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 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have personal?
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot of political news, wild stuff
Speaker 1: going on. So Trump facing a second assassination attempt this morning.
Speaker 1: We have a look at some really deranged social media
Speaker 1: postings from the alleged attempt at assassin, so we'll get
Speaker 1: into everything we know there. We've also got a whole
Speaker 1: lot of post debate polls now things starting to come
Speaker 1: into focus. Also, excuse me for this very cheesy cringe
Speaker 1: thing I'm about to say, Trump and Taylor Swift not
Speaker 1: a love story. Yeah, I had to do the thing,
Speaker 1: all right. In addition, jd Vance spending his time attacking
Speaker 1: yours truly and also Zenjilani and we have zed on
Speaker 1: show to talk about that and also just to get
Speaker 1: into war what the hell is going on there? Jadi
Speaker 1: was on a bunch of the Sunday shows yesterday talking
Speaker 1: about the whole.
Speaker 4: Haitian pet situation. So a lot to dig into there
Speaker 4: for sure.
Speaker 1: Also Trump in his Laura Lumor era, what does that
Speaker 1: mean for him and the campaign? What does the potential
Speaker 1: fallout as Lumor and Marjorie Taylor Green are also completely
Speaker 1: beefing in the messiest way possible.
Speaker 4: So a lot that's interesting there.
Speaker 1: Bill Maher making a stunning prediction saying it is over
Speaker 1: over for Donald Trump. Yeah, we will see if he
Speaker 1: is right. Could be Also speaking of messiness, messy fight
Speaker 1: beef between Jill Stein and AOC that we can dig
Speaker 1: into as well.
Speaker 4: After Jill Stein was on the Breakfast Club. Very interesting
Speaker 4: appearance there.
Speaker 3: Yes, that will be very interesting.
Speaker 2: Now, as Crystal said, we're going to go ahead and
Speaker 2: just go straight into this second second attempted assassination of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's Let's go ahead and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. We've got some of the details now
Speaker 2: on the suspect. The alleged shooter is suspect's name is
Speaker 2: Ryan Routh. He's in custody following that assassination attempt on
Speaker 2: Trump at the Florida Golf Club. On the right, For
Speaker 2: those who are watching, you could see the photo of
Speaker 2: him whenever he was arrested by authorities. The story behind
Speaker 2: this is honestly quite crazy. So we can go to
Speaker 2: the next part please, which is a map that shows
Speaker 2: a little bit of how some of this went down.
Speaker 3: Now, according to Sean Hannity.
Speaker 2: Who was on the phone with Trump and actually was
Speaker 2: supposed to golf with Trump that day, he said that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was playing on the fifth hole of the
Speaker 2: West Palm Beach golf Course. It is the quote long
Speaker 2: part in the northeastern corner. So for those who are looking,
Speaker 2: the green is about fifty yards from South Congress Avenue.
Speaker 2: The six tea box is right at the end of
Speaker 2: the road. You could see exactly on the map where
Speaker 2: all of this went down. Now, the alleged way that
Speaker 2: this all happened is that Donald Trump was golfing the
Speaker 2: Secret Service agents were scouting a couple of holes ahead
Speaker 2: of him. During that scouting, one agent spotted a man
Speaker 2: with a long gun, which has now been confirmed to
Speaker 2: be an ak forty seven in a so called nest
Speaker 2: where there were two bags and a long rifle that
Speaker 2: were found. The agents began firing at him, So at
Speaker 2: no point, according to the official narrative, there any shots
Speaker 2: squeezed off by Ryan. Routh dropped his weapon or I
Speaker 2: guess leaned it up against the defence, ran away, so
Speaker 2: the Secret Service agents did not hit him. He was
Speaker 2: able to get into his car. A nearby bystander actually
Speaker 2: was able to take a photo of Routh's car and
Speaker 2: his license plate, which allowed police to zero in on
Speaker 2: the type of vehicle they were searching for. He was
Speaker 2: actually able to exit the county before he was then
Speaker 2: arrested by Sheriff's deputies. So that is the official of
Speaker 2: what we've got. We actually have here some of the
Speaker 2: sound of the sheriff kind of breaking some of this down.
Speaker 2: Sheriff Rick Bradshaw giving a press conference following by a
Speaker 2: Secret Service investigation.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Afternoon call came out, shots fired. That was called in
Speaker 5: by Secret Service. Because we're in constant contact with them
Speaker 5: all the time. We were notified of that and we
Speaker 5: had units here that immediately sealed off the area. Fortunately
Speaker 5: we were able to locate a witness that came to
Speaker 5: us and said, hey, I saw the guy running out
Speaker 5: of the bushes. He jumped into a black Nissan and
Speaker 5: I took a picture of the vehicle and the tank,
Speaker 5: which was great. So we had that information. Our Real
Speaker 5: Time Crime Center put it out to the license plate
Speaker 5: readers and we were able to get a hit on
Speaker 5: that vehicle on nine ninety five as it was headed
Speaker 5: into Martin County. We got a hold of Martin County
Speaker 5: Sheriff's office alerted them and they spotted the vehicle and
Speaker 5: pulled it over and detained the guy. After that, we
Speaker 5: took the victim. I'm sorry. The witness that witnessed the
Speaker 5: incident took flew him up there and he identified as
Speaker 5: the person that he saw running out of the bushes
Speaker 5: that jumped into the car. Now in the bushes where
Speaker 5: this guy was is an eight K forty seven style
Speaker 5: rifle with a scope, two backpacks which were hung on
Speaker 5: the fist that had a ceramic tile in him, and
Speaker 5: a go pro which he was going to take pictures.
Speaker 6: Notes.
Speaker 5: They have an agent that jumps one hole ahead of
Speaker 5: time to where the president was at and he was
Speaker 5: able to spot this rifle barrel sticking out of the
Speaker 5: fens and immediately engage that individual, at which time the
Speaker 5: individual took far.
Speaker 3: So that's what we got right now, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Now social media has now come out about mister Ryan Routh.
Speaker 3: Let's just say a little bit of a lunatic. But
Speaker 3: I will say he's.
Speaker 2: A lunatic who spent quite a long time in Ukraine
Speaker 2: recently seems to have made it his life's cause to
Speaker 2: support the Ukrainian military. He appointed himself ahead of the
Speaker 2: International Volunteer Office. He was quoted by the New York
Speaker 2: Times and by Semaphore he allegedly met here in one,
Speaker 2: Washington with members of Congress, the US Helsinki Commission, which
Speaker 2: directs military resources to Ukraine. I mean, you know, certainly
Speaker 2: something his social media has got self published books and others.
Speaker 2: Members of the Ukrainian International Legion have actually come out
Speaker 2: previously to this and said he was a lunatic.
Speaker 3: They had nothing to do with them.
Speaker 2: But at the very least, you know, he had claimed
Speaker 2: to have had multiple meetings with the US Defense Ministry,
Speaker 2: shuttling back and forth between there. So he's a troubled individual.
Speaker 2: Nobody who wants to shoot the President is like a
Speaker 2: normal person, So let's just say that. But it's clearly
Speaker 2: there was something enough going on that he was found
Speaker 2: incredible enough to be quoted by these US news agencies.
Speaker 2: It also, does, you know, raise a real question here
Speaker 2: about US Secret Service.
Speaker 3: So you could view it two ways.
Speaker 2: Well, they had a person who was ahead of him, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and he saw the gun and he shot at him.
Speaker 2: The other thing is, well, should he really have been
Speaker 2: on the golf course at all? And the sheriff does
Speaker 2: get to that, But before you, before we get to
Speaker 2: the sheriff, do you want to weigh in on any
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll get to ryan else in a bit, because
Speaker 1: they're going to show some of the social media postings,
Speaker 1: et cetera. We can, you know, do our best to
Speaker 1: dig into the psyche of a clearly durranged individual, but
Speaker 1: there will be, of course, a lot more questions for
Speaker 1: the Secret Service here. It appears that he came within
Speaker 1: some five hundred yards, which we are about to show
Speaker 1: the clip. You know, that is a further distance than
Speaker 1: the last guy, and this one didn't get any shots off.
Speaker 1: So Secret Service clearly did a better job in this instance.
Speaker 1: But there still will obviously be questions of how you
Speaker 1: could have even this close of a call. In addition,
Speaker 1: they just completed Congress just completed report on the manifest
Speaker 1: security failures of the Secret Service with regard to the
Speaker 1: attempted assassination, the previous one in Butler, where obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: the president came within a quarter inch of his of
Speaker 1: losing his life there on a stage in front of
Speaker 1: rally goers, and one of the rally goers did lose
Speaker 1: his life was murdered there because of those incredible failures.
Speaker 1: So this will raise a lot more questions of how
Speaker 1: he was even able to come this close. But yeah,
Speaker 1: the social media postings when we get there are really something.
Speaker 1: It seems that Ukraine was an absolute fixation for this guy.
Speaker 1: He was running a website that he claimed was, you know,
Speaker 1: for foreign fighters from around the world to be able
Speaker 1: to sign up to go fight in Ukraine. He has
Speaker 1: multiple postings where he's like, I want to go fight
Speaker 1: and die for the Ukrainians their war.
Speaker 3: He wrote a book about that. He said, why nuclear war,
Speaker 3: Oh Jesus, I didn't know that it's the thing. Look, Haley,
Speaker 3: which you know, I'm just going to.
Speaker 2: Move away from his musings and just like, Okay, what
Speaker 2: do we actually know about this guy? And like, what
Speaker 2: we know is that he was in Ukraine for months,
Speaker 2: he was running an organization. He was found credible enough
Speaker 2: to be quoted by The New York Times by Semaphore,
Speaker 2: who assumed to be believe that he was some person
Speaker 2: who was involved in this cast I have to believe
Speaker 2: that he at the very least had some credibility to
Speaker 2: allegedly get meetings with the Defense Ministry.
Speaker 3: He was always on social media.
Speaker 2: Now, look, it's certainly possible that he was fooling everybody.
Speaker 2: So it was kind of embarrassing for multiple news outlets too.
Speaker 2: Who and the person who quoted him, Thomas Gibbons Steff,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, the best military reporter who's out there.
Speaker 2: He's done multiple reports actually about Israel, about the misconduct
Speaker 2: of the IDF. He's done some of the reports in
Speaker 2: Ukraine about Ukrainian friendly fire which killed their own citizens.
Speaker 2: He was a banned from Ukraine by the Ukrainians. He's
Speaker 2: done a lot of good reporting on Afghanistan himself. As
Speaker 2: a former US Marine, I followed him for over a decade.
Speaker 2: I remember covering the Pentagon and seeing him there. I
Speaker 2: think he's very, very talented, and so for him to
Speaker 2: quote him, he has written a piece now this morning
Speaker 2: said yeah, he said he was laughing when he got
Speaker 2: off the phone with him because he thought he was
Speaker 2: in over his head. But he still quoted him, and
Speaker 2: he put him in the story. So I'm like, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: I think there's something. I think that the US Helsinki
Speaker 2: Commission and the government need to answer questions about whether
Speaker 2: they directed resources and worked with this individual. I like
Speaker 2: I said, I don't want to say they were all
Speaker 2: in together. The National Legion of Ukraine literally denounced him
Speaker 2: earlier and they put out multiple threats saying don't work
Speaker 2: with this guy. But his life's mission was apparently enough
Speaker 2: to get him involved with Afghan fighters who wanted to
Speaker 2: go to Ukraine. That seemed to be like the major
Speaker 2: conduit that he was trying to run and help here
Speaker 2: in Washington.
Speaker 3: So is he crazy, absolutely, and we will get to that.
Speaker 2: But he was crazy enough, you know, to also bamboozle
Speaker 2: his way into quite a few big level rooms here.
Speaker 4: I think he also had quite a lengthy rap sheet.
Speaker 1: I mean yes. In addition, he you know, in two
Speaker 1: thousand and two he was charged with having a weapon
Speaker 1: of mass destruction because he had a fully automatic AK
Speaker 1: forty seven. He had AK forty seven in this instance
Speaker 1: as well, So I also have a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about how he obtained.
Speaker 4: This weapon, whether it was lawful.
Speaker 1: To me, it seems insane that someone with this previous
Speaker 1: charge and he had like barricaded himself in somewhere. It
Speaker 1: was like a wild scene.
Speaker 2: Two thousand and two he had was like a fleeing
Speaker 2: the cop situation. He barricaded himself in two thousand and two.
Speaker 2: When he was arrested, he was actually charged with weapons
Speaker 2: of mass destruction charge in North Carolina, I had multiple
Speaker 2: traffic violations and if his son was like, as far
Speaker 2: as I know, he's only ever been arrested for attack
Speaker 2: for traffic violation, I'm like, all right, bro, there's also
Speaker 2: barricaded himself in a room.
Speaker 4: With the automatic.
Speaker 7: LA.
Speaker 1: I mean to me, it's insane that someone who has
Speaker 1: that on the like to me, and once you have
Speaker 1: that on your record, that's it.
Speaker 2: I have to check. It depends where he bought it too,
Speaker 2: it depends. I mean, there should also be a failure
Speaker 2: of a background checks, so yeah, that would be that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's happened multiple times. There was a shooting back in time.
Speaker 2: I'm forgetting exactly. I think it was in somewhere in Texas.
Speaker 2: It was a church and the person never legally obtain
Speaker 2: a weapon. It was actually a huge failure of the
Speaker 2: background check system. So that actually could be interesting if
Speaker 2: he legally obtained it. If he legally obtained it as well,
Speaker 2: what the tie in who the funding was for the
Speaker 2: first doesn't appear to have a job. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: kind of the weird thing about this. He's flitting about
Speaker 2: living on the beach in Hawaii, at one point bragging
Speaker 2: about skimpy girls in bikinis around him from text messages
Speaker 2: that I reviewed, but then also appears to have had
Speaker 2: at least some funds to be able to travel back
Speaker 2: and forth to Ukraine to Washington. Multiple photos of here
Speaker 2: in DC in a suit and tie outside the capital,
Speaker 2: you know, implying that he was meeting with people. Listen,
Speaker 2: they're crazy people all around the city, some of them
Speaker 2: work inside the capitol. So like, was he just fronting
Speaker 2: this entire time? Like I said, I think that could
Speaker 2: be the case. They're also the secret Service. Questions here
Speaker 2: are bounding, you know. Rocanna is already calling for the
Speaker 2: director of the Secret Service to appear back in Washington.
Speaker 2: The acting director is actually currently down in Florida right now.
Speaker 2: But to have, as he says, two assassination attempts in
Speaker 2: sixty days on the former president is unacceptable. The sheriff
Speaker 2: actually opined a little bit on this. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Well, you got to understand, the golf course is surrounded
Speaker 5: by shrubbery, so when somebody gets into the shrubbery, they're
Speaker 5: pretty much out of sight, all right. And at this
Speaker 5: level that he is at right now, he's not the
Speaker 5: city president. If he was, we would have had this
Speaker 5: higher golf course around it. Well, because he's not, the
Speaker 5: security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service
Speaker 5: deems possible.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: So it's about the actual security perimeter around that. It
Speaker 2: does seem absolutely crazy. I mean, I could tell you actually,
Speaker 2: whenever I was on White House duty, often had to
Speaker 2: go to the golf course with Trump and they had
Speaker 2: that thing a lockdown.
Speaker 8: Man.
Speaker 2: So the first time that I heard this, I was
Speaker 2: honestly shocked, because I'd seen a little bit of the
Speaker 2: security perimeter whenever Trump was President here. He would go
Speaker 2: to Sterling, Virginia and golf at the Trump National Golf Course,
Speaker 2: which is nearby, And I had to do that a
Speaker 2: couple of times whenever I was running pool duty. Basically
Speaker 2: just sit in the car away for him to be done.
Speaker 2: But you know, you get to see and observe a
Speaker 2: little bit of where it all is. Secret Service is
Speaker 2: always tracking his movement. They're like, hey, he's on the
Speaker 2: eighth hole. No, he's one of the ninth hole. They've
Speaker 2: got a whole perimeter around that in terms of the
Speaker 2: people who are around him. So for him to be
Speaker 2: able to get within you know, several hundred yards of
Speaker 2: the president, you know, with the long range weapon. Also,
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think enough people are paying attention
Speaker 2: to the fact that they took a shot at him
Speaker 2: and they missed. Not only do they miss, he's able
Speaker 2: to actually lead the gap.
Speaker 3: And drive away.
Speaker 2: So I'm like, well, then you don't have a secure
Speaker 2: perimeter clearly around it or something like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, never would have happened. Seacret Service has got a
Speaker 3: lot of questions here and we haven't.
Speaker 2: Had this many attempted assassination attempts legit ones on a
Speaker 2: former president since Gerald Ford in the nineteen seventies, in
Speaker 2: the same actually similar time frame. I think it was
Speaker 2: seventeen days where somebody came very close to killing him twice.
Speaker 3: One of them was a Manson family.
Speaker 1: I mean, Christ, it seems clear like we need to
Speaker 1: beef up security around former President Trump, like he should
Speaker 1: have the level of Secret Service protection that you know,
Speaker 1: a sitting president would have, because you know, the thing
Speaker 1: that is most troubling to me is, in some ways,
Speaker 1: this seems like a horrifying new normal. You know, once
Speaker 1: these hor horrible, terrifying bad ideas get out there in
Speaker 1: the public, there's often a copycat effect. You know, you've
Speaker 1: seen this with school shootings as well, and you say
Speaker 1: it even with you know, epidemics of suicide in areas.
Speaker 1: Once a bad idea takes hold, you know, there's no
Speaker 1: reason why we should think that Ryan Ralth will be
Speaker 1: the last person who gets it in their head that
Speaker 1: they're going to take a shot at former President Trump
Speaker 1: or an other high level elected official. So you know,
Speaker 1: to me, it's it's a no brainer. Like I said, Listen,
Speaker 1: they did their job. They made sure he didn't get
Speaker 1: a shot off. They were able to capture him through
Speaker 1: some of the fortunate good work of local law enforcement
Speaker 1: as well. But there's no reason why this individual should
Speaker 1: have been able to get even this close to former
Speaker 1: President Trump. And you know, I mean that golf course.
Speaker 1: It's it's right there on the.
Speaker 3: Stage, right right on the show, as we showed in
Speaker 3: the mask.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you could see where he was.
Speaker 1: Was probably not a difficult place to get to if
Speaker 1: you just you know, duck offence or jump offence or whatever,
Speaker 1: and you're right there within hundreds of yards of the
Speaker 1: former president potentially future president. So you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: wild when you realize how actually insecure all of these
Speaker 1: situations are. Whether it's a rally, which you can understand
Speaker 1: is very difficult situation to control, but there were manifest
Speaker 1: incredible failures there, or him just going out to do
Speaker 1: something he does quite frequently, play golf on one of
Speaker 1: his golf co.
Speaker 3: Thing on the planet. You're like, oh, it's Sunday, Yeah,
Speaker 3: Trump is gonna be.
Speaker 4: He's gonna be golfing somewhere.
Speaker 3: He's like a clock.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I saw some people online like I already know he
Speaker 1: was gonna be golfing.
Speaker 4: I was like, it's a day that.
Speaker 1: Ends in why, like that's the majority of what he
Speaker 1: spends his time doing.
Speaker 2: I feel a bit of this way, the way that
Speaker 2: I always do about TSA, where I'm like, this is
Speaker 2: all fake.
Speaker 3: You know me, hours of my life have.
Speaker 2: Been wasted by the US Secret Service, waiting in line
Speaker 2: for them to pat me down, taking people's nicotine vapes
Speaker 2: away in the White House, going through your bag and
Speaker 2: making sure your laptop is Meanwhile, you're shaking me, you know,
Speaker 2: everybody else who's ever coming to the White House down.
Speaker 2: I'm to submit my Social Security number and all this
Speaker 2: other stuff, which I always thought, yeah, fine, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm walking into the White House.
Speaker 3: But now you get two.
Speaker 2: Incidents in sixty days, I'm like, okay, jokers, what was
Speaker 2: all of that for?
Speaker 3: Was this all fake?
Speaker 2: The entire time? This is you know, it's like, have
Speaker 2: you just been wasting our time? But you can't even
Speaker 2: do the very basics of your job. And as we
Speaker 2: covered after the first attempted assassination, a lot of that
Speaker 2: ended up being correct. You had the Columbia nightmare with
Speaker 2: all those agents. You've had multiple incidents where people were
Speaker 2: able to get close to the president, huge failures. There's
Speaker 2: some meltdown going on on Kamala's Secret Service detail. This
Speaker 2: whole agency obviously just needs to be totally burned to
Speaker 2: the ground and reform well.
