want you to play
Speaker 1: this video. I want people to see me saying that
Speaker 1: you know, I don't not that I don't care that
Speaker 1: the civilians are being killed, but it's one hundred percent
Speaker 1: Hamas's vault, and I want people to know that, and
Speaker 1: they should go in and they should keep doing what
Speaker 1: they're doing until every message of Hamas is detroyed.
Speaker 3: Like he's committed. He's ideological.
Speaker 1: Obviously, Stephonic made her name by inciting this fake anti
Speaker 1: Semitism panic across college campuses and becoming an absolute darling
Speaker 1: of the you know, donor class that was very interested
Speaker 1: in that whole conflict, many of whom you know, became
Speaker 1: huge Trump supporters and sort of like in a sense,
Speaker 1: laundered their support of Trump, which is also in their
Speaker 1: own class interests through this like virtuous lens of oh,
Speaker 1: we're standing up against anti Semitism.
Speaker 3: So, you know, she.
Speaker 1: Gets her slot. Waltz is obviously very ideological. You should
Speaker 1: see that clip of him at SEAPAC talking about Afghanistan
Speaker 1: where he's like he's like, yeah, we've got that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: He was like, we've been there fifteen years, and you
Speaker 1: know what, this is going to be a multi generational
Speaker 1: conflict and basically we should be there forever. It's like okay,
Speaker 1: you know, so yeah, now that things seem very different
Speaker 1: on Ukraine, and you recognize you've got to sound a
Speaker 1: little bit of a different note if you're gonna have
Speaker 1: any chance at you know, power within a Trump administration.
Speaker 1: You've changed your tune, but the ideology is in there
Speaker 1: deep again is an Aid former Aid to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Speaker 1: That's who we're talking about, and there is no shift
Speaker 1: in terms of his ideological views. The other thing that
Speaker 1: just a quick note is the House has been called
Speaker 1: officially for Republicans.
Speaker 3: Now, would do you know what the final margin was?
Speaker 2: Fifteen two seats.
Speaker 3: It's very narrow.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's a very narrow margin that they have, and
Speaker 1: with Waltz and Stephanic, you're taking two House members out
Speaker 1: and making that an even more narrow margin for Republicans.
Speaker 1: And while Democrats, yes just got you know, she lacked
Speaker 1: in a big national general election, they do really well
Speaker 1: in special elections because now they are the party of
Speaker 1: like high information, high turnout. I show up at every election,
Speaker 1: every primary, whatever voters and plus the Democratic base is
Speaker 1: going to be super pissed and ready to like show
Speaker 1: up and try to resist this Trump administration. So you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure the makeup exactly of either one of
Speaker 1: these districts. But you have to think at least there's
Speaker 1: some chance in New York and Florida that and it's
Speaker 1: not like you know, super rural Florida either that there
Speaker 1: could be a shot. There could be a risk for
Speaker 1: one or both of these seats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. I will say I was
Speaker 2: told by a source that the Defense secretary pick will
Speaker 2: come sometime today. I don't know what it will be.
Speaker 2: They said it would be surprised, So I don't know
Speaker 2: if I don't know what that is, y you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, at this point, I can hope I get surprises.
Speaker 2: I would. I wasn't that surprised actually by Rubio the
Speaker 2: well he was named as being in the running, right.
Speaker 2: I was way more surprised by Waltz where he was
Speaker 2: in the running. But I was like, oh man, he's
Speaker 2: really going for it. In terms of the why those
Speaker 2: two back to back, it was a little bit of
Speaker 2: a gut punch. I actually think there is a I
Speaker 2: will I'll give it like a ten percent chance that
Speaker 2: Tulcy Gabber gets Secretary of Defense. I'm serious. Just that's
Speaker 2: that's what was That's basically the way that I was looking.
Speaker 3: I don't I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2: I would be okay, ten percent, but you know, ninety
Speaker 2: percent it will be somebody like Bill Haggerty or somebody
Speaker 2: like that. Haggarty actually be pretty good. He's he's pretty
Speaker 2: consistent on Ukraine. There are a few others where again
Speaker 2: there's a lot of names out there. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to be sure, but yeah, the fact that they told
Speaker 2: me I would be very surprised, I was like, huh, okay,
Speaker 2: I was like, who would I actually be surprised by?
Speaker 2: I mean, really, Telsey's the only one I would be.
Speaker 2: I would be like. I was like, I'd be like, wow,
Speaker 2: if that were case, I would take her in a
Speaker 2: heartbeat over any of these other people. So we'll see.
Speaker 1: I just do think it's really, I don't know, darkly
Speaker 1: funny the way that Trump made this big show of like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to have Nicki Haley and I'm not
Speaker 1: going to have Mike Pompeo, so that people who are
Speaker 1: on the New Right who share your ideology be like, Okay,
Speaker 1: like this looks like this is good, this is encouraging,
Speaker 1: and then hours later is like instead I'm going to
Speaker 1: have this group of neo cons who have the exact
Speaker 1: same idea.
Speaker 2: But left people are used to getting shpit on by
Speaker 2: their coalition for the right people, you should get used
Speaker 2: to it as well. All Right, you know, where's the
Speaker 2: first dose? Yeah, this is the first dose. Get ready?
