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 Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have personal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot to get to you this morning.
Speaker 1: We had the final GOP debate last night. It's a
Speaker 1: bit of it was a bit of a rockets.
Speaker 4: Affair, sure is interesting.
Speaker 3: I did enjoy it.
Speaker 1: It was I think it was actually the best of
Speaker 1: the force. Admittedly that's a low bar, but we will
Speaker 1: show you all of the sort of highlights, low lights
Speaker 1: whatever from that.
Speaker 4: Also, we have a lot of updates coming out of Israel.
Speaker 1: They are preparing to flood those tunnels, more details about
Speaker 1: the hostages and the damage that's being inflicted there, so
Speaker 1: we will bring you all of that. We also have
Speaker 1: Biden saying that he may not be running for re
Speaker 1: election were it not for Trump, which is interesting since
Speaker 1: he's getting exact ass kicked.
Speaker 4: By Trump right now.
Speaker 1: So let's talking about talk about that as well. We
Speaker 1: also have Ukraine Aid failing in the Senate. We have
Speaker 1: Congressman Thomas Massey under fire being smeared as an anti
Speaker 1: Semite for a meme that he posted breaksat down for you,
Speaker 1: and Saga is going to do a deep dive into
Speaker 1: this whole affair with the university presidents, free speech, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: Say about that, a lot to say about it. Anyway,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We just want to take this opportunity just to remind everybody.
Speaker 2: We do have a discount going on for the holiday
Speaker 2: season on our yearly memberships. If you are going to
Speaker 2: be able to help us out, it really means a lot.
Speaker 2: By signing up for a year, you're helping us all
Speaker 2: the way through the election season. And you know, in
Speaker 2: order to fund our efforts, our staff was working overtime
Speaker 2: last night. All of us got very little sleep watching
Speaker 2: the GOP debates, So you don't have to. If you
Speaker 2: appreciate that you can help us out breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: And so with that, let's actually get to the GOP debate.
Speaker 2: What were the highlights the low lights? What do you
Speaker 2: actually need to take away from this? And the top
Speaker 2: line is that vivig Ramaswami Ron DeSantis spent a decent
Speaker 2: portion of their time attacking Nicki Haley because of her
Speaker 2: rise in the polls. Destantus in particular using his very
Speaker 2: first answer to go after Nicki's showing that she really
Speaker 2: is bleeding not only some of the support, but more
Speaker 2: importantly the donor money. So we put together some of
Speaker 2: the attacks from the very first fifteen to twenty minutes
Speaker 2: or so of the debate just to give people a
Speaker 2: taste of what it looked like.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Her donors, these Wall Street liberal donors, they make money
Speaker 5: in China. They are not going to let her be
Speaker 5: tough on China, and she will cave to the donor.
Speaker 5: She will not stand up for you. She said, one
Speaker 5: of the first things I'm gonna do, That's what she said,
Speaker 5: you can roll the tape. She said, I want your name,
Speaker 5: and that was going to be one of the first
Speaker 5: things she did in office. Then she got real serious blowback,
Speaker 5: and understandably so, because it'd be a massive expansion of government.
Speaker 5: It wasn't about the Parents' Rights and Education bill. It
Speaker 5: was about prohibiting sex change operations on minors. They do
Speaker 5: puberty blockers. These are irreversible. Talk to Chloe Cole, she
Speaker 5: went through this. Now she's an adult. She's warning against it.
Speaker 5: She may never be able to have kids again. That
Speaker 5: is what Nicki Haley opposed. She said the law shouldn't
Speaker 5: get involved in that. And I just ask you, if
Speaker 5: you're somebody that's going to be the president of the
Speaker 5: United States and you can't stand up against child abuse,
Speaker 5: how are you going to be able to stand up
Speaker 5: for anything?
Speaker 6: That is the truth we're talking about that transition and
Speaker 6: Nikki Heally's campaign launch video sounded like a woke Dylan
Speaker 6: mulvaney bud lightad talking about how she would kick in heels.
Speaker 6: At the first debate, she said that only a woman
Speaker 6: can get this job done. That's what she said after
Speaker 6: the third debate when I criticized Roni mc daniel after
Speaker 6: five failed years of leadership of this party and criticize
Speaker 6: Nicki for her corrupt foreign dealings as a military contractor,
Speaker 6: she said that I have a woman problem, Nikki. I
Speaker 6: don't have a woman problem, you have a corruption problem.
Speaker 6: And I think that that's where people need to know.
Speaker 6: Niki is corrupt. This is a woman who will send
Speaker 6: your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house.
Speaker 3: This is the problem.
Speaker 6: Using identity politics more effectively than Kamala Harris is a
Speaker 6: form of intellectual flaw.
Speaker 3: And actually needstand there's.
Speaker 6: Our donor puppet masters wielding their puppet right up here tonight.
Speaker 6: This is how this game is played. The puppet masters
Speaker 6: put up their puppet and I reject the use of
Speaker 6: identity politics in this party.
Speaker 7: And in terms of these donors that are supporting me,
Speaker 7: they're just jealous. They wish that they were supporting them.
Speaker 7: But I'm not gonna sit there until.
Speaker 3: And Matt Crystal is the absolute state of where we are.
Speaker 2: Who's bragging about Wall Street donors switching support? Genuinely grotesque,
Speaker 2: But thank you to our team, by the way, they
Speaker 2: did a fantastic up cutting all of that up. As
Speaker 2: you can see, knives are out for Nicky Haley. Why well,
Speaker 2: she's quickly coming into the number two position in Iowa
Speaker 2: and in New Hampshire, and she also obviously has a
Speaker 2: structural advantage in the state of South Carolina where she's
Speaker 2: a former governor and she's currently pulling their number two
Speaker 2: to Trump. But I think the most important takeaway really
Speaker 2: was DeSantis and Vivek DeSantis more so suffering because Americans
Speaker 2: were prosperity that coke back organization endorsing Nicki Haley and
Speaker 2: giving throwing absolutely billions and billions of dollars behind her
Speaker 2: bed on top of liberal billionaires people like Reid Hoffman
Speaker 2: and others who are supporting her campaign. So she is
Speaker 2: the she's the new it girl of the Republican establishment,
Speaker 2: or at least the anti Trump establishment, as we showed
Speaker 2: people as well with that Paul Ryan clipp earlier this week.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And this is most of all an existential threat to
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis. Truly like a potentially campaign ending threat
Speaker 1: to Ron DeSantis because he decided he's going to run
Speaker 1: his campaign in this different way of instead of having
Speaker 1: most of the money come in directly to his campaign,
Speaker 1: where you have limits on how much individuals can contribute,
Speaker 1: that he was going to rely on a few massive donors,
Speaker 1: billionaire donors.
Speaker 4: To contribute to a super pack.
Speaker 1: We covered previously how that super pack is now in
Speaker 1: total disarray, and then when you have donors fleeing him.
Speaker 1: Moving to Nicki, this is a major issue for him
Speaker 1: because he's not like a Donald Trump to have like
Speaker 1: the grassroots support to be able to raise tons of money,
Speaker 1: or like a Bernie Sanders or you know that type
Speaker 1: of candidate. He always was very reliant and explicitly from
Speaker 1: the beginning on a lot of big donor money. That's
Speaker 1: not like slam, that's just reality. So now he's trying
Speaker 1: to turn it around and be like, oh, she's corrupt
Speaker 1: because all these billionaires are backing her, and in that respect,
Speaker 1: she's one hundred percent accurate when she's like, well, actually
Speaker 1: run the problems.
Speaker 4: You're just jealous.
Speaker 1: Yes, My overall read of this debate was I thought
Speaker 1: both Nicki and Ron seemed a little more on edge,
Speaker 1: a little nervous.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I think because they know this is the last debate,
Speaker 1: like this is your last chance to change the trajectory.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it was no mystery to Nikki that she
Speaker 1: was going to be taking a lot of fire coming in.
Speaker 1: I think rond de Santis, who in previous debates has
Speaker 1: been happy to kind of sit back and let other
Speaker 1: people exchange fire and let other people do the attacking.
Speaker 1: He knew he really needed to go on the offense
Speaker 1: this time because his campaign is sort of slipping away
Speaker 1: from him. Not to be clear, he's still in second
Speaker 1: place overall in the national polls, but clearly Nikki is
Speaker 1: sort of eating into his game here, so he knew
Speaker 1: he had to go on the offense. I don't think
Speaker 1: that is a particularly comfortable position for him. That's how
Speaker 1: it came off. So I didn't think either one of
Speaker 1: them really came out as an outright winner here. If
Speaker 1: the contest was between who did better rond De Santis
Speaker 1: than Nicki Haley in terms of positioning themselves as the
Speaker 1: top Trump alternative, it was kind of a wash, which
Speaker 1: is probably at this point good for Nicki Haley since
Speaker 1: she's got the donors lining up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I exactly, she's got the money.
Speaker 2: DeSantis was not comfortable at all coming out hitting her
Speaker 2: at the gate. Vi Vega is a far more effective
Speaker 2: and I think just more comfortable because he's been like
Speaker 2: that from the beginning as an attack dog against her,
Speaker 2: and there were some ideological fissures that did open up
Speaker 2: there was a very long exchange on Ukraine, which we're
Speaker 2: about to play for everyone because it's very revealing.
Speaker 3: In a couple of things.
Speaker 2: Viveg asked Nikki Haley to name three oo blasts inside
Speaker 2: of Ukraine. She doesn't immediately do it. Later on she
Speaker 2: does and incorrectly is unable to name three. But it
Speaker 2: was a productive exchange because it revealed also some Chris
Speaker 2: Christie coming in trying to white night on Nikki Haley's behalf.
Speaker 2: He tried to pull out some of the old Christie magic,
Speaker 2: basically calling Vivek annoying, which is look, let's all be honest.
Speaker 2: So there were blows exchanged in every direction, and this
Speaker 2: is definitely, I think one of the most fiery exchanges.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen. We'll give you our reaction on
Speaker 3: the other side. It takes an outsider to see this through.
Speaker 3: Look at the blank expression.
Speaker 6: She doesn't know the names of the prophecies that she
Speaker 6: wants to actually fight for. And there's a company movie donors,
Speaker 6: the donors right there.
Speaker 8: Let me just say something here, you know, his reasonable
Speaker 8: piece steal in Ukraine made it clear, give them all
Speaker 8: the land they've already stolen. Promise Putin, you'll never put
Speaker 8: Ukraine in Russia and then trust Putin.
Speaker 3: Not to have a relationship with China. Let me tell
Speaker 3: you something that's no reasonable.
Speaker 8: Yes, it's exactly what you said. You do this at
Speaker 8: every debate. I did interrupt you. Okay, you say this,
Speaker 8: You do this. You do this at every debate. You
Speaker 8: go out on the stuff and you say something. All
Speaker 8: of us see it on video.
Speaker 3: We confront you out on the debate stage.
Speaker 8: You say you didn't say it, and then you back away,
Speaker 8: And I want.
Speaker 3: To say, I'm not done yet. Well this is look.
Speaker 8: Say something. This is the fourth debate, the fourth debate
Speaker 8: that you would be voted in the first twenty minutes
Speaker 8: as the most not just blow hard in America.
Speaker 6: Shut up for a w.
Speaker 3: Want to say something else.
Speaker 8: We're now twenty five minutes into this debate, and he
Speaker 8: has insulted Nicki Haley's basic intelligence, not her positions, her
Speaker 8: basic intelligence. She doesn't know regions. She wouldn't be able
Speaker 8: to find something on a map that his three year
Speaker 8: old could find. Look, if you want to disagree on issues,
Speaker 8: that's fine, And Nicki and I disagree on some issues,
Speaker 8: but I'll tell you this. I've known her for twelve years,
Speaker 8: which is longer than he's even started to vote in
Speaker 8: a Republican primary.
Speaker 6: Chris, your version of foreign policy experience was closing a
Speaker 6: bridge from New Jersey to New York.
Speaker 3: So do everybody a favor.
Speaker 6: Just walk yourself off that stage, enjoy a nice.
Speaker 3: Meal, and get the hell out of this place.
Speaker 6: When it comes to NICKI I think if you're gonna
Speaker 6: actually send your sons and daughters to go in somebody
Speaker 6: else's board, excuse me, Chris, I'm speaking and I'm not
Speaker 6: done yet.
Speaker 3: I haven't heard a time we're going to be done.
Speaker 6: So listen up to this is if these people want
Speaker 6: to send your sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine,
Speaker 6: They've been arguing for it for a year, two hundred
Speaker 6: billion dollars of our taxpayer money sent over. Neither of
Speaker 6: them could even name for you the provinces that they
Speaker 6: actually want to protect.
Speaker 2: Wow, so cneitherum could. There was so much I think
Speaker 2: going on there, Crystal. I will say about this about
Speaker 2: Chris Christy, the guy who I believe at one point,
Speaker 2: what did he say he told a voter to piss
Speaker 2: on their flag at.
Speaker 3: Some point during it was in the twenty twelves.
Speaker 2: It's been a long time the guy who became popular
Speaker 2: for being like the hard nosed, outspoken person who would
Speaker 2: even insult what teachers unions all. Oh yeah, so now
Speaker 2: he has a problem with going after people questioning their
Speaker 2: basic intelligence. What are we doing here, Mary, you're lecturing
Speaker 2: us all about decorum. You're you are one of the
Speaker 2: people who became famous for rejecting it. That said, the
Speaker 2: exchange and overall that you saw there is that. Obviously,
Speaker 2: there is an intense amount of personal animus. I think
Speaker 2: at this point between all three of them, Dessant is
Speaker 2: kind of just trying to sit back through.