Speaker 1: And that was one of the things we said after
Speaker 1: the first attempt too, is there's an illusion I had
Speaker 1: an illusion of, like, you know, oh, the protection around
Speaker 1: these high level individuals, these protectees are going to be
Speaker 1: is going to be air tight like rocks, like there's
Speaker 1: no way someone could penetrate. And so it's not only
Speaker 1: us that notice like, oh this is not so as difficult,
Speaker 1: it's not so so hardened as we thought that it was.
Speaker 1: You know, it's unhinged individuals like Ryan Ralph who also
Speaker 1: saw that and said, hey, I think I could I
Speaker 1: think I could do something here and tried to take
Speaker 1: matters into his own hands. So, you know, unfortunately, like
Speaker 1: I said, I fear that this could be a new normal.
Speaker 1: And so that's why there's there's no doubt in my
Speaker 1: mind like the level of protection, the resources that are
Speaker 1: being dedicated to his protection in particular, should be dramatically increased.
Speaker 3: Very scary. Let's go, as you said, we tease this now, mister.
Speaker 4: Ralth's everybody wants to know this guy is yeah.
Speaker 2: Put this up there. He doesn't really fit. The only
Speaker 2: thing you could really pin him on is Ukraine. Everything
Speaker 2: else cannot really So here's, for example, some tweets recently
Speaker 2: he said, I would like to buy a rocket from
Speaker 2: you to Elons. I wish to load it with a
Speaker 2: warhead for Putin's Black Sea mansion bunker. Can you give
Speaker 2: me a price? It can be old and used as
Speaker 2: not returning List's phone number and phone number aid dot
Speaker 2: in Ukraine at gmail dot com. He also asked Elton
Speaker 2: John if he would do a tribute song to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He also wanted one from Dave Matthews Band and several
Speaker 2: other artists. Let's also put the next one please up
Speaker 2: on the screen. This has got funny summary. Ryan Ralth
Speaker 2: voted for Trump, donated Tulci Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Beto,
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren, and has tweets that like this yearning for
Speaker 2: a Nikki Haley vivik Ramaswami ticket, which is to say,
Speaker 2: it's a bit hard to put him in a convenient
Speaker 2: little box. Certainly funny because you're like, really vivake. He
Speaker 2: was the only person who was even somewhat consistent about Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was interesting. The Nikki Haley part makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Nikki Haley thing totally tracks. But VIVEQ like
Speaker 2: what I'm like, did you ever listen to the guy
Speaker 2: as usual? Do not expect ideological cohesion and reason from
Speaker 2: somebody who tries to kill the press.
Speaker 1: Well, plenty of average voters have voting histories and interests
Speaker 1: that look like this too.
Speaker 3: So this was a crime. A lot of people would
Speaker 3: be guilty. Finally, he actually have some words from Ryan himself.
Speaker 2: He sat down with Newsweek for an interview I think
Speaker 2: it was about two years ago or so inside of Ukraine,
Speaker 2: talking about why he supports the cause.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: Please tell me who you are and why are you here?
Speaker 7: Fifty six from the US from North Carolina originally so
Speaker 7: live in Hawaii now, so it flew all the way
Speaker 7: from Hawaii here. So the question as far as why
Speaker 7: I'm here, so me. You know, a lot of the
Speaker 7: other conflicts are gray, but this conflict is definitely black
Speaker 7: and white. This is about good versus evil. This is
Speaker 7: a storybook, you know, any movie we've ever watched. This
Speaker 7: is definitely evil against good. I mean, we're battling a
Speaker 7: situation here where you know, the Ukrainians and the rest
Speaker 7: of the world are caring and kind and generous and
Speaker 7: unselfish and take care of one another, and it's just
Speaker 7: a matter of you know, we need to stand up
Speaker 7: for that. That is the most important thing in the world,
Speaker 7: is just to show human beings that we're kind and
Speaker 7: we're caring, and that we take care of one another
Speaker 7: and the world.
Speaker 3: Is united and some sort of coherence there keep it together.
Speaker 2: He was doing a lot of interviews. A YouTuber actually
Speaker 2: ran into him on the street. It appears in whenever
Speaker 2: he was trying to recruit people, He's like, I'm looking
Speaker 2: for people who want to tear down the system.
Speaker 3: I'm looking for mercenaries.
Speaker 2: So yeah, clearly he had something going on within him.
Speaker 2: Like I said, I mean, my main question here is
Speaker 2: I'm like, hey, did any members of Congress meet with
Speaker 2: this guy? I'm like, Ukrainian armed forces to what involvement
Speaker 2: did you have with Ryan Rauth and the gentleman?
Speaker 3: Is there a grand conspiracy? I'm not saying that, but
Speaker 3: I mean, at the very least it is. It revealed
Speaker 3: something to.
Speaker 2: Me about the Ukrainian cause, and also I've been speaking
Speaker 2: with others. A lot of people don't with all war
Speaker 2: zones all you know, crazy chaotic situations.
Speaker 3: Yeah, weirdos flock to them.
Speaker 2: Anybody in America who just picks up arms to go
Speaker 2: fight for free in Ukraine and something all together going
Speaker 2: on there, and you know, there's something that clearly was
Speaker 2: involved here for them too. Shows their desperation for who
Speaker 2: they're willing to work with.
Speaker 1: And it's also like people who have a fixation on
Speaker 1: being at the center of history, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of people like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a lot of people like that, and they,
Speaker 1: you know, flock to conflicts like this one or like
Speaker 1: others to try to you know, be live out whatever
Speaker 1: grand narrative idea they're trying to. They're trying to live out,
Speaker 1: by the way, for people who are just listening and
Speaker 1: not watching.
Speaker 4: In that video, he has his hair dyed yed half
Speaker 4: no half blue and half yellow.
Speaker 3: Yeah I thought it was an American thing.
Speaker 1: Well, he has an American T shirt on and then
Speaker 1: the hair is dyed Ukraine and yellow and blue. Just
Speaker 1: to show you, you know, the level of commitment he
Speaker 1: had to this, cause I don't know, the thing I
Speaker 1: was thinking about is how easy it is to like
Speaker 1: trick the news Meetia. I can't even really blame him, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, you set up a website, you set up
Speaker 1: an email address at ukrainead dot com or whatever, and
Speaker 1: you get a couple people. If you can get one
Speaker 1: person to quote you as a credible source, then most
Speaker 1: outlets that come after that are just going to look at, Oh,
Speaker 1: Semaphore quoted it right, Newsweek interview, This must be legit.
Speaker 1: And like I said, I mean it takes given the
Speaker 1: number of quotes they have to amass and churn out
Speaker 1: their pieces, like it makes sense. You just go like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: so and so over at Semaphore, the reporter you talked about,
Speaker 1: he said him seriously and he's a credible guy. Like
Speaker 1: all right, if you takes them seriously, then I'm going
Speaker 1: to take him seriously. And next thing you know he's
Speaker 1: built up this profile is if he's this like credible
Speaker 1: individual on the Ukrainian cause, but.
Speaker 2: He also could have been a credible individual in the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian cause. I mean, I mean that's the thing I
Speaker 2: want to know. Did they meete with him, did they
Speaker 2: funnel on any resources to him? Not the Ukraine as
Speaker 2: the US. I'm probably more involved interested in that because
Speaker 2: what we have been hearing for over two years is
Speaker 2: that every possible variation of grifter, of arms dealer, of
Speaker 2: sketchy individual is that there is a ton of money
Speaker 2: to be made in Ukraine and that it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's a totally buyer's market. And if you look at
Speaker 2: some of the people, like we've covered the arms dealer
Speaker 2: in the past, the guy who bought a yacht who
Speaker 2: is criminally not even allowed to be in arms sales,
Speaker 2: but he's printing money off of Ukraine. Malcolm Nantz, you know,
Speaker 2: was quoted in the same story about stolen Valor that
Speaker 2: Ryan Routh was in Thomas Gibbons snaffs. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of crazy folks, a lot of them US citizens,
Speaker 2: who are involved in this. But and that's one thing.
Speaker 2: It's fine to be crazy. It's another when you put
Speaker 2: guns in their hand. Now, according to the stuff that
Speaker 2: I've seen so far, it does not appear that he
Speaker 2: did actually fight for the Ukrainian cause. He was based
Speaker 2: either in in Leviv or in Kiev at various different
Speaker 2: times with this international or organization for Volunteers is what
Speaker 2: he called it in terms of his meetings with the
Speaker 2: Defense Ministry. But yeah, like you said, it could be
Speaker 2: that he was fronting this whole time. But he could
Speaker 2: have used that to a certain end, like getting meetings
Speaker 2: with members you know, I know, to getting me mad
Speaker 2: with them of Congress. It was like, hey, I was
Speaker 2: quoted by the New York Times, right, yeah, parlayed.
Speaker 3: That something interesting. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I'm interested in the FBI investigation. Not that they'll
Speaker 2: ever tell us anything, I guess, at least in this case.
Speaker 2: They took him alive, so hopefully he'll have to go
Speaker 2: to trial or there will at some point there will
Speaker 2: be a plea bargain or some you know, files released
Speaker 2: through the judicial system to learn a little bit about this.
Speaker 2: Some questions about the gun that he obtained, his own
Speaker 2: travel back and forth from Ukraine.
Speaker 3: But there were some there were some weird stuff, you know,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm joking.
Speaker 4: He's actually a good point though. If that is actually
Speaker 4: a good point, the fact that they took him alive
Speaker 4: is the best sign that is there's no grand conspiracy.
Speaker 3: Fair enough, right, Well, they took Oswald live.
Speaker 1: Too, Yeah, but that didn't last. It didn't last.
Speaker 2: Was it's only twenty four hours in right, yep, everybody
Speaker 2: got to watch the TV very dark.
Speaker 3: Let's see what happens to this gentleman.
Speaker 2: Let's turn down to the presidential race, where he's got
Speaker 2: a lot of new polling that's come in since that
Speaker 2: presidential debate. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Nate Silver's general analysis. He says, today's update after an
Speaker 2: Atlas Intel poll cut against what was otherwise strong day
Speaker 2: of polling for Harris.
Speaker 3: It is a highly rated poll. Resist the temptation to unskew.
Speaker 2: Still enough good data for her that the race is
Speaker 2: now officially in toss up range.
Speaker 3: So he hasn't given us a latest update.
Speaker 2: The last one I saw for his projection was sixty forty,
Speaker 2: so toss up range. I'm assuming he's moving more into
Speaker 2: like fifty five forty five, and whatever his latest.
Speaker 1: He's any considers would be anything over a forty percent
Speaker 1: chance to be toss up. I could see that, So
Speaker 1: sixty forty he still considers to be toss up. But yeah,
Speaker 1: we haven't had an update since then to see if
Speaker 1: it's moved even.
Speaker 4: More towards her.
Speaker 2: I think that's actually quite reasonable, especially considering you know again,
Speaker 2: if you had a forty percent chance of something crazy.
Speaker 3: Happen, you would take it pretty seriously.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, he would be like, Okay, I think that's
Speaker 2: quite quite a very reasonable result.
Speaker 3: Let's put this next one up here.
Speaker 2: This arguably was the most important and it was released
Speaker 2: of this Iowa Seltzer poll. This is one of the
Speaker 2: polls that arguably drove Joe Biden out of the race
Speaker 2: because it showed him so far down in the state
Speaker 2: of Iowa, which then translated to Michigan and to nearby states.
Speaker 2: So this new Des Moines Register poll actually shows Trump
Speaker 2: leading Harris by only four points amongst likely Iowa voters, quote,
Speaker 2: a far slimmer margin than the eighteen point lead that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump enjoyed over Democratic Joe Biden in the late spring.
Speaker 2: So in this poll they have him at forty seven percent,
Speaker 2: Kamala at forty three rfk Junior actually still getting some
Speaker 2: six percent here because it appears he's been unable to
Speaker 2: get himself off of the ballot. Now, obviously we don't
Speaker 2: know how that is going to split, and if you
Speaker 2: were to count all of those people in the Trump category,
Speaker 2: then certainly he'd be leading by quite a bit more
Speaker 2: at the same time, they did this poll after he'd
Speaker 2: dropped out of the race. So maybe some people are
Speaker 2: just ride or die and they want to vote for him. Anyways,
Speaker 2: he's changed his tune in some cases, he said, and
Speaker 2: sometimes he said, if you live in an uncompetitive state,
Speaker 2: you should vote for me.
Speaker 3: If you live in a battleground state, you shouldn't vote
Speaker 3: for me.
Speaker 2: But regardless, a four percent lead in the state of
Speaker 2: Iowa very far from the eighteen point lead.
Speaker 3: He had over Biden.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and implies a tie specifically amongst the demographic that
Speaker 2: he would need the most in places like Michigan and
Speaker 2: Wisconsin and surrounding areas of the Midwest, which is why
Speaker 2: it was so important that Biden poll last time around.
Speaker 1: So in comparison in twenty twenty, Trump won Iowa, everyone
Speaker 1: expects him to win Iowa.
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, let's be clear about that.
Speaker 1: This poll isn't about like, oh my god, Comlin hars
Speaker 1: has a chance in Iowa. It's because this poll is
Speaker 1: so highly rated And I'll talk a little bit more
Speaker 1: about that in a moment that people really pay attention
Speaker 1: to it, and why it.
Speaker 4: Was such a big deal that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Was losing the state by eighteen points, and it's the
Speaker 1: state that Trump won last time by eight points. So
Speaker 1: the fact that in this poll Kamala has had Trump's
Speaker 1: margin from his you know, victory margin in Iowa last
Speaker 1: time around is a really you know, eyebrow raising result.
Speaker 1: And as you said, you kind of extrapolate out from that, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: then how is he doing in these other states that.
Speaker 4: Are nearby to Iowa.
Speaker 1: But the reason why, again this poll is so taken
Speaker 1: so seriously in terms of Washington opinion is because an
Speaker 1: Cell's or the pollster has such a unique track record
Speaker 1: of being incredibly accurate in the state of Iowa. You
Speaker 1: guys might recall back in the twenty twenty primary, when
Speaker 1: she pulled the Iowa caucuses. It was a bad result
Speaker 1: for Peter Pete Bootage Edge going into the Iowa caucuses,
Speaker 1: and his team, led by Liz Smith, was able to
Speaker 1: basically like pull the whole poll because they were so
Speaker 1: worried about what that poll would indicate for them and
Speaker 1: what sort of narrative could come out of them.
Speaker 4: Because people do take it so seriously.
Speaker 1: So that's why even though this is a poll of
Speaker 1: a state that no one expects Kamalaiyers to win. Why
Speaker 1: it's such a big deal post debate that she's within
Speaker 1: striking distance here only four points of Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: because it has such a track record of being incredibly accurate.
Speaker 4: So really interesting there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, RFK Junior is going to stay on the ballot
Speaker 1: in Iowa. He's going to be on the ballot in
Speaker 1: a number of states because he pulled out so late
Speaker 1: that it was actually too late to get him off
Speaker 1: the ballot in quite a number of places. In North Carolina,
Speaker 1: he was successfully able to get his name off of
Speaker 1: the ballot, but it actually could you know, caused quite
Speaker 1: a lot of problems for that state because they had
Speaker 1: already printed the ballots, they were ready to go out
Speaker 1: and start their mail in balloting process. They're one of
Speaker 1: the earliest states in the country with all of that,
Speaker 1: so I had to delay that by several weeks and
Speaker 1: incur a significant expense in order to get his name
Speaker 1: off the ballot. Other states said no, sorry, too late.
Speaker 1: You're here, you're you know you're going to be on
Speaker 1: the ballot, and Iowa is one of those. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll see whether that takes any votes.
Speaker 4: From Trump at the end.
Speaker 1: Of the day in a state like Iowa or others
Speaker 1: where he remains on the ballot, but it is expected
Speaker 1: that he will be there in November.
Speaker 3: So Iowa, that was a big one.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next one because this is actually
Speaker 2: useful just to look at a lot of the post
Speaker 2: debate polling landscape. And so we have here quote seven
Speaker 2: A and B rated polls post debate, so ABC News
Speaker 2: and IPSOS, this had Harris up by plus six. That
Speaker 2: was actually very significant because that was Harris plus six
Speaker 2: amongst likely voters. Reuter's IPSOS, so they had Harris up
Speaker 2: by five. Yahoo News, You Gov, they had Harris up
Speaker 2: by four. You had others Harrop four times. You gove
Speaker 2: Harris four. Data for progress Harris four. And it was
Speaker 2: Atlas Intel. That's the one that Nate referenced a little
Speaker 2: bit earlier that showed Trump up by three.
Speaker 3: So this was in the national election.
Speaker 2: Obviously, this is a little bit over the map when
Speaker 2: you include the Atlas one, but outliers certainly are ones
Speaker 2: that exist, and so it's actually better that they publish
Speaker 2: it so we can just consider and look at all
Speaker 2: of that things are possible. Atlasontel's correct everybody else is wrong,
Speaker 2: or if you just kind of look at the overall
Speaker 2: average of this, you would say there's a relative Harris
Speaker 2: bump here.
Speaker 3: And now, remember she does need to win.
Speaker 2: The popular vote by two to three points in order
Speaker 2: to maintain an electoral college victory, so you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: celebrating too much. You should also remember that Joe Biden
Speaker 2: was beating Trump by even larger margins in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: and twenty sixteen. So I guess, really what I would
Speaker 2: say is, I think that Nate's analysis of we're back
Speaker 2: to toss up just seems the probably best way to
Speaker 2: look at the analysis. In general, there's been too much
Speaker 2: public polling now and a lot of ways that people
Speaker 2: have reacted since that show that Donald Trump did not
Speaker 2: do well enough in the debate to consider even doing
Speaker 2: it again. In general, I think I was a major
Speaker 2: missed opportunity, as I said, because why would you take
Speaker 2: somebody who doesn't do well in scripted interviews or it's
Speaker 2: scripted situations and just give her, you know less, or
Speaker 2: and just give her the least amount of time the
Speaker 2: best possible performance for her to be able to run
Speaker 2: on when she can continue challenging saying, hey, I want
Speaker 2: to do another debate. She's not I think forcing it
Speaker 2: too hard. She's probably pretty happy to be where she is.
Speaker 2: But for Trump to be the first one to come
Speaker 2: out and just be like, there will be no third debate,
Speaker 2: I still think it remains a problem for him. And
Speaker 2: because sixty seven million people watched it on television, probably
Speaker 2: eighty to ninety million consumed the content overall, that's half
Speaker 2: of all registered voters in this country. And you know, look,
Speaker 2: maybe I'm wrong, maybe we're just so polarized people don't
Speaker 2: vote on that stuff anymore.
Speaker 3: But there's not a lot of evidence of that.
Speaker 2: Considering the twenty twenty two Roe versus Wade voting, where
Speaker 2: you had a lot of people who previously voted Republican
Speaker 2: who ended up voting Democrat or who had not previously
Speaker 2: voted same would stop the steal. There's been tons of
Speaker 2: major margins that do not fall within the in polarization metrics.
Speaker 2: So for example, Josh Shapiro beating Doug Mastrano by such
Speaker 2: big numbers, Yeah, John Fetterman winning by a decent margin there,
Speaker 2: Carrie Lake getting destroyed right now in a lot of
Speaker 2: the polling that we see in Arizona. So you just
Speaker 2: can't tell me that there aren't at least some swing
Speaker 2: voters that are up for graphs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, even if it's just marginal, we're talking
Speaker 1: about a race, it's going to be one on the margins. Yes,
Speaker 1: So no, I think it's a major strategic error for
Speaker 1: Trump to be like no, absolutely not no more debates,
Speaker 1: which is why I still hold open a possibility he
Speaker 1: may yet change his mind, especially if the polling becomes,
Speaker 1: you know, more consistently in the direction of Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: plus four or five six. And you know what was
Speaker 1: noteworthy about the in fact, can we put back up
Speaker 1: the graphic we just had a three up on the
Speaker 1: screen because it has not just the actual poll results,
Speaker 1: but then you can see them plotted on a chart.
Speaker 1: I thought this was kind of useful. You can see
Speaker 1: where the debate is, and then all of the polls
Speaker 1: post debate, save for the one, which again we shouldn't discarred.
Speaker 1: It's important to keep track of that one, but all
Speaker 1: of the other ones are really clustered in a similar place.
Speaker 4: Whereas prior to the debate.
Speaker 1: First of all, the overall sort of like average of
Speaker 1: the polls was lower, and also they were scattered over
Speaker 1: a wider plot, So I thought that was interesting to
Speaker 1: see the post debate result there. The other question with
Speaker 1: debates is, you know, it's not uncommon that there's a
Speaker 1: bump coming out of a debate. It's also not uncommon
Speaker 1: that that bump goes away. Two more points to make
Speaker 1: before we get to some of the other polling. Number
Speaker 1: one of all the various like electoral prediction models that
Speaker 1: exist now, Nate Silver's is the most pessimistic for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: The other ones all project her to you know, have again,
Speaker 1: it's like a in the toss up range, but like
Speaker 1: a fifty six or sixty percent chance of winning the
Speaker 1: electoral college. Need is a little bit of an outlier
Speaker 1: in terms of being pessimistic. Now, he's also the person
Speaker 1: who sort of like invented this whole genre, so you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's worth taking seriously what his model is saying.