Speaker 1: Trump is anti war dream officially dead. And it's not
Speaker 1: even we're exactly not from Alexis.
Speaker 2: He could not do anything while he's in office. It's
Speaker 2: just that this makes it harder to not do anything
Speaker 2: while he's an office. So the results are what's ultimate. Ultimately,
Speaker 2: the results are what speak for themselves. We will see.
Speaker 2: I think if he did pick TULSI honestly look within
Speaker 2: the within the realm, that would be fantastic, you know,
Speaker 2: for for at least what I believe in. But from
Speaker 2: what I'm seeing right now, I think it is relatively unlikely.
Speaker 2: Let's get to the next most confounding pick. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, guys. The second Yeah,
Speaker 2: so this broke light last night. Trump is picking Kirsty
Speaker 2: Nome to serve as a Secretary of Homeland Security. Now
Speaker 2: here's the thing that people don't understand. Homeland security is
Speaker 2: one of the largest government agencies. The DHS is actually
Speaker 2: the largest law enforcement agency in the world. So not
Speaker 2: only would she be in charge of the border patrol
Speaker 2: and of the mass deportation operation, she would be the
Speaker 2: face of it. The same way that what was that
Speaker 2: lady's name, I'm totally blanking on it right now, from
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen whatever, there was a previous woman who was
Speaker 2: in the job, in the job in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: Under likes women for this job.
Speaker 2: I guess, yeah. But the thing is is that you
Speaker 2: would be the face of it. You would be the
Speaker 2: one taking the podium. And like, let's be honest, like
Speaker 2: Christyinome is not an impressive political individual, Like she this
Speaker 2: whole thing about murdering her dog, she never came up
Speaker 2: with a good answer. That's child's plate. Compared to the
Speaker 2: ship the press is gonna throw at you. They're gonna
Speaker 2: they're gonna drag up every sob story of every illegal
Speaker 2: immigrant that's ever come to the United States and say,
Speaker 2: how do you justify this? This is not America, this
Speaker 2: violates the statue of liberty. Do you really think that
Speaker 2: she could stand up to press her like that? I don't.
Speaker 1: And also, by the way, what press should do that,
Speaker 1: and they should have been doing it under Kamala and
Speaker 1: Biden and Obama as well.
Speaker 2: I disagree on them that one.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't it shouldn't cover what's actually happening in the country.
Speaker 2: Of course, sure you should. You should also cover a
Speaker 2: lot of illegal immigrant murders and rapes, right that doesn't. No,
Speaker 2: it gets covered on the right with a list right there.
Speaker 2: But over on MSNBC, it's like these are the greatest
Speaker 2: angels ever walked the face of the earth. Anyway, Well,
Speaker 2: that's fine, then they can be law abiding at Crystal
Speaker 2: in El Salvador, which apparently is such a nice country now,
Speaker 2: and the rest of these places regardless. The point is
Speaker 2: is that is this a very smart individual? I mean,
Speaker 2: is this an impressive individual who will be able to
Speaker 2: make this case? It? Also? Is this a competent individual?
Speaker 2: He se nome is running South Dakota. Okay, that's great,
Speaker 2: all right, you know it's a small state. Let's be honest,
Speaker 2: Let's look at the GDP ranking and all this is
Speaker 2: this somebody who is up to the task not only
Speaker 2: of one of the most red hot jobs in Washington,
Speaker 2: is it also going to be like the ability to
Speaker 2: actually run the agency. I mean, honestly, I don't see
Speaker 2: it at all. I don't have no understanding of why
Speaker 2: this is picked. Like I guess the best case for
Speaker 2: it would be that she's like sometimes good on TV
Speaker 2: and is a surrogate for Donald Trump, right, But you know,
Speaker 2: even in the past, like in terms of her support
Speaker 2: for Trump and all that, that's been wishy washy. So
Speaker 2: this is the most confounding one to me. I have
Speaker 2: no understanding, you know, of this one.
Speaker 3: You don't have an under So we do have an understanding.
Speaker 2: What that she's good looking.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's with his boy, Corey Lwandowski, but again,
Speaker 1: and he thinks he's good looking, and you know, probably
Speaker 1: feels like, since they have all the dirt on her
Speaker 1: with regard to that affair, that she'll be unfailingly loyal
Speaker 1: and sycophantic and ultimately.
Speaker 3: That's what he wants.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and probably.
Speaker 1: And I guess, you know, may may feel like it's
Speaker 1: better to have when they're going to be you know,
Speaker 1: creating new orphans as they parents and children apart as
Speaker 1: they did in the last administration, and sending people who
Speaker 1: have been here for many years to camps that perhaps
Speaker 1: would help to have a woman to be able to
Speaker 1: sell that deeply cruel and inhuman.
Speaker 2: But it didn't happen last time around, did it.
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: It's like, well, it didn't happen. They completely bucked on
Speaker 2: child separation even though they had a woman.
Speaker 3: Now before they orphaned the like thousands of children.