Speaker 3: All of it.
Speaker 2: But I mean ideology also is a little bit below
Speaker 2: it because the fundamental difference there was on Ukraine, on aid,
Speaker 2: and really just on foreign policy in general, that it
Speaker 2: was happening throughout it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so let's talk about the substance first. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously I thought I'm much more in line with the
Speaker 1: vagus fuse there. And I think when he says about
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley, he had that line that we played in
Speaker 1: the other matchup, that's like, she wants to send your
Speaker 1: sons and daughters to die in a war that just
Speaker 1: so she can get a bigger house. I mean that
Speaker 1: Lands and all the commentary. There's a reason why he's
Speaker 1: leaning into the attack on her that she's a corrupt,
Speaker 1: you know, puppet of the establishment, puppet of the billionaire class.
Speaker 1: It's an attack that he can make much more cleanly
Speaker 1: and effectively than Ron De Santis, both because of a
Speaker 1: skill level and also because Nikki Haley is right, he's
Speaker 1: just jealous that these donors have.
Speaker 4: Left him at this point.
Speaker 1: In terms of Chris Christy, this was the first debate
Speaker 1: that he actually showed up for. You know, his performance
Speaker 1: in this debate was more of what I was expecting
Speaker 1: from him the entire time, And so I thought, even
Speaker 1: though on the substance some more with Viveke on this,
Speaker 1: I did think Chris Christie was effective in that moment
Speaker 1: of bodying Viveke calling him out to be obnoxious blow hard.
Speaker 1: If I had to say, you know who did the
Speaker 1: best in this debate, I would say it was either
Speaker 1: Vivike or Chris Christie. Like they were the best performers
Speaker 1: in this debate, and I think are just generally more
Speaker 1: politically talented than either Nikki Haley or Ron De Santis.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that the Republican base just doesn't
Speaker 1: really like either one of them. I mean, Vivike, I
Speaker 1: really genuinely think it's not a policy issue, it's a
Speaker 1: personality issue.
Speaker 4: I'm not trying to be mean. I just think that
Speaker 4: people don't vibe with them.
Speaker 1: With Chris Christie, it's obviously his opposition to Trump, Like
Speaker 1: there's just only so much of the GOP base that
Speaker 1: wants to hear that. That was very evident in the
Speaker 1: debate last night, And there were all sorts of things
Speaker 1: that I that he said that I had a lot
Speaker 1: of policy problems with.
Speaker 4: But I did think he had a.
Speaker 1: Good moment at the beginning when he talked about listen
Speaker 1: he kind of it reminded me of Andrew Yang when
Speaker 1: he called out the theatrics of we're all up here
Speaker 1: with our makeup on, like what are we really doing?
Speaker 1: He called out the absurdity of we're doing this whole debate,
Speaker 1: we're living in this fantasy world where one of us
Speaker 1: is going to be the nominee, when in reality, this
Speaker 1: other dude, Donald Trump, is kicking our butts and no
Speaker 1: one's even talking about him, and all three of y'all
Speaker 1: are too scared to say a negative word about him.
Speaker 1: And again, it may not be the message that Republican
Speaker 1: voters necessarily want to hear, but it was true. And
Speaker 1: it's always refreshing when you have that moment where you
Speaker 1: sort of pierce the veil call out the absurdity of
Speaker 1: the theatrics that are playing out in front of you. And
Speaker 1: that is part of what has been so surreal about
Speaker 1: all of these debates is you've had this element in
Speaker 1: the room. You've had this preposterous, like fantasy world where
Speaker 1: one of these people is actually in position to be
Speaker 1: the nominee when that's just not remotely close to the
Speaker 1: case at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that really is a perfect segue to our next clip,
Speaker 2: because this is Chris Christie actually really on Ron desandis
Speaker 2: on whether Trump is fit to hold office and whether
Speaker 2: he thinks that he's mentally unfit to serve because of
Speaker 2: how old he is. Christy really tried to get him
Speaker 2: on the substance here of like actually to answer the question,
Speaker 2: let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: What is he just answer the question? The question was
Speaker 8: very direct, is he fit to be president? Or isn't
Speaker 8: he The rest of the speech is interesting but completely
Speaker 8: non responsive. And if we were in a courtroom, they'd
Speaker 8: strike the answer and say, Governor DeSantis, the smaller they
Speaker 8: would they would they would strike the answer because you're
Speaker 8: not answering. You have a thing we dose. The thing is.
Speaker 3: You're talking.
Speaker 8: Ron.
Speaker 5: Do you think we have an opportunity to somebody in
Speaker 5: the part you don't have to worry about.
Speaker 2: We can get it.
Speaker 3: We'll do it. I'm gonna come to you finish.
Speaker 5: Look, father time is undefeated. I don't know how he
Speaker 5: would score on a test, but I know this. We
Speaker 5: have an opportunity to nominate someone and elect someone for
Speaker 5: two terms who's going to be spinning nails on day
Speaker 5: one and for eight years, big result. We should not
Speaker 5: laminate somebody. You won't who's almost eighty years old. He's
Speaker 5: afraid to answer.
Speaker 2: Well, he's afraid to answer pretty Uh. I don't know, Christal,
Speaker 2: what do you think that was?
Speaker 7: He went?
Speaker 1: He went back to this with Rond de Santis a
Speaker 1: number of times, and it sort of reminded me of
Speaker 1: the way that he didn't Filet DeSantis as effectively as
Speaker 1: he did Marco Rubio, but it had that energy of
Speaker 1: he called out Marco Rubio for having these sort of
Speaker 1: like slickly memorized talking points, and right as he's doing that,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio cues up a repetition of the slickly polished
Speaker 1: talking points he'd already recited. And he kind of had
Speaker 1: that same approach with Ron DeSantis here because repeatedly he
Speaker 1: went back to this, dude can't even answer the questquestion
Speaker 1: like it's a basic question. He asked you a basic question,
Speaker 1: is he fit or not? Will you answer the question?
Speaker 1: And he just ends up looking extremely weasily. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think even people who really like Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: don't want to hear that he's unfit for office, they
Speaker 1: also don't like the fact that they can clearly see
Speaker 1: him maneuvering in real time and not wanting to answer
Speaker 1: this very direct, very simple question put to him. I mean,
Speaker 1: what they want to hear from him is yes, he's fit.
Speaker 1: But obviously DeSantis is uncomfortable saying that because he doesn't
Speaker 1: really believe it, and because he's trying to go up
Speaker 1: against this guy, and so all of the political maneuvering
Speaker 1: and this like weasley politician e vibe comes out when
Speaker 1: Chris Christy is calling him out on that, So you know,
Speaker 1: I thought he bodied DeSantis a number of times on
Speaker 1: that same point of like you get asked a question
Speaker 1: and you can't answer the freaking question, typical politician.
Speaker 3: I thought, actually it was effective.
Speaker 2: And this is again where Christy because he doesn't really care,
Speaker 2: he's really just running as a foil to Trump. Was
Speaker 2: good because he was like, these three jokers are all,
Speaker 2: you know, pretend and then looking past they running against Trump,
Speaker 2: but they can't say anything bad about him on that.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's obviously effective, but this is the central
Speaker 2: GOP conundrum. You also saw DeSantis there. So there's been
Speaker 2: some reporting behind the scenes Crystal that he's been telling
Speaker 2: voters He's like, people just don't want to hear criticism
Speaker 2: of Trump.
Speaker 3: He was twisting himself in knots.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was like, well, we need a new generation,
Speaker 2: and Chris was like, no, is he mentally unfit or not.
Speaker 3: He's like, well, he.
Speaker 2: Would be the same age as Joe Biden or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's look, I think people see through. I would have
Speaker 2: expected him more if he's just like, yeah, he's too old.
Speaker 2: He's not mentally unfit. He was unfit whenever he was
Speaker 2: president because he couldn't get things done, and that's why
Speaker 2: I'll do it so try not to validate the liberal attack.
Speaker 2: But the problem is just any time he even rhymes
Speaker 2: with the criticism of the left has given people are
Speaker 2: just gonna write you off. I mean, he saw too,
Speaker 2: Chris Christy. He was getting booed the entire time, even
Speaker 2: by these like you know, GOP neo con donors who
Speaker 2: are pro Nikki Haley, so even they are pro Trump, Like,
Speaker 2: you're in a tough spot there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, You're in a tough spot.
Speaker 1: This has always been the bind. This is why I've
Speaker 1: always thought from the beginning. You could go back and
Speaker 1: watch our commentary from the early, very early days when
Speaker 1: it looked like Ronnie d might have a real chance,
Speaker 1: and we were saying there is a central conundrum here,
Speaker 1: which is Donald Trump owns this party. He dominates this party,
Speaker 1: and I do not see a lane for someone to
Speaker 1: be critical of him that people really want to hear.
Speaker 1: I don't see how you're going to be able to
Speaker 1: make the case against him in a way that is
Speaker 1: going to move the base significantly off of him. And
Speaker 1: that is exactly what is played out. You know, the
Speaker 1: times when he has gone a little bit harder at Trump.
Speaker 1: There's been a backlash against him. Then there's a reason
Speaker 1: why Chris Christi is at you know, five percent or
Speaker 1: whatever he is in the polls, because that's about the
Speaker 1: size of the appetite for the anti Trump message within
Speaker 1: the Republican Party at this point. So, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's always perhaps in a different world, if there was
Speaker 1: someone who was just extraordinarily politically skilled, maybe there's a
Speaker 1: case that they could prosecute against Trump with a Republican
Speaker 1: Party base that people would hear. Ron DeSantis is not
Speaker 1: that man, and I'm honestly not sure that anyone could
Speaker 1: really effectively do that at this point, especially when there's
Speaker 1: just such a sense with the Republican base he's our guy,
Speaker 1: and he's under siege and we've got to back him up,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. It's years of conditioning that have
Speaker 1: gone in to the sense that any attack on him
Speaker 1: is ipso facto illegitimate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because this is the thing, you Trump is not
Speaker 2: even really affirmatively running. He is like the anti candidate
Speaker 2: in that he's the bulwark on which the liberals attack,
Speaker 2: and so because people hate liberals, they support Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 2: actually saw I need to see. There was a clip
Speaker 2: from Tucker Carlson where he said, quote, I became an
Speaker 2: active Trump supporter when they rated mar Lago last summer.
Speaker 2: That just can't stand I'm voting for Trump and that
Speaker 2: I actually thought that was the perfect crystallization of why
Speaker 2: people support him within the GOP and why the mar
Speaker 2: a Lago raid if anything, really sealed his fate as
Speaker 2: the GOP nominee. They're like, if the FBI is going
Speaker 2: after him, we have to support. It's nothing positive everything,
Speaker 2: it's just people who we don't like are persecuting him.
Speaker 3: Thus we need to do this.
Speaker 2: Also, why DeSantis is a central thesis around why he's like,
Speaker 2: I'm the guy who get things done. It's like, dude,
Speaker 2: I wish we lived in that world. People do not
Speaker 2: Primary voters at least do not care about that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: one iota. They don't care about that. That's the central
Speaker 2: They also don't believe it. Yeah, they don't think that
Speaker 2: he good's and effective. They don't think he didn't get
Speaker 2: anything done. I mean, probably the best argument for Rond
Speaker 2: de Santis was like the electability one, which he can't
Speaker 2: even make anymore because Donald Trump is winning like every poll.
Speaker 2: So people, if there was even a question at any point,
Speaker 2: which I was never convinced that it was that strong
Speaker 2: of an argument anyway, but if there was even a
Speaker 2: question at any point of his electability, that shop has sailed.
Speaker 2: So you know, I mean, it's also like a bed
Speaker 2: of their own making. All of these people spent years
Speaker 2: never criticizing Trump, never calling out when when he was
Speaker 2: failing to get things done, when he was failing to
Speaker 2: keep promises that were important to them or report to
Speaker 2: the Republican base, and so now to turn around and
Speaker 2: be like, well, actually his term in office was a disaster.
Speaker 2: I just didn't really say so at the time. Again,
Speaker 2: people aren't going to really believe you when you were
Speaker 2: singing a different tune for so many years. So in
Speaker 2: a sense, you know, they've sort of put themselves in
Speaker 2: this box.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker 2: And then finally we had to end on this because
Speaker 2: this is on the Hayley side. People do forget how
Speaker 2: authoritarian this woman really can be. There were moments around
Speaker 2: anonymity online and all that, and there's a lot to
Speaker 2: be said about that, but listen to what she lays
Speaker 2: out about the censorship regime. On Israel that she would
Speaker 2: enact if she were president. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: If this had been the KKK that was doing protest
Speaker 7: on those campuses, every one of those college presidents would
Speaker 7: have been up in arms. This is just as bad
Speaker 7: the idea that they would go and allow that kind
Speaker 7: of pro hamas protest, or agree with the genocide of
Speaker 7: Jews and try and say that they needed context on that.
Speaker 7: There is no context to that. This is what we
Speaker 7: need to do to deal with it. First of all,
Speaker 7: we have got to get foreign money out of our universities.
Speaker 7: You've got air of money, You've got Chinese money, You've
Speaker 7: got others. We need to go to every university and
Speaker 7: say you either take foreign money or you take American money.