Speaker 1: And he was closer to being accurate a twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: than a lot of other individuals too. But just wanted
Speaker 1: to point that out. And then another thing that stuck
Speaker 1: with me that I saw someone point out online is,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, I think there's an appropriate skepticism
Speaker 1: of the polls of a potential miss honestly in either direction.
Speaker 1: One thing that is different, though, because sometimes I get
Speaker 1: start getting these like twenty sixteen vibes, which I think
Speaker 1: probably everybody has had it at different moments. But one
Speaker 1: thing that's genuinely different between Kamala Harris's profile and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's profile is even though Hillary was up more in
Speaker 1: the polls at this point, she always had a very
Speaker 1: negative favorability rating. She was like underwater by like sixteen
Speaker 1: points on the favorability rating. Kamala is like even And
Speaker 1: to me, that makes the scenario very different. You know,
Speaker 1: that was always sort of looming over the potential Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton results is basically like, yeah, the poles says she's up,
Speaker 1: but man, people really don't like this lady. And that
Speaker 1: is not the same dynamic here with Kamala Harris, which
Speaker 1: I think could end up being significant.
Speaker 3: Certainly possible. You know.
Speaker 2: It's just there's so many confounding variables that I really
Speaker 2: just think it's better to just like present all the
Speaker 2: info and be like, you can make up what you
Speaker 2: want from it. I guess I could see it in
Speaker 2: all different ones I could actually see a major democratic miss.
Speaker 2: It's unable to capture the same way that happened in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: That's the most recent polling myst that we have.
Speaker 2: They or we're off by five or so points. A
Speaker 2: lot of that was Roe versus Way. There's been so
Speaker 2: much dynamic change in the electorate in just the last
Speaker 2: ninety days, you know, last one hundred days or whatever.
Speaker 2: For Kamala, that's a pretty And that's the other thing,
Speaker 2: is that a problem for polling. Almost would forgive them.
Speaker 2: It's such a crazy scenario. It's difficult to poll only
Speaker 2: for one hundred days and try to get to peg
Speaker 2: like who exactly is voting or not and not be
Speaker 2: able to capture that. I could do it the other way,
Speaker 2: which is that look is very possible that Trump's strength
Speaker 2: is understated. With all of this, you've got the whole
Speaker 2: likely voter problem of you've got people who are traditional
Speaker 2: Democrats who like answering polls.
Speaker 3: This is a big twenty twenty thesis.
Speaker 2: So that we could have replicated that, maybe we're been
Speaker 2: unable to solve. There's some other interesting stuff that points
Speaker 2: more in the Harris direction. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: for example, it is just from the Financial Times. This
Speaker 2: is significant just because it does show some divergence on
Speaker 2: the economy. FT finds that Kamala quote better represents the
Speaker 2: interests of middle class. It says forty nine to thirty
Speaker 2: six for Kamala Harris small business.
Speaker 3: See that's the.
Speaker 2: One where I'm just like, really, is that really true?
Speaker 2: Forty eight to thirty.
Speaker 1: Seven passion business, She said it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But you know, small business owners are the most
Speaker 2: conservative people by Democrats.
Speaker 1: But you have to keep you have to keep in mind, though,
Speaker 1: this is a poll of everyone, right, So you're asking
Speaker 1: everyone who do you think will be better for small business?
Speaker 1: I think if you just ask small business owners you
Speaker 1: would maybe get a different result, because you're right, they
Speaker 1: do tend to be conservative. But this is like you're
Speaker 1: asking the entire electorate who do you think will be
Speaker 1: better for these groups?
Speaker 2: So, yeah, okay, so small business was for is it
Speaker 2: forty eight to thirty seven? Union members says forty five
Speaker 2: to thirty five. Blue collar forty three to two thirty six.
Speaker 2: I will say that on Trump, you know, I don't
Speaker 2: necessarily want to be where he is. They have him
Speaker 2: at sixty four to twenty for large corporations on who
Speaker 2: they think you would be better for, and sixty seven
Speaker 2: to nineteen on wealthy people. So that was the individual
Speaker 2: ones the overall economy, and I think that's kind of interesting.
Speaker 2: The respondents also of those who were more likely to
Speaker 2: trust Harris than Trump on the economy, actually watched the
Speaker 2: entire debate, so that was fascinating.
Speaker 3: I would say, overall.
Speaker 2: Is very, very favorable for her, So you know, take
Speaker 2: it for however you want. I'd never seen her beat
Speaker 2: him on the economy. You know this badly before. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I would more put it as an outlier, but again
Speaker 2: it could be one that you could look to and say,
Speaker 2: if Trump does lose the election on the margins by
Speaker 2: a couple of points, and it's in these swing states,
Speaker 2: it very much could be because of issues like this,
Speaker 2: where if you feel the thing is Trump, the Republicans
Speaker 2: lost twenty twenty two even though they had a huge
Speaker 2: margin on the economy. So that shows you that Roe
Speaker 2: and stop steal can actually overcome even when you're winning
Speaker 2: on the overall economy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, if you're just tied on the economy, that's bad enough.
Speaker 2: If you're tied here and you get this big row
Speaker 2: benefit there. I could see that being a big problem
Speaker 2: for them. So again I have no idea what's going
Speaker 2: to happen. I still think Trump could very easily win,
Speaker 2: but I would say there's certainly danger signs for him.
Speaker 2: And in such a close race, you should just always
Speaker 2: be doing your best in order to try and you know,
Speaker 2: go across the finish line.
Speaker 3: You were not the underdog, you know, throughout this entire thing.
Speaker 2: Now you're kind of putting yourself in a category where look,
Speaker 2: a month from now, we could say, hey, this is
Speaker 2: the things are not looking at gred for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think if she can even get in
Speaker 1: the ballpark with him on the economy, it's yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what I mean, pretty devastating for him. And you know,
Speaker 1: Republicans historically have typically that there's an instinct among the
Speaker 1: American public to just assume Republicans are going to be
Speaker 1: better on the economy. And then Donald Trump that was
Speaker 1: always his core strength because you know, he's the businessman,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And you always point out sagerback
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty and when we're looking at the polls
Speaker 1: and saying to the Trump people like you guys are told,
Speaker 1: are toast, you don't have a chance. That was the
Speaker 1: number they would always point to. Yes, but he has
Speaker 1: this significant edge on the economy, and look, it wasn't enough.
Speaker 4: He's still lost, but.
Speaker 1: That was indicative of there is more strength for him
Speaker 1: here than we thought. So when I see these numbers
Speaker 1: and yeah, could be an outlier. We shall also point
Speaker 1: out financial times we cover before they have been asking
Speaker 1: you know, who's better on the economy, and their previous
Speaker 1: poll had Harris basically tied with Trump. This pole has
Speaker 1: her up by a little bit. So they've been seeing
Speaker 1: this trend for Kamala Harris as not consistent with some
Speaker 1: of the other poles that we've seen, where he continues
Speaker 1: to have a clear edge over her on the economy.
Speaker 1: But like I said, if she can even narrow that
Speaker 1: gap and get within striking distance, that's more devastating for him,
Speaker 1: honestly than almost any of the other polling data that
Speaker 1: I've seen, because that's their bet. And she was able
Speaker 1: in that debate because she moved the conversation where she
Speaker 1: wanted it to go. He got so distracted and enraged,
Speaker 1: et cetera, that he wasn't able to consistently land his
Speaker 1: points that him and his campaign have wanted him to
Speaker 1: be making on the economy. If he decides he's genuinely
Speaker 1: not going to do another debate, he's outside of paid communications,
Speaker 1: not going to have a lot of opportunities to continue
Speaker 1: to land those points and to the point about them,
Speaker 1: you know, not really hitting hard on the economy and
Speaker 1: getting distracted in ways that the Hairs campaign wanted them
Speaker 1: to get distracted with. Harry Anton was pointing out over
Speaker 1: on CNN, Actually the biggest search terms being associated with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's name now have to do with the eating
Speaker 1: their eating their dogs, eating the cats, eating the pets
Speaker 1: Haitian situation, which we're about to talk about with za Jalani.
Speaker 1: But let's take a listen to Entin's analysis there.
Speaker 9: Yeah, what are the rising things that people are googling
Speaker 9: along with Donald Trump's name. It's not what Donald Trump's
Speaker 9: campaign would necessarily want, right, It's eating pets, it's eating dogs,
Speaker 9: it's eating cats. Obviously that was Donald Trump's moment on
Speaker 9: the debate stage. Of course, that's a fagazy story, it's
Speaker 9: not real, it's fake, yet he went after it.
Speaker 10: This is a disaster.
Speaker 9: Who the heck if you're running a presidential camp that
Speaker 9: you'd want your name being Google with eating pets, eating dogs,
Speaker 9: eating cats like that.
Speaker 10: That's gracious.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean maybe he thinks it's a win, so
Speaker 4: they do think it's a win. The Trump at least
Speaker 4: thinks it's a win.
Speaker 3: He thinks it's a win, so does JD. I'll say it.
Speaker 1: All, No, say someone out because we'll get ze in
Speaker 1: the next one. So go ahead and just give us
Speaker 1: your top line thoughts on this.
Speaker 2: I think that they are making the same mistake that
Speaker 2: they all made during Stop the Steal, which is they
Speaker 2: believe that anything that directionally points or causes argument around
Speaker 2: the issue that they think they are going to win on,
Speaker 2: like immigration. They believe that anything anything is justified in
Speaker 2: talking about in backing up and not for surrendering on
Speaker 2: in order to focus the conversation. Now, as I had
Speaker 2: said to them at that time, I think they're fundamentally incorrect,
Speaker 2: because I think a lying to people is I'm gonna
Speaker 2: put morals out of it. Lining to people are saying
Speaker 2: things that are incorrect, give you too much to be
Speaker 2: discredited on when people say, then I don't believe anything
Speaker 2: that you say, So for example, stop the steal. Everyone
Speaker 2: was like, look, it's not about Bamboos and Mike Lindell
Speaker 2: and all of us. I'm like, well, Trump thinks it is.
Speaker 2: But they're like, it's about mail in balloting laws in
Speaker 2: the state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3: I go, hey, bro, but that's not what people are
Speaker 3: talking about.
Speaker 2: You guys are saying that the allegtions should not be
Speaker 2: certified because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a ruling on
Speaker 2: mail in ballots. That's not the same thing that you're
Speaker 2: talking about. So you want to talk about Haitians, Let's
Speaker 2: talk about it all day long, about TPS, the legitimacy
Speaker 2: of migrant law, asylum, etc. I think that's a winning
Speaker 2: issue for Republicans, and polls show that. But when you
Speaker 2: start claiming people are eating pets and dogs, and then
Speaker 2: when you get discredited on that, and then even worse,
Speaker 2: you start to take anecdotal evidence as fact in and
Speaker 2: of itself. The current defense is my constituents say, listen,
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you news. Most people who are
Speaker 2: interested in politics are stupid and weird. Like, if you
Speaker 2: are at the local level, and by the way, include
Speaker 2: myself in that. So if you were at the local level,
Speaker 2: and you're calling your congressman. I've manned enough of these phones.
Speaker 2: If you have the time out of the middle of
Speaker 2: your day to call your congressman and complain, you're freaking
Speaker 2: weirdo ninety eight percent of the time. So that we're
Speaker 2: just going to take these people's word. I mean, how
Speaker 2: many times do we see these bullshit election affidavits.
Speaker 3: That were completely fake fake?
Speaker 2: You don't stop the seal, Oh I saw this, blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, fake, did an investigation? Fake, oh saw this.
Speaker 2: Judge literally looks at it, laughs and throws out of
Speaker 2: the courtroom. They see that as evidence of the conspiracy,
Speaker 2: which is part of the issue. So I mean, in general,
Speaker 2: they have this idea of directional truth.
Speaker 3: Now look, in their defense, it's for real though sent
Speaker 3: dystopian con it is.
Speaker 2: But I'll give their defense on this is that Trump
Speaker 2: tells small lies to tell bigger truths, like he tells
Speaker 2: small eyes about Haitians to get us talking about X,
Speaker 2: Y and Z.
Speaker 3: And you know, I have to take myself out of it.
Speaker 2: In twenty sixteen, if someone shit like this was happening
Speaker 2: when he did the Cauzier Khan, the Access Hollywood the
Speaker 2: jud you know, all this stuff. I was like, there's
Speaker 2: no way this guy could win, and he's still won.
Speaker 2: So maybe they are right and maybe their theory is correct.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's enough recent evidence to show that
Speaker 2: it's right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you look stupid.
Speaker 2: I actually think that what it does is it validates
Speaker 2: this idea of well anything, It validates like Russia Gate. Oh,
Speaker 2: because we have Oleg Deripaska and an adossier that Christopher
Speaker 2: Steele put together that says you.
Speaker 3: Know, X, Y and Z.
Speaker 2: We spent two years as a country litigating that. And
Speaker 2: Democrats rightfully where I think we're eviscerated for believing that,
Speaker 2: you know, Donald Trump peede on somebody and there was
Speaker 2: a video of it. That's the same you know thing
Speaker 2: that you're you're doing here. We're like, oh, well, I
Speaker 2: heard from a neighbor's daughter's friend on Facebook.
Speaker 1: By the way, the Facebook lady is like, yeah, just
Speaker 1: she regrets putting it up there. She's like, and she
Speaker 1: heard it from like somebody, and somebody was like third
Speaker 1: hand potential possibility.
Speaker 3: My top line is just listen.
Speaker 2: You know, I think people are smart, and I think
Speaker 2: they're actually a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
Speaker 2: And I think when you are telling lies and they
Speaker 2: see through that, they both don't trust you. And you know,
Speaker 2: this whole jiu jitsu, there's this high IQ jiu jitsu
Speaker 2: right that goes on.
Speaker 3: I called it high IQ. Stop the steal at the time.
Speaker 3: I don't think it works. I just don't.
Speaker 2: I think that poll after poll after polls is the
Speaker 2: chaos and all this stuff around Trump is actually what
Speaker 2: people feel exhausted by. That's part of the reason he
Speaker 2: lost to twenty twenty election. Stop the Steal was a
Speaker 2: huge hindrance to them in twenty twenty two. I see
Speaker 2: no evidence that it will work this time. Listen, they're
Speaker 2: the ones running, so maybe they are right, and if
Speaker 2: they win, I'll eat it.
Speaker 3: But I don't. I don't know. I mean, at the.
Speaker 2: Very least, I personally, I think it's ridiculous and stupid.
Speaker 2: But listen, there's maybe enough people who the pets thing
Speaker 2: gets them thinking about the migrant situation and that's enough
Speaker 2: for them to vote Republican. Again, I don't see any
Speaker 2: I don't see evidence recently that that is correct. I
Speaker 2: think it's actually a really bad way to do politics.
Speaker 2: I also think, you know, for them too. You're betting
Speaker 2: everything on the line here, guys, Like, if you lose,
Speaker 2: you're done, like your net. Think about it serious in
Speaker 2: terms of being taken seriously as a party apparatus. I
Speaker 2: know this Trump is exempt from this just because he's
Speaker 2: like bigger above that category.
Speaker 3: But for everybody else jd included. You're a young man, dude.
Speaker 3: You know you got to live your whole life in
Speaker 3: this town.
Speaker 2: If you lose, you're gonna be one of those senators
Speaker 2: who's a lifer. You want to be like Josh Holly
Speaker 2: put his fist up and hasn't seen a light of
Speaker 2: day in four years.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be like that. Yeah, So it's
Speaker 3: like why why now? And there's no no choice. Yeah,
Speaker 3: going on, it is genuinely over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you either win, you or put it everything you
Speaker 2: were either win or in my opinion, like sign up
Speaker 2: for the Holly category like enjoy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because I don't think it's a fun place to be.
Speaker 1: Well, we were talking about this on Thursday after our show,
Speaker 1: and I said, because we were we were looking at
Speaker 1: the like polymarket odds on whether Trump was going to.
Speaker 3: Say cat Yes, didn't say it, by the way, he
Speaker 3: said pats.
Speaker 1: But I said, he's going to talk about this because
Speaker 1: he thinks this is good for him, because he can't
Speaker 1: tell the difference between good and bad publicity. He thinks
Speaker 1: any intention on him is good, and it's been driving
Speaker 1: him crazy that he's not been the main character.
Speaker 4: So the public has developed.
Speaker 1: Some in the media and the political class every he's
Speaker 1: developed some immunity to Trump's insanity.
Speaker 4: Over the years.
Speaker 1: So the things that send the media into a tizzy
Speaker 1: that worked in twenty sixteen, they don't work the same
Speaker 1: way in twenty twenty four. Right, like the you know,
Speaker 1: she turned black thing? Everyone is for one day like
Speaker 1: what the hell? And then they moved on, and Kamlires
Speaker 1: very smartly, was like, same old playbook, who cares, Let's
Speaker 1: move on, let's talk about you. So this is the
Speaker 1: first time he said something outrageous, disgusting, insane enough that
Speaker 1: it did send everybody into a tizzy. And so he
Speaker 1: likes being in that situation again where he gets to
Speaker 1: control the narrative. But yeah, it's not the same as
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen because this is yes, it feeds into a
Speaker 1: I guess, the conversation about immigration, but I would argue
Speaker 1: it actually undercuts your position on immigration because you're not
Speaker 1: talking about this as an economic issue, you're not talking
Speaker 1: about this as a housing issue. You're talking about it
Speaker 1: in an incredibly sorry, racist way. And so people look
Speaker 1: at this and go, oh, like, oh, that's what this is.
Speaker 4: Actually all about.
Speaker 1: So the framing on the issue is the polar opposite
Speaker 1: of what you would want. And number two, it validates
Speaker 1: the democratic frame of like, these people are just weird,
Speaker 1: Like they're just a bunch of weird freaks.
Speaker 4: And when they're googling you.
Speaker 1: With pets and dogs and cats and whatever, and you
Speaker 1: think it's great that people are making tiktoks making fun
Speaker 1: of you. You don't even see that they're like mocking
Speaker 1: you to your face. You think this is wonderful for you.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that this actually just validates the
Speaker 1: democratic framing the way they have wanted, the lens they've
Speaker 1: wanted to apply to you. So being the main character
Speaker 1: in this instance not always the thing I think you
Speaker 1: ultimately want.
Speaker 2: The reason I'm just not willing to is I'm a
Speaker 2: cynical person, and I think that there's a lot of
Speaker 2: people out there who may like it. I think that
Speaker 2: there are people who really enjoy the media getting.
Speaker 3: Upset and liberals.
Speaker 2: I think that, look, there's a decent enough evidence on
Speaker 2: the immigration question as well, that a lot of people
Speaker 2: who care about immigration don't care about economics at all.
Speaker 3: They're worried about demographic change.
Speaker 4: Those people are already voted, yes.
Speaker 2: But you know, let's say it's not even about swaying,
Speaker 2: it's about getting those people out to vote. Maybe that's
Speaker 2: enough to get them off the couch or their relatives.
Speaker 2: The immigration situation has been crazy enough that, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe it's enough that for them to forgive that or
Speaker 2: to think about this whole policy thing again. I don't
Speaker 2: see evidence for that, but I'm not going to discount
Speaker 2: that possibility. He has turned out people.
Speaker 1: I'm going to waund that possiblity.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: The other thing here.
Speaker 3: Did win in twenty sixteen, he won.
Speaker 1: He won in twenty sixteen, he lost, But he's been
Speaker 1: losing ever since. Lost in twenty eighteen, lost in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: lost in twenty twenty two. This guy does not have
Speaker 1: the touch in the sense that he used to. And
Speaker 1: this will fit in with, you know, the conversation we're
Speaker 1: about to have about Laura Lumer. Like his posture in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen was tabloid, it was sensationalist, it was New
Speaker 1: York pos right, it was the tabloid like finger on
Speaker 1: the pulse in a raunchy, over the top, obnoxious way,
Speaker 1: but yeah, finger on the pulse. Then in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: he's like Fox News Grandpa, which there still is a
Speaker 1: large appetite for in the country, right, mainstream sort of
Speaker 1: conservative Fox News Grandpa talking points.
Speaker 4: That's good enough to get him close.
Speaker 1: Now it's like truth social or like you know, the
Speaker 1: weird echo chambers on Twitter listening to Laura Lumer taking
Speaker 1: advice from her as if she's a positive asset for
Speaker 1: your campaign. I just think he's completely lost the plot.
Speaker 1: And Dave Weigel tweeted this, which I think is really true.
