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 Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot to get into this morning.
Speaker 1: So first of all, the hunger war is becoming absolutely
Speaker 1: unbearable in Gaza, and this comes as Lloyd Austin was
Speaker 1: in Israel. Actually a whole parade of US officials are
Speaker 1: in Israel, and he has once again Israel to protect civilians.
Speaker 4: So we'll get into all of that.
Speaker 1: Also, this is a huge deal, not getting a lot
Speaker 1: of attention yet, but I think that it will US
Speaker 1: deal has sold to a Japanese company. Some politicians are
Speaker 1: already speaking out against this, as well as the labor
Speaker 1: union that represents those workers. So we will break all
Speaker 1: of that down for you. We also have a new
Speaker 1: bombshell report from pro Publica about once again Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: all the money that he's taken and some of the
Speaker 1: context for when and why that money began to flow.
Speaker 1: So very interesting report there that we should dig into.
Speaker 1: There's also a new deep dive into the perplexing calm
Speaker 1: of the Biden campaign. Apparently, at least their public face.
Speaker 4: They claim they're not worried.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they could be not worried given
Speaker 1: the polling that we have seen, So we'll get into that.
Speaker 1: And also, most importantly, Sogren are going to tackle that
Speaker 1: very controversial map from the new Civil War movie.
Speaker 4: So lots to talk about today.
Speaker 2: I've been doing a lot of war games in my head,
Speaker 2: and you guys should get ready for some risk level analysis.
Speaker 4: Yea, yes, then you've picked aside already.
Speaker 3: I declared my allegiance. I declared my allegiance.
Speaker 2: Okay, before we get to that, though, for we've got
Speaker 2: our yearly discount, which remains there for our membership. It's
Speaker 2: going to be a crazy year, so we can help
Speaker 2: us build up for that. As a thank you, and
Speaker 2: as always part of our premium subscription, we release big
Speaker 2: ticket interviews to our premium subscribers first. So we have
Speaker 2: Norm Finkelstein actually returning to the show that we'll be
Speaker 2: dropping sometime later next week early it will come to
Speaker 2: the premiums and Tucker Carlson as well, he's going to
Speaker 2: be doing a sit down, and so we will release
Speaker 2: all of that to our premium subscribers. If you want
Speaker 2: to watch it first Breakingpoints dot Com, you get early
Speaker 2: access to that, and you get to help us build,
Speaker 2: and you've got that yearly membership that remains on discount.
Speaker 3: So there you go, go ahead and take advantage.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's go ahead and get to the
Speaker 1: news out of Israel, starting with as I mentioned, Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense Lloyd Austin was there yesterday and among other comments,
Speaker 1: once again warning Israel about civilians.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Democracies are stronger and more secure when we uphold the
Speaker 5: law of war. And as I've said, acting Palestinian civilians
Speaker 5: in Gaza is both a moral duty and a strategic imperative.
Speaker 5: So we will continue to stand up for Israel's bedrock
Speaker 5: right to defend itself, and we will also continue to
Speaker 5: urge the protection of civilians during conflict and to increase
Speaker 5: the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. That's important as
Speaker 5: Israel fights to dismantle the Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Gaza,
Speaker 5: and it will also be crucial for our work with
Speaker 5: our allies and partners after the fighting stops.
Speaker 1: This, of course, very similar to what any number parade
Speaker 1: of US officials have been saying, have been leaking to
Speaker 1: the press, et cetera as Israel cared. Have they listened
Speaker 1: to any of it. No, because there's no teeth behind it. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: it's just words. There has been no indication that there
Speaker 1: are actual red lines. In fact, they've said quite the
Speaker 1: opposite that there are no red lines for Israel's conduct
Speaker 1: in their assault on Gaza. So we can see throughout
Speaker 1: the region some of the fallout in terms of US
Speaker 1: opinion of the US throughout the region. This was a
Speaker 1: pretty fascinating poll from Ara Barometer of Tunisia put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen.
Speaker 4: This was flagged by doctor tree t to Parsi.
Speaker 1: So before Gaza views of the US. This is again
Speaker 1: in Tunisia, which is kind of representative of a lot
Speaker 1: of the countries in the region, the Arab countries in
Speaker 1: the region. The view of the US was forty percent
Speaker 1: positive after Gaza ten percent. Positive, approval of Joe Biden
Speaker 1: pre Gaza twenty nine percent not great after Gaza six percent.
Speaker 1: And one of the things Saga that comes out here
Speaker 1: is that actually Israel views of Israel were already did.
Speaker 4: They haven't really changed.
Speaker 1: It's the views of the US that have absolutely fallen
Speaker 1: off the cliff. And on the other side, views of China. Oh,
Speaker 1: what's the favorability rating of China in Tunisia seventy five percent, Yeah,
Speaker 1: favorability rating of Russia in Tunisia fifty three. So countries
Speaker 1: that have taken a different approach to this conflict have
Speaker 1: seen a boon to their ratings. And the US and
Speaker 1: anyone else really associated with the US, or like Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia who had been approaching Israel and trying to normalize relations,
Speaker 1: their approval ratings have fallen off a cliff because of
Speaker 1: our association with Israel.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons Tunisia is very important is that
Speaker 2: that was where the so called Arab Spring began, the
Speaker 2: Tunisian Revolution of course, back in twenty ten. And Trita
Speaker 2: is very correct here in terms of looking at the
Speaker 2: North Arab states like Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, any of these, Algeria,
Speaker 2: these countries largely because they're not democracies per se, but
Speaker 2: popular sentiment matters a lot more in terms of how
Speaker 2: it affects the government, and these are obviously larger Arab
Speaker 2: populations in the region. As to why should we should
Speaker 2: care at all, well, not only does it affect overall
Speaker 2: US soft power, but it's also a pretty decent barometer
Speaker 2: for terrorism and for feelings of terrorism against the US.
Speaker 2: It also would highlight if we do get involved in
Speaker 2: some sort of broader war in the Middle East when Yemen,
Speaker 2: who is going to side with whom, Which governments can
Speaker 2: declare their allegiance, what level of support bases, whether US
Speaker 2: trade troops will be safe if they're forward deployed. These
Speaker 2: are all the things that you got to think about
Speaker 2: about overall US support. And this actually fits with a
Speaker 2: broader point John Meerscheimer's been making on Israel now for
Speaker 2: basically decades, ever since he wrote his book in two thousand,
Speaker 2: I think it was two thousand and six somewhere around
Speaker 2: there was that by polarizing all US policy in the
Speaker 2: Middle East around two central subjects of the last twenty years,
Speaker 2: but also the last seventy five Israel and Iraq. We
Speaker 2: have done ourselves a tremendous disservice because it is ignited
Speaker 2: a tremendous amount of popular sentiment