Speaker 7: But the days of taking both are over. The second
Speaker 7: thing we need to do. The second thing we need
Speaker 7: to do is we need Biden made a mistake not
Speaker 7: including anti Zionism in the definition of anti semitism. If
Speaker 7: you don't think that Israel has a right to exist,
Speaker 7: that is anti Semitic. We will change the definition so
Speaker 7: that every government, every school has to acknowledge the definition.
Speaker 4: For what it is.
Speaker 2: Okay, So we will change the definition so that every
Speaker 2: school has to acknowledge what it is. That's basically a
Speaker 2: national BDS law, which has already at the state level.
Speaker 2: Crystal been struck down in Georgia when Abby Martin successfully
Speaker 2: went against him, not stopping her though, from saying that.
Speaker 3: So, between the anonymity online.
Speaker 2: The calls for war with Iran, the censor to the
Speaker 2: mass like censorship regime here in terms of compelled speech
Speaker 2: on campus, there's quite a bit going on. And as
Speaker 2: Crystal said, I am doing a monologue about this, I
Speaker 2: have quite a bit disabled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's just like a pure authoritary instincts
Speaker 1: like I'm going to divide, I'm going to devise what
Speaker 1: speech is acceptable and what speech isn't acceptable. I know
Speaker 1: I've said this a million times, but Zionism is a
Speaker 1: political ideology. Okay, it's a political ideology. We have to
Speaker 1: be able to critique any political ideology. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: make you a racist, it doesn't make you an anti
Speaker 1: semi In fact, quite the opposite. To insist that every
Speaker 1: Jewish person must be a Zionist is in fact incredibly
Speaker 1: anti semitic. To paint with the broad brush of any
Speaker 1: demographic group is like the definition of bigotry and racism.
Speaker 1: So that's part of why I find this incredibly disgusting.
Speaker 1: Of course, it raises many Jewish people who have opposed
Speaker 1: Zionism or had a critique of Zionism, etc. So it's
Speaker 1: it's completely insane, and it's insane. I know you're going
Speaker 1: to get into this soger, but I just have to say, like,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's such a fake moral panic too.
Speaker 1: They don't even point to speci cific examples of people
Speaker 1: that the things that people actually said on college campuses,
Speaker 1: and for this to be your primary focus while what
Speaker 1: is going on in Gaza is going on in Gaza,
Speaker 1: it's so clearly designed to distract from the horrors that
Speaker 1: people are seeing unfolding in front of their eyes. So
Speaker 1: it just it's discussed me on every level, And especially
Speaker 1: because the Republican Party spent so much time pretending to
Speaker 1: be against cancel culture and in favor of free speech,
Speaker 1: and then like that they turn on the dime and
Speaker 1: are ready to be as authoritarian as they possibly can
Speaker 1: in service of their own political ideology. At least Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley here she also said this insane thing that we
Speaker 1: were both laughing about, how being on TikTok makes you
Speaker 1: seventeen percent more anti Semitic.
Speaker 4: I'm like, what the hell? Or prohomas that's what it was.
Speaker 2: For every thirty minutes they spend on TikTok, you become
Speaker 2: seventeen percent more What.
Speaker 4: Hell are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Yes, race is back.
Speaker 2: So I found out it traces back to some fake
Speaker 2: study made of like thirteen hundred people of people who
Speaker 2: spent time on TikTok at the time that they were
Speaker 2: then served what is what the researcher is classified as
Speaker 2: quote unquote pro Hamas and or pro Palestinia content.
Speaker 3: So that is the root of this idiocy.
Speaker 2: I actually twittered this morning cristal studies show every thirty
Speaker 2: minute spent listening to Nikki Haley, you become one hundred
Speaker 2: and seventeen percent.
Speaker 4: So check that that checks out.
Speaker 3: Now that checks out.
Speaker 1: I actually I saw that study you're talking about, and
Speaker 1: they can. Of course, they conflated like anti semitism with
Speaker 1: just being yes pro Palestinian are having a critique of Zionism,
Speaker 1: and in Nikki Haley's brain, apparently, if you're you know,
Speaker 1: anti Zionist, you're also anti Semitic. So that's where this
Speaker 1: complete absurdity comes from instead of just looking very clearly
Speaker 1: at the demographic numbers and going, oh, a lot of
Speaker 1: young people are on TikTok, and guess what. Young people
Speaker 1: don't agree with your decades of propaganda on this conflict,
Speaker 1: and that's what's actually going on here. But that you
Speaker 1: could have such words come out of your mouth and
Speaker 1: not realize how preposterous and absurd they.
Speaker 4: Are is disgraceful.
Speaker 1: She just drives me crazy on every level, Like her
Speaker 1: policy is terrible, but it makes the right. She's completely
Speaker 1: corrupt to do whatever the donors want her to do,
Speaker 1: and so it disgusts me to see the way that
Speaker 1: they're all lining up behind her arms happy to see
Speaker 1: your take on some water here. Do I think it'll
Speaker 1: stop her? You know, marginal rise in the polls.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: And this is the last thing that I'll say.
Speaker 1: I've been thinking more about because previously I said, you know,
Speaker 1: I think DeSantis this is probably still true, but he'll
Speaker 1: probably stick around through Iowa. If he loses, Io will
Speaker 1: probably drop out. I do think that there's a possibility
Speaker 1: that he drops before that. And here's why I was
Speaker 1: thinking about, you know, Pete Bootagie in that moment when
Speaker 1: Obama calls and everybody circles away and everybody drops out
Speaker 1: except for Elizabeth Warren very conveniently, and that's how they're
Speaker 1: able to hand the nomination to Joe Biden. They're not idiots,
Speaker 1: you know, the donor class of Republican Party, or you know,
Speaker 1: even liberal donors like Reid Hoffman, who are just very
Speaker 1: anti Trump.
Speaker 4: They realize that if they have multiple.
Speaker 1: Trump opponents in the race, this is a problem for them,
Speaker 1: and any prayer they have of defeating defeating him as
Speaker 1: a GOP nominee is shot if they've got even just
Speaker 1: Ron and Nicky still hanging out in the race. And
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis is very dependent for his political future on
Speaker 1: whatever that donor class thinks about him. So they definitely
Speaker 1: do have some leverage with him. So it's not crazy
Speaker 1: to me to imagine they don't have a kingmaker the
Speaker 1: way that the Democratic Party has Obama. But it's not
Speaker 1: crazy for me to imagine some group of donors getting
Speaker 1: together behind the scenes pressuring him, you know, providing some
Speaker 1: sort of incentive for Okay, after you've done with governor,
Speaker 1: this is what we're gonna you know, what we've got
Speaker 1: lined up for you. These are the types of things
Speaker 1: that will be possible for you or you could get
Speaker 1: this gig in a potential Nicky Haley administration or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's not crazy for me to imagine that that could happen,
Speaker 1: because he is dependent on them, both for a political
Speaker 1: future and also for a private sector future after he's done,
Speaker 1: you know, being governor.
Speaker 3: Soide I could see you too. It's certainly possible, certainly possible.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go ahead and move on to the
Speaker 1: very late out of Israel. So go ahead and put
Speaker 1: these pictures up on the screen. What we're hearing is
Speaker 1: that there is a plan to flood the Hamas tunnels.
Speaker 1: You can see these sort of like you know, big
Speaker 1: tube hoses whatever being attached from the sea and run
Speaker 1: along the shore here. And this is something that has
Speaker 1: been reported. There are a lot of problems with this.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. A lot of people
Speaker 1: who are sounding alarms about the way that using the
Speaker 1: sea water to flush out the tunnels could harm Gaza's
Speaker 1: fresh water for generations. Multiple academics saying this, because I
Speaker 1: mean this makes sense. You have basically one sweetwater aquifier
Speaker 1: that Gaza has access to already. It has been pumped
Speaker 1: effectively dry. It's already been contaminated with seawater, so it's
Speaker 1: basically brackish at this point. So already it's not in
Speaker 1: great shape. If you additionally pump all of this seawater
Speaker 1: into these tunnels and it further contaminates that aquifier, you
Speaker 1: could really be in trouble in terms of the water
Speaker 1: supply in Gaza for years and years to come. There's
Speaker 1: another issue here, which is counterpoints reported on the fact
Speaker 1: that some of the hostages who have been released at this.
Speaker 4: Point just went in on Netanyahuo's.
Speaker 1: Screaming at him for not doing more to get them out,
Speaker 1: for the fact that they're ignorant of where they're being held,
Speaker 1: for how much risk they were exposed to that they
Speaker 1: actually said, we were terrified that we were going to
Speaker 1: get killed by an IDF bomb, and then you're going
Speaker 1: to blame it on Humas. So one of the concerns
Speaker 1: here I'll just read from you. Swiman says, my husband
Speaker 1: was separated from us three days before we returned to
Speaker 1: Israel and taking to the tunnels, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: washing the tunnels with seawater, You're shelling the root of
Speaker 1: tunnels in the exact area where they are, an unidentified
Speaker 1: former hostage told officials in that private meeting on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: So effectively, they're saying, you have no idea where that
Speaker 1: hostages are. You've never had any idea where the hostages
Speaker 1: are being held. And if you're talking about drowning these
Speaker 1: tunnels in seawater, you are putting them at extreme risk
Speaker 1: at this point. So that's one of the dynamics that's
Speaker 1: playing out.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 1: The other thing that I would point to here sober
Speaker 1: and let's put this up on the screen is Human
Speaker 1: Rights Watch has now documented via satellite imagery that Israel
Speaker 1: has raised orchards, They've destroyed greenhouses, they've destroyed farmland, all
Speaker 1: in northern Gaza. This has been raised since the beginning
Speaker 1: of Israel's ground invasion, compounding concerns of dire food insecurity
Speaker 1: and loss of livelihood. And you can see those satellite
Speaker 1: images of this agricultural land in the greenhouses and the
Speaker 1: way that's now completely been destroyed. And you know, no
Speaker 1: justification has been given for this in terms of, oh,
Speaker 1: this is Hamas is hiding in the greenhouse or whatever.
Speaker 1: It seems to track more with that report from nine
Speaker 1: to seven to two about how the real goal is
Speaker 1: to shock quote unquote the civilian population and hope that
Speaker 1: maybe they'll turn on Hamas if things get hard enough
Speaker 1: for them. So destroying the groundwater, destroying the orchards and
Speaker 1: farmland and greenhouses, etc. Is very consistent with that approach
Speaker 1: that has now been documented at this point about what
Speaker 1: Israel's real goals are right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the orchard thing actually attracts It's interesting.
Speaker 2: So Kissinger's death has prompted me to go back and
Speaker 2: reread a lot of stuff on Vietnam, and there's actually
Speaker 2: quite a lot of parallels between the initial actions of
Speaker 2: the United States and Vietnam nineteen sixty four through sixty
Speaker 2: six before the mass infusion of ground invasions during.
Speaker 3: The bombing campaign.
Speaker 2: The bombing campaign on North Vietnam and on South Vietnamese
Speaker 2: territory that was against Vietcong was built on one strategy.
Speaker 2: We're going to have US advisors, They're not going to
Speaker 2: be directly engaged in ground combat. We're going to bomb
Speaker 2: the North Vietnamese population into either submission, degrade them militarily,
Speaker 2: and then we're also going to target as much of
Speaker 2: the countryside of South Vietnam as possible that the VC
Speaker 2: are using so that the population will rise up against
Speaker 2: the VC and join the South Vietnamese.
Speaker 3: Does anybody want to guess how that turned out?
Speaker 2: And that was similar campaign in terms of the bombing,
Speaker 2: in terms of what type of targets were selected, both
Speaker 2: military and civilian. And what most reminded me of it though,
Speaker 2: was the over reliance on air power and the under
Speaker 2: reliance on any sort of sustainable strategic policy. For people
Speaker 2: who want to check my work, you can go and
Speaker 2: read all the debates inside the Johnson administration at that
Speaker 2: time when they weren't lying to our faces, they actually
Speaker 2: were admitting some of this behind the scenes, and it
Speaker 2: is eventually the failure of that strategy is exactly why
Speaker 2: President Johnson unfortunately decided to send hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 2: American troops there and go in a different direction. But
Speaker 2: the point being that the bombing to compel the population
Speaker 2: itself and specifically to try and get the population to
Speaker 2: turn on the VC or the North Vietnamese to turn
Speaker 2: against their regime did not work, actually at all.
Speaker 1: Not only did it not work there harden their support,
Speaker 1: it has literally never worked. And we skip forward to
Speaker 1: b five actually to give you a sense of the
Speaker 1: scale of destruction that we're talking about here. This is
Speaker 1: the Financial Times tar sheet. So they did an analysis.
Speaker 1: The headline is military briefing the Israeli bombs reigning on Gaza.
Speaker 1: Devastation of Northern Gaza comparable to Allied bombing campaign of
Speaker 1: German cities.
Speaker 4: So in Northern.
Speaker 1: Gaza, approximately sixty eight percent of buildings have been damaged.
Speaker 1: For comparison, in Dresden, which has been brought up a
Speaker 1: lot in which Netanyahu has used, by the way, is
Speaker 1: justification for their indiscriminate bombing campaign, something like fifty nine
Speaker 1: percent of the buildings were damaged during that infamous bombing.
Speaker 1: And just as in you know Vietnam, as you're discussing Saga,
Speaker 1: where it did not turn the population on, you know,
Speaker 1: the rulers there, same thing in Germany. There was an
Speaker 1: idea that by bombing these cities and hitting the civilians
Speaker 1: and causing them pain and inflicting damage on civilian infrastructure,
Speaker 1: that the population would turn on the Nazis. What political
Speaker 1: scientists have documented is that it had the exact opposite effect.