Speaker 2: All right, again, very in dispute. And then regardless, it's
Speaker 2: this is complicated, but we'll get to that, I guess
Speaker 2: when we continue with some of these other uh, with
Speaker 2: these other people who were appointed. So we also saw
Speaker 2: the news on the border front that Tom Homan, who
Speaker 2: was the acting director of ICE, would be appointed as
Speaker 2: the quote unquote borders are under the president. The reason
Speaker 2: why that's again is a little bit confounding, is that
Speaker 2: Czar only has as much power as the president gives you.
Speaker 2: You don't have statutory power. Kirsty nom will have statutory There.
Speaker 1: Was a thought Homan might actually be DHS.
Speaker 2: That's what I thought. He's going to be the DHS secretary.
Speaker 2: He's a former border patrol agent. He's rock solid on
Speaker 2: the issue of immigration, and he was there last time around.
Speaker 2: Stephen Miller will be was appointed. I think they announced
Speaker 2: he will be the Deputy chief of Staff Deputy chief
Speaker 2: of statis at a fair important position in the White House.
Speaker 2: They're the real like moves and shakers. There's two of them.
Speaker 2: So the chief of staff like gives a policy portfolio.
Speaker 2: Her job is to run like this stuff in the
Speaker 2: Oval office. It's more like an operational role, whereas the
Speaker 2: deputy chief of staff will get a policy portfolio and
Speaker 2: their job is to like enforce that throughout the White House. Obviously,
Speaker 2: Miller has been which he's served all four years with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. He's served all four years on the campaign.
Speaker 2: He has been with him since day one. Really, I mean,
Speaker 2: if you think about it, Miller, Miller and Jeff Sessions
Speaker 2: are two of the original figures to ever back Donald J. Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, back in Two Dogs aid. Yes, he works
Speaker 2: for Jeff Stashis. Sessions is one of the original like
Speaker 2: immigration hawks in Washington. So that's where that comes from.
Speaker 2: So yeah, on the DHS front, I don't know. I
Speaker 2: don't get it. I truly don't understand. Like Tom Holman,
Speaker 2: as the borders are again, borders are is a fine position,
Speaker 2: but you have no statutory authority, like your Your portfolio
Speaker 2: is to just sit there and like you know, pressure
Speaker 2: the DHS to do something, pressure the border patrol, pressure eyes.
Speaker 2: You can convene meetings in the White House, but you
Speaker 2: don't have a lot of power. And you know in
Speaker 2: some cases of these agencies they can just say screw
Speaker 2: you or I'm not gonna listen to you. You know,
Speaker 2: Steven Miller, it's a little bit different. He's the actual
Speaker 2: deputy chief of Staff. He will have a lot more enforceability,
Speaker 2: and presumably he'll have like quote unquote walking privileges into
Speaker 2: the Oval office. So how that works, you know, we'll see.
Speaker 2: But yeah, on the I don't doubt that some mass
Speaker 2: deportation program of some sort will happen. But with Chrissy
Speaker 2: Nome at the helm of it and actually running the
Speaker 2: police force, I have a lot less, like frankly confidence
Speaker 2: that it will be run competently, you know, in a
Speaker 2: way that is defensible, you know, to the American people,
Speaker 2: because I mean, like, I mean, look, you know already
Speaker 2: the debate we're having that just wait until it's actually real,
Speaker 2: Like it's gonna be the most red hot issue in DC.
Speaker 2: They're gonna throw everything they possibly got immigration on.
Speaker 1: The Immigration has almost never been more popular than at
Speaker 1: the peak of the child separation policy last time around,
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't know if that'll be the
Speaker 1: case this time because at the time Democrats were you know,
Speaker 1: uniformly offering a different vision and were in uniform opposition
Speaker 1: to the Trump uh border policies. Now they've basically accepted
Speaker 1: the like trumpest worldview that immigrants are just bad and
Speaker 1: the only thing we should do is kick them out.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if it'll be the same, but
Speaker 1: I know that there will be a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: there will be a lot of people who did not
Speaker 1: really intellectualize what an actual mass deportation policy looks like,
Speaker 1: feels like entails, et cetera.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, you know, but.
Speaker 1: Look, this is what people voted for, and he got
Speaker 1: on the vote on the anti war part, Like, I
Speaker 1: think people were completely sold to Bill of Goods, and
Speaker 1: I think there were just straight up lied to by
Speaker 1: a bunch of like online influencers and people like RFK
Speaker 1: Junior and Tulci Gabbard. So I don't think they voted
Speaker 1: for like war with Iran in Mexico and China and
Speaker 1: Russia and whatever. But on this, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: say that he didn't run around talking every day about
Speaker 1: having an aggressive mass deportation policy. So, you know, Homan
Speaker 1: and Miller. Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, he's
Speaker 1: usually correct about, you know, trump internal dynamics or whatever.
Speaker 1: She reports that Miller's portfolio will be quite large and
Speaker 1: he'll have a lot of power, which wouldn't be surprising
Speaker 1: because obviously he's been with Trump. You know, he's been
Speaker 1: with Trump much longer than Susie.
Speaker 2: Wilds, who's the actual OG.
Speaker 3: He is in OG.