Speaker 1: He's like, sometimes you're living rent free in your opponent's
Speaker 1: head because you pissed your pants and they think it's
Speaker 1: really funny. Like not all publicity is good publicity. And
Speaker 1: we already know from the polls we just covered this
Speaker 1: did not go well for him, Like it did not
Speaker 1: go well for him.
Speaker 4: The more people, the more people were familiar.
Speaker 1: With the debate and things that he had to say
Speaker 1: of the debate, like the pets thing, the less they
Speaker 1: are to support Donald Trump. So in a sense, like
Speaker 1: the verdict is already in with the polling and what
Speaker 1: has come out of that. She's narrowed the gap on
Speaker 1: the economy, She's even narrowed the gap on immigration and
Speaker 1: how who people think would be better on that issue?
Speaker 1: She was seen as She's she's improved in favorability. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has fallen in favorability post debate. The polling has
Speaker 1: been almost uniformly better for her. So like I sort
Speaker 1: of feel like the jury is already in with the
Speaker 1: data that we already have, and you can say these
Speaker 1: poles are.
Speaker 3: All off, that's my point.
Speaker 1: But but we're looking at poles, We're looking at the
Speaker 1: trend line, right, And so even if you say a
Speaker 1: given pole is off in their methodology, if the trend
Speaker 1: line moved in her direction, that still is representative or
Speaker 1: reflective of a real change that actually happened, given that
Speaker 1: they're using the same methodology.
Speaker 2: But if he wins, what is he going to take
Speaker 2: away from this? What are him and JD going to
Speaker 2: take away from this? I mean, if you win the election,
Speaker 2: you know, and you pursue this, you get put back
Speaker 2: into the White House. I mean, I think that's frankly,
Speaker 2: like we need all need to grapple with that. Then
Speaker 2: we're like, okay, well we're gonna have to have some
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen ever conversations again about like, all right, clearly
Speaker 2: there's something going on here, you know, people are.
Speaker 4: It could also be though in spite of this, not
Speaker 4: because of this, but possible.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: At the very length, when you win, all sins are forgiven.
Speaker 2: And so if you look at it and you think
Speaker 2: about it, if they win based on this, I would
Speaker 2: say it actually gives them the lead way to do
Speaker 2: whatever they want. They can say, listen, we've said this,
Speaker 2: We got away with this Americans when we told our
Speaker 2: directional truths.
Speaker 3: They listened.
Speaker 2: So mass deportation on the table, any family separation back
Speaker 2: on the table. We're not listening to the media criticism.
Speaker 2: We're not listening to any of this bullshit anymore. We're unhinged,
Speaker 2: and frankly, I don't think they would be wrong. You know,
Speaker 2: if they do win the election, even when they were
Speaker 2: conducting themselves this way and all that, I think it
Speaker 2: tells you something pretty clear about where things are going.
Speaker 2: You may not like that direction, but it's very possible.
Speaker 2: So I guess I'm just this is a test of
Speaker 2: political theories. My theory is that you should not lie
Speaker 2: to people, do the directional truth. My theory is that
Speaker 2: constantly trying to validate, you know, this partisan bullshit like
Speaker 2: no offense, Christopher Rufo, but this whole thing about like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: some African guys forty five miles away barbecue a cat
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three, I'm like, yeah, but that's not
Speaker 2: what we're talking about here, and that's.
Speaker 1: Not even potentially reality. But anyway, you paid five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars though, Yeah, whatever, regardless.
Speaker 3: Of whether it's true or not. I'm just like, but
Speaker 3: that's not actually what he said. That's not what he said.
Speaker 3: They said X Y and see.
Speaker 2: Now, I mean I think politicians should have to tell
Speaker 2: the truth. I think that when they say things based
Speaker 2: on quote unquote anecdotal evidence, as you know, as backing
Speaker 2: up allegedly. You know, I'll put it this way, just
Speaker 2: because some of your constituents said that X, Y and
Speaker 2: Z was true, you know, he's jad keep saying it.
Speaker 2: My constituents keeps saying this is true, my constituents.
Speaker 1: So he has produced seven months up.
Speaker 2: But go on, Yeah, but even if that's the case,
Speaker 2: that's not a good enough standard to come out of
Speaker 2: your mouth, Like your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You
Speaker 2: have to be able to And also as a politician,
Speaker 2: I mean, part of the reason that we don't live
Speaker 2: in a quote unquote direct democracy and we do live
Speaker 2: in a republic is this idea that the founding fathers
Speaker 2: had of mediation between the whims and the whims and
Speaker 2: the like, the.
Speaker 3: Movement of the mob and considered people.
Speaker 2: That's specifically, the entire job of the United States Senate
Speaker 2: is to cool the temperature of the country, to provide
Speaker 2: due diligence and deliberation around where things are now. Throughout
Speaker 2: our history there has been deep vacillation between wanting the diligent,
Speaker 2: the professor, the Obama and then the id people like
Speaker 2: Donald Trump or many other populos, not even at the
Speaker 2: national level, at the state level too. So I could
Speaker 2: be again, they could be right, like they really could
Speaker 2: be running some sort of Richard Nixon style nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: eight silent majority. The media treated Nixon the same way.
Speaker 2: The problem I have is I read about Nixon. Nixon
Speaker 2: probably had like a one to sixty, IQ, we might
Speaker 2: be one of the smartest people who has ever held.
Speaker 3: The Oval office.
Speaker 2: It was a lot more disciplined, he was a lot
Speaker 2: more considered. Sure, morals weren't always there necessarily, but I
Speaker 2: think he was a very smart man, a very calculating man,
Speaker 2: and in many cases he was a very good president.
Speaker 2: So I don't see the same, you know, the same
Speaker 2: link between them. But they have a theory, and the
Speaker 2: theory has worked. I mean, anybody who can win the
Speaker 2: Oval that's something. And you know that's something that I
Speaker 2: know because in that moment I said, how could this
Speaker 2: man ever get elected? And he did so, I mean
Speaker 2: it shattered my political consciousness for all time. I can
Speaker 2: never just sit here and just be like, no, I
Speaker 2: don't think it's going to work. I mean, really believe
Speaker 2: I could be totally wrong about the way that I
Speaker 2: viewed the public, and I've been proved wrong on the
Speaker 2: show so many different times.
Speaker 1: The theory they have of Americans is deeply cynical. He
Speaker 1: might be right, because I mean, think about what they've
Speaker 1: incited in this town, not just against the legal, by
Speaker 1: the way Haitian residents of this town, but against the
Speaker 1: whole town. You have the mayor, you of the governor
Speaker 1: begging for them to stop, because now it's not just
Speaker 1: Haitians who go to those elementary schools that have been
Speaker 1: subject to bomb threats. It's not just Haitians that want
Speaker 1: to seek treatment at the hospital that's been subject to
Speaker 1: bomb threats.
Speaker 4: It's not just.
Speaker 1: Haitians that are like under siege in this little Ohio
Speaker 1: town that JD. Vans, by the way, represents as his constituents.
Speaker 1: It's this entire town. And so, yeah, their bet is
Speaker 1: that actually the core concerns that people have again about
Speaker 1: immigration are not actually about housing, wages, what cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: are the things that you talk about, soeer it's not
Speaker 1: actually about that, it's actually just like racist. We don't
Speaker 1: like these people because they're different, and we want them out,
Speaker 1: and so we're gonna plan to that. We're going to
Speaker 1: lean into that. That's the bet that they're making. And
Speaker 1: I just don't believe that. I don't think most Americans
Speaker 1: want to see themselves as racists. I don't think they
Speaker 1: want to have their policy views or who they vote
Speaker 1: for for president driven by just like explicit racist fear mongering.
Speaker 1: And so it's a little bit it's too naked, right,
Speaker 1: it's too mask off. And this is what the conversation
Speaker 1: we had about the life Kamala Harris she turned Black
Speaker 1: thing too, where I was like, this is not going
Speaker 1: to work because it's too naked a racial appeal and
Speaker 1: most people you got your you know, you got your
Speaker 1: people out there or who are cool with that. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that is a reality that exists and has always existed
Speaker 1: in American and probably always will exist. The overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Americans really do believe in like the best ideal of.
Speaker 4: The melting pot. They don't want.
Speaker 1: To see themselves as explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, whatever, and
Speaker 1: you're kind of stripping them a plausible deniability here with
Speaker 1: this whole Haitian pet situation.
Speaker 4: So that's why I think, to.
Speaker 1: Me, it's just very clear that this is a fail,
Speaker 1: that it's already a fail even and I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that it doesn't mean he can't win, but if he does,
Speaker 1: it will be in spite of this, because we already
Speaker 1: see the way the poll numbers have moved against him
Speaker 1: post debate when this became the Congress.
Speaker 3: Counter is simple.
Speaker 2: The counter is is that rapid demographic change doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that you're racist. It means that you want control roll
Speaker 2: over that, even uncontrolled system.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's not what they're saying.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, But I'm thinking about this is what
Speaker 3: this is.
Speaker 2: Look, if you get somebody to vote for Trump in
Speaker 2: spite of this on the immigration question, it's going to.
Speaker 3: Be this all right. I got two choices.
Speaker 2: I got a candidate who We had more illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: enter the country under their terrain than a decade before.
Speaker 2: We have the highest level of the foreign born population
Speaker 2: since the nineteen hundreds, We have ethnic strife. Do we
Speaker 2: want to live in a Balkanized America of ethnic enclaves
Speaker 2: in various different cities where half of these people don't
Speaker 2: speak any English. The vast majority of them are semi literate,
Speaker 2: they don't have a high school degree. I mean, by
Speaker 2: the way, these Haitians, these people are here under TPS,
Speaker 2: which is supposed to be temporary, but they're not even
Speaker 2: supposed to be here.
Speaker 1: We don't actually even some of them. I'm sure that's
Speaker 1: true for some of them. Some of them the indication
Speaker 1: from the mayor and other authorities, they actually have been
Speaker 1: here for years they moved into the town from other
Speaker 1: places because there were job opportunities.
Speaker 2: So the ones okay, listen, So I'm just what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: migrant That s implies forever permanence. They're here under TPS,
Speaker 2: which is supposed to be they're supposed to go back.
Speaker 3: So when are you going back? And that's part of
Speaker 3: the problem.
Speaker 2: In America, we have an immigration system where you can
Speaker 2: just come here and say, oh, I fear for my life,
Speaker 2: and you get to stay here forever. Basically, even if
Speaker 2: the court tells you to leave, you don't have to leave.
Speaker 2: There's no enforcement. You're in a town of Springfield, Ohio.
Speaker 2: You're what is it, sixty thousand people, Your mayor and
Speaker 2: your leaders have decided to invite others. You didn't necessarily
Speaker 2: sign off for that. The federal government puts you there,
Speaker 2: and you say, listen, this is intolerable to me.
Speaker 3: I don't want to live this way. Now.
Speaker 2: Look, my parents aren't immigrants, so this is complicated. But
Speaker 2: all I need to do is go back and read
Speaker 2: enough history where let's put yourself in the shoes of
Speaker 2: these waspy elites or others. And it's eighteen thirty. You're
Speaker 2: in this newly industrialized economy. You're previously an agrarian society.
Speaker 2: You and your parents, you know, your family goes back
Speaker 2: to Jamestown or fought in the Revolutionary War. And now
Speaker 2: your whole neighborhood is Irish and people are wasted all
Speaker 2: the time beating the crap out of their wives working
Speaker 2: at the factory.
Speaker 3: I mean, listen, is it legitimate.
Speaker 4: Pulling out the anti Irish bigotry?
Speaker 2: They passed prohibition because these people were drinking a leader.
Speaker 1: Tell me about the Italians. I'll tell you the problem
Speaker 1: with them. But I've been saying they immigrated. They okay,
Speaker 1: but yeah.
Speaker 3: We shut down immigration about fifty years.
Speaker 1: But this is the point, is every single wave of
Speaker 1: migration we've had, like there have been, you know, similar
Speaker 1: fear mongering about these girls. They'll never integrate and they'll
Speaker 1: never learn the language, and they'll never be part of society.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have these Balkanized ethnic enclave neighborhoods, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And every single time, guess what generation later,
Speaker 1: they're just American. Their kids are speaking English, they're eating McDonald's,
Speaker 1: they're doing the whole shing. You talk to the people
Speaker 1: in the town, you know, not the ones that like,
Speaker 1: you know, right wing YouTubers were interviewing that we're calling
Speaker 1: the Haitian immigrants quote unquote sand monkeys. Yes, this was
Speaker 1: proffered as evidence that this was legitimate. You know that
Speaker 1: this was a legitimate criticism. But if you talk to
Speaker 1: a lot of the people in the town, this was
Speaker 1: a town that was struggling, right. It was like the
Speaker 1: town that I lived in Ohio where the jobs had
Speaker 1: gone away. They had seen a massive population, a depopulation,
Speaker 1: and that's death for a town. It's death for you know,
Speaker 1: the infrastructure, it's death for the tax base, the schools, everything.
Speaker 1: I don't doubt that there are entirely legitimate concerns about
Speaker 1: you know, when a group, whatever group it is, wherever
Speaker 1: they come from, moves into the town, just like in
Speaker 1: Texas and Austin, right in other places where white people
Speaker 1: have moved in and it's like, oh shit, the housing
Speaker 1: prices are going up, et cetera, et cetera. I don't
Speaker 1: doubt that there have been challenges there, but there have
Speaker 1: also been really positive things. The pastors are saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: the churches are full again. You've had a huge community
Speaker 1: rallying around actually the patient migrants, Haitian migrants to the region,
Speaker 1: white people eating at the like Haitian restaurants, to show
Speaker 1: solidarity the.
Speaker 8: Good But.
Speaker 4: Disagrees allans.
Speaker 3: Yeah, whatever it is, I've had it. I had it
Speaker 3: when I was in Miami.
Speaker 1: Disagree, disagree, But in any case, you know, I just
Speaker 1: you and I see this very differently. That's been very
Speaker 1: clear in our discussions before. But to go back to
Speaker 1: just like the political point here, I just don't think
Speaker 1: that the reality for most Americans is that they experience
Speaker 1: in their daily lives this sense of like deep ethnic
Speaker 1: and racial strife.
Speaker 4: That's just not the reality.
Speaker 1: And Americans have complicated views on immigration, I think more
Speaker 1: complicated than the views in Europe, because we do have
Speaker 1: this conception and this reality as a nation of immigrants,
Speaker 1: and that is a core American value. So while it's
Speaker 1: completely legitimate to have debates about how many immigrants and
Speaker 1: how many can we process, and what are the burdens
Speaker 1: on the resources, et cetera, this sort of naked racial appeal,
Speaker 1: I already think the data shows proves it's a bridge
Speaker 1: too far for people, and it's not the way that
Speaker 1: think about.
Speaker 3: These A lot of people like to think that. I
Speaker 3: don't necessarily believe it.
Speaker 2: I think that, if anything, pouring more all of these
Speaker 2: illegals into the country over the last five years has
Speaker 2: probably exacerbated it to a level which, as you know,
Speaker 2: I don't necessarily want to see it. That's just my
Speaker 2: last counter is that at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: you have massive foreign born population here in the country
Speaker 2: that has always led to major strife. Now, you can
Speaker 2: just whitewash fifty years of history, but that's not how
Speaker 2: people saw it at the time. People, you know, we
Speaker 2: were fighting World War One. The Irish population didn't want
Speaker 2: to fight because we were supporting the English, and they
Speaker 2: were like, hey, we fled the English. The Germans were
Speaker 2: literally pro Kaiser during World War Two.
Speaker 1: They fought World War One, Okay, anyway.
Speaker 3: Fight okay.
Speaker 2: Well, during World War Two there was a massive Nazi
Speaker 2: fifth column here in the United States because of the
Speaker 2: German population. Ask the SS who had great files on
Speaker 2: all of our people.
Speaker 3: There is a problem.
Speaker 2: Now, does that mean that Japanese people should have been
Speaker 2: thrown in Terman camp and Germans and all of them
Speaker 2: should have been racially discriminated against. No, what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is foreign born populations at very very high levels cause
Speaker 2: re strife inside of a country. They people at that
Speaker 2: time responded to it by shutting down the border for
Speaker 2: fifty some years and restricting immigration so that all of
Speaker 2: those people could assimilate, which led to the Golden boom
Speaker 2: of the fifties, the sixties, and the seventies. It was
Speaker 2: only in sixty five that the Immigration Naturalization Act changed
Speaker 2: after some fifty years of assimilative policy that was instituted.
Speaker 2: If you want to live in a society that you
Speaker 2: and I probably want to live in more socially democratic.
Speaker 2: In Denmark, for example, if you're Muslim, you don't get
Speaker 2: to play the Quran if you're in school, they're like, oh,
Speaker 2: you're Muslim, that's cool, we don't do that here. In France,
Speaker 2: same thing, you're not wearing that hijab, and they have
Speaker 2: major problems with that. If you want to live in
Speaker 2: a socially democratic country. A lot of the times they
Speaker 2: have deeply restrictive immigration policy, specifically over resource questions and
Speaker 2: over ethnic homogeneity. I'm not saying that everybody has to
Speaker 2: look the same. I think people should speak the same.
Speaker 2: So when people come here and the vast majority of
Speaker 2: them are semi literate and Spanish and they don't speak
Speaker 2: into English.
Speaker 3: Is a huge problem.
Speaker 2: Like you can't even pass a test to be able
Speaker 2: to enter into the most basic citizenship guidelines. No, sorry,
Speaker 2: you have to speak English to be able to come here.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's racist. You could call it that
Speaker 2: if you want it. And that's part of the issue,
Speaker 2: is that everything that gets described as racist, or even
Speaker 2: talking about ethnic conflict or you you know, everyone. I
Speaker 2: don't think it's racist to say that there were a
Speaker 2: lot of people here who were huge drunks, A lot
Speaker 2: of them were immigrants. In the nineteen tens, we passed
Speaker 2: prohibition because of them, because America was so fed up
Speaker 2: and including women who were all getting the crap beaten
Speaker 2: out of them. You can whitewash that if you want,
Speaker 2: go listen to the people at the time who pass
Speaker 2: those laws, Like you have to think and consider about
Speaker 2: what is legitimate and not and so I don't think
Speaker 2: it's necessarily racist.
Speaker 3: Now some people are racist, that's not true.
Speaker 1: I again the points about what should the level of
Speaker 1: immigration be over what period of time. I think it
Speaker 1: should be a lot more. You think it should be zero, Okay, by.
Speaker 3: The way, I think we should show the public it's not.
Speaker 1: A warrior position. But again I think people hold on.
Speaker 1: I think those points are a fine debate for a
Speaker 1: country to have. I do not think it is a
Speaker 1: fine debate to rain down a to invite a campaign
Speaker 1: of terror against a small town based on yes, racist
Speaker 1: neo Nazi fueled. By the way, these are the people
Speaker 1: that originally were spreading the rumors was patients eating pets.
Speaker 1: That is racist, okay, And that's my point. That's my
Speaker 1: point is that when Trump, if Trump was making a
Speaker 1: kay and Republicans were making a case as they were
Speaker 1: previously about like too many and chaos at the border
Speaker 1: and crime which by the again undocumented immigrants commune less
Speaker 1: crime than the native born population, and actually less crime
Speaker 1: than documentar armor.
Speaker 3: It's outside.
Speaker 1: But again, when you're in that realm, you're talking about housing,
Speaker 1: you're talking about you know, the issues in this okay,
Speaker 1: But when you make a naked racist appeal that is undeniable, right,
Speaker 1: it's not even plausible, and it's just a lie. You
Speaker 1: are going to lose people, and you're going to lose
Speaker 1: ground on the issue. And again, I don't even think
Speaker 1: this is my opinion.
Speaker 4: This is what the.
Speaker 1: Polls and the data show at this point. But you know,
Speaker 1: to go back to the core of the debate here,
Speaker 1: like this town is kind of a model example, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is an extreme situation. There's some dispute,
Speaker 1: by the way, about the twenty thousand figure, but we'll
Speaker 1: put that aside. There was a significant influx of migrants
Speaker 1: to the town, There's no doubt about that. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt that there have been I think the issues with
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of the Haitian immigrants there hadn't
Speaker 1: previously driven, and there's like you know, traffic accidents. There
Speaker 1: has been some increase in housing prices, although that has
Speaker 1: also been widely overstated. There's been an increase in burden
Speaker 1: on the public school in particular needing like second language learning,
Speaker 1: like those are real concerns. But there also has been
Speaker 1: a huge increase in the vitality prosperity of the area,
Speaker 1: huge increase in terms of the average age. Again, I've
Speaker 1: lived in one of these towns that's dying and the
Speaker 1: population is getting sucked down, and it's a huge boon
Speaker 1: to have new population coming in, which is something conservatives
Speaker 1: recognized when it's Florida that's receiving the population and it's
Speaker 1: white people, right or Texas receiving the population and it's
Speaker 1: white people. But suddenly when it's you know, Haitians, some
Speaker 1: of whom again have been here for years, suddenly it's
Speaker 1: you know, a massive crisis and a massive problem. And
Speaker 1: there's and there's no there's no recognition of any of
Speaker 1: the any of the many benefits that do exist on
Speaker 1: the other side.