Speaker 1: Same thing when the Germans bombed London. Yes, that was
Speaker 1: Part of the idea there too, was that they would
Speaker 1: demoralize the civilian population. Same thing with Russia bombing Ukraine,
Speaker 1: bombing Kiev, etc. The idea was, oh, this will demoralize
Speaker 1: the population and maybe they'll turn on Zelenski.
Speaker 4: Guess what.
Speaker 1: It has never worked. It has the polar opposite impact.
Speaker 1: It causes people to rally around the flag and whoever
Speaker 1: the ruling class happens to be, and so in Gaza.
Speaker 1: And this gets back to you know, the key point
Speaker 1: about what Israel is doing here. I mean, the keykey
Speaker 1: point is the horrific loss of civilian life, which is
Speaker 1: just unbelievable to watch unfolding before your eyes. But even
Speaker 1: if you put that aside, the strategy is completely stupid
Speaker 1: and ahistorical. There is no doubt at this point that
Speaker 1: they have already even if you accept their best estimates
Speaker 1: of how many Hamas fighters they have killed, they have
Speaker 1: one hundred percent created more support for Hamas, more potential
Speaker 1: Hamas recruits.
Speaker 4: Than they have been able to destroy. They claim they've
Speaker 4: taken out.
Speaker 1: This is a new claim, by the way, five thousand
Speaker 1: Hamas fighters.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
Speaker 1: They have killed at this point close to twenty thousand individuals.
Speaker 1: There is no doubt we saw the polling coming out
Speaker 1: of the West Bank. The West Bank is different from Gaza,
Speaker 1: but even in the West Bank, support for Hamas's skyrocketing.
Speaker 1: So if your goal is actually to undercut Hamas, you
Speaker 1: have to drive a wedge between Hamas and.
Speaker 4: The civilian population.
Speaker 1: You have to give the civilian population some hope that
Speaker 1: there is some sort of process that's going to lead
Speaker 1: to a better outcome without this violent terrorist resistance group.
Speaker 4: And this has created the polar opposite impact at this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I basically agree with all of.
Speaker 2: That, and that's what the Alba been saying and here
Speaker 2: from the very beginning, and I think that they're going
Speaker 2: to fall into the same trap that we eventually fell
Speaker 2: into in Vietnam, which is you're going to end up
Speaker 2: spending in the troops anyway, if you're Israel, or you
Speaker 2: can abandon the mission you have either you are very
Speaker 2: likely going to do that, and you should have done
Speaker 2: it in the beginning, because then you.
Speaker 3: Probably could have avoided all of this in the first place.
Speaker 2: Hamas also has been releasing some combat footage which highlights
Speaker 2: something we've also been trying to show people from the beginning.
Speaker 2: This might also be why Israel's reluctant to commit more
Speaker 2: of their forces to the ground. Urban combat is a
Speaker 2: full blown nightmare. Now, let's be clear here. What we're
Speaker 2: about to show you are Hamas videos there, but we
Speaker 2: also showed you.
Speaker 3: Right up Hamas propaganda.
Speaker 2: However, we don't have too many journalists who are on
Speaker 2: the ground there embedded with are these troops? Is the
Speaker 2: best indight into what some of the combat actually looks like.
Speaker 2: It's straight out of Stalingrad, it's straight out of Iraq,
Speaker 2: it's straight out of the Battle of Mosul. For ISIS
Speaker 2: videos that basically were edited and looked exactly like this.
Speaker 2: So let's go ahead and play some of this, guys,
Speaker 2: And what you can see here is you have people
Speaker 2: Hamas fighters again who release this popping up out of tunnels,
Speaker 2: who are then showing how close they are to IDF installations,
Speaker 2: to the IDF camps that they have that are nearby.
Speaker 2: This is just to show the vulnerability. It looks like
Speaker 2: there's ivy bags that are hanging up as well as
Speaker 2: soldiers who are just sitting around. This is the craziest stuff.
Speaker 2: And of course they edit it very favorably to them,
Speaker 2: and it shows you a bombed out you know, like
Speaker 2: moon type landscape where they have Hamas fighters who are
Speaker 2: weaving in and out. They're not even dressed in military uniform,
Speaker 2: using anti tank munitions and others in order to fire
Speaker 2: against Israeli tanks and to try and disable them.
Speaker 3: They claim they were disabled. Nobody knows.
Speaker 2: We have approximately one hundred or so IDEF soldiers now
Speaker 2: have been killed. Multiple more released actually in the last
Speaker 2: couple of days, which highlights some of the fight.
Speaker 3: But the truth is.
Speaker 2: That they are not committing a significant ground force into
Speaker 2: this and they are relying much more on strategic bombing
Speaker 2: and that, as you said, I think aptly to point
Speaker 2: it out, we're probably interview or we're going to try
Speaker 2: to somebody who wrote a great foreign affairs piece actually
Speaker 2: on all of this. But it does at this point
Speaker 2: they're not going to abandon this strategy. They are going
Speaker 2: through the same motions as we did in Iraq. They
Speaker 2: will eventually come to the so called mission accomplish and
Speaker 2: I think that's actually when the real nightmare begins, especially.
Speaker 4: For it for them. Yeah, for God's obviously, the nightmare
Speaker 4: is and full of.
Speaker 3: Get worse, I can honestly probably get way worse.
Speaker 1: So to that point, the Secretary General of the UN
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. Secretary General Gutierras has
Speaker 1: invoked something called Article ninety nine, so the first time
Speaker 1: he's done it in his tenure. He says, facing a
Speaker 1: severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza,
Speaker 1: I urged the Council to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe
Speaker 1: and appeal for a humanitarian ceasefire to be declared. Now,
Speaker 1: this is seen as like the strongest diplomatic tool that
Speaker 1: he has in his toolkit.
Speaker 4: This is effectively Gutierra's.
Speaker 1: Pulling the fire alarm with regard to the human catastrophe
Speaker 1: that is unfolding on the ground at the hands of
Speaker 1: the Israelis and is triggering a meeting of the Security
Speaker 1: Council to debate this potential ceasefire. Now, do I think
Speaker 1: that the US is going to allow a ceasefire to
Speaker 1: pass through the UN Security Council at this point?
Speaker 4: No, I do not.
Speaker 1: But it shows you the gravity of what they see unfolding.
Speaker 1: And you got to remember, I mean, you had the
Speaker 1: specter of Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson who when
Speaker 1: he was asked where should people go to be safe.
Speaker 4: He's like, oh, go to these UN facilities.
Speaker 1: The UN comes out and says, there's literally nowhere that
Speaker 1: is safe in Gaza. Their own people, their own UN
Speaker 1: workers have been killed by the dozens. I believe there's
Speaker 1: over one hundred UN AID workers who have been killed here.
Speaker 1: That is an extraordinary, unprecedented number in any conflict. So
Speaker 1: those are the facts that the Secretary General is looking
Speaker 1: at here when he says, Okay, I'm going to pull
Speaker 1: the fire alarman to do whatever I possibly can to
Speaker 1: draw attention to this catastrophic situation because even the ability
Speaker 1: to provide any sort of AID trucks through the RAFA
Speaker 1: crossing that has been severely curtailed since the end of
Speaker 1: that temporary truce. So you know, diseases are spreading. We've
Speaker 1: shown you the footage of the high rise apartment buildings
Speaker 1: being bombed. The area that they've told people to go to,
Speaker 1: that Theose Raelies have told people to go to that's
Speaker 1: supposed to be the safe zone is literally the size
Speaker 1: of Lax Airport. It's like a couple of miles wide
Speaker 1: and there's nothing there. It's a deserted wasteland. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a cruel joke to tell people that they could
Speaker 1: go there to find any sort of safety or any
Speaker 1: sort of aid. All of the civilian toll that was
Speaker 1: taken in northern Gaza could easily be magnified. We see
Speaker 1: no change in terms of tactics and their approach to
Speaker 1: Southern Gaza, because now you have almost the entirety of
Speaker 1: the whole population clustered even more densely packed into Southern Gaza,
Speaker 1: including in Communis, which is the major focus of the
Speaker 1: IDF at this point, where they say Hamas leaders are fighting, Well,
Speaker 1: this is one of the places that people fled to
Speaker 1: because they were told this was one of the places
Speaker 1: that would be safe. So the potential civilian catastrophe here
Speaker 1: looms extraordinarily large. And the last piece saga, which is
Speaker 1: you know, really wild and I don't even know what
Speaker 1: to make of it. It's just unbelievable the level of
Speaker 1: failure on the Israeli side on October seventh, based on
Speaker 1: what we've learned at this point.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So the IDF actually knew that Hamas might attack, They
Speaker 1: knew that they might target this music festival, where hundreds
Speaker 1: of people were slaughtered in some of the most horrific scenes.
Speaker 1: This is an article from Haretz. They say, quote this
Speaker 1: massacre should have been prevented. Despite Israeli intelligence warnings about
Speaker 1: a Hamas attack, the army did not evacuate the Nova festival.
Speaker 4: That was that Rave music festival.
Speaker 1: Top defense officials held urgent consultations the night before October
Speaker 1: seventh about a possible Hamas attack, but no one in
Speaker 1: the IDF notified the Nova festival organizers.
Speaker 4: Or the partygoers.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of whome were mown down and for nine hours
Speaker 1: no one.
Speaker 4: Came to save them.
Speaker 1: And if you read the details of this, it's horrific
Speaker 1: to contemplate that this could have been averted if there
Speaker 1: had been proper warning. The music festival organizer said, if
Speaker 1: you even gave us an hour notice, we could have
Speaker 1: evacuated everyone. This festival, we also learned, had been extended,
Speaker 1: actually longer beyond the original timeframe, so they had gone
Speaker 1: beyond the link that they had originally petitioned for, and
Speaker 1: no one raised a flag about anything, even though they
Speaker 1: were watching these preparations taking place. And you know, we
Speaker 1: also have all the details about how they had the
Speaker 1: attack plan more than a year in advance, but they
Speaker 1: dismissed it as aspirational. They had these female spotters and
Speaker 1: intelligence analysts who were saying, no, we see them preparing
Speaker 1: for that. This was also completely dismissed. And then the
Speaker 1: night before when they're starting a panic, saying, I think
Speaker 1: something might be going on here. They could have warned
Speaker 1: the festival and avoided so much carnage and yet another
Speaker 1: just catastrophic failure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very it's such a tragedy because when you
Speaker 2: read it, you as you said, it's just look. I
Speaker 2: think it highlights the incompetence of the Israeli security state
Speaker 2: at that time, the shinn Bet, the Mozad, their multi
Speaker 2: level failure, their distraction. More questions in Neta Yahu and
Speaker 2: his government all need to answer. Also, why are these
Speaker 2: people even still in their jobs. Every single one of
Speaker 2: them should be fired on the spot, and yet they're
Speaker 2: actually more empowered in Israeli society than ever before, which
Speaker 2: is why these Israelian media outlets are covering it like this.
Speaker 2: They're in shock. You can't believe it, I mean truly,
Speaker 2: and it's basically what happened here too. After nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: the people who failed most actually got even more responsibility.
Speaker 2: And we're on a plane in Afghanistan two weeks later.
Speaker 2: How do the hell does that make any sense? Still
Speaker 2: doesn't twenty years later, and yet you know it still
Speaker 2: continues over there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we know Bbe's plan. It's let's drag out
Speaker 1: this war as long as possible, because he can say
Speaker 1: to Israeli people, yes, we're going to do an investigation.
Speaker 4: Yes there'll be accountability.
Speaker 1: I'll answer questions for what happened, but not until after
Speaker 1: the war. And that seems to be working for now.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are certainly calls for him to resign.
Speaker 1: His support is at like literally eight percent. Everybody basically
Speaker 1: hates him and wants him gone. But he's betting that
Speaker 1: the longer he keeps this going and the more he
Speaker 1: satisfies the desire for revenge, the better chance he has
Speaker 1: at holding on to power. So that is the political
Speaker 1: bet that he's making at this point. There you go,
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about a little bit of domestic politics.
Speaker 1: Here some extraordinary comments from our current president Joe Biden
Speaker 1: about why exactly he is running for re election again
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that his approval ratings are
Speaker 1: really low and no one really wants him to run again,
Speaker 1: including Democrats. Will take a listen to what he had
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 9: Would you be reading Trump's reading?
Speaker 1: I expect so, but look he is running and I
Speaker 1: just have to run.
Speaker 10: No, not now.
Speaker 1: So he's saying, you know, if Trump was running, maybe
Speaker 1: he wouldn't run.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: He also Chrystal said that to donors behind this, it
Speaker 2: drives me absolutely insane. How he drops all of these
Speaker 2: nuggets two donors that then leak out a quotes, and
Speaker 2: then he tries to walk him back when we all
Speaker 2: know the way that he's speaking freely amongst donors is
Speaker 2: what he actually thinks. That's whenever he said that we
Speaker 2: were on the brink of nuclear war, I forget he
Speaker 2: made another comment to which was like worldwide consequential to
Speaker 2: these donor, it's an outrageous practice by the president.