Speaker 1: He is extremely ideological. There is nothing Trump could do
Speaker 1: that would lead Miller to break with him whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, I think you know he is. He is
Speaker 1: a hardcore anti immigrant idea luge. I think everybody knows
Speaker 1: that about him, and he is going to be in
Speaker 1: a significant position of power and no one should be
Speaker 1: surprised about that.
Speaker 2: I yeah, look, I think you're right. I if I
Speaker 2: had to get of all the campaign promises that actually
Speaker 2: gets fulfilled, immigration will probably be it because you have
Speaker 2: the United Government right, so HR two, the border bill
Speaker 2: that almost I think every Republican, almost every Republican has
Speaker 2: voted for, so that will likely it won't Maybe it
Speaker 2: won't become law of the land. Things become squirrely when
Speaker 2: you actually have to vote for something. But something like
Speaker 2: that is likely to get in there in terms of
Speaker 2: mass deportation and all of that. It really depends on funding.
Speaker 2: It also depends on the execution. But I mean, personally,
Speaker 2: you know, I have faith in Tom Homan, I have
Speaker 2: faith in Stephen Miller. But like I said, when you
Speaker 2: actually have the person there who is going to be
Speaker 2: running this agency, who frankly has no previous experience in
Speaker 2: law enforcement, running the largest law enforcement agency having, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare to run this thing.
Speaker 2: I truly don't understand it.
Speaker 1: So there was one war that I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: is confirmed yet. But did you see the reporting that
Speaker 1: Scott Bessant will be Treasury Secretary.
Speaker 2: I saw it reported, but it's not a hundred right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Well, I would keep an eye on that one.
Speaker 3: Look a hitge fund billionaire guy.
Speaker 2: He's on the short line. Look it was going to
Speaker 2: be a hedge fund billionaire guy. He's the one to
Speaker 2: him or what was Scott paulses John.
Speaker 3: He's not Hank whatever anyway, that's John Paulson.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not to be confused with Boss who was the
Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense and a billionaire and a former Walls.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you get all these rich rich dudes confused. But
Speaker 1: in any case, he's the one that they would like
Speaker 1: dispatch to ce NBC to be like, don't worry about
Speaker 1: the Terriiff's guy is not going to be bad. He's
Speaker 1: just using this as a negotiating tool. It'll be fine.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: He's not really serious about this across like across the
Speaker 1: board thing. So that was his his deal, and Trump
Speaker 1: apparently loved to shout him out at rallies because Scott
Speaker 1: would tie like the stock market performance to Trump's poll numbers,
Speaker 1: and Trump of course ate that shit up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Scott bestart. I mean, look, Trump Trump is a
Speaker 2: creature of the nineteen eighties and one of the things
Speaker 2: in the nineteen eighties was that we almost always had
Speaker 2: billionaire Wall Streeter as our treasury secretaries. He wants to
Speaker 2: recreate the Reagan magic. That's what he's looking to do.
Speaker 2: I'm not justifying it. I'm just telling people how his
Speaker 2: mind works. And on this one, new of you were
Speaker 2: never fooled. He always was honest about this. So that's
Speaker 2: let's be very clear about where which direction he's looking at.
Speaker 2: And especially look, a lot of the Wall Street guys
Speaker 2: did support his campaign, and he does Trump owed a
Speaker 2: lot to them, especially some of these I think. I mean,
Speaker 2: obviously the majority of Wall Street money did go to Kamala.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's actually that's actually not true. So
Speaker 1: the the vults of billionaires went to Trump over.
Speaker 3: It's actually the fewest.
Speaker 1: The biggest billionaire party consolidation was behind Donald Trump this time,
Speaker 1: which you wouldn't know. No, Kamala raised vastly more amounts
Speaker 1: of money that was predominant from more like upper middle
Speaker 1: class resistance liberals who poured in smaller donations. But yeah,
Speaker 1: the billionaires almost all united behind Trump, and even Kama's
Speaker 1: most prominent billionaire, Mark Cuban, actually did not even donate
Speaker 1: her campaign, which is kind of great.
Speaker 2: I have October three, Yeah, from Forbes magazine, Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: has more billionaires prominently backing her than Trump. So I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure where that's coming from, because Bill Gates
Speaker 2: obviously gave fifty million dollars, so sure Mark Cuban was
Speaker 2: a surrogate. I'm not trying to say Trump is better
Speaker 2: or whatever. But like, I don't think it's accurate to
Speaker 2: say the majority of billionaires where some of the top.
Speaker 1: Ten donors, only the bottom two gave to Democrats. Trump's okay,
Speaker 1: but that's megade from his own billionaire ten donors amounted
Speaker 1: to about nine hundred and forty five million. Harris is
Speaker 1: top down at two hundred and fifty four million. She
Speaker 1: ended up raising more money thanks to resistance giving Trump
Speaker 1: got to spend much less time raising with most blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. So anyway, yeah, but that's he has a
Speaker 1: lot of big money behind him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he had a lot. But I'm just saying the
Speaker 2: majority of billionaires did suppor Kamala Harris. Now, whether they
Speaker 2: put their money behind it or not, I don't know.
Speaker 2: But you know, I'm just saying. I'm not saying Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is the what less billionaire friendly can ever, Like,
Speaker 2: let's be real. Yeah, So anyway, that's how the administration
Speaker 2: is currently shaping up, and I guess it'll be an
Speaker 2: interesting couple of years. So that's the way I'll put it.