Speaker 3: Because they're white. It's because they're illegally here.
Speaker 4: They're not the Haitians are not illegally.
Speaker 1: Bullsh but that's not but but that is different to
Speaker 1: say I object to the program. To say it's a
Speaker 1: program I object to is totally different from saying that
Speaker 1: this they're illegally here. They are not illegally here here,
Speaker 1: they're here legally, and it's not fos pre.
Speaker 2: Time because they're fleeing from a temporary situation that we
Speaker 2: are very much uh implicated by the way.
Speaker 3: And creating over doing here buddy in the world gets
Speaker 3: to come.
Speaker 4: But they're not there illegally.
Speaker 1: They're they're legally, they're they are in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways like the model minority group.
Speaker 4: They've got jobs, they're.
Speaker 1: Working hard, they're going to church, they're building community institutions.
Speaker 1: They followed the process that was set out for them
Speaker 1: by this government. They're here legally, and so no, you
Speaker 1: look at it, and you know, maybe you can nitpick
Speaker 1: abo okay, but they you know, some of them don't
Speaker 1: speak English or whatever. But it seems to me the
Speaker 1: primary difference, the primary difference in not recognizing any of
Speaker 1: the upsides of this population is that they're not why
Speaker 1: you're A're.
Speaker 2: Totally right, but it's not about being white. It's about
Speaker 2: the fact that the factory owners love cheap labor. I
Speaker 2: was just talking to somebody who was down there as
Speaker 2: a reporter.
Speaker 3: He's telling they're making good wages.
Speaker 2: Yes, they're making good wages, which is more than which
Speaker 2: is less than they were paying the native born citizens.
Speaker 3: So that's why we should factory guys like, oh, it's great,
Speaker 3: I don't have to deal with these white drives.
Speaker 1: Let me, let me, let me take you out of it.
Speaker 1: Because you so things like unions, but you know Jdvance
Speaker 1: has a zero percent scoring record with the AFLCIO.
Speaker 4: Trump is a union bestor.
Speaker 1: Like no, no, but hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on,
Speaker 1: but hold On a second, Republicans only care about things
Speaker 1: like wages and housing when they can use it as
Speaker 1: a way to scapegoat migrants.
Speaker 4: If you care about.
Speaker 1: Wages, which I do, then there are a lot better
Speaker 1: ways to increase the wages of the native born population
Speaker 1: than scapegoating migrants and lying and say they're eating pets.
Speaker 4: If you care about.
Speaker 1: Lowering the price of housing, make it more affordable accessible,
Speaker 1: there are a lot better ways than s gooting immigrants
Speaker 1: and saying they're eating pets. So I think their concern
Speaker 1: on this issue is not genuine. Again, this is not
Speaker 1: about you, This is about them. Their concern on this
Speaker 1: issue is not genuine. And the reason I know that
Speaker 1: is because none of their other policy prescriptions or stated
Speaker 1: concerns have to do.
Speaker 4: With those issues.
Speaker 3: If apply to you, then or what do you mean?
Speaker 2: Well, how does it flip saying well, if you support
Speaker 2: mass migration, but just because you vote for the pro Act,
Speaker 2: how can you possibly pre pro labor?
Speaker 3: It's just not true, of course it is no. But
Speaker 3: it's not because because it is a massive.
Speaker 1: The primary problem for workers in this country is not immigrants.
Speaker 4: It's not immigrants.
Speaker 1: I mean, in fact, immigrants, the influx and population has
Speaker 1: increased our GDP. Now I know that's a hold on Well,
Speaker 1: that's the point, and that's why I support the policies
Speaker 1: that I support to make sure that when the GDP increases,
Speaker 1: that those fruits that increased productivity is distributed more more,
Speaker 1: you know, generously among all working class populations. So there
Speaker 1: are much better solutions to housing and wages than scapegoating
Speaker 1: immigrants and lying and inciting like a racist hate campaign
Speaker 1: against this town based on a third hand Facebook account
Speaker 1: of someone eating a pet.
Speaker 3: Look in the pet thing. It is not fair. Nobody's
Speaker 3: defending I know you're not defending that, but I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying that whenever it comes to the legitimate concerns about like, oh,
Speaker 2: the factory are in, the mayor likes it. Listen, since
Speaker 2: what have we ever trusted factory own rich people in town.
Speaker 1: This was a democratic call, and this was a democratically
Speaker 1: elected mayor. Yes, they have a chance to vote him
Speaker 1: out of office, and they don't because the town has
Speaker 1: been in certain key ways, not every way, but in
Speaker 1: certain ways has been improved by the fact that you've
Speaker 1: had more jobs, more vitality. These immigrants who are there
Speaker 1: legally are contributing to the community, are paying their taxes
Speaker 1: by all accounts, are you know, buy and large minding
Speaker 1: their business and doing their thing and being good neighbors,
Speaker 1: and that piece that there's yes there. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to deny that there is. Like you know that there's
Speaker 1: friction and there's growing pains, and all of those things
Speaker 1: are real. I'm not dismissing that. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: you're like racist if you think that that's I'm sure
Speaker 1: a reality. But you also can't ignore that there have
Speaker 1: been benefits to having this population there, just as there
Speaker 1: have been benefits of like you know, the white people
Speaker 1: that move to Austin or that moved to Florida or
Speaker 1: wherever that created additional vitality for those areas too.
Speaker 10: Well.
Speaker 2: The fundamental difference is those are legal US citizens and
Speaker 2: these people are not. Now, maybe these hates are there legally, well, okay,
Speaker 2: well we'll see, you know what, when we legally are
Speaker 2: required to send them back, I hope that we also do.
Speaker 2: But second to this is the simple question around managed
Speaker 2: change manage demographics. They came here on an unregulated system
Speaker 2: where anybody in the world who shows up at the
Speaker 2: southern border and says, I fear for my life, gets
Speaker 2: to stay here for years on end. It gets a
Speaker 2: work permit because the Biden administration that releases them into
Speaker 2: the country. Trump did it too, so he's not off.
Speaker 2: So did George W. Bush and the rest.
Speaker 3: I think that's wrong, especially.
Speaker 2: Whenever most people who aren't so conveniently at the southern
Speaker 2: border have to apply and pay a lot of fees,
Speaker 2: you know, to legally take a freaking English and you
Speaker 2: know some other guy from Guatemala g has to come
Speaker 2: here and he doesn't have to take anything is to
Speaker 2: work illegally on the back end. But this is the
Speaker 2: big question. Now, as I said, if Trump wins, I
Speaker 2: think it will be because of this. I think enough
Speaker 2: people will look past that. You may call it racist,
Speaker 2: but they'll say.
Speaker 4: Look, wait, no, wait, do you not think it's racist?
Speaker 1: The pets thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, like listener, okay, when we say races, like
Speaker 2: what does that mean? Like, look, well, I mean this
Speaker 2: is the issue. This is uncomfortable territory.
Speaker 4: But it's not uncomfortable. It's very clear.
Speaker 2: Well, as Mary and Williamson said, what are we going
Speaker 2: to ignore that there are like weird practices sometimes in
Speaker 2: the Haitian community.
Speaker 3: Like, I'm not saying the.
Speaker 4: Majority share the religion of JD.
Speaker 2: Vanson our which are yeah, okay, but there's Santaia, which
Speaker 2: is a well documented thing and has had a long
Speaker 2: time in the Caribbean community.
Speaker 1: Take a third hand lie and smear an entire community
Speaker 1: with it.
Speaker 4: That is the definition of racism.
Speaker 3: I mean, listen, calling the.
Speaker 1: Definition of racism and how it does not apply to
Speaker 1: the same.
Speaker 2: The definition of racism is explicitly being biased against someone
Speaker 2: purely because of their race. And I don't necessarily think
Speaker 2: that that's where we're at here now do I think
Speaker 2: that we are in a situation?
Speaker 3: I mean, look, was it biased? Is it?
Speaker 2: I'm trying to think of the ways and look, people
Speaker 2: would say, always twisting themselves in the knots. It's just
Speaker 2: because my barrier for like what I call racist is high,
Speaker 2: because I think it's a very misused word.
Speaker 3: In franklyship are stupid.
Speaker 1: But sometimes you got to call a spade a spade.
Speaker 2: I mean, and when you look as they're black, I
Speaker 2: have a problem with them. Yeah, I'd be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's racist. But you know, just when you oh, there's
Speaker 2: an issue here in the Haitian community specific, when you.
Speaker 1: Take an issue and you smear an entire community with
Speaker 1: it and which was not even true.
Speaker 3: It was just a lie. Yes, it is not true.
Speaker 1: I mean that's like textbook racism. And yeah, the term
Speaker 1: gets turnized you, but sometimes it applies, and it applies
Speaker 1: pretty clearly here. So, you know, to wrap up, and
Speaker 1: perhaps since we are going to talk to that about
Speaker 1: this as well, and we got to get onto the
Speaker 1: rest of this show and we're going to have more
Speaker 1: conversations about immigration, et cetera, which I know you all
Speaker 1: appreciate and I enjoy exchanging with you on this as well.
Speaker 1: But to wrap it up, the reason that I think
Speaker 1: this is a clear political fail, the whole PET thing
Speaker 1: is a clear political fail for Trump is I just
Speaker 1: don't think that Americans are this racist. I just don't.
Speaker 1: I think that they see it this as disgusting. I
Speaker 1: think we have the polling that shows they know that
Speaker 1: it's not true. They know that it's a lie. People
Speaker 1: don't like being lied to either, And so you know,
Speaker 1: whatever valid concerns there are about immigration, su're fine, you're
Speaker 1: actually undercutting your position on that by front loading with
Speaker 1: just like this explicitly racist nazi back to line.
Speaker 2: Without taking your words, I will say I think it's
Speaker 2: a mistake to generally wager whole reputation on this whole
Speaker 2: Haitian thing. I'd much rather have a lot of the
Speaker 2: talk that I just gave around demographics and management and
Speaker 2: all of that. But you know, at the same time, listen,
Speaker 2: I mean, they're the ones who got themselves elected.
Speaker 3: Maybe they know something that I don't.
Speaker 2: I'm not pollyannaish to believe that everybody thinks about these
Speaker 2: things the way that I do, or that you know,
Speaker 2: the so called better angels. I think a lot of
Speaker 2: that is fake, to be honest, and so we'll find
Speaker 2: out on the ballot box. And if they win, I
Speaker 2: actually do think some of a lot of it is
Speaker 2: basically all of it will come back to immigration. And
Speaker 2: if that's true, then I think liberal shoud ask themselves
Speaker 2: a lot of quite now if they lose too, we
Speaker 2: should also talk a lot about too, about the way
Speaker 2: that we when you can be on a winning side
Speaker 2: of an issue and how you screw that up. And
Speaker 2: there's probably a lot of evidence here if they lose
Speaker 2: the election on this, and I would hope that they
Speaker 2: take that away. If they do lose, but knowing them,
Speaker 2: that's certainly.
Speaker 1: Not not on the table.
Speaker 2: At the same time, there has been a new war
Speaker 2: declared by Donald Trump. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen, he declares yesterday, quote I hate Taylor Swift
Speaker 2: all caps. They're on through social It is unclear currently
Speaker 2: what exactly did this. His initial reaction to the Taylor
Speaker 2: Swift endorsement of Kamala Harris after the debate was that
Speaker 2: he likes Britney Mahomes much better. That is, Patrick Mahomes's wife,
Speaker 2: who had appeared. I don't know if she's posted pro
Speaker 2: Trump content on the.
Speaker 1: Shit, liked something on Instagram, maybe.
Speaker 2: Because people are so fridiculous, it's common anyway, So Brittany
Speaker 2: Mahomes likes some pro Trump stuff, and Trump says, I'm
Speaker 2: actually more of a fan of Brittany Mahomes.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, let's put.
Speaker 2: This up there on the screen. The Democrats responded to this,
Speaker 2: also bringing in some tailor. This is incredible because this
Speaker 2: is real, by the way, it says, Donald Trump's week
Speaker 2: of whining and spouting conspiracy theories has voters on both
Speaker 2: sides of the aisle ready to forget that he existed
Speaker 2: all caps. The American people want out of the woods
Speaker 2: of the chaos and division of Trump Era, leave behind
Speaker 2: the blank space of Trump's broken promises, and begin again
Speaker 2: by electing Vice President Harris to ensure America's future opportunity
Speaker 2: is long lived. Voters know all too well how dangerous
Speaker 2: Trump and his Project twenty twenty five agenda will be
Speaker 2: if he wins this November. We can make sure this
Speaker 2: this is the last time we have to deal with
Speaker 2: this endgame of jacking up taxes all the middle class, ripping.
Speaker 3: Away American freedoms.
Speaker 2: Together, we can turn the page on Trump Era and
Speaker 2: write a new chapter where all Americans breathe easy, knowing
Speaker 2: we strong leadership of the Helm. We can make sure
Speaker 2: the story of us is one of progress and show
Speaker 2: Donald Trump we are not going back to December of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty like ever so PEP For those who didn't
Speaker 2: get there were a lot of tail Swift references.
Speaker 3: Inside of that one.
Speaker 2: You only have to be a weirdo like me to
Speaker 2: understand every single one in terms of what this endorsement
Speaker 2: actually means. Very likely he could be reacting to this.
Speaker 2: Let's put it up there on the screen. There has
Speaker 2: now been some four to five hundred percent increase in
Speaker 2: voter registration. Now keep in mind this also happened after
Speaker 2: the debate, so we can't singularly link it to Taylor Swift.
Speaker 2: We do know that in the twenty four hours after
Speaker 2: she posted a link in her Instagram story, some half
Speaker 2: a million people did visit vote dot gov. We don't
Speaker 2: know the exact number of people, but exactly four hundred
Speaker 2: and five thousand of those people were referred directly from
Speaker 2: the Swift Instagram page quote. Such a number dwarfs the
Speaker 2: website's usual traffic, which averages only some thirty thousand visitors
Speaker 2: per day according to Target Smart. It has led to
Speaker 2: that increase in voter registration somewhere between nine to ten thousand.
Speaker 3: People per hour.
Speaker 2: Crystal signing up so declaring Warren Taylor Swift probably the
Speaker 2: most beloved pop star in the United States, possibly the
Speaker 2: world most popular figure, specifically amongst women, the demographic that
Speaker 2: Trump is suffering the most with not a smart strategy.
Speaker 3: I guess I could just put it that way.
Speaker 1: No forty chests on this one.
Speaker 3: Oh, there's no. I mean, I don't think it's forty
Speaker 3: chess on any of this stuff. I think a lot
Speaker 3: of it is stupid.
Speaker 4: It's like gut reaction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, Oh, she doesn't like me, so I
Speaker 2: don't like her. I'm like, Okay, let's see how it
Speaker 2: works out.
Speaker 3: Listen.
Speaker 2: I could be totally wrong, you know, but even other
Speaker 2: Republicans are like, hey, this is a really bad idea.
Speaker 2: There's no reason. Luckily, you know Taylor herself. She's not
Speaker 2: trying to get too political. If you read her post,
Speaker 2: she's like, do your own research, vote for wherever you want.
Speaker 2: But I'm supporting Kamla. It's unlikely that she'll do anything.
Speaker 2: Maybe Travis Kelcey or any of that will get involved.
Speaker 2: But I guess the real point and why it's dumb,
Speaker 2: is just it's the ultimate tabloid headline. This is the
Speaker 2: type of thing that actually penetrates. It's like this in
Speaker 2: parts right. This is the type of thing on TikTok
Speaker 2: on Instagram. You're checking out at the grocery store and
Speaker 2: you look at the magazine thing you'sed like Trump declares,
Speaker 2: I hate it's so clippable, it's so soundbiteish.
Speaker 3: And that's part of the reason I think it's stupid.
Speaker 2: It feeds into what is he doing this time, like, oh,
Speaker 2: he said, what you know, because it's not Mika Persinski
Speaker 2: we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: This is Taylor Swift.
Speaker 2: This is the most popular lady in the United States. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is the last vestige of the monoculture that we
Speaker 2: have here. So yeah, why, well you know why. But
Speaker 2: I mean the reason is because it's Trump. This is
Speaker 2: what he does.
Speaker 1: I mean, my hot take about the Taylor endorsement was
Speaker 1: that it probably won't matter. And my hot take about
Speaker 1: Trump saying I hate Taylor Swift is that it probably
Speaker 1: won't matter. But that's the and make it a smart
Speaker 1: idea because there's certainly a possibility that it could matter
Speaker 1: on the margins. And the other thing is, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you guys we mentioned on the show, but
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys saw this. There was
Speaker 1: this whole a while back, like fake AI generated campaign
Speaker 1: to pretend like Taylor Swift had endorsed Trump, and of
Speaker 1: course she hadn't, and she never intended to endorse Trump,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And if she ever had a thought.
Speaker 1: Of staying out of this race, which she's not a
Speaker 1: particularly political person, she has weigh in before she has
Speaker 1: endorsed Democrats before. But you know, if she ever had
Speaker 1: a thought about staying out of this race, that door
Speaker 1: was really closed for her by that fake Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: Because then you just feel like like I got to
Speaker 1: set the record street, you know, I have to come
Speaker 1: out and say something because of And then I think
Speaker 1: the whole childless cat Lady's thing also apparently got under
Speaker 1: her skin based on.
Speaker 4: The way that she freezed.
Speaker 3: She does love cat her endorsement, she.
Speaker 1: Is a childless cat lady, so she she felt personally
Speaker 1: attacked and made a point of that in her endorsement,
Speaker 1: you know, with the pose with the cat and signing
Speaker 1: a childless cat lady whatever. So if I were to
Speaker 1: make an argument that this matters, it would be that,
Speaker 1: as you were saying, Sager, she hasn't like overly inserted
Speaker 1: herself into the race. But if he's out there tweeting
Speaker 1: provocations and being aggressive. You know, I hate Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: and he can if he continues to go in on that,
Speaker 1: then maybe that forces her to be more engaged. Maybe
Speaker 1: that pushes her to be you know, more overtly political,
Speaker 1: to cut some ads, to appear at some rallies.
Speaker 4: Whatever.
Speaker 1: The other thing that just not that we could ever
Speaker 1: get into Trump's psyche, but he definitely did like Taylor
Speaker 1: Swift previously the way he talked about her. There's a
Speaker 1: famous video two of him driving car with Baron in
Speaker 1: passenger seat listening to blank Space, So we know he
Speaker 1: has enjoyed her music in the past, and he got
Speaker 1: asked about her kind of recently before the endorsement, and
Speaker 1: this is what he had to say about how he
Speaker 1: felt about Taylor Swift.
Speaker 11: Then what do you think about Taylor Swift was one
Speaker 11: of the most famous people right now.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think she's beautiful, very beautiful. I find her
Speaker 8: very beautiful. I think she's liberal. She probably doesn't like Trump,
Speaker 8: but I hear she's very talented, but I think she's
Speaker 8: very I think she's very beautiful actually.
Speaker 4: Unusually unusually beautiful.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean usually he has the sense.
Speaker 2: So he never attacked Oprah, right, he never attacked because
Speaker 2: he always respected one of the only people he ever feared,
Speaker 2: reportedly Michelle Obama.
Speaker 3: Taylor. You know that's the similar one where it's.
Speaker 1: Like the tabloid part of him.
Speaker 4: He respect celebrity, respect, celebrity power.
Speaker 2: Know, you know how popular some people are and you know,
Speaker 2: then in terms of there's one thing to say it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter, which I think actually fine, you could say
Speaker 2: that's a legitimate opinion. It's just another to be like
Speaker 2: I hate Taylor Swift and it's like for what possible reason.
Speaker 1: And I think it makes you look like kind of childish, Yeah,
Speaker 1: childish exactly.
Speaker 3: It gets centered around what me.
Speaker 2: I actually think one of the most potent democratic attacks
Speaker 2: is he cares about himself and about Yeah, that's what
Speaker 2: it all feeds into. And just yeah, everybody mag out
Speaker 2: there's like there's a strategy behind I'm like, no, there's not, Guys,
Speaker 2: there's not. You know, just how can you still say that?
Speaker 2: You know, after all this time, there's no forty chess.
Speaker 2: He's just capriciously saw something, decided to tweet it and
Speaker 2: there's no thought or anything behind it.
Speaker 3: Now will it matter it will be the end result?
Speaker 3: Probably not. But it's just like, why it's not a
Speaker 3: smart play?