Speaker 1: Think about the level of disconnect. Think about the bubble
Speaker 1: you have to be in. To look at your approval rating,
Speaker 1: which is in the thirties, To look at pole after
Speaker 1: poll coming out that says you're losing to the dude
Speaker 1: that people also overwhelmingly hate and who has been indicted
Speaker 1: multiple times, You're losing to him in basically every swing
Speaker 1: state and every national had to head at this point,
Speaker 1: and you're saying this is the reason why you're holding
Speaker 1: on and why you're going to and again, like just
Speaker 1: your level of delusion at that point is insane. So
Speaker 1: and if he really, you know, if he really is
Speaker 1: just committed to defeating Donald Trump, then why not have
Speaker 1: a democratic primary process where people have a chance to
Speaker 1: evaluate whether they think you're the best guy or whether
Speaker 1: they think somebody else is the best guy. But no,
Speaker 1: he's terrified of that because he knows he is not
Speaker 1: fit to actually go up on a debate stage against anyone,
Speaker 1: and yet he thinks he can beat Donald Trump, who,
Speaker 1: you know, for whatever you think about him, is certainly
Speaker 1: skilled political performer and in spite of his advanced age,
Speaker 1: certainly seems to have a lot more sort of on
Speaker 1: the ball and certainly a lot more energetically than.
Speaker 4: Joe Biden does.
Speaker 1: It's just amazing to me the delusion and the bubble
Speaker 1: that these people live in.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's incredibly well said Crystal.
Speaker 2: And it's just one of those where it's almost too
Speaker 2: on the nose, because that is an admission. He's like,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be running if well, then you're not affirmatively
Speaker 2: running on anything. And I just again high likes the negativity,
Speaker 2: the negative effect of American politics, and everybody is running
Speaker 2: for everybody is running basically against something.
Speaker 3: There's no positive reasonative part. The same time, that's the
Speaker 3: smartest thing he could say.
Speaker 2: Right, two thirds of the people voted for Joe Biden
Speaker 2: voted because he wasn't named Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: That's it, period, end of the story.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where now Trump, Trump and
Speaker 2: Biden do really need each other in many respects because
Speaker 2: Trump also loves to play off of this liberal hysteria
Speaker 2: of who think of him as like some grand Mussolini
Speaker 2: style dictator when in reality he's more like Selena Meyer
Speaker 2: from Deep whenever.
Speaker 3: He was in office.
Speaker 2: He both likes to play into the dictatorship meme, and
Speaker 2: then the Biden campaign is like no, no, no, see, that's
Speaker 2: why we have to run against him because of the
Speaker 2: big bad Trump. He actually addressed some of this in
Speaker 2: a town hall with Sean Hannity. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11: I want to go back to this one issue though,
Speaker 11: because the media has been focused on this and attacking you.
Speaker 11: Under no circum stances. You are promising America tonight.
Speaker 8: You would never.
Speaker 11: Abuse power as retribution against anybody except for day one,
Speaker 11: except he's going to pray, except for day one, meaning
Speaker 11: I want to close the border and I want to drill.
Speaker 11: That's not all that's real, that's not that's not retribution.
Speaker 8: I'm going to be.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna be. You know, I love this guy. He says,
Speaker 3: you're not going to be a dictator.
Speaker 5: I said, no, no, no, Other than day one, we're
Speaker 5: closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling.
Speaker 3: After that, I'm not a dating Okay.
Speaker 11: That sounds to me like you're going back to the
Speaker 11: policies when you're president.
Speaker 2: Why does Hannay keep trying to clean up his answer? Say,
Speaker 2: what are you his press secretary?
Speaker 4: Yes, let them, let the man speak.
Speaker 3: He knows exactly what he's doing, Okay.
Speaker 2: He knows that he's about to trigger Biden, and he's
Speaker 2: going to trigger liberals. And Rea can read the New
Speaker 2: York Times op eds and the Atlantic op eds as
Speaker 2: much as anybody, and he obviously gets a kick out
Speaker 2: of it. So I thought, Hannah, the way he conducts
Speaker 2: himself is just so ridiculous. But I I actually thought
Speaker 2: what putting those two things together crystal does demonstrate how
Speaker 2: both of these like industrial complexes, need each other. Trump
Speaker 2: needs to trigger, you know, the so called liberal hysteria,
Speaker 2: the idea that he's going to be some insane dictator,
Speaker 2: and then Biden needs those Atlantic headlines. Like Bob Kagan,
Speaker 2: I don't know if he saw this, wrote this long
Speaker 2: thing about American democracy is under attack, which you know,
Speaker 2: given Bob Kagan's track record, that means he wants to
Speaker 2: invade it. But that's what the Biden campaign is then
Speaker 2: immediately fundraising off of.
Speaker 3: And there I don't know if he saw this. There's
Speaker 3: a new whole Atlantic.
Speaker 2: Series of articles about the dangers of what a second
Speaker 2: Trump administration would look like, and they're all, you know,
Speaker 2: they're all just complete, like an old style twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: almost like clap trap.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 2: The only thing one I do think is legitimate is
Speaker 2: on the criticism of election in January sixth, Okay one.
Speaker 2: The rest of them, it's like, yeah, the guy who
Speaker 2: literally could get nothing done first fourth four years has
Speaker 2: miraculously changed and transformed in his old age and is
Speaker 2: now to be the most effective, you know, GOP dictatorship
Speaker 2: president in history.
Speaker 3: It's like, what are we talking about here?
Speaker 1: I think two things can be true. One that he's
Speaker 1: a cartoonish buffoon and Keystone cops veep whatever you want
Speaker 1: to say. And also that there is a genuine danger
Speaker 1: because of what we saw unfold with the fake electors
Speaker 1: and with January sixth, et cetera. I mean, that was
Speaker 1: a genuinely destabilizing moment. He genuinely wanted to hold onto
Speaker 1: power even though he'd lost, and that is genuinely dangerous.
Speaker 1: So I can't look at what unfolded there, and especially
Speaker 1: what we've learned about.
Speaker 4: All the maaschinations happening behind the scene, all.
Speaker 1: The fake electors who'd been pulled and the slates created,
Speaker 1: and all of this that was going on, and just
Speaker 1: sort of like handwave away all of the concerns about Trump.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, liberals do themselves no favor when
Speaker 1: they're trying to pretend like they're all about democracy while
Speaker 1: they're actively behaving like authoritarians, like in the state of
Speaker 1: Florida where they just decided we're going to make Joe
Speaker 1: Biden the nominee and we're not even going to have
Speaker 1: a process like you can't end democracy to save democracy.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work that way. And so you know, when
Speaker 1: I look at that Hannity Trump exchange, there's a few things.
Speaker 1: First of all, Hannity clearly hands him the softball, and
Speaker 1: he does it twice by the way he asks him. Once,
Speaker 1: he's like, you're not going to be a dictator, are you?
Speaker 1: And Trump dodges and says, oh, you mean, like the
Speaker 1: way that they were towards me. And then what we
Speaker 1: showed now is he comes back around is like, no, no,
Speaker 1: I just want to make it clear you're not going
Speaker 1: to be a dictator. And Trump's like, well, after day one, right,
Speaker 1: the audience loves it. Why not because they just think
Speaker 1: he's joking, but because there's a genuine desire for authoritarianism
Speaker 1: and for a dictator in the American public. And it's
Speaker 1: not surprising. It's not surprising for a couple of reasons.
Speaker 1: Number one, because in times of tumult and chaos, the
Speaker 1: instinct towards or desire for a sort of like daddy
Speaker 1: figure who's going to make it all better. And I'm
Speaker 1: not even talking partisan with this one. I was talking
Speaker 1: blanket statements about the American public. At this point, there
Speaker 1: is always a consistent rise and desire for dictatorship, authoritarianism.
Speaker 1: Some daddy figures come in and do the things that
Speaker 1: you think need to be done. Get it done, trains
Speaker 1: run on time, et cetera, et cetera. That is a
Speaker 1: consistent theme throughout history. And number two, you've had for
Speaker 1: years now cynical operators in the news media and cynical
Speaker 1: political operators, cynical pundits, cynical elite class members who think
Speaker 1: that the best thing that they could do is to
Speaker 1: convince one half of the country that the other half
Speaker 1: of the country is truly evil, demented, and you know,
Speaker 1: an existential risk to them. Do you think democracy is
Speaker 1: going to thrive in such a circumstance. You can only
Speaker 1: have democracy thrive when you accept that your brothers and
Speaker 1: sisters that you're in this project with are basically good people,
Speaker 1: are trying to figure these things out, and you may
Speaker 1: have some fundamental differences with them. That's fine, you'll work
Speaker 1: it out, but they're not an existential threat to you,
Speaker 1: your family, your way of life. And so that's why
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, when Trump says things like oh
Speaker 1: I be a dictator. On day one, he's giving a
Speaker 1: large chunk of the base what they want to hear.
Speaker 4: They're not upset about this.
Speaker 1: They want him to be that strong man and do
Speaker 1: the things and protect them in the way that they
Speaker 1: feel they need to be protected. And that's why in
Speaker 1: the democratic side there's very limited outcry when they do
Speaker 1: things like, you know, just decide in Florida that it's
Speaker 1: going to be Joe Biden, or when they tell people
Speaker 1: that we can't afford to have a primary process, we
Speaker 1: have to subvert democracy to save democracy. Why there's very
Speaker 1: little outcry because people feel that same sense of existential
Speaker 1: dread on the democratic side as well.
Speaker 4: So that's what I see going on.
Speaker 2: I think you're right, and I think why are the
Speaker 2: reason I get so angry about this, oh leadership and
Speaker 2: all this is because to me, it's actually anti democratic
Speaker 2: in that why is Trump beating Biden.
Speaker 3: Let's actually look at the polls.
Speaker 2: It has nothing to do with democracy or any of this.
Speaker 2: People are pissed and angry about the economy. So if
Speaker 2: you believe Dave Trump is a threat and a dictator,
Speaker 2: then you need to beat him on an economic answer
Speaker 2: for why people should vote for you as opposed to him,
Speaker 2: and I have seen nothing but an onslaught from the
Speaker 2: democratic press, from the liberal establishment, absent very very few examples,
Speaker 2: people like Jeff Stein and others who are honest, who
Speaker 2: are not like, why are these idiot voters complaining prices
Speaker 2: are I just saw a Financial timespiece.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure if you.
Speaker 2: Saw that where they ridiculed American voters for thinking that
Speaker 2: prices were higher today than they were in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: And they were like, well, see inflation is fake, and
Speaker 2: it's like, okay, well, yeah, it might be marginally true,
Speaker 2: but zoom out. From twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: inflation is running twenty two point three percent. That is
Speaker 2: three times higher than inflation from twenty fifteen to twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: So when people are saying prices are too high, they
Speaker 2: don't mean prices are too high in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Prices are higher twenty twenty three over twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: They feel that way because at everyone remembers where the
Speaker 2: bag of groceries costs not that long ago, and they
Speaker 2: didn't have that amount of inflation in their lives for decades,
Speaker 2: as opposed to the fast pace that we've seen under
Speaker 2: the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: Now, it's not all Joe Biden's fault. I think a
Speaker 3: lot of it is.
Speaker 2: But the point is is that if you cannot address
Speaker 2: and speak to that, you're going to lose. And that's
Speaker 2: what actual democracy looks like. So for me, it's all
Speaker 2: of this trying to browbeat people over the head about
Speaker 2: trying to gin them up and be afraid is just
Speaker 2: as bad on that other side when they're not actually
Speaker 2: trying to engage in a small, de democratic argument over
Speaker 2: why you should vote for them.
Speaker 3: People are not stupid.
Speaker 2: The main reason that a lot of people are gravitating
Speaker 2: towards Trump on the economy right now is just comparison.
Speaker 2: They're like, well under in twenty nineteen, Gas was X,
Speaker 2: Y and Z. He's also got the great talking point
Speaker 2: of there was no rush in Ukraine or Israel or
Speaker 2: whatever while I was president. And that's a compelling pitch,
Speaker 2: especially if you don't have something to fill the vacuum,
Speaker 2: which Biden does not.
Speaker 3: I mean, when's the last time he even did anything
Speaker 3: about this? Nothing?
Speaker 1: He said something about price couch closest you should come. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: to me, there's three major factors. There's the economy, as
Speaker 1: you point out, and the fact that you know, people
Speaker 1: actually had more money in their bank accounts during COVID,
Speaker 1: when you had all of these social safety net programs
Speaker 1: that were genuinely helping people in the child tax credit
Speaker 1: and checks coming in, et cetera. Under this Democratic president,
Speaker 1: those programs have all been stripped away. So at the
Speaker 1: same time you have inflation, you have a diminished ability
Speaker 1: to you know, to survive that inflation, be able to
Speaker 1: pay for the things that you need to pay for,
Speaker 1: and people racking up massive credit card bills, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's so that's one piece. Second piece is just you
Speaker 1: look at the.
Speaker 3: Guy and you're like, God, yeah, that's a massive part.
Speaker 4: Can you can you make it through four years?
Speaker 1: Like I'm I'm struggling to listen to you put a
Speaker 1: single sentence together, Like I'm holding my breath hopeing you
Speaker 1: get to the end of this thing and it's not
Speaker 1: a catastrophe. How are we going to do for more
Speaker 1: years like this? That's one piece and then the latest piece.
Speaker 1: The reason you've seen a huge deterioration recently is because
Speaker 1: of disenchantment with the Democratic base over his unconditional support
Speaker 1: for Israel, which has really hit key democratic voting blocks.
Speaker 1: Young people first and foremost Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, people
Speaker 1: of color in general actually have a very different view
Speaker 1: of this conflict than most white voters, just judging by
Speaker 1: the polling. These are key democratic based groups. And so
Speaker 1: the recent decline for Biden has actually been mostly among
Speaker 1: Democrats who are very unhappy with what's going on. Now,
Speaker 1: Are they going to vote for Donald Trump?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 1: Are they going to stay home? Very possible. They're betting
Speaker 1: that going back to the well of Trump is terrible.