Speaker 2: And that's basically exactly what I expected. So if you
Speaker 2: expected something else, I don't really know what to tell you.
Speaker 2: You were warned, and I did tell you that it
Speaker 2: was probably gonna happen. At the same time, got to
Speaker 2: pay attention to the campaign that flopped big, and that
Speaker 2: was Kamala Harris. And it appears the biggest flop not
Speaker 2: only was just the vote total, but it actually was
Speaker 2: a lot of the money decisions that were made inside
Speaker 2: the campaign. So we have curated now a list. It
Speaker 2: appears that the Kamala Harris campaign, despite raising over one
Speaker 2: billion dollars, still ended up some twenty million dollars or
Speaker 2: so in debt and is now currently fundraising, still asking
Speaker 2: people for money after she lost. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. So this is an example of
Speaker 2: one of the emails she's been sending out. Now. She says,
Speaker 2: first and foremost, we want to acknowledge the fear, the confusion,
Speaker 2: sadness many of you are feeling at this moment. For others,
Speaker 2: you may be looking for something meaningful and important to
Speaker 2: channel your emotions. If that's you, then we're asking you
Speaker 2: to make a donation to the Democratic Party today. Here's
Speaker 2: why this is important. As you read this, there are
Speaker 2: US Senate and House races that are too close to call,
Speaker 2: or within the margin of recounts. They all need your
Speaker 2: help to get across the finish line. So can you
Speaker 2: please rush a contribution to the Harris Fight Fund program today?
Speaker 2: Does anyone want to name like a high profile race
Speaker 2: other than in Pennsylvania that's not in recount territory. That's right,
Speaker 2: So this is a grift. Let's all be honest. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. From Newsweek, it
Speaker 2: appears that there is a significant amount of debt within
Speaker 2: the Harris Walls campaign, enough so possibly up to the
Speaker 2: of some twenty million dollars, and people are starting to
Speaker 2: ask major questions about how some of that got spent.
Speaker 2: What we see, actually, and very interestingly so far, is
Speaker 2: not only could she possibly it appears there are reports
Speaker 2: out there that she's not able to pay some staff.
Speaker 3: The staffers came out and said it wasn't true.
Speaker 2: Okay, came out.
Speaker 1: The article actually debunks that thing. But the twenty million
Speaker 1: does seem.
Speaker 2: To be The twenty million does seem to be crackt
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of money, and so we should
Speaker 2: start to take a look then at where some of
Speaker 2: that money went. And the craziest is this, This is
Speaker 2: hands down the craziest. Let's put the next one please.
Speaker 2: From the New York Post, the Harris campaign reportedly spent
Speaker 2: some six figures on the Call Her Daddy podcast set,
Speaker 2: so as the they say, it didn't even crack a
Speaker 2: million views. But what's fascinating is that, you know, call
Speaker 2: Her Daddy, as I understand it, you know, Alex Cooper,
Speaker 2: all of this. She has a home, she has a set,
Speaker 2: like she films it, you know normally, But for some reason,
Speaker 2: this set the one that people are in front of,
Speaker 2: which frankly doesn't even look that good. I don't mean
Speaker 2: look as good as our set. And from what I
Speaker 2: can tell in the dollar figure, Crystal, I think they
Speaker 2: spent more money on it. First, one single appearance, A
Speaker 2: single appearance thing that is abounding like.
Speaker 1: This one expenditure obviously not responsible for the hair slot,
Speaker 1: but it really displays a stunning lack of understanding of
Speaker 1: what matters in the new media space too, Like no
Speaker 1: one has shown up for your frigging like aesthetics. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean it's not we have a great side.
Speaker 3: We're proud of it. We like, really we're proud that
Speaker 3: you guys helped us build it. It looks great, it
Speaker 3: helps us attract.
Speaker 1: Bigger guests whatever, especially on a podcast like Call Her Daddy,
Speaker 1: Like the aesthetics are really not the important part. So
Speaker 1: it just also displays this like lack of really understanding
Speaker 1: of the space.
Speaker 3: But the other thing that discussed me with this is.
Speaker 1: You know, Kamala had her big money backers, no doubt
Speaker 1: about it. A lot of these donations didn't come from
Speaker 1: big money to hop backers. They came from like regular people.
Speaker 1: You wasted their money to pay Oprah a million, Like
Speaker 1: you took regular working people's money and you siphoned it
Speaker 1: to Oprah Winfrey and like Beyonce and Katie Perry and
Speaker 1: these other so celebrity stars. That's disgusting. That is utterly grotesque.
Speaker 1: It's one more reason why you really should have public
Speaker 1: funding of elections, Like it should not be this constant
Speaker 1: emotional manipulation of the public begging them for dollars to
Speaker 1: go fund another like an Oprah Winfrey show and a
Speaker 1: Beyonce speech where she doesn't even perform. I just the
Speaker 1: whole situation is completely grotesque. To be the other thing
Speaker 1: I would say, obviously, like the money really didn't matter
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it really didn't matter.