Speaker 1: Definitely not helpful. Yeah, there you go for sure, it's
Speaker 1: not helpful. Is it like, you know, super damaging? Who knows,
Speaker 1: but definitely not like a really savvy strategy here exactly?
Speaker 1: All right, to continue the pets conversation, We're happy to
Speaker 1: be joined this morning by a great friend of the show,
Speaker 1: Zed Jalani. You guys all need to go and subscribe
Speaker 1: to Zed's newsletter.
Speaker 4: What is it called the American Saga? Is that the
Speaker 4: name of it?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Exactly, I have the you were out just the Americansaga
Speaker 11: dot com so on substick amazing.
Speaker 1: Everybody should definitely check that out. So Zed and I
Speaker 1: were able to provoke the ire of value presdential candidate
Speaker 1: Jade Vance. We'll get to that in a moment, but
Speaker 1: center Vance was on the Sunday shows making his case
Speaker 1: for sort of acknowledging that the Haitian pets lie was
Speaker 1: maybe not true, but also giving quite a noteworthy explanation
Speaker 1: for why he continues to lean into it. Let's listen
Speaker 1: to a little bit of how that went.
Speaker 13: My constituents had brought approximately a dozen separate concerns to me.
Speaker 13: Ten of them are verifiable and confirmable, and a couple
Speaker 13: of them I talk about because my constituents are telling
Speaker 13: me firsthand that they're seeing these things.
Speaker 10: So I have two options, Dana.
Speaker 13: I could ignore them, which is what the American media
Speaker 13: has done for years to this community, or I can
Speaker 13: actually talk about what people are telling me. And of
Speaker 13: course many of the things that the media says are
Speaker 13: completely baseless have since been confirmed.
Speaker 10: For example, I was told.
Speaker 13: Dana that the American by the American media that it
Speaker 13: was baseless that migrants were capturing the geese from the
Speaker 13: local park pond and eating them.
Speaker 10: And yet there are nine to one to one.
Speaker 13: Calls from well before or this ever became a viral
Speaker 13: sensation of people complaining about that exact thing happening.
Speaker 14: First of all, the Clark County Sheriff and the Ohio
Speaker 14: Department of Natural Resources reviewed eleven months of nine to
Speaker 14: one one calls. They only identified two instances of people
Speaker 14: alleging patians were taking geese out of park's. They found
Speaker 14: zero evidence to substantiate those claims. But you're not just
Speaker 14: a bystander. You're the senator from Ohio. So instead of
Speaker 14: saying things that are wrong and actually causing the hospitals,
Speaker 14: the schools, the government buildings to be evacuated because of
Speaker 14: bomb threats, because of the cats and dogs thing.
Speaker 13: But I want to start with something he said which
Speaker 13: I think is frankly disgusting and is more appropriate for
Speaker 13: a democratic propagandist than it is for an American journalist.
Speaker 13: There is nothing that I have said that has led
Speaker 13: to threats against these hospitals. These hospitals, the bomb threats
Speaker 13: and so forth. It's disgusting. The violence is disgusting. We
Speaker 13: condemn it.
Speaker 14: We condemn all violence under this happened after you and
Speaker 14: President the debate stage.
Speaker 10: You asked a question, go ahead and answer it.
Speaker 3: After that.
Speaker 15: What if I have to create stories so that the
Speaker 15: American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the
Speaker 15: American people, then that's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 7: Dan.
Speaker 1: If I have to create stories, he says, to get
Speaker 1: people to pay attention to this, then that's what I'm
Speaker 1: going to do. It seems like a pretty extraordinary enssionment.
Speaker 12: To the Z.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and I think if you watch the rest of
Speaker 11: the clip and what he's talking about. Basically he substantiates
Speaker 11: that by saying that he has had constituents call in
Speaker 11: saying they've heard rumors about other people's pets, you know,
Speaker 11: being taken, so on and so forth. So you know,
Speaker 11: we would use those calls to create the story to
Speaker 11: draw attention to this legitimate issue. I mean the problem
Speaker 11: with that is, you know, you're a us centator. Right,
Speaker 11: You're not someone trolling Facebook for rumors. You're not, you know,
Speaker 11: taking information that doesn't hasn't been substantiated by anyone, whether
Speaker 11: it be a reporter, whether it be police or local
Speaker 11: officials or even local NGO. You know, you have to
Speaker 11: be responsible with how you respond to those things. Right,
Speaker 11: And the reality is not one person in that town
Speaker 11: I stepped forward and said my dog or my cat
Speaker 11: was eaten by somebody, by a Haitian person or anyone
Speaker 11: else for that matter, because then you would end up
Speaker 11: filing a police report, they would be a press story
Speaker 11: about it, and they would catch whoever was responsible. They
Speaker 11: would have rent make an arrest, so on and so forth.
Speaker 11: The way that these urban legends spread through communities is
Speaker 11: usually that somebody says, oh, my neighbor lost their cat.
Speaker 11: Could have been a coyote, but could have also been
Speaker 11: an immigrant, and someone posted on Facebook, and people say, oh,
Speaker 11: the Haitians are eating cats. I've heard that. Oh you've
Speaker 11: heard that. We've all heard that over the weekend. I
Speaker 11: heard that. Forty years ago in the Atlanta area where
Speaker 11: I live, when Koreans are moving in, there were rumors
Speaker 11: about cats disappearing right, because in Korea, you know, dogs
Speaker 11: in the Far East is probably the only place in
Speaker 11: the world where there is some common accepted practice meeting
Speaker 11: cats and dogs, even though it's not that common among
Speaker 11: the people, and it's kind of falling out of fashion
Speaker 11: for a lot of people. And it's actually almost impossible
Speaker 11: to find a creative American or Chinese American who would
Speaker 11: do that here in the United States. But that's how
Speaker 11: these rumors spread and start, right, And I think you know,
Speaker 11: if Vans and Trump want to know how politically salient
Speaker 11: it is that they're doing this. You GOV did a
Speaker 11: poll where they found only nine percent of Americans think
Speaker 11: it's definitely true.
Speaker 12: Right, So for the first time, the.
Speaker 11: Republicans are kind of losing an immigration debate in the
Speaker 11: past three years. Right, So was that really the best
Speaker 11: move in the world to rely on Facebook rumors?
Speaker 1: Here?
Speaker 2: Well, Zed, you got tangled a little bit with the
Speaker 2: vice presidential candidate B two B. Please guys, let's put
Speaker 2: it up there on the screen. Zed, you tweeted this
Speaker 2: springfield was declining for years until they saw on increasing
Speaker 2: jobs and growth driven by people moving in that means
Speaker 2: more wealth, healthier budgets. Are there no upsized immigration in
Speaker 2: your view, what about Usha's parents? Would they have stayed
Speaker 2: in India? JD replies to you, dude, I've always liked you,
Speaker 2: so maybe they should be a longer conversation.
Speaker 3: But come on, are there no oup?
Speaker 2: Sized immigration is a radically different question from should we
Speaker 2: drop twenty thousand people from a radically different culture in
Speaker 2: a small Ohio town in a matter of years? He
Speaker 2: goes on significantly, But consider if he were here today,
Speaker 2: what would you say to him?
Speaker 11: Well, look, I actually relate a lot to JD in
Speaker 11: some ways, right, We have a similar life story in
Speaker 11: a few different ways.
Speaker 12: I mean, for.
Speaker 11: One, I think that some of what he's voicing is
Speaker 11: probably his actual view, right. I Mean, they're all politicians,
Speaker 11: they're all trying to win an electoral race. But I
Speaker 11: think that his life's trajectory kind of suggests that maybe
Speaker 11: he really seems to believe what he's saying. He's someone
Speaker 11: who grew up in a town where I think his
Speaker 11: parents and particularly his grandparents were from a culture or
Speaker 11: subculture that he saw was dying. I think when he
Speaker 11: wrote his memoir He'll Billy Elegy, he analyzed that in
Speaker 11: sort of a personal way, right, he was kind of
Speaker 11: letting out his trauma or his childhood experiences. He kind
Speaker 11: of blamed the people around him, He blamed kind of
Speaker 11: cultural tendencies, so on and so forth. Once he got
Speaker 11: that out of his system, I think over the next
Speaker 11: few years after that, he started to look at it
Speaker 11: in a more sociological way, right, he said, well, why
Speaker 11: were these people engaged in these counter productive you know,
Speaker 11: habits and cultures. Maybe you know, there's these larger problems
Speaker 11: with globalization, with job flight, with the easy access to
Speaker 11: drugs and counter productive materials. And I think he started
Speaker 11: to make more of a political analysis about it, where
Speaker 11: he sees himself as representing those people. And part of
Speaker 11: what he did is, you know, he moved back from
Speaker 11: the Bay Area. He had gone to a law school,
Speaker 11: made money out out on the West Coast. He moved
Speaker 11: back to Ohio, and he tried to say, I need
Speaker 11: to represent those people. I need to be a voice
Speaker 11: for them. And look, I mean, I it's not That's
Speaker 11: the similar a story for.
Speaker 12: Me in many ways.
Speaker 11: You know, I was born and raised outside of Atlanta
Speaker 11: and went to DC for a long time, and eventually
Speaker 11: I fought the colin to come home and so I
Speaker 11: came back here, you know, a couple of years ago,
Speaker 11: and you know a lot of people I grew up
Speaker 11: around were white folks and a little bit poorer and
Speaker 11: working class places like Mapleton where I was born, and
Speaker 11: you know a lot of them flew their rebel flag, right.
Speaker 11: But also my parents were immigrants, so you know, I
Speaker 11: knew Indians and Nigerians and Mexicans and people from all
Speaker 11: kinds of backgrounds growing up. And you know, you could
Speaker 11: say those are different groups of people, but there's something
Speaker 11: all those groups sharing common. And I want JD to
Speaker 11: hear this is that people look down upon them, right.
Speaker 11: People say, you know, they're poor and ENERGYCID, they're backwards,
Speaker 11: they follow weird customs, culture traditions and religions that they're always.
Speaker 12: Going to be in that station.
Speaker 11: But everyone I knew, from from white folks flying the
Speaker 11: Confederate flag to African Americans to all these you know,
Speaker 11: migrants and immigrants who are coming into the area, you know,
Speaker 11: all of them were working to try to improve themselves
Speaker 11: and better their families.
Speaker 12: Right.
Speaker 11: And you know, I think when JD makes arguments about
Speaker 11: you know, housing prices or about you know, the logistical
Speaker 11: issues traffic, healthcare costs, on and so forth.
Speaker 12: Those are all fair things to say about.
Speaker 11: The growing pains and immigration, I mean those those happen
Speaker 11: in every circumstance where large numbers of people are moving in.
Speaker 11: It's happening in metro Atlanta and in Codd County right now,
Speaker 11: where I grew up. I mean, those are largely not
Speaker 11: even immigrants from the rest of the world. From the
Speaker 11: rest of the country though, and we're having issues transit,
Speaker 11: with traffic, with infrastructure, so on and so forth. Those
Speaker 11: are all fair points to make. But I think when
Speaker 11: he starts making it a cultural argument, you know, I
Speaker 11: think in some of his sweets you talked about how
Speaker 11: people are from a very different culture, right, and I
Speaker 11: think that that, you know, alays into what he's talking
Speaker 11: about the animals and the pets. You know, it's kind
Speaker 11: of suggesting that these are kind of like an alien
Speaker 11: group of folks, they're not compatible with us here in
Speaker 11: the United States, that they somehow have some kind of
Speaker 11: inferior or backwards attitude. And look, that's JD. That's exactly
Speaker 11: how people talk about your ancestors, about Scott's Irish, right, Like,
Speaker 11: where's the term cracker come from in the US context,
Speaker 11: you know, it was a term used to derogate poor
Speaker 11: people Scott's Irish, largely in the South, who were seen
Speaker 11: as just following alien customs. They were ill temper, they're
Speaker 11: quick to fight with each other, they were very backwards,
Speaker 11: and they could never make any things of themselves.
Speaker 12: Of course, you know that's wrong, JD. Because you're you're
Speaker 12: a US citor.
Speaker 11: Now, you went to a law school, but when you
Speaker 11: were growing up, I'm sure plenty of people look down
Speaker 11: upon you and they said that you're just you know,
Speaker 11: your your white trash, you're backwards, your family's all messed up.
Speaker 11: They could list a million different ways of things that
Speaker 11: they that were wrong. But you knew that you were
Speaker 11: you were worth more than that, right, And I think
Speaker 11: that's that's a lot of what I would say about
Speaker 11: these people. They're you know, you can't judge them. I
Speaker 11: think in in this way that kind of makes them
Speaker 11: in this category where they're never going to make anything
Speaker 11: of themselves. Because the reality is loc Haitians have been
Speaker 11: in the US and large numbers since probably the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 11: There's like half a million Haitian Americans in Florida right
Speaker 11: when I don't think Florida Republicans are going to be
Speaker 11: quick to demonize those people because it would be politically toxic.
Speaker 12: For them to do so.
Speaker 11: And I don't think it's going to be any different
Speaker 11: from these people moving into Springfield.
Speaker 12: Right. Springfield was losing population for a number of years.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 11: You know, I went to grad school up in Syracuse.
Speaker 11: I was there for twelve months to my masters. Syracuse
Speaker 11: and a lot of those upstate New York towns, all
Speaker 11: those rost belt towns, de industrialized towns, weren't a debt
Speaker 11: spiral because people moving out meant that you had not
Speaker 11: only fewer jobs, but you also had fewer you had
Speaker 11: less tax revenue, right, meaning they and fund services, meaning
Speaker 11: that they couldn't keep a lot of the city going
Speaker 11: as people continue to move out.
Speaker 12: So they were.
Speaker 11: Constantly trying to get people to move in, and that's
Speaker 11: what Springfield did. Around twenty fourteen, they started a campaign
Speaker 11: and said, hey, people need to move here, along with
Speaker 11: a bunch of other towns in Ohio, by the way,
Speaker 11: and they found some success by having people from the
Speaker 11: rest of the country, people from other countries, start moving
Speaker 11: into Springfield, start taking jobs, start working, providing you know, revenue,
Speaker 11: economic growth. I mean, look, it's true that a lot
Speaker 11: of big employers and big business want immigrants to come
Speaker 11: to the country to loosen the labor market, sometimes the
Speaker 11: lower wages, to give them more of an affordable deal.
Speaker 11: But that doesn't really mean that in every circumstance possible,
Speaker 11: you know, immigrants are bad for your community or bad
Speaker 11: for your country. Right in a place that's dying, that
Speaker 11: needs people to come back, it needs people to come
Speaker 11: from anywhere to come there and develop and start actually,
Speaker 11: you know, not only bring new jobs, but also tax revenue,
Speaker 11: new construction, housing, and so on and so forth. It's
Speaker 11: not really a bad thing to have people moving there
Speaker 11: and actually rejuvenate the place. Of course, there'll be growing
Speaker 11: pains and doing that, but a sure way to respond
Speaker 11: to that would be to go to that community, understand
Speaker 11: their needs and talk it out rationally, right, rather than
Speaker 11: turning it into a giant political circus that has, unfortunately
Speaker 11: now these racial overtones.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Zad, your response was very compelling and also very diplomatic.
Speaker 1: Mine was a little less though I had put it
Speaker 1: up on the screen. What Jad said to you kind
Speaker 1: of irritated me because now that he's provoked this whole
Speaker 1: out rageous racial panic. He wants to say, Oh, let's
Speaker 1: have a nuanced conversation about housing, Which is my point here.
Speaker 1: I said, when you insist on spreading neo Nazi fueled
Speaker 1: smears about immigrants, which these pet cat dog lies were
Speaker 1: fueled by literal neo Nazis leading to bomb threats, kind
Speaker 1: of closes the space for this intellectual discussion about pluses
Speaker 1: and minuses of immigration that you're now retreating to. Dude,
Speaker 1: he didn't like that very much, she says, Crystal Ball,
Speaker 1: I really hate neoliberalism. I'm a populist. Also, Crystal Ball,
Speaker 1: anyone who doesn't think twenty thousand cheap laborers should be
Speaker 1: dropped on a small Ohio town is a neo Nazi,
Speaker 1: which is not what I said. But in any case,
Speaker 1: I would also say someone who has a zero percent
Speaker 1: voting record with the AFLCIO and who owes his position
Speaker 1: in significant part to a billionaire backer maybe doesn't really
Speaker 1: have a lot of like to stand on with regard
Speaker 1: to populism. But putting that aside, z, I'll bring you
Speaker 1: in for the diplomatic response here. You know, when you
Speaker 1: lead with the very racial angle, that's just about culture
Speaker 1: and is also just a total lie and not about
Speaker 1: any of these more legitimate topics of conversation. I don't
Speaker 1: think that helps enable that broader, more nuanced, potential theoretical
Speaker 1: conversation that he now wants to have after initially starting
Speaker 1: this panic.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly right.
Speaker 11: Like, look, if someone was trying to talk about, you know, Israeli.
Speaker 11: This is a topic that's been all over the news
Speaker 11: the past almost a year now, and they started with
Speaker 11: an anti Semitic conspiracy theory, right, they can't really fall
Speaker 11: back and say, wow, look, I just want to have
Speaker 11: a conversation about foreign policy.
Speaker 1: That's a great point.
Speaker 11: You know, you need you need to be careful about
Speaker 11: how you engage in these things. And I think this
Speaker 11: is something that Republicans are learning because, like I said,
Speaker 11: this is probably the first time and during the Biden
Speaker 11: administration that they're really losing an immigration debate where they
Speaker 11: said something that people just don't believe that make them look,
Speaker 11: you know, like they're trying to start some kind of
Speaker 11: racial or cultural conflict rather than deal with the very
Speaker 11: real challenges of I think, you know, increasing levels of
Speaker 11: immigration and at the same time you know, I want
Speaker 11: to say something about you know, he questioned your your posture.
Speaker 12: As a populist.
Speaker 11: But the reality is that the history of populism in
Speaker 11: the United States and some cent elsewhere, but I know
Speaker 11: more about the United States, is that when we develop
Speaker 11: these kind of US versus them frames, you know, immigration
Speaker 11: and race and culture does get drawn into that at times.
Speaker 12: Right, So, like I'm reading this book about Tom Watson.
Speaker 11: Tom Watson was this great you know, Georgia populist right,
Speaker 11: and the first half of his life he was fighting
Speaker 11: against convict leasing, which was like ninety percent blas in Georgia,
Speaker 11: which is like slavery by another name, you know, used
Speaker 11: by many of the richest and wealthiest politicians in Georgia
Speaker 11: to undercut wages and also just to expose prisoners to
Speaker 11: brutal conditions I mean, far worse than prison labor today.
Speaker 12: I mean, it basically was slavery.
Speaker 11: But in the second half of his life he became
Speaker 11: basically an outright white nationalist right and you know, he
Speaker 11: was against African Americans and so.
Speaker 12: On and so forth.
Speaker 11: I mean, this is a guy who went from organizing
Speaker 11: bands of men to protect blacks from lynching to advocating
Speaker 11: for those various same things in the second half of
Speaker 11: his life, and like that was all part of the
Speaker 11: populist tradition in Georgia. Right, you could mobilize people against
Speaker 11: the landed gentry and like the big farms and being
Speaker 11: a very populist, but also you could say, hey, we
Speaker 11: have a white interest against black folks, against Jews, Catholics,
Speaker 11: on and so forth. And I think you know, Vance
Speaker 11: needs to consider that trajectory for his own life, Right,
Speaker 11: does he want to fall into that kind of dark
Speaker 11: side of populism?
Speaker 12: Does he want to be someone I.
Speaker 11: Mean questioning I legal immigration, talking about border security. All
Speaker 11: those things are valid, and that's always going to be
Speaker 11: a case. It's always been the case in American policy.
Speaker 11: Those things are hot by topics. Republican Party in particular
Speaker 11: has always been very active and talking about them. But
Speaker 11: when it comes to actually suggesting that, you know, this
Speaker 11: latest wave of immigrants whoever coming to the United States,
Speaker 11: in the case of the Haitians, they are legal, they
Speaker 11: have legal status and their TPS, you know that they're
Speaker 11: somehow incompatible with our values, with our culture. At that point,
Speaker 11: you're kind of chopping up people who are just trying to.
Speaker 12: Work and get by and pitting them against each other.