Speaker 1: Trump is bad, and you cannot vote for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and staying home is a vote for Donald Trump. Shaming,
Speaker 1: cajoling voters is going to work another time, and I'm
Speaker 1: just not so sure that it is. I could be wrong,
Speaker 1: but I think, like you said, Zagur, you have to
Speaker 1: actually make an affirmative case at this point for why
Speaker 1: four more years of you and your program and what
Speaker 1: you're going to do is going to leave people better off,
Speaker 1: because you know, I mean, people look back at the
Speaker 1: Trump years and they're like, yeah, that was chaotic and
Speaker 1: it wasn't great and it was terrible, but we survived together.
Speaker 4: We got to the other side of it.
Speaker 1: So maybe this all of this is not as is
Speaker 1: not as extraordinarily existential as it seems. So in any case,
Speaker 1: speaking of delusions, Liz Cheney has also decided that perhaps
Speaker 1: she will throw her hat into the ring, the presidential ring,
Speaker 1: and make her own bid for president. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to how she explained.
Speaker 12: That whatever, whatever you do, whatever you think about, you
Speaker 12: know the possibilities that Donald Trump might present, He's not
Speaker 12: an acceptable option. He's not an acceptable alternative. I hope
Speaker 12: that he is defeated in the primary, but if he's not,
Speaker 12: we have to defeat him in the general.
Speaker 3: And people need to.
Speaker 12: Take seriously and literally what he's saying, which is that
Speaker 12: he would infect unravel our democracy, potentially terminate the Constitution.
Speaker 13: It's a risk we can't take.
Speaker 1: So she's saying that she may run for president to
Speaker 1: help defeat Trump. And when you talk about it, I mean,
Speaker 1: Biden's level of delusion doesn't.
Speaker 4: Even compare to this level of delusion.
Speaker 1: Because even though it shouldn't be this way, because Trump
Speaker 1: has become the central question in American politics, the fact
Speaker 1: that Liz Cheney has put herself on the anti Trump
Speaker 1: side of the equation means that her favorability ratings are
Speaker 1: entirely on the Democratic side. She has very few Republican
Speaker 1: supporters left, which is why she left Congress. So the
Speaker 1: idea that she would take more from Trump than from
Speaker 1: Biden if she were to one for president.
Speaker 2: Is completelytely absurd, completely preposterous.
Speaker 4: Absolutely posters.
Speaker 3: I want more.
Speaker 2: I want as many people in this thing as possible.
Speaker 2: Chaos needs to be full blown like eighteen oh seven election.
Speaker 2: All this other stuff might finally destroy so many of
Speaker 2: the vestiges of the establishments that remain.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, this level of delusion is when I almost
Speaker 2: genuinely admire. I think my life would be a lot
Speaker 2: easier if I was at delusion and less neurotic. I
Speaker 2: guess this is one too, where I do think it
Speaker 2: highlights as Biden gets weaker, the chaos element of the
Speaker 2: no labels type candidates. Yeah, people are already floating Nicki
Speaker 2: Haley against Trump for no labels. Now we could have
Speaker 2: Liz Cheney versus Nicki Haley for no lebel. Joe Manchin
Speaker 2: is doing whatever the hell Joe Manchin is doing out there,
Speaker 2: Joe Lieberman and all these people are not screwing around.
Speaker 3: They really could actually mount somebody.
Speaker 2: Then you've got RFK Junior, who will be I mean,
Speaker 2: who knows how much bigger he could get. You've got
Speaker 2: Cornell West who's still hanging out there. And especially for
Speaker 2: people like RFK Junior, he says he's going to get
Speaker 2: on the ballot in all fifty states. It's a serious problem,
Speaker 2: a serious problem for both.
Speaker 3: Of these candidates.
Speaker 2: And you're throwing a no labels person like that who
Speaker 2: has so much money and could easily get the petitions.
Speaker 2: Now you're in to for almost five people on the
Speaker 2: presidential ballot. That's extraordinary, not to mention the libertarian candidate
Speaker 2: will probably be there as well.
Speaker 1: The only one of those candidates you mentioned that could
Speaker 1: take more from Trump than Biden is RFKG. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I think it's a real toss up, and the polls
Speaker 1: seem to show that it's kind of a toss up,
Speaker 1: that it's relatively split between the two of them. I
Speaker 1: think it depends on who he picks as VPO, what
Speaker 1: he focuses on, how effective the like Fox News hatchet
Speaker 1: job against him is at this point, because man, they
Speaker 1: turned on a dime. They used to be pumping this
Speaker 1: guy up like crazy, and now every time he goes on,
Speaker 1: they've gotta they've definitely got their knives out for him,
Speaker 1: so you know, they want to convince everybody that he's,
Speaker 1: you know, really truly like Hillary Clinton loving liberal and
Speaker 1: using whatever they can to make that case. Of course,
Speaker 1: a lot of his focuses in recent years have aligned
Speaker 1: more with Republicans and more with the GP base, which
Speaker 1: is why people like Steve Bannon were building him up
Speaker 1: for so long when he was an effective cudgel against
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. So with him, I think it's kind of
Speaker 1: a toss up where he draws more from I think
Speaker 1: it could potentially be that he takes more from Trump
Speaker 1: at this point, but hard to say. All of the
Speaker 1: other ones Liz Cheney, Joe Manchin, Cornell West, Jill Stein, etc.
Speaker 1: Definitely draw more from Biden than from Trump, and so
Speaker 1: it just further complicates his reelection path, which was already
Speaker 1: very complicated. I think you're right to sager that the
Speaker 1: more that we see him decline, the more that opens
Speaker 1: the door for.
Speaker 3: Just total absolutely.
Speaker 1: Chaos, because people like I mean, I don't think Mark
Speaker 1: Cuban actually is going to run even though I wish
Speaker 1: that I kind of wish that he would. But people
Speaker 1: like him, who have huge name ID, who have lots
Speaker 1: of money to spend, et cetera, they got to be
Speaker 1: looking at this thing and going, you know what, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't take that much. I actually think I can have
Speaker 1: a shot at this thing. Everybody hates these two dudes.
Speaker 1: If I jump in there and mix it up, you
Speaker 1: never know, it might only take thirty percent of the
Speaker 1: vote to be able to win this thing out right.
Speaker 3: Hey, I'll say this too.
Speaker 2: The Rock has been making a lot of appearances here
Speaker 2: in Washington. Yesterday he put out old video. He was
Speaker 2: at the Pentagon. He's been on Capitol Hill twice in
Speaker 2: the last month. Nobody actually really knows what he's doing,
Speaker 2: why he's receiving classified briefings at the Pentagon. So he
Speaker 2: also on Joe Rogan, he said people have approached me
Speaker 2: to run for president one of the two major parties.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how true that is, but at the
Speaker 2: very least he's floating it. He's floating something out there,
Speaker 2: so it could be any one of these people could
Speaker 2: do it. I think The Rock would cream Joe Biden
Speaker 2: in a primary, just to be clear, but anyway, we'll
Speaker 2: see some big news whenever it comes to Ukraine. There
Speaker 2: was a major vote in the United States Senate last night,
Speaker 2: and with the Senate aid package for Ukraine, Israel and
Speaker 2: other military appropriations failed with the majority vote, let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and put this up there on the screen. Forty
Speaker 2: nine to fifty one, Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic bill
Speaker 2: to fund Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and border security over their
Speaker 2: demands for tighter border restrictions. Bernie Sanders also voted no.
Speaker 2: Many now fear the aid package is stalled for good.
Speaker 2: So there's actually quite a lot to say about this crystal,
Speaker 2: because it illustrates two separate political dynamics. The Republicans all
Speaker 2: voted against this aid package because it doesn't provides a
Speaker 2: to Ukraine but does not fulfill the border demands not
Speaker 2: only of Senate Republicans but of the.
Speaker 3: House of Representatives.
Speaker 2: And this is where I want to spend a little
Speaker 2: procedural time, because it does show you how difficult it
Speaker 2: will ever be to get the Ukraine package through the
Speaker 2: House Senate. So Speaker Mike Johnson put out a letter
Speaker 2: where he said two things in criticism of the administration
Speaker 2: on Ukraine. Number One, you have to not yet provided
Speaker 2: us with a strategic path forward to what victory looks like. Aka,
Speaker 2: you're just funding an endless war. So yeah, eminently fair.
Speaker 2: Number Two, if we passed this sixty one billion, the
Speaker 2: legislation that bordered, legislation that is attached to it has
Speaker 2: to look like HR two. HR two is a Republican
Speaker 2: bill that was passed earlier in this Congress, which is
Speaker 2: a absolute nonstarter for basically any single Democratic lawmaker because
Speaker 2: it not includes a major.
Speaker 3: Reforms to asylum.
Speaker 2: And now, to be clear, I support HR two, but
Speaker 2: I'm saying from a political perspective, is never going to
Speaker 2: happen whenever it comes to the democratic lawmaker.
Speaker 3: So a lot of the.
Speaker 2: Constituencies going on and behind the House were negotiating on
Speaker 2: the border. Even if they do come to some sort
Speaker 2: of a deal, it has no backing in the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives, which shows the political future for this two.
Speaker 2: And this explains that Bernie Sanders vote. Sanders voted against
Speaker 2: the package because the Israel aid is not conditioned to
Speaker 2: Israel to make them comply with international humanitarian law. And
Speaker 2: I actually think that that going on in the future
Speaker 2: could be a major impediment because there's growing calls for
Speaker 2: conditioning Israelite.
Speaker 3: And all that.
Speaker 2: It would make it only even more difficult to try
Speaker 2: and pass some sort of border pack or some sort
Speaker 2: of package through the House when you're packaging all of
Speaker 2: these together. This is a lesson too, by the way,
Speaker 2: on why maybe we shouldn't be bundling all these things together.
Speaker 3: But that's a whole other separate cousy.
Speaker 1: Well, the original idea for why you put these things
Speaker 1: together is because the White House really wants the Ukraine
Speaker 1: Aid right, and they thought, okay, we can throw in
Speaker 1: this like border security suitetener to get the Republicans to
Speaker 1: come along. Now the Republicans are saying like, no, no,
Speaker 1: we don't this border security thing. We don't even want
Speaker 1: to vote for U. It's not good enough for us.
Speaker 1: So blows up that rationale. Then there was another assumption
Speaker 1: that like, oh, everyone will vote for the Israel piece
Speaker 1: and still overwhelmingly like Bernie's the only one who's voting
Speaker 1: against it because because of the aid is not conditioned.
Speaker 1: But there has been even Joe Biden, you know, dressing
Speaker 1: openness to the idea of conditioning AID. And you've had
Speaker 1: some mainline run of the mill Democratic senators saying the
Speaker 1: same thing. Chris van Holland just recently came out and
Speaker 1: said he thought it should be conditioned. So even the
Speaker 1: Israel piece of this has now also become a little
Speaker 1: bit more fraud and caused at least Bernie Sanders to
Speaker 1: withhold his vote from this thing as well. So the
Speaker 1: original logic of putting all these things together has kind
Speaker 1: of already come apart. Every single piece of it is controversial,
Speaker 1: So it's hard to see at this point how they're
Speaker 1: able to reform and change it to make the whole thing,
Speaker 1: you know, make this cake bake.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of problems that are happening for them.
Speaker 2: And at the same time, I mean, the situation in
Speaker 2: Ukraine is just crumbling. The political architecture of the Zelensky
Speaker 2: regime is falling apart before all of our eyes. He's
Speaker 2: at open war with his top military commander because that
Speaker 2: guy told the truth and said it was a stalemate.
Speaker 1: Who, by the way, I did a little looking into
Speaker 1: the polling, is more popular, Yeah, has higher favorability. Zelenski's
Speaker 1: still very popular from what we can tell from the polls.
Speaker 1: But this head commander. Guy is more popular, has more
Speaker 1: trust with the population.
Speaker 2: Right and now the mayor of Kiev, let's go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen, is speaking out
Speaker 2: against Zelenski. You know, this is absolutely shocking. And he
Speaker 2: did it also in a New York Post interview, turning you.
Speaker 2: He says, Zelenski is turning Ukraine in an authoritarian state,
Speaker 2: just like Russia. This is a Fatali klitschkoh He's with
Speaker 2: a famous boxer and is very famous inside of Ukraine,
Speaker 2: very well revered and was a previous opponent actually to Zelenski.
Speaker 2: But the mayor of Kiev is obviously an incredibly important
Speaker 2: position inside of wartime Ukraine. Right now, it remains a
Speaker 2: city that's probably battered the most, you know, by Russia,
Speaker 2: and it's their overall capital. And again, let me read
Speaker 2: the direct quote. At some point, we will no longer
Speaker 2: be any different from Russia, where everything depends on the
Speaker 2: whim of one man. There is currently only one independent institution,
Speaker 2: but enormous pressure is being exerted on it local self government,
Speaker 2: he said. So he is obviously speaking out against the
Speaker 2: command and control of Zelenski, who's trying to tighten down
Speaker 2: actually on all of his opponents as the war starts
Speaker 2: to crumble underneath from him. And if you think about
Speaker 2: it too, his sole real purpose in this war was
Speaker 2: to be like a hype man and to basically, you know,
Speaker 2: emotionally pressure the West to keep funding him. Well, if
Speaker 2: he stops being able to get the checks go, then
Speaker 2: what is his purpose as the head of Ukraine.