Speaker 1: Now you can argue, I think the best case you
Speaker 1: could say is in the battleground states she actually performed
Speaker 1: better than she did in the non battleground states, meaning
Speaker 1: that you know, the ads that were played in the
Speaker 1: field program that was run were at least somewhat consequential
Speaker 1: in terms of narrowing the gap. Obviously not enough, but
Speaker 1: the money really wasn't the thing. And if Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to get serious about winning again, which I doubt
Speaker 1: they will, but maybe you never know, they need to
Speaker 1: throw the whole, the whole of their big donor class overboard.
Speaker 1: They need you know, ready talks about like oh Sista
Speaker 1: Soldia moments with the left or web No, no, no, the
Speaker 1: whole party has been like nothing but a series of
Speaker 1: Sista Solgia moments with the left for decades. Now you
Speaker 1: need to have assist to Soldia moment with the donor
Speaker 1: class because you.
Speaker 3: Don't even you don't even need their money.
Speaker 1: Their money is actually a hindrance and it just leads
Speaker 1: to grow testue expenditures like a million dollars to an
Speaker 1: already like Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire. She did not
Speaker 1: need regular people's million dollars And what does it say
Speaker 1: about her that she needed to be paid to come
Speaker 1: out And what does it say about you that she
Speaker 1: needed to be paid to come out and endorse and
Speaker 1: back your candidacy. Just disgusting. It's just such so emblematic
Speaker 1: of what is deeply wrong at the core of this
Speaker 1: party's ideology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and uh well we'll continue within that. Let's go
Speaker 2: to the next part because this is honestly the craziest
Speaker 2: one is that it appears that Kamala Harris paid Oprah
Speaker 2: Winfrey a million dollars during the failed campaign. What's even
Speaker 2: crazier is it wasn't just Oprah. It includes people like
Speaker 2: Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin. There was almost ten
Speaker 2: million bucks that were spent behind this, many of which
Speaker 2: actually did go into the pockets of these event management
Speaker 2: companies and the stars. Now here's how naive I am.
Speaker 2: I am a very cynical guy. Can I think everybody
Speaker 2: agree with that? All the people who've been watching for years?
Speaker 2: I genuinely did not know that thee lebs get paid
Speaker 2: for it. I listen, they don't.
Speaker 3: Believe in the call.
Speaker 1: They show up you do a concert like that's what
Speaker 1: I thought was going on.
Speaker 2: Here's a billionaire. If I was a billionaire and I
Speaker 2: was Oprah, right, you know, like it's one thing like, okay,
Speaker 2: you donate money to the campaign. If anything should be
Speaker 2: the other way, right, you should be given money to
Speaker 2: the campaign, because they're like, look, she's something I believe
Speaker 2: in all of this. Oh, all you want is my time.
Speaker 2: I'm famous. You want me to come and speak, Okay, cool,
Speaker 2: Yeah I could do that. Honestly, I would do that now,
Speaker 2: you know if I was in a position of where
Speaker 2: there but to shake you down for a million bucks.
Speaker 2: That's crazy. And then Katie Perry apparently they also had
Speaker 2: to drop Blenis Morris. I don't have her name. I'm
Speaker 2: a boomer. I don't even know who this way he is.
Speaker 3: That's an opposite of being a boomer. Okay, I'm old
Speaker 3: enough to remember when she was.
Speaker 2: Okay, got it. So I don't even know who this
Speaker 2: woman is. But whoever she is, they didn't have the
Speaker 2: money to pay, and I was like, wait, why, Like
Speaker 2: why is she getting paid? She should just show up.
Speaker 2: It's like, you don't need to be compensated for your time, Like,
Speaker 2: to me, that's crazy. So Anyways, I don't know how
Speaker 2: all that is going down, but yeah, that was that
Speaker 2: was the wildest one.
Speaker 1: There's one more too that we can put up on
Speaker 1: the screen. They spent half a million dollars a day
Speaker 1: to pay for the like Vegas sphere thing, which is
Speaker 1: who did this persuade?
Speaker 3: Like really, who did this persuade?
Speaker 1: And I saw someone who said, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the perfect emblem of a campaign that had all the
Speaker 1: money in the world and no ideas. And you know
Speaker 1: that's basically it summed up right there, all the money
Speaker 1: in the world. But just like with Hillary in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: who also want to spent Donald Trump, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if you aren't selling something that people don't want to buy.
Speaker 1: And Trump's campaign fundamentally understood the media landscape vastly better
Speaker 1: than the Harris campaign did, both with the podcast strategy
Speaker 1: but also with the strategy of like, you know, it's
Speaker 1: cool if we get outspent. Because Trump knows how to
Speaker 1: generate be controversial and devisive and generate a lot of
Speaker 1: earned media, and he's going to do a thing and
Speaker 1: that is going to set the tone of the campaign
Speaker 1: and drive the messaging and persuade people you know, in
Speaker 1: favor of our campaign and against Kamala Harris, and that
Speaker 1: theory of the media was correct. In the Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: theory of the media was obviously a major failure, perhaps
Speaker 1: one of the biggest like tactical misunderstandings that they made
Speaker 1: in terms of this campag And I would say.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, there's no question. This Vegas Sphere thing is
Speaker 2: also just a hilarious one. It's like four hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty thousand dollars that they spent on this. Listen, right,
Speaker 2: the Spear's cool. I really want to go to the Sphere.