Speaker 11: Right, And you know, you want to talk about big
Speaker 11: employers and what they do to undercut wages and why
Speaker 11: they advocate for a looser immigration. That's all fair and good,
Speaker 11: but once we start, you know, having a conflict between
Speaker 11: people from varying ethnicities and ancestries and cultures. I mean, look,
Speaker 11: one of Donald Trump's worst moments on the debate stage
Speaker 11: is when he stood up there and said he didn't
Speaker 11: have a health care plan. He had a concept of
Speaker 11: a health care plan. Somewhere in this country right now,
Speaker 11: a husband and wife are talking about how they can't
Speaker 11: afford you know, life saving procedure or how they're facing
Speaker 11: bankruptcy and tiers are streaming down their face. I mean,
Speaker 11: jad spend a little bit of time talking to your
Speaker 11: boss about how he's going to address that problem. I mean,
Speaker 11: there's so many problems you can address in this country
Speaker 11: without hitting you know, the latest poor guy who have
Speaker 11: arrived on our shores is just trying to make a
Speaker 11: business for himself and a life for himself and a
Speaker 11: family in Ohio right against another person who's also trying
Speaker 11: to do that, right, And that's that happens to be
Speaker 11: the case in Springfield.
Speaker 2: So that let me push you a little bit, and
Speaker 2: let's think about this. Donald Trump passed the Tax Cuts
Speaker 2: and Jobs Act. He abandoned a lot of the so
Speaker 2: called like economic policy that he ran on if he
Speaker 2: ever believed it in the first place, and he got
Speaker 2: ten million more votes. And in fact, if you look
Speaker 2: at a lot of the political science research on immigration
Speaker 2: and others, some of the people who vote for him
Speaker 2: on immigration don't care about the economic concern. So maybe
Speaker 2: in an era I mean crystalizer that have a massive
Speaker 2: debate on this, maybe in an era of rapid demographic change,
Speaker 2: the cultural argument is actually the one that resonates.
Speaker 3: The most with people.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, you may think it's immoral, or you
Speaker 2: may think it's wrong, but what is your confidence that
Speaker 2: it is the political loser that you believe.
Speaker 3: It to be.
Speaker 11: Look, I think it probably depends on where and when
Speaker 11: you're talking about, particularly in Europe. I think that there
Speaker 11: is a represent and actually I'm going to write a
Speaker 11: story about that.
Speaker 12: There was a good paper on it.
Speaker 11: There is a representation gap between public officials and the
Speaker 11: general public. The general public does think immigration is happening
Speaker 11: too quickly. The base of changes is too rapid, and
Speaker 11: they tend to I think most of their backlashes about culture.
Speaker 11: Eric Kaufman, who's a kind of a political scientist, a
Speaker 11: little bit conservative leading, but very fair and honest, has
Speaker 11: said that in the survey work, that's what they find.
Speaker 11: It's not really about economic it's not about logistics. It's
Speaker 11: about culture. People think their culture is being replaced under attack,
Speaker 11: and that it's dwindling compared to some kind of foreign
Speaker 11: culture which they don't really like or understand.
Speaker 12: That's particularly the case in Europe.
Speaker 11: In the United States, some of the immigration backlash, I'm
Speaker 11: probably most of the immigration backlash honestly, is dealing with
Speaker 11: those factors. But I don't think it really shows up
Speaker 11: as a political winner overall. I don't think there's a
Speaker 11: ton of evidence that Americans believe that their culture overall
Speaker 11: is being overwhelmed or somehow asumed or replaced by foreign cultures,
Speaker 11: not just because there's a different nature in the in
Speaker 11: the nature of the countries right, the United States is
Speaker 11: not found on ethnicity. It's not founded on one religion
Speaker 11: or creed. Really, it's founded more based on you know,
Speaker 11: there was a set of Northern Europeans or wasped who
Speaker 11: found in the US. But each wave of immigrants who
Speaker 11: came in, you know, successfully assimilated and while at the
Speaker 11: same time somewhat changing the culture at a pace and
Speaker 11: rate that I think has generally been accepted by Americans.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 11: You mentioned, for instance, that like Trump increased his minority votes,
Speaker 11: but I think part of that also is in twenty
Speaker 11: twenty he barely talked about immigration real relative to twenty sixteen,
Speaker 11: I think he had shifted to other issues. I think
Speaker 11: things like him, really his COVID lockdowns probably appealed to
Speaker 11: a lot of people who maybe don't really particularly mind immigration,
Speaker 11: don't particularly mind you know, a more diverse culture in
Speaker 11: some ways, but maybe we're aggravated by democratic, you know,
Speaker 11: bureaucratic demands in one onech way shape or form. I
Speaker 11: do think, Sager, what you're describing probably is very powerful
Speaker 11: in the Republican Party at this moment. I think a
Speaker 11: lot of them probably would crack down even a legal migration,
Speaker 11: which I think is part of their complain about the
Speaker 11: Haitians and about TPS.
Speaker 12: But I'm not so sure it's such a winner overall.
Speaker 11: Like I'll give you an example, my governor here in Georgia,
Speaker 11: Brian Kemp, Like he made a point to go in
Speaker 11: campaign before first and second generation immigrant community. So like
Speaker 11: he went to a de Valley event outside Global Mall,
Speaker 11: which is this big like you know, South Asian, Indian
Speaker 11: and Pakistani shopping center in Georgia. And I don't think
Speaker 11: he said anything beyond you know, condemning illegal immigration, the
Speaker 11: same rote things as everyone else. And the guy is
Speaker 11: sitting on a sixty one or sixty three percent approval rating.
Speaker 11: And I think John Hassa probably lays awake at night
Speaker 11: hoping the NRC does not recruit in percent it because
Speaker 11: you know, a state like Georgia Old South, you know,
Speaker 11: used to be a creatile confederacy, is also a state
Speaker 11: that's rapidly changing. And yet you know, you go to
Speaker 11: a small town I do improv comedy in a small
Speaker 11: town that voted seventy five percent for Trump, and yet
Speaker 11: you know, every every street corner is an immigrant. The
Speaker 11: Hispanic festival happening. You know, you know, half my team
Speaker 11: is Asian or black, right, Like, that's a Republican county
Speaker 11: that I'm in, right Like, I think for the most
Speaker 11: part of people in this country are accepting of those things,
Speaker 11: and the people in the middle.
Speaker 12: What they don't like is lawlessness. They don't like chaos.
Speaker 11: They don't like border towns being overwhelmed and then people
Speaker 11: being shipped this way or that way, and they feel
Speaker 11: like disorderly right like people are being put upon. I
Speaker 11: think that's what they dislike. But America is one of
Speaker 11: the last countries on Earth. I think we're going to
Speaker 11: get away with this argument that, like, you know, you
Speaker 11: can't you can't have anybody but wasps in the country.
Speaker 11: We're not that kind of people. That's not I don't
Speaker 11: think that really gets to who we are as Americans.
Speaker 11: And that's where JD, I think, is making a political
Speaker 11: misstep here. And even if he feels that way, Look, dude,
Speaker 11: like this country is going to be like sixty to
Speaker 11: seventy percent white for your entire lifetime.
Speaker 12: Dude, you're not. You got to get people to have
Speaker 12: more babies. White folks gotta have more babies. That's it's
Speaker 12: not my fault they're not having more babies.
Speaker 11: I think even JD has said is at one point
Speaker 11: that they need to have more kids. So like work
Speaker 11: on family policy to get that achieved. But you don't
Speaker 11: have to worry about being, you know, your culture being
Speaker 11: wiped out. I'm less than one percent of the country.
Speaker 11: My culture, my culture is very strong, our families are
Speaker 11: very strong. I feel very secure in it. But that's
Speaker 11: partly on me, right, It's partly about how I engage
Speaker 11: to preserve my traditions and my culture. And you know,
Speaker 11: I think JD has every right to do that with
Speaker 11: his with his fambilanage.
Speaker 12: Going back to eastern Kentucky z To.
Speaker 1: Bolster your point, you know, you made the point about
Speaker 1: the governor, the Republican governor of Georgia. The Republican governor
Speaker 1: of Ohio also came out and said basically like stop
Speaker 1: doing this, you know, stop doing what you're doing. And
Speaker 1: he also is, you know, quite popular in the state
Speaker 1: of Ohio. One election handily last time, you know, actually
Speaker 1: outperformed Jade Vance by quite a significant margin. I think
Speaker 1: he also didn't have as strong as an opponent as JD. Vance.
Speaker 1: But to bolster your point about the politics of this,
Speaker 1: put B three up on the screen. It's not just
Speaker 1: some of the aspects that you point to that I
Speaker 1: think Americans don't like. I think they also don't like
Speaker 1: being lied to, and and of overwhelming majority of Americans,
Speaker 1: you know, huge gap between those who think that this
Speaker 1: is true and those who think that it is false.
Speaker 1: So majority fifty four percent say this is false, twenty
Speaker 1: six percent say that it is true. A majority of
Speaker 1: Trump voters do buy the Haitian pet lie. Effectively, no
Speaker 1: Harris voters buy it. And then the independence it was,
Speaker 1: you know, quite lopsided in favor of No, this is
Speaker 1: a lie. If you look at men, fifty four percent
Speaker 1: say it's a lie. If you look at women, fifty
Speaker 1: five percent say it's a lie. So yes, within the
Speaker 1: Republican base, they buy whatever it is that Trump wants
Speaker 1: to sell them. But they're already voting for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and more of those you know, swing voters, independence, et cetera,
Speaker 1: they see pretty clearly through the game that they're playing here.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and look, I think that I'm not someone who's
Speaker 11: saying that, like any skepticism towards immigration, particularly when we're
Speaker 11: talking about the lawlessness that happens, you know, at the border,
Speaker 11: drugs and crime and guns and gangs and so on
Speaker 11: and so forth, it should be taboo. Obviously should not
Speaker 11: be taboo. And I think when you do the same
Speaker 11: polls of Americans about those issues. They're very concerned about it,
Speaker 11: and it's a perfectly legitimate thing for the Republicans to
Speaker 11: address and bring up that Biden has has failed to
Speaker 11: handle a lot of that properly and create a more
Speaker 11: orderly immigration system. I think where they're like, like you said,
Speaker 11: I think where they're really kind of falling off is
Speaker 11: by creating this kind of cultural conflict between saying, you know, like, okay,
Speaker 11: I'll give you guys an example like Douglas Murray. Right,
Speaker 11: it's like this kind of posh, right wing British commentator.
Speaker 11: You know, after there were some rights in the UK, yeah, right,
Speaker 11: very much. So after there were some riots in the UK.
Speaker 11: There was there was a stabbing actually I think it
Speaker 11: was by an African migrant who was a Christian background.
Speaker 11: For some reason, someone spent a rumor it was Muslims.
Speaker 11: So there are all these riots aimed at mosques and
Speaker 11: the Muslim communities, and then Murray comes up and says, look,
Speaker 11: this is the result of you know, you don't let
Speaker 11: us talk about immigration, and what do you expect blah
Speaker 11: blah blah, And it's like, dude, every election in the
Speaker 11: West is particular in Europe for the past like ten years,
Speaker 11: has been about immigration. He's constantly all over the news,
Speaker 11: daily mails, so on, and so forth. But I think
Speaker 11: really what he means, the frustration he's feeling is you
Speaker 11: can't just say that, why don't we just keep our
Speaker 11: countries white?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 11: Like, That's probably what he feels, And I think that
Speaker 11: there is a faction in the Republican Party who feels
Speaker 11: that way. But my counter to that is that that faction,
Speaker 11: I think is very online, Like they tend to be
Speaker 11: people who have prestigious positions, that think tanks who tweet
Speaker 11: a lot and put out white papers. But in the
Speaker 11: actual world of Republicans, you know, you go to Florida, Texas, Georgia,
Speaker 11: you see diverse communities, you know, voting Republican. You see
Speaker 11: people in verious small towns in world parts of the
Speaker 11: country welcoming you know, to Hanno's and people who have
Speaker 11: roots who are one or two generations removed from the
Speaker 11: United States and from European American culture.
Speaker 12: Right.
Speaker 11: I think in the actual world there isn't quite nearly
Speaker 11: as much hostility towards these things as you might see
Speaker 11: among you know, certain right wing influencers among the Charlie
Speaker 11: Kirks of the world, among some of the people maybe
Speaker 11: JD follows on Twitter or on social media. And I
Speaker 11: think the Republican Party he needs to calibrate for that
Speaker 11: if it.
Speaker 12: Wants to survive.
Speaker 11: And I'm not doing the twenty twelve you know autopsies
Speaker 11: saying they have to be one hundred percent pro legalize everybody,
Speaker 11: loose immigration policies.
Speaker 12: So on and so forth.
Speaker 11: But they do have to avoid being racist, right, They
Speaker 11: have to avoid being racist, and they have to avoid
Speaker 11: looking like they just want the country to be full
Speaker 11: of white folks, because that's not the country anymore. And
Speaker 11: a lot of people who are curious about voting Republican,
Speaker 11: who agree with Republicans on taxes, who agree with Republicans
Speaker 11: on social policy.
Speaker 12: They want, you know, strong police.
Speaker 11: They're kind of skeptical about abortion, the morality of abortion,
Speaker 11: particularities Latin American immigrants are a lot of people who
Speaker 11: want to vote Republican. I'm not going to vote Republican
Speaker 11: if they feel like they're being insulted every day, right,
Speaker 11: or someone's going to spread some racist theory about their
Speaker 11: group every day. If they're putting those kinds of people
Speaker 11: into power, right, and that I think is the line
Speaker 11: they need to kind of straddle. And I think Vance
Speaker 11: needs to understand this that a lot of what he's
Speaker 11: saying about global capital, a lot of what he's saying
Speaker 11: about families and how hard it is for his family
Speaker 11: are true, and they resonate very well with people for
Speaker 11: for good reason.
Speaker 12: But man, you gotta you got to you gotta take
Speaker 12: race and.
Speaker 11: Culture out of it, right, You've got to understand that
Speaker 11: a lot of the conservative cultural values you value are
Speaker 11: the same ones. Probably a lot of those folks coming
Speaker 11: into Springfield from from Haiti value right. They probably value
Speaker 11: strong families. They're probably kind of skeptical about abortion. They
Speaker 11: probably want good policing. I mean, I haven't heard about
Speaker 11: any big crime wave as a result of these people,
Speaker 11: probably because they're sick of that from where they came from.
Speaker 12: They're happy to be in a.
Speaker 11: Country with a rule blaw with police where people criminals
Speaker 11: do get punished, where if somebody ate.
Speaker 12: A cat, they would be punished for it. Right, we'd
Speaker 12: all hear about it, we all know about it.
Speaker 11: Wouldn't have to work rely on this blurry video that
Speaker 11: Chris Ruppo's sending around, you know, like UFO Bigfoot style, right.
Speaker 2: So, well, we're going to find out if you're right
Speaker 2: or not said, I'm very curious. I'm of several minds
Speaker 2: about it, as we've talked about for ad nauseum. Now
Speaker 2: at the show, I really appreciate you as always, Thank
Speaker 2: you for coming on and we hope to see you
Speaker 2: against you great.
Speaker 4: To see a zad.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So there's been a lot of discussion about
Speaker 1: individual who appears to be a major advisor to President Trump.
Speaker 4: That would be Laura Lumer. And I'll save it for
Speaker 4: Sager to explain who this lady is because she could
Speaker 4: probably do about her job.
Speaker 3: Maybe you should do it so she doesn't. Lumer me.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, so let's go and put her tweet up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is just some of her recent work,
Speaker 1: where she even got a visibility limited warning for hateful
Speaker 1: conduct from Elon Musk's Twitter. She says, if Kamala Harris wins,
Speaker 1: the White House will smell like curry, and White House
Speaker 1: speeches will be facilitated by a call center, and the
Speaker 1: American people will only be able to convey their feedback
Speaker 1: through a customer satisfaction survey. At the end of the
Speaker 1: call that nobody will understand you get it, guys, because
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is half Indian.
Speaker 4: Lol, isn't that funny.
Speaker 1: This is also the lady that went on Tim Poole's
Speaker 1: broadcast and called for Democrats to be executed for treason.
Speaker 1: He actually took down the episode because of her calling
Speaker 1: for the murder mass murder of Democrats. So this is
Speaker 1: the person that we're talking about here. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is something that I've been talking a bit about.
Speaker 1: Sager is twenty sixteen Trump, Tabloid Trump, twenty twenty Trump,
Speaker 1: Fox News Trump twenty twenty four. Trump is like truth
Speaker 1: social Trump, And there is no better emblem of that evolution,
Speaker 1: in my view than his association with this person who's
Speaker 1: been flying on his plane and he's, you know, always
Speaker 1: like louding her and touting how smart she is and
Speaker 1: how insightful, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Well, you asked me earlier in the show, he said,
Speaker 2: what is racist or not? And I think that's pretty
Speaker 2: curly racist. By the way, if you want to know
Speaker 2: the reason why, it is because specifically about the rape
Speaker 2: linking the practice of race to the well documented love
Speaker 2: of white nationalists. Was just talking about how Indians quote
Speaker 2: eat curry and always smell like it. What does she
Speaker 2: say in terms of the link anyway, I won't even
Speaker 2: dignify it. But continuing I think with this vein is
Speaker 2: funny to me. It is recognized now that these people
Speaker 2: around Trump are a problem, specifically by others who previously
Speaker 2: would have backed these people up. So Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 2: being the prime example for me because she then begins
Speaker 2: attacking Laura Lumer.
Speaker 3: Now, the thing is about Lumer. She's been banned and unbanned.
Speaker 2: From social media for like the entire time that I've
Speaker 2: been involved in conservative circles. She's one of those people
Speaker 2: who she calls it getting lumored. That was the jocos
Speaker 2: making earlier, where she can stick a camera in your
Speaker 2: face and ask you a question. I mean, she is
Speaker 2: I think best described as like a genuine like apparatic.
Speaker 2: She recently, after Elon bought Twitter, has been back on
Speaker 2: Twitter and she's been fighting and beefing.
Speaker 3: She's very very pro Trump.
Speaker 2: The only topic I've seen her engage with like outside
Speaker 2: of Trump is on Israel, where she debated Dave Smith earlier.
Speaker 1: Yeah, zero heads just put those extremely extremely pro Israel.
Speaker 4: It's like a key issue for her.
Speaker 3: So that's uh, that's Lumer, I guess in a nutshells.
Speaker 2: It's always been kind of a right wing provocateur. I
Speaker 2: remember seeing her at sea pack and they banned her, and.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she ran for Congress.
Speaker 3: She lost, She ran for Congress, She's lost.
Speaker 1: I mean she's you know, pretty overt with her biases
Speaker 1: and her just insant.
Speaker 3: I don't even know how to describe.
Speaker 2: I mean, she just genuinely is like she takes the
Speaker 2: Trump posting to its most logical conclusion. And what I
Speaker 2: mean by that is just like Trump can never do
Speaker 2: any wrong, Trump is always good, Like Trump must be
Speaker 2: protected at all costs. So she leverages that she'll back
Speaker 2: up basically anything that the guy says, yeah or and
Speaker 2: it's always like an attack dog on the left.
Speaker 3: So that's why they love her.
Speaker 1: And specificiously anti DeSantis too. She shows you it's anyone
Speaker 1: who is oppositional to Trump at all.
Speaker 2: And so that's important because what that means is that
Speaker 2: Trump feels the most comfortable with people like her and
Speaker 2: others who are around him. Everybody around him has to
Speaker 2: validate him at all times and current constantly manages personality,
Speaker 2: which is why I actually thought that they Marjorie Taylor
Speaker 2: Green breaking with la Lumer was interesting because Marjorie previously
Speaker 2: would be one of those people who would you know,
Speaker 2: she's very close with Trump.
Speaker 3: She's always backing up Trump.
Speaker 2: But they've split, maybe only once publicly on the whole
Speaker 2: Kevin McCarthy thing, right.
Speaker 3: But that's basically it. So yeah, she then started to
Speaker 3: attack Lumer. I started to pay attention.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is interesting because she thinks, clearly, Marjorie
Speaker 2: thinks that Lumor is a bad influence on Trump, shouldn't
Speaker 2: be around Trump, and is bad reputationally for him.
Speaker 1: See, I feel like it's more petty interpersonal I see,
Speaker 1: is what I actually think it is, because Lumor has
Speaker 1: his ear. You know, she may have some other parts
Speaker 1: of him, but that will leave that speculation to others.
Speaker 1: They've been very friendly with one another, and I think
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green is jealous of the access that Laura
Speaker 1: Lumoor has right now. In any case, after the Curry tweet,
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green decided this was a bridge too far.
Speaker 1: She put on a Twitter post and she also went
Speaker 1: to the cameras and denounced Laura Lumor.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what she had to say.
Speaker 16: This is such an important election. I don't think that
Speaker 16: she has the experience or the right mentality to advise
Speaker 16: very important. I'm not involved in their conversations, so I
Speaker 16: can't weigh in on that, but I do know this
Speaker 16: that her rhetoric, in her tone is does not.
Speaker 1: Match the base, does.
Speaker 16: Not match MAGA, does not match less Republicans. I know,
Speaker 16: and I am completely denouncing it. I'm over it, and
Speaker 16: I would encourage anyone else that matches her statements to stop.