Speaker 3: This is exploding too.
Speaker 2: And again, just to cover some more of the domestic
Speaker 2: politics inside there, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: They are now actually reporting Crystal that Poroshenko, who is
Speaker 2: one of Zelenski's major opponents and who.
Speaker 3: Though has been you know, kind of a quiet ally of.
Speaker 2: His ever since the invasion, was blocked this week from
Speaker 2: leaving Ukraine. He had his passport confiscated and he was
Speaker 2: not allowed to leave the country, specifically because Poroshenko was
Speaker 2: set to meet with Hungarian president or Prime Minister Victor Orbon.
Speaker 2: They believe that Orbon has been blocking EU military aid
Speaker 2: and he's also been outspoken about allowing Ukraine and to NATO.
Speaker 3: They call him pro Russia. I think he's actually much
Speaker 3: more of a pro realist.
Speaker 2: But anyway, he's a He is very dissonant from the
Speaker 2: way that the rest of the Eastern Europeans nations speak.
Speaker 2: The sheer fact that he was meeting with him was
Speaker 2: enough for these Zelenski people to cancel it, to block
Speaker 2: him from leaving the country. That's not something that a
Speaker 2: person who's confident in their leadership does. So things really
Speaker 2: are beginning to fall apart from him. You have the
Speaker 2: aid that is now canceled. They you know, continue Actually
Speaker 2: just yesterday some of his representatives were here in Washington.
Speaker 2: They went on Fox News. They said, we have no
Speaker 2: plan for negotiation all of that. So we continue to
Speaker 2: fund much of their delusional dreams. But from a sheer
Speaker 2: military perspective, they are, you know, I mean, they're on
Speaker 2: their last ropes. They've got an average age of forty three,
Speaker 2: six hundred thousand and so off. Their troops have fled,
Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands of their men are they're dead or maimed,
Speaker 2: you know, permanently from the battlefield.
Speaker 3: And even if we were to provide.
Speaker 2: Them at this point with every military piece of equipment
Speaker 2: that we're asking for, they have had zero proven ability
Speaker 2: to properly employ Western style tactics and equipment on the battlefield.
Speaker 2: You know, that's really what came through, and the key
Speaker 2: finding segment that we did earlier this week is that
Speaker 2: their military leadership is incredibly incompetent and arrogant and does not.
Speaker 3: Listen to US military advice.
Speaker 2: So there's so much going on here Chrystal that I
Speaker 2: don't I do not currently see a path for this.
Speaker 3: Ukraine aid package.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 2: I would never put it past them to not shoehorn
Speaker 2: this thing, you know, for the for the rest of
Speaker 2: all eternity, to try and keep getting some money flowing
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, but this sixty one billion, I really don't
Speaker 2: see a political path forward to this, especially this year.
Speaker 2: And everybody I've spoken to on Capitol Hill will privately
Speaker 2: say the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean, just think of what a difference
Speaker 1: year makes last year. At this time, Solenski is being
Speaker 1: declared Time Person of the Year. And you could not
Speaker 1: have said any of this publicly, not in Ukraine, not
Speaker 1: here Western outlets, New York Times certainly not gould be
Speaker 1: writing it up and talking about.
Speaker 4: It, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And it shows you there is a level of instability
Speaker 1: among the Ukrainian like in the domestic political situation that
Speaker 1: has been completely bubbling underneath the surface and has now
Speaker 1: completely exploded to the surface given the state of affairs,
Speaker 1: with the failures of the or disappointments, i should say,
Speaker 1: at least of the military campaign. And that was one
Speaker 1: of the things that this mayor was saying about Zelensky
Speaker 1: is he's lying about how well the conflict is going,
Speaker 1: about how the war is actually going. And you know,
Speaker 1: you can't do that when you're asking your men to
Speaker 1: sacrifice their lives on the front line.
Speaker 3: And them drafting people who have serious medical.
Speaker 1: And banning them from leaving the country, and you're lying
Speaker 1: about how things are going on the front lines, and
Speaker 1: then you see you know, okay, the funding is starting
Speaker 1: to run out from your biggest backer, etc. It's a
Speaker 1: dire situation. It is a chaotic, unstable situation, and basically
Speaker 1: nothing would surprise me at this point in terms of
Speaker 1: Ukrainian domestic politics.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll say it here, this is speculation.
Speaker 2: I think that there is a very serious possibility that
Speaker 2: there is a coup against Lensky, because you've got the
Speaker 2: serious you know, the chief military advisor who he is,
Speaker 2: he's not even speaking to he's issuing orders to his
Speaker 2: troops around basically the equivalent of the chairman of the
Speaker 2: Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's an insane thing, like an
Speaker 2: what a completely unstable military architecture. Now you've got his
Speaker 2: political opponents who are openly speaking out against him, calling
Speaker 2: him authoritarian. Remember he's canceled elections. But he's like, well,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't accomplish anything or any of this. So and
Speaker 2: if he is not able to politically deliver on aid
Speaker 2: from the United States, which is the sole thing that
Speaker 2: is keeping them going, he has no real purpose there
Speaker 2: at the top. So I think he's seriously overplayed his hand.
Speaker 2: I think his arrogance and the way that he conducted
Speaker 2: himself in the West and also really at home, has
Speaker 2: set them up for serious reality check whenever this aid
Speaker 2: package doesn't pass. And it's very it's it would not
Speaker 2: be surprising to me at all if he's is removed
Speaker 2: and you have a very very different style of leadership
Speaker 2: come in just being like okay, it's time to cut
Speaker 2: a deal or something even something even more horrible, because
Speaker 2: don't forget, Russia is still waging war in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: It has not ended. They're continuing to rain.
Speaker 2: If anything, they're getting even better at it, holding their
Speaker 2: defensive positions and raining down these attack these very cheap
Speaker 2: attack drones all over Kievan, attacking their infrastructure as the
Speaker 2: winter goes on. So it's going to be I think
Speaker 2: it's gonna be a cold, cold winter all across Ukraine
Speaker 2: as all of this sets in.
Speaker 3: All right, let's move on to the next part.
Speaker 8: Here.
Speaker 2: Had to weigh in on this, and we've touched a
Speaker 2: little bit in the initial a block on Nikki Haley
Speaker 2: and her comments around anti Zionism and anti Semitism. So
Speaker 2: there was a resolution put before the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: which equated anti Zionism anti Semitism. Now, Crystal you aptly
Speaker 2: put it previously, but Zionism is a political ideology that
Speaker 2: has to do with land and is very separate from
Speaker 2: discrimination against a religious group, especially when members of that
Speaker 2: religious group, including people like Albert Einstein previously, had spoken
Speaker 2: out against Zionism, and that some of the most fierce
Speaker 2: people who object to Zionism are themselves Jewish. Well, it
Speaker 2: overwhelmingly passed the House, and many of the Progressives ended
Speaker 2: up voting present actually on the resolution, but one of
Speaker 2: the members who has been most singled out for his
Speaker 2: opposition to that resolution was Congressman Thomas Massey for tweeting
Speaker 2: out this meme. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. He tweeted out for those who are
Speaker 2: just listening, it's the Drake meme. The person who is
Speaker 2: he's holding up his hands as if opposed and says,
Speaker 2: Congress these days to American patriotism. Then he's pointing his
Speaker 2: finger and he's smiling, Congress these days towards Zionism.
Speaker 3: Funny meme.
Speaker 2: Definitely making fun again of these symbolic, ridiculous resolutions that
Speaker 2: are just what just like flagellating people themselves about how
Speaker 2: pro Israel they are, how many Congress.
Speaker 4: They are going to pass to and they don't even doings.
Speaker 3: So what's the purpose, all right, let's put that in.
Speaker 1: The purpose is just a smear people as anti Semitic
Speaker 1: that don't lockstep agree with Israel on literally everything.
Speaker 4: That's the purpose.
Speaker 8: Guess what.
Speaker 2: That's what they decided to do, not just Republicans, but
Speaker 2: actually prominent Democrats, including the White House, the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The Biden administrations put out a statement saying all Americans,
Speaker 2: including House GOP leadership, should condemn this virulent anti semitism
Speaker 2: from a sitting member of Congress.
Speaker 3: This was retweeted by the White House.
Speaker 2: This himself is a White House spokesperson, and it was
Speaker 2: reiterated by the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put that one up there on the screen, he says,
Speaker 2: Representative Massey, you are a sitting member of Congress. This
Speaker 2: is anti Semitic, disgusting, dangerous, exactly the type of thing
Speaker 2: I was talking about in my Senate address.
Speaker 3: Take this down.
Speaker 2: And Massey said, well, you know, it seems like you
Speaker 2: guys care a lot more about a foreign country's borders
Speaker 2: than our own.
Speaker 3: I think is absolutely correct on that one.
Speaker 2: But this is the absolute state of our discourse, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Is that a meme making fun of meaningless resolutions where
Speaker 2: a country continually affirms, you know, the right of a
Speaker 2: foreign government to exist and then affirms like the inability
Speaker 2: to even speak out against the actions have said that government,
Speaker 2: or even any foreign any political ideology, is then not
Speaker 2: able to be mocked and instead is flipped around and said,
Speaker 2: you are a anti semi I mean, that's one of
Speaker 2: the worst things that you can say about somebody.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: In the twenty in the twenty first century, especially with
Speaker 2: the legacy of the twentieth century, and yet they have
Speaker 2: no compunction doing it.
Speaker 3: I think it's really discussing what they're doing to It.
Speaker 1: Is utterly disgusting and disgraceful for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 1: Number One, when you throw around the word anti semitism
Speaker 1: to talk about a meme which is not remotely anti semitic,
Speaker 1: to talk about people who have critiques of the Israeli government,
Speaker 1: which is not remotely anti semitic. When you just use
Speaker 1: this word for everything you don't like, the word becomes meaningless.
Speaker 1: And then when things happen that are genuinely anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: which of course do happen all the time, and there
Speaker 1: has been an increase in the number of actual, real
Speaker 1: anti Semitic incidents during this time period, you have no
Speaker 1: words and no language left that means anything to anyone.
Speaker 1: And if you're an organization like the ADL where this
Speaker 1: is your thing, like you have completely bankrupted your credibility
Speaker 1: to apply this label to anyone or anything. So it's
Speaker 1: disgusting on that level. It is utterly disgusting and preposterous
Speaker 1: on this level as well, which is that we are
Speaker 1: providing the bombs and the unconditional support for Israel in
Speaker 1: their war on Gaza, which has not only exacted a
Speaker 1: horrific toll on the civilian population there, but has made
Speaker 1: Israelis less safe and have made our own men and
Speaker 1: women in the region less safe. And yet you want
Speaker 1: to spend your time at the White House and the
Speaker 1: head of the Democrats in the Senate, very powerful individuals.
Speaker 1: You want to spend your time railing against a fricking
Speaker 1: meme online. That's what you're spending your time and your
Speaker 1: outrage focused on what a clown show? Like, what a
Speaker 1: preposterous caricature of a decadent, failing society which cannot even
Speaker 1: focus on the actual real world events that are unfolding
Speaker 1: before our eyes. We're arguing about memes. We're inventing a
Speaker 1: soccer's going to discuss. We're inventing incidents on college campuses
Speaker 1: to debate. We're castigating a congresswoman who said rape was
Speaker 1: horrific because she didn't say it hard enough. Like, what
Speaker 1: the hell are we doing right now? While our big
Speaker 1: great friend in the Middle East, bab net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: is actively floating plans to Congress to quote unquote thin
Speaker 1: out the gods of population and all but announcing outright
Speaker 1: that his end goal here is ethnic cleansing. And we're
Speaker 1: spending our time on a meme that Thomas Massey sent out.
Speaker 1: A few things could possibly disgust me more than what
Speaker 1: is unfolding an elite discourse right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's totally nuts. And you
Speaker 3: know it's interesting.
Speaker 2: I care about American sovereignty more than anything, especially whenever
Speaker 2: it comes to the meddling of foreign governments in our
Speaker 2: domestic politics.
Speaker 3: And yesterday I noticed this.
Speaker 2: I'm going to read it for everybody because you're what
Speaker 2: you were saying reminded me of it. The Defense Minister
Speaker 2: of the State of Israel tweeted this out. Let's be
Speaker 2: clear and unequivocal. Calling for intifada, a murderous insurgency perpetrating
Speaker 2: acts of women, is not free speech. Chanting from the
Speaker 2: river from the sea, openly calling for the destruction of
Speaker 2: the Jewish state quote is not free speech. Both are
Speaker 2: examples of dangerous, violent hate speech, and they must be
Speaker 2: treated as such. Why is the defense minister of a
Speaker 2: foreign government, who, by the way, does not have free
Speaker 2: speech in their country trying to define free speech in
Speaker 2: our country. How about you worry about your goddamn job
Speaker 2: and we will do ours. But the reason that they
Speaker 2: feel so comfortable getting involved in this, getting involved in bed,
Speaker 2: I mean, the freaking Israeli ambassador has been going all
Speaker 2: over this country now for years promoting anti BDS legislation
Speaker 2: at a state life. Imagine if the United States ambassador
Speaker 2: was going around Israel and getting involved in which kibbutz's
Speaker 2: govern themselves and what they're allowed to say, that I
Speaker 2: would speak out against that.
Speaker 3: I would say, leave these people alone.
Speaker 2: I don't believe the United States should be doing that,
Speaker 2: period at all, whenever it comes to meddling in foreign
Speaker 2: governments vice versa. I mean, this is a total disrespect,
Speaker 2: honestly to us. And this is how I see a
Speaker 2: lot of these resolutions. And you know, I don't even
Speaker 2: necessarily agree with a lot of these, like anti Israel
Speaker 2: talking points and all that, but I you know, this
Speaker 2: is America. We get to say whatever we want, period,
Speaker 2: end of story. And you know, I wish, I truly
Speaker 2: wish they cared as much about this country, about our
Speaker 2: rights to do all these things, maybe our rights to
Speaker 2: say whatever we want as much as they did is
Speaker 2: affirming like anti zion or what is anti Zionism equals
Speaker 2: anti Semitism, so they they are fulfilling, by the way,
Speaker 2: all of the worst anti Semitic tropes around government aboutrue,
Speaker 2: control speech, d loyalty, duel loyalty, you know, by criminalizing
Speaker 2: or trying to make it such that you can't talk
Speaker 2: about it in the public domain. And all that has
Speaker 2: made me do is angrier and more determined not only
Speaker 2: to defend it, but actually say some of these things about.
Speaker 1: The other thing that's preposters. I mean, the Congress is
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly Christian, yes, like it's just like what ninety percent Christian,
Speaker 1: and then you're defining what anti Semitism is like that's
Speaker 1: absurd as well. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. And
Speaker 1: the discussing, I don't know, there's a lot about it
Speaker 1: that discuss me, but it's just such a clear tactic
Speaker 1: to distract from what our policies are actually doing in
Speaker 1: the region and the horrific toll that the American people
Speaker 1: have overwhelmingly rejected. I mean, I just saw another poll.
Speaker 1: Two thirds of American people want to cease fire. It's
Speaker 1: almost a majority of Republicans who want a permit ceasefire,
Speaker 1: and overwhelming majority of Democrats. And it's Democrats, of course,
Speaker 1: who are in charge of the White House. So they're
Speaker 1: trying to distract from the things that actually matter. And
Speaker 1: it's just never been more blatantly clear to me that
Speaker 1: that's what's going on here, playing all these games and
Speaker 1: taking up news cycles debating theoretical things that might be
Speaker 1: said on a college campus with regard to the River
Speaker 1: to the sea, chan or whatever. You know, Ryan did
Speaker 1: a great job with Ted Cruz on this, like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know they say this in the Coude party platform.
Speaker 4: What do you have to say about that. Well, it's
Speaker 4: not a.
Speaker 1: Problem when it's the Israeli say it's not a problem
Speaker 1: when Netanyahu's literally holding up a map of Israel that
Speaker 1: completely disappears the West Bank and the Gaza strip and
Speaker 1: says this is the new reality from the river to
Speaker 1: the sea. By the way, well that's fine, there's no
Speaker 1: problem with that whatsoever. But you know, let's criminalize chance
Speaker 1: on college campuses, because that's really the important thing for
Speaker 1: us to focus on right now.
Speaker 2: And by the way, even if it did mean it,
Speaker 2: I would still defend people's right to say it.
Speaker 3: I said, yeah, you could say it. Why should that
Speaker 3: be criminalized?
Speaker 2: Why do you need to be passing resolutions and all
Speaker 2: these other things against it. You should not be policing
Speaker 2: what people are saying anywhere in public life, especially whenever
Speaker 2: you're the government. But anyway, apparently that's a minority position here.
Speaker 1: Today, Sager, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 2: Well, if there's one thing that drives me more insane
Speaker 2: than any other, it's hypocrisy. It hurts even more when
Speaker 2: it's from people that you considered friends and even allies
Speaker 2: in some way. And for the last two months, I
Speaker 2: think it is fair to say I'm pretty much done
Speaker 2: with it all. The number of people who built now
Speaker 2: entire careers to crying attacks on free speech, safe spaces
Speaker 2: on college campuses and ideological witch hunts have switched on
Speaker 2: a dime now that it is a cause that they
Speaker 2: agree with and are leading only the latest iteration of
Speaker 2: the famed current thing. This movement has kicked into overdrive
Speaker 2: after a group of university presidents from Harvard, MIT and
Speaker 2: the University of Pennsylvania refuse to say that specifically calling
Speaker 2: for the genocide against Jews was against the university's code
Speaker 2: of conduct.
Speaker 9: Let's take a listen, Doctor Kornbluf at MIT, does calling
Speaker 9: for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct
Speaker 9: or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes?
Speaker 8: Or no?
Speaker 13: You've targeted at individuals not making public statements?
Speaker 9: Yes or no. Calling for the genocide of Jews does
Speaker 9: not constitute bullying and harassment.
Speaker 13: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews
Speaker 13: on our campus.
Speaker 9: But you've heard chance for intifada.
Speaker 13: I've heard chance, which can be antisemitic depending on the context,
Speaker 13: when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
Speaker 9: So those would not be according to the MIT's code
Speaker 9: of conduct or rule.
Speaker 13: That would be investigated of as harassment if pervasive and severe.
Speaker 9: Ms McGill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of
Speaker 9: Jews violate Pen's rules or code of conduct?
Speaker 8: Yes? Or no.
Speaker 13: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 9: Yes, I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Speaker 9: Does that constitute bullying harassment?
Speaker 12: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
Speaker 9: So the answer is yes.
Speaker 3: It is a context dependent decision.
Speaker 9: Congresswoman, It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today,
Speaker 9: calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context,
Speaker 9: that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest
Speaker 9: question to answer, yes, Miss McGill. So is your testimony
Speaker 9: that you will not answer yes?
Speaker 4: If it is yes or no.
Speaker 13: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 9: Yes, conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech
Speaker 9: is not harassment. This is unacceptab Miss micguil. I'm gonna
Speaker 9: give you one more opportunity for the world to see
Speaker 9: your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate
Speaker 9: pens Code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment?
Speaker 9: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules
Speaker 9: of bullying and harassment? Yes?
Speaker 8: Or no?
Speaker 14: It can be depending on the context.
Speaker 9: What's the context?
Speaker 14: Target it as an individual, targeted at an individual.
Speaker 9: It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand
Speaker 9: your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization
Speaker 9: is part of anti Semitism? I will ask you one
Speaker 9: more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate
Speaker 9: Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 14: Or no anti Semitic rhetoric, and is it anti Semitic rhetoric?
Speaker 14: Anti Semitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct that amounts
Speaker 14: to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we
Speaker 14: do take action.
Speaker 9: The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign.
Speaker 9: These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Speaker 3: Don't get me wrong. It sounds bad.
Speaker 2: And also we also know that if you replace the
Speaker 2: word Jew with trans or black, they would give a
Speaker 2: different answer. But that gets me to the crux of
Speaker 2: the point. There is a freak out of unprecedented proportions
Speaker 2: over this clip from the likes of billionaire hedge fund
Speaker 2: manager Bill Ackman, from celebrities, from pretty much every right
Speaker 2: wing pundit who is out there right now calling the
Speaker 2: president for calling out the presidents for not immediately saying yes.
Speaker 2: And it's not just they're furious over the hypocrisy. It's
Speaker 2: that they want an end state where calling for genocide
Speaker 2: would result in an immediate expulsion over the so called
Speaker 2: bullying and harassment policies of these universities. Again, this is
Speaker 2: after years of this entire ecosystem talking about how these
Speaker 2: systems are unfair, kangaroo court struggle. Session systems proliferated with
Speaker 2: talk of marginalization, snowflakes, safe spaces that violate the basic
Speaker 2: tenets of the First Amendment. And that's where I got
Speaker 2: to speak out. I jumped on board the train when
Speaker 2: I thought we agreed that system itself was flawed.
Speaker 3: Illegitimate, and Unamerican.
Speaker 2: Now that you are upset, you don't fit the definition
Speaker 2: of marginalization, which within the diversity, equity and inclusion regime.
Speaker 2: As my friend Jason Willick has so aptly pointed out
Speaker 2: in the Aftermath quote, the presidents did not give good answers,
Speaker 2: but they were right to not answer categorically. There is
Speaker 2: no genocide exception to the First Amendment in America, unlike
Speaker 2: many countries. You can say Hitler was right. Either campuses
Speaker 2: tolerate First Amendment speech or they don't. The obvious retort then,
Speaker 2: is that these are private universities. The First Amendment doesn't
Speaker 2: apply when we're talking about the code of conduct. And
Speaker 2: he gave what I thought was the best answer. When
Speaker 2: universities have embraced their conception of purpose as expelling people
Speaker 2: with bad beliefs, the result has been an aggressive and
Speaker 2: polarizing suppression of disfavored political ideas. First Amendment neutrality is
Speaker 2: the least bad model realistically available to major US universities,
Speaker 2: and I could not agree with that more. It leads
Speaker 2: me to what I think is the best mental path
Speaker 2: forward to think of this. Many American Jews right now
Speaker 2: are outraged that they are not considered marginalized and instead
Speaker 2: demand to be so. This reminds me of huge debates
Speaker 2: within the Indian community and amongst Asians whenever there was
Speaker 2: a fight over affirmative action. Asians had a choice. We
Speaker 2: could try and adopt the language of black liberation and
Speaker 2: convince these higher education DII monsters we too are marginalized,
Speaker 2: and that's why we also should get preferential treatment for
Speaker 2: admission in higher ed. Or we could reclaim our rights
Speaker 2: as American citizens to demand equal protection under the law
Speaker 2: and race color blindness and striking down an unfair system.
Speaker 2: We joined forces with those who sought to destroy racial
Speaker 2: preferences and college admissions, and it was the right thing
Speaker 2: to do, not only because it secured our rights for
Speaker 2: fairness and higher ed throughout the United States, but it
Speaker 2: enshrined those rights for whatever group may be considered not
Speaker 2: sufficiently marginalized one hundred years from now. Jews themselves should
Speaker 2: understand this. They were the first to be discriminated against
Speaker 2: at Ivy League universities and throughout the American elite in
Speaker 2: the early nineteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: But I'm not naive.
Speaker 2: Jewish leaders and most Republican members of Congress have instead
Speaker 2: decided to abandon the pretense of calling for free speech
Speaker 2: and instead adopting a censorious dei machine as their own,
Speaker 2: to be used for their own ends. Consider the recent
Speaker 2: testimony of many Jewish students on campuses who attest to
Speaker 2: not feeling safe and describing what they say are horrible conditions.
Speaker 10: CIA protesters blocking the hallways, storming the offices of the
Speaker 10: MIT israel Inmanship offices, and harassing the staff and faculty there,
Speaker 10: and inviting dangerous outsiders to campus to join them in
Speaker 10: yelling hateful and violent chants. This is the same climate
Speaker 10: of antisemitism that has led to massacres of Jews throughout
Speaker 10: the centuries. This is not just harassment, this is our
Speaker 10: lives on the line.
Speaker 3: What is it like to be a Jew at nyu?
Speaker 15: Being a Jew at Nyu is walking to class and
Speaker 15: passing torn into faced posters of innocent hostages with the
Speaker 15: words occupier and murderer written across their faces. It has
Speaker 15: gone to Boath's Library to study and being interrupted by
Speaker 15: unauthorized protests where students and faculty call for a globalized
Speaker 15: into thoughder revolution.
Speaker 10: Since October seventh.
Speaker 15: The unmistakable anti Semitism that I've experienced on campus is
Speaker 15: reminiscent of the jew hatred I've heard about from my grandparents,
Speaker 15: Holocaust survivors who experienced firsthand the deafening silence of their
Speaker 15: neighbors in Poland and in Germany when the Nazis first
Speaker 15: rose to power.
Speaker 2: On a personal level, I feel bad for these students,
Speaker 2: I'm sure it sucks, but replace their rhetoric with many
Speaker 2: who have preceded them, who were trans black, BIPOC whatever
Speaker 2: the djour term is these days, made up mumbo jumbo
Speaker 2: about how they don't feel safe on campus from statements
Speaker 2: made by people who they disagree with, you end up
Speaker 2: with the same regime. They equate feeling safe with hearing
Speaker 2: things that make them uncomfortable and hearing things that they
Speaker 2: find abhorrent to that.
Speaker 3: I say, welcome to society.
Speaker 2: Two months ago that was not a controversial point amongst
Speaker 2: a certain set, but apparently nowadays. So I'm going to
Speaker 2: end with wise words from my friend Jason, who I
Speaker 2: should say is also Jewish. The organizing ideology of elite
Speaker 2: American universities isn't free and cree and liberal neutrality.
Speaker 3: It is identity politics.
Speaker 2: Under identity politics, groups deemed marginalized are led entitled to affirmation.
Speaker 2: Jews have never made a good identity politics client group.
Speaker 2: So when Jews demand the universities acknowledge a cause near
Speaker 2: to their hearts as readily as they acknowledge other they
Speaker 2: are pulling a familiar lever on a broken machine. And
Speaker 2: he wisely ends quote. If universities are seen to foment
Speaker 2: and encourage identity politics, except when it targets Jews, that
Speaker 2: would only further stoke anti Semitism. The problem needs to
Speaker 2: be addressed at its source, which is the illegitimate DEI
Speaker 2: regime itself.
Speaker 3: And that's what's driven me totally.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: Thank you all so much for putting up with us
Speaker 2: and for signing up for the yearly membership.
Speaker 3: It really does help us out.
Speaker 2: Otherwise, we'll be able to standby over the weekend and
Speaker 2: we will see you all on Monday.