Speaker 2: I'd like to go see a show there and all that.
Speaker 2: But you know, you know, he lost Nevadas, So how
Speaker 2: did that workout? That's pretty great. And everybody was saying, like, oh,
Speaker 2: Kama's got few money, if she's able to buy out
Speaker 2: the Spear, It's like, yeah, it turns out you do
Speaker 2: have few money, but you don't got any votes. I think,
Speaker 2: back up exactly, You're like Jesus, so this is a
Speaker 2: coloss will spend and yeah, pick up on what you said.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of hard working people out there
Speaker 2: who did give her money. You know, it's not just
Speaker 2: win moms and all these other people. A lot of
Speaker 2: people out there, lower middle class folks and others chipped
Speaker 2: in five ten dollars they believed in the cost. He
Speaker 2: pissed their money away, and that's sick. You know, we
Speaker 2: did a lot of us reporting here on the show
Speaker 2: after stopped the steal, when Trump was shaking down people
Speaker 2: for two hundred and fifty million dollars for basically bullshit,
Speaker 2: right whenever you knew that he wasn't going to be
Speaker 2: able to over turn the election. And there are hard
Speaker 2: working plumbers, workmen, whatever who also gave money to that,
Speaker 2: And then I thought that was wrong. I think this
Speaker 2: is just as wrong, especially the Oprah thing. And you
Speaker 2: pay a lady, the billionaire lady needs a million dollars
Speaker 2: show up, and you know, so you also, Oprah. You know,
Speaker 2: you should know better than to accept that money because
Speaker 2: you don't even need it. It's less than marginal at
Speaker 2: this point. And now when it comes out, you look
Speaker 2: like a money grub. You know. Obviously, any of us
Speaker 2: gonna believe an Oprah endorsement in the field, I'll tell
Speaker 2: you I'm not. I truly did not believe it. I
Speaker 2: thought when Kid Rock and people maybe it is on
Speaker 2: the Republican gays. I don't know, but like I thought,
Speaker 2: when people just showed up, they're like, yeah, that's what
Speaker 2: they think. Okay, cool, you know whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah that's what I thought too. I genuinely love that
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Bit shocking.
Speaker 1: It truly is one last thing on just like the
Speaker 1: bigger takeaway on political giving, money matters a lot in politics,
Speaker 1: but the lower you go down the ballot, the more
Speaker 1: it matters. So if you want to give political donations
Speaker 1: to you know, Canadas and causes that you believe in,
Speaker 1: the place where you're going to have the biggest impact
Speaker 1: is at the lowest, so like you know, your local
Speaker 1: school board or city council, or your state rep or
Speaker 1: even your state senator, you know, all the way up
Speaker 1: to like members of the House, right, it really makes
Speaker 1: a difference there. In fact, the fact that Democrats significantly
Speaker 1: outspent Republicans both at the House and the Senate level
Speaker 1: is probably part of the reason why they were able
Speaker 1: to stem some of the losses at those levels and
Speaker 1: perform better than they did at the top of the ticket,
Speaker 1: because the money just goes matters more there where you
Speaker 1: have less media saturation. So in any case, if you're
Speaker 1: a person out there who does political giving, don't don't
Speaker 1: give to the top of the ticket like it's honestly
Speaker 1: a waste of your money.
Speaker 3: It's a waste of your money.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, such a good point, especially with earned media, that's
Speaker 2: the most important.
Speaker 1: They have plenty of rich people who are going to
Speaker 1: give them, you know, I mean Miriam Addison gave traumpa
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollars, like Kama had her big donors
Speaker 1: as well. They're going to have the money that they need.
Speaker 1: So just don't get to the prostential level. It's right
Speaker 1: because of this. Because of this, also, don't give to
Speaker 1: the DNC. We're about to get to that.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part. Shall we put this
Speaker 2: stuff there on the screen. It appears that every major
Speaker 2: Democratic leader in the House will get re elected to
Speaker 2: their position. Challenge Pere says, all the post lection takes
Speaker 2: mean zero as the House stems re elect their leaders
Speaker 2: without any dissent at all, and there will not be
Speaker 2: any drama. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries he's coming back
Speaker 2: minority with Kathin Clark coming back. Democratic Chief Caucus Chair
Speaker 2: Pete agui Are he is coming back, So number one,
Speaker 2: two and three in the House to representatives, every person
Speaker 2: is coming back. This is really and they say.
Speaker 3: Likely unanimously, unanimously.
Speaker 2: This is a sick part of America. Of America's system.
Speaker 2: In the UK, when you lose, you get your ass
Speaker 2: booted out of there. And you know, maybe every once
Speaker 2: in a while, David Cameron, you know, he comes back
Speaker 2: as a four secondary. That's as good as it gets
Speaker 2: for you most of the time. You know, like, what's
Speaker 2: that former liberal Democrat guy? He works for Facebook? You know,
Speaker 2: Gordon Brown? Who when's the last time you heard about
Speaker 2: Gordon Brown? When's the last time? Even Boris He's gone?
Speaker 2: He's like not even there. He's flitting around the world.
Speaker 2: He's trying to mount his comeback. Rishiy sinok. He's gonna
Speaker 2: move to Silicon Valley anytime soon. And you know why
Speaker 2: because in their system, when you lose, you're done. They think,
Speaker 2: you know, they they're like, okay, the party is spoken,
Speaker 2: we get a new chairperson, you know, a new chair
Speaker 2: a new leader, and then they get to mount the
Speaker 2: campaign as the opposition and if you lose, then you
Speaker 2: elect somebody new. It's a very healthy, anti fragile system.
Speaker 2: In our system, we reward decrepit nepotism. You know, in
Speaker 2: many system we have candidates who lose and then they
Speaker 2: come back. We have House speakers who lose and allow
Speaker 2: I mean, people like that should not get rewarded. That's
Speaker 2: another thing we were talking about with Rick Scott. I
Speaker 2: don't get it. He was responsible in part for the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two losses in the Senate. Sure, you don't
Speaker 2: get rewarded for that. You're supposed to be punished. But
Speaker 2: in America, for some reason, our system rewards longevity, nepotism,
Speaker 2: corruption all within our parties. Wasn't always this way. Actually,
Speaker 2: in the past there were sometimes in our parties that
Speaker 2: did have like reinforcing mechanisms, and they're like, no, if
Speaker 2: you lose, you know, we elect somebody knew. But this time,
Speaker 2: you know, why would you stick with Hakeem Jeffries or
Speaker 2: the any of these other people because they failed monumentally.
Speaker 2: Jeffrey's entire job, a big part of that leader position
Speaker 2: is specifically to dole out funds and to contest the
Speaker 2: House and to take it back. And as the margin
Speaker 2: shows for Republicans, it was possible for the Democrats to win.
Speaker 2: They could have pulled this off if they wanted to,
Speaker 2: even with the Trump landslide victory. So I mean, you
Speaker 2: know you're supposed to get punished, and instead he's just
Speaker 2: rolling back in unanimously.
Speaker 1: Not to mention, every one of the people that you
Speaker 1: mentioned and Jack Hyrmran, Jamie Harrison, Nancy Pelosi still obviously holds.
Speaker 3: A lot of slight et cetera.
Speaker 1: They all have the same basic philosophy and ideology. That
Speaker 1: was just an approach that was just completely rejected And
Speaker 1: if Democrats continue on this track, will continue to be
Speaker 1: repudiated and could result in, like I mean, they should
Speaker 1: feel like they are in a place of existential threat
Speaker 1: to the entire party right now. And to me, what
Speaker 1: this displays is that there is no real soul surging
Speaker 1: going on over on the Democratic side, because there's no
Speaker 1: way that you just go ahead and performative like, perfunctorily
Speaker 1: re elect the same exact leadership with no even challenger,
Speaker 1: no resistance, it's going to be unanimous.
Speaker 3: If you're engaged in any sort.
Speaker 1: Of real soul searching about what just went wrong for
Speaker 1: your party? How did you lose to this person who
Speaker 1: supposedly your whole mission of the party since he emerged
Speaker 1: on the scene was to defeat him and to remove
Speaker 1: him from the public sphere.
Speaker 3: How are you not.
Speaker 1: Questioning the direction of these leaders that have been in place,
Speaker 1: How are you not questioning everything about your party's approach
Speaker 1: right now? And so, to me, that's what this is
Speaker 1: indicative of is they are not interested in really writing
Speaker 1: the ship. You know, they'll they'll like, as as we're
Speaker 1: going to show, they'll like blame wokeism, They'll blame this,
Speaker 1: they'll blame that. They'll say, oh, let's just relax, it
Speaker 1: wasn't that bad. Like let's just like Jim Clyburn said,
Speaker 1: let's all just chill out. It's like you told us
Speaker 1: this guy was an existential threat, and now you are, like,
Speaker 1: let's just not point fingers, let's not play the blame game.
Speaker 1: Let's all just chill out. Like they are so committed
Speaker 1: to learning absolutely nothing. And it's no surprise because the
Speaker 1: people who benefit from learning nothing are exactly these people
Speaker 1: and the consultant class.
Speaker 3: It's a racket. The DNC is a racket.
Speaker 1: The you know, these leadership positions are a racket. They
Speaker 1: all benefit from the money and the power, and so
Speaker 1: they have no interest in really rocking the boat. And
Speaker 1: within the Democratic caucus, like as much as you have
Speaker 1: a few voices out there who are like, hey man,
Speaker 1: we should do things differently. When push comes to shove,
Speaker 1: they're not willing to make waves. They have bought into
Speaker 1: this idea that internal democratic party unity is the most
Speaker 1: important value. And you know, they gleefully watched as there
Speaker 1: were leadership was leadership tumult on the Republican side, and
Speaker 1: they were so proud that everyone on the Democratic side
Speaker 1: just frickin falls in line. And so yeah, you're going
Speaker 1: to just keep marching in the same direction endlessly until
Speaker 1: someone decides to break that habit, and you know, does
Speaker 1: not appear that that is coming anytime soon.
Speaker 2: Very true.