Speaker 1: So this triggered one of the messiest Twitter fights I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. We can put I'm not going to read
Speaker 1: all of this, guys, but we can put this up
Speaker 1: on this Green just to show you how ugly this
Speaker 1: got and how fast Laura Lumer tweets in part, Hey,
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, remember when you destroyed your family so
Speaker 1: you could have a have sex with a zen gief.
Speaker 4: I don't know what that is.
Speaker 1: Cosplayer, tell me again how you and the RB's in
Speaker 1: your pants are representatives of the GOP. And it went
Speaker 1: on from there, so which also I wanted to put
Speaker 1: up because to give you a sense of Laura Lumer
Speaker 1: and who she is.
Speaker 4: And how she operates anybody.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and Marjorie Taylor Green wasn't the only one
Speaker 1: who came out. I believe Tom Tillis was also Senate
Speaker 1: in North Carolina Republican senator was also coming out against her. Trump.
Speaker 1: This became enough of an issue because it isn't just
Speaker 1: you know about these like messy beefs, but this is
Speaker 1: a genuine question of who has Trump's ear? Why is
Speaker 1: he engaging in some of these seemingly insane tactics and
Speaker 1: indulging some of the seemingly insane conspiracy theories that he
Speaker 1: is indulging seemingly to his campaign's detriment. So he got
Speaker 1: asked about it out on the campaign trail. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to his response.
Speaker 2: You Republican colleagues, are your allies who are concerned about
Speaker 2: your pose relationship with Laura Lumer?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know what they would say.
Speaker 17: Laura has been a supporter of mine, just like a
Speaker 17: lot of people are supporters, and she's been a supporter
Speaker 17: of mine. She speaks very positively of the campaign. I'm
Speaker 17: not sure why you asked that question. But Laura is
Speaker 17: a supporter. I don't control Laura. Laura has to say
Speaker 17: what you want. She's a free spirit.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know.
Speaker 17: I mean, look, I can't tell Laura what to do.
Speaker 17: Laura's a supporter. I have a lot of supporters. But
Speaker 17: so I don't know what exactly you're referring to. That's okay, yeah, please,
Speaker 17: I just don't know. Laura's a supporter. I don't know
Speaker 17: she is. She is a strong person, she's got strong opinions,
Speaker 17: and I don't know what she said.
Speaker 4: But that's not up to me.
Speaker 12: She's a supporter.
Speaker 1: She's a supporter. She's a free spirit. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of supporters. Yeah, but not all those supporters are
Speaker 1: writing on your plane with you. Yeah, then and going
Speaker 1: to the nine to eleven memorial with you and whatever.
Speaker 3: Yeah. She's been pictured with him now several times.
Speaker 2: Put this up there on the screen, like, for example,
Speaker 2: we have multiple photos of them like hugging and being
Speaker 2: around each other. She's made herself like a permanent presence
Speaker 2: at mar al Lago. So it's just demonstrates again the
Speaker 2: same problem that Trump always has, where he will surround
Speaker 2: himself with the people who not only tell him what
Speaker 2: to hear, but like his most loyal people. He believes
Speaker 2: that loyalty is the chief and the most important virtue
Speaker 2: for those who are around him.
Speaker 3: People will always.
Speaker 2: Defend him, especially whenever things get bad for him. He
Speaker 2: did this during Access Hollywood. He would retreat. He would
Speaker 2: surround himself whenever he was president and he would say,
Speaker 2: Charlottesville whatever, he would retreat again to like his closest
Speaker 2: people who would always be willing to back him up.
Speaker 2: Part of the reason that he loves Jesse Waters and
Speaker 2: always Fox News other people because they're always defend him,
Speaker 2: Greg Guttfeld and others, and Lumri fouls in that category.
Speaker 2: I think the people will fly with him around on
Speaker 2: the plane to always sell him what he's doing is good,
Speaker 2: backed him up on stop the steal or any of
Speaker 2: the other stuff.
Speaker 3: And Trump is the most comfortable there.
Speaker 2: And frankly is one of the worst things about him,
Speaker 2: right because that means that he's always never actually getting
Speaker 2: checked by anybody who is around him, and in general,
Speaker 2: you know, on a long enough timeline, these people end
Speaker 2: up triumphing in his personal orbit. Although sometimes he does
Speaker 2: listen if remember this too. He also personally has no loyalty.
Speaker 2: So if she does become a problem, he'll aspire her
Speaker 2: or he'll never see her again, which I could also
Speaker 2: see happening.
Speaker 1: Do you think that he will listen to the criticism
Speaker 1: and distance himself from her.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean I haven't.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen a report that she's been around him yet.
Speaker 2: But at this point, like looking at where things are,
Speaker 2: I don't think it's reached like a critical mass level yet.
Speaker 2: But for him sometimes the bar is if I even
Speaker 2: have to take a question about it, you're done.
Speaker 1: You know that this association is driving Chris Losovita and
Speaker 1: Susie Wiles oh.
Speaker 3: Yeah, crazy. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, they also hate that because that controls that diminishes
Speaker 2: their access to the candidate, because these are exactly type
Speaker 2: of people will be like, don't listen to your advisors,
Speaker 2: don't listen to whatever.
Speaker 3: Everything you do is amazing, and like okay.
Speaker 1: Well, and you can see, you know, in the debate,
Speaker 1: right the first fifteen minutes of Trump are like the
Speaker 1: Chris Losovita fifteen minutes.
Speaker 4: It's you know, it's hitting the points on the economy.
Speaker 1: In the last five minutes where he suddenly remembered like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, I'm supposed to say, like, if you
Speaker 1: were going to all these problems, why didn't you do it?
Speaker 1: And here's the issues and in between was the Laura
Speaker 1: Lumor influence and that's what ends up the problem is
Speaker 1: even if you only have a dash of Laura Lumor,
Speaker 1: which there was more than a dash in that debate performance,
Speaker 1: but what is the what is the thing everyone's talking
Speaker 1: about it after it? It's pets, right, it's they're eating
Speaker 1: the dogs, they're eating the cats, They're eating the pets.
Speaker 1: And so you only need you know, an instant, an
Speaker 1: instant relapse to Laura Lumor mode, and I you know,
Speaker 1: it would not be surprising at all if she was
Speaker 1: the one that was talking in his ear right before
Speaker 1: the debate about that, and then that's what comes out,
Speaker 1: and then that becomes the moment. So in any case,
Speaker 1: interesting drama, interesting infighting playing out. Turfour's playing out, and
Speaker 1: I think also indicative of the fact that they don't
Speaker 1: feel like things are going particularly well for them right now.
Speaker 4: They feel like the Poles should.
Speaker 1: Look better, you know, I think obviously he could win,
Speaker 1: there's no doubt about that. He's the Poles are very close.
Speaker 1: The Electoral College is even closer. But I do think
Speaker 1: they have a sense that things are not going the
Speaker 1: way they want them to go. And when that happens,
Speaker 1: then you start to get all these like ugly messy
Speaker 1: fights too.
Speaker 3: That's a good point, all right, Let's move on.
Speaker 1: So AOS and Jill Stein have been feuding at Jill
Speaker 1: Stein of course being the nominee for the Green Party,
Speaker 1: and in the midst of this feud she has now
Speaker 1: gone on the Breakfast Club and had pretty.
Speaker 4: Like pretty heated exchange.
Speaker 1: With Democrat Artisan Angela Rye. Let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: a little bit of how that went.
Speaker 6: And it is the talking point of AOC the other day,
Speaker 6: who is taking her marching orders from the DNC. This
Speaker 6: is exactly what they say, that we are only running
Speaker 6: for president.
Speaker 18: Color as parenting talking points instead of us looking at
Speaker 18: basic math. The one thing that AOC has done that
Speaker 18: you haven't is win some election. How many voting members
Speaker 18: in the United States House of Representatives Republican, Democrat and independent?
Speaker 3: How many total?
Speaker 6: How many total are there?
Speaker 4: What is it six hundred some?
Speaker 18: No, no, it's four hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 6: But I would like to respond this is the framing
Speaker 6: of the empire and the oligarchy and white supremacy and colonialism,
Speaker 6: which wants you to feel that resistance is futile. This
Speaker 6: is about a voter blaming.
Speaker 18: No, what you're not going to say is that I'm
Speaker 18: ever imperiading anything at the hands of white supremacy. This
Speaker 18: is something that's very different. This is me asking you
Speaker 18: again it's a bible.
Speaker 3: I'm just the same talking points you get.
Speaker 18: This is not DNC talking points. This is my research
Speaker 18: and sadly for you, the research says you have never
Speaker 18: won an election.
Speaker 1: All right, so lot to say about that piece. I
Speaker 1: also want to show you those were some of the pieces.
Speaker 4: That were being shared by liberals who are.
Speaker 3: On the Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, you should know how many members are
Speaker 1: Congress there are that that is legitimately embarrassing. The piece
Speaker 1: that doctor jistein herself wanted to share, let me go
Speaker 1: ahead and show you now where she talks more about,
Speaker 1: you know, her point of view and why she.
Speaker 4: Believes that you should vote for the Green Party. Let's
Speaker 4: take a loss on.
Speaker 6: Every vote cast for our campaign. Is a vote against
Speaker 6: is a shot across the bow of the endless war machine.
Speaker 6: To say that we the people are getting organized, we
Speaker 6: are moving forward, we are growing, We have organization and
Speaker 6: infrastructure that we have never had before. We've never been
Speaker 6: able to break through like we are now because Green's
Speaker 6: have been ahead of the curve on a lot of
Speaker 6: things like climate change, on reparations, on healthcare as a
Speaker 6: human right.
Speaker 1: And I do think that is one of the most
Speaker 1: compelling arguments you can make for the Green Party is
Speaker 1: number one, Trump and Kamala Harris, like Kamala Harris's vice
Speaker 1: president to Joe Biden, both of them are pro genocide,
Speaker 1: so as just like a moral issue, there are certainly
Speaker 1: a significant number of people, especially Muslim Americans, who just
Speaker 1: say I can't support that. I don't care if you
Speaker 1: are lesser, evil, whatever, I just can't support it. And
Speaker 1: then the other piece that I think is her most
Speaker 1: compelling argument is like, listen, we by being out there
Speaker 1: as a sort of protest party, we have pushed the
Speaker 1: conversation on this set of issues around climate change, around reparations,
Speaker 1: around you know, sort of pushing the Overton window of
Speaker 1: what can be discussed in American politics. And I think
Speaker 1: that's legitimate. I think there is a real case to
Speaker 1: be made for that. To get back to a little
Speaker 1: bit of the AOC part, here's part of the argument
Speaker 1: she's been making against jill Stein. She says, nobody needs
Speaker 1: talking points to know jill Stein hasn't won so much
Speaker 1: as a bingo game. If you actually give a damn
Speaker 1: about people, you organize, build power and infrastructure and win.
Speaker 1: Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota, also going in
Speaker 1: on jill Stein for some reason.
Speaker 4: At this point. He says, if you've ever.
Speaker 1: Been annoyed by politicians who only show up at election time,
Speaker 1: then you've got to be annoyed with doctor jill Stein.
Speaker 1: She claims to be an unconventional alternative, but she's nauseatingly conventional.
Speaker 1: She shows up every four years making lavish promises, but
Speaker 1: has no record of producing anything except Republican victories, hard
Speaker 1: pass and the last thing I'll share with you, which
Speaker 1: could be a key to why you see, you know,
Speaker 1: democratic attacks against jill Stein not just from Keith Ellison
Speaker 1: and EOC, but from others as well. At this point
Speaker 1: in Time's put this up on the screen. Polling suggests
Speaker 1: that she's doing quite well among Muslim American voters. This
Speaker 1: is from the Council on American Islamic Relations. It shows her,
Speaker 1: this is Yashar Ali who's tweeting this shows her getting
Speaker 1: a solid share of their votes in key battleground states.
Speaker 1: So in Arizona you've got Jill Stein actually leading the
Speaker 1: field among Muslim voters thirty five percent. Also in Michigan
Speaker 1: critically forty percent. She's winning among Muslim voters. Pennsylvania twenty
Speaker 1: five percent, Wisconsin forty four percent. Again, that's another state
Speaker 1: where she actually leads the field among Muslim voters. So
Speaker 1: you know, as a percent of the population, you're talking
Speaker 1: about a relatively small slice, but small slice could make
Speaker 1: a difference in some of these key states.
Speaker 2: Zaber, Yeah, absolutely, I don't know exactly what we were
Speaker 2: talking about the motivation here. Yeah, Keith Ellison and AOC,
Speaker 2: I mean, the problem for AOC and Keith Ellison is
Speaker 2: that they're the exact people who run up against this
Speaker 2: like party line talk and now are enforcers of it.
Speaker 2: So you, in my I mean, you actually have less credibility.
Speaker 2: So like the people who attack Jill Stein, who are
Speaker 2: just democratic apparatrics, I'm like, yeah, that's fair. Like you know,
Speaker 2: it's like you people believe that the party is a
Speaker 2: solution to everything. But AOC you know, went on the
Speaker 2: DNC stage and said Kam was working tirelessly for a ceasefire,
Speaker 2: as in trying to like fool Gaza.
Speaker 3: Voters, even a voter. I'm like, that's yeah, bullshit.
Speaker 2: You know, like you you are trying to message to
Speaker 2: people incorrectly and lie to them, and Jill Stein is
Speaker 2: telling them the truth. I don't think there's or at
Speaker 2: least the truth in the way that they believe it.
Speaker 2: And that's something that let's take the election out of it,
Speaker 2: as you would probably be on Jill Stein's side if
Speaker 2: there was no Commo, there was no Trump, there was
Speaker 2: no election, Like let's say this was happening in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one. I'm not so sure that she takes a
Speaker 2: current posture that she is right now and the stakes
Speaker 2: weren't as diff as different on other issues. So that's
Speaker 2: where I kind of have an issue where you know,
Speaker 2: you previously ran a guest system. Now your systemic enforce her,
Speaker 2: and you're actively using your old image as a revolutionary
Speaker 2: to go after a chess sign and a third party.
Speaker 3: I think that's wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that at this point I mean, I
Speaker 1: just I think we need to see AOC as decided
Speaker 1: that she is going to try to work within the system, right,
Speaker 1: that's her political She previously had a different political theory
Speaker 1: of change, which was much more adversarial, and she does
Speaker 1: not hold that theory of political change anymore, at least
Speaker 1: she does not act on that theory of political change.
Speaker 1: So I guess I don't see her that different from
Speaker 1: any other like Democratic Party apparatic.
Speaker 4: She is a Democratic Party partisan.
Speaker 3: But you and I follow this day to day. Oh yeah,
Speaker 3: average person is not going.
Speaker 1: To be Yeah, I mean, I guess what I would
Speaker 1: say is a few things. Number one, I don't think
Speaker 1: that this is an intellig I don't think this is
Speaker 1: forty tests from AOC. I don't think this is an
Speaker 1: intelligence strategy because people who have very genuine, extremely legitimate
Speaker 1: moral concerns about voting for a candidate who support a genocide,
Speaker 1: Like if you're just yelling at them and shaming them
Speaker 1: and how kid you and they're just you know, Jill
Speaker 1: Stein's an idiot, Like, I don't think that that's an
Speaker 1: effective pitch. I think you're more likely to harden them
Speaker 1: against the Democratic Party or harden their commitment to voting
Speaker 1: Green parties, so on efficacy, I think it's foolish. There's
Speaker 1: something about this conversation that I've been thinking about that
Speaker 1: really kind of drives me crazy on both sides. Which
Speaker 1: for doctor Jill Stein, like I understand her position too.
Speaker 1: She's trying to win votes for the Green Party and
Speaker 1: that's her job, and she's you know, she's going to
Speaker 1: go out there and make her case and make the
Speaker 1: most compelling case she can as well. But there's a
Speaker 1: discourse around this that assumes that there is a good
Speaker 1: answer to this question, and that that's like there is
Speaker 1: one answer. Either the right thing to do as a
Speaker 1: lefty is to vote for Kam Layers, or the right
Speaker 1: thing to do as a lefty is to vote for
Speaker 1: the Green Party. There's a lot of certainty and a
Speaker 1: lot of like moral outrage around this, and I think
Speaker 1: it is more likely that there just is no good
Speaker 1: answer here, Like you're kind of checkmated. That's how I
Speaker 1: feel like. On the one hand, I think there are
Speaker 1: a lot of very compelling and troubling reasons why I
Speaker 1: do not want to see Donald Trump back in the
Speaker 1: White House. I think those reasons have been on full
Speaker 1: display over the past number of weeks, I think he
Speaker 1: would be worse on Israel. Even if that is like
Speaker 1: the narrow lens of your focus, I think there's something
Speaker 1: powerful and like the French model of this, sort of
Speaker 1: like anti right wing coalition or you could say anti
Speaker 1: fascist coalition that came together to defeat the right wing
Speaker 1: party there. But ultimately, also you're asking people to do
Speaker 1: something that is morally very difficult, and that doesn't move
Speaker 1: you away from the fundamental dynamics of lesser evil voting
Speaker 1: over a long period of time. But it also is
Speaker 1: not clear to me that a vote for the Green
Speaker 1: Party is any sort of a magic bullet either, like
Speaker 1: a silver bullet either, because the point of look, you
Speaker 1: have been running the strategy for a number of years
Speaker 1: and it hasn't disrupted the duopoly. Like the result of
Speaker 1: you getting a significant number of votes in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: was the Democratic Party crushing the left and moving further
Speaker 1: to the right. So it's not like that strategy has
Speaker 1: paid off either. So I think in these like electoral calculations,
Speaker 1: in some ways.
Speaker 4: It's a misplaced focus.
Speaker 1: The better place to focus is probably on, you know,
Speaker 1: building a powerful labor movement and those sort of you know,
Speaker 1: democratic organizing, because I don't think either one of the
Speaker 1: answers to the narrow electoral question are particularly like the
Speaker 1: answer or a good answer.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Fair, But then it's about strategy too. I think Jill
Speaker 2: Stein was on one operating in the way that she's
Speaker 2: supposed to, which is, I'm trying to win votes. The
Speaker 2: AOC one is a negative one of like, no, you
Speaker 2: shouldn't because this is And in general, I think that
Speaker 2: comes back to voter shaming. Yeah, I think voter shaming
Speaker 2: is bad. I think, especially in a democratic.
Speaker 4: I mean it's bad, and I think it's counterproductive.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, oh yeah, Because there's also a lot.
Speaker 1: Of voter shaming that goes in the other direction, not
Speaker 1: from Jill Stein, but of people who are weighing this
Speaker 1: calculation and in the balance want to vote for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of voter shaming at them as well.
Speaker 10: Well.
Speaker 2: For that's kind of stupid too, Yeah, looking shaming people
Speaker 2: because how they vote is dumb, very counterproductive, and historically
Speaker 2: it does not work. It makes people dig in even
Speaker 2: more and in general, you're just not you know. Somebody
Speaker 2: asked a question of recently and they were like, should
Speaker 2: news commentators have to disclose who they vote for? And
Speaker 2: it actually made me realize and like, who you vote
Speaker 2: for actually does not tell you all that much interesting
Speaker 2: stuff about you. For example, if Dick Cheney is voting
Speaker 2: for Kamala and AOC is voting for Kamala, or, do
Speaker 2: those two things give you like an accurate representation of
Speaker 2: their like full sit views. I mean, some people could
Speaker 2: say yes, right, but I don't think actually it is.
Speaker 2: So Instead, you need to look at issues and various
Speaker 2: reasons why. Let's say Muslim people are going to be
Speaker 2: voting for Jill Stein, you might be.
Speaker 3: Making a pretty damn good case.
Speaker 2: And if the case is telling them a lie Comma's
Speaker 2: working tilesty for a ceasefire, yeah, instead of hey, Trump
Speaker 2: will be way worse on Israel.
Speaker 3: I mean that's actually not a bad case, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean sometimes it's an honest case. It's very important. Yeah.
Speaker 2: For example, if you're pro Trump, or or if you
Speaker 2: were one of those people who's like I wanted Trump
Speaker 2: to do X, Y and Z, the common retort from
Speaker 2: the right is like, okay, dude, but Kamala is going
Speaker 2: to be ten times worse and you know, what they're
Speaker 2: not wrong. That's a fine enough case. Sometimes I don't
Speaker 2: want to live that way. But that is true, and
Speaker 2: same true on the Israel issue. But then you should
Speaker 2: be saying that and not she's doing the best possible
Speaker 2: job that she can, cause that's bullshit too. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: that's what bugs that's what.
Speaker 3: Actually bugs me.
Speaker 1: Yes, I agree with all of that.
Speaker 3: All right, Uh wow, long show today. I hope you
Speaker 3: guys enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: We have plenty of We actually had to drop some stuff,
Speaker 2: so we're gonna have even more tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We've already basically got it to the show ready to
Speaker 1: go for tomorrow.
Speaker 3: We'll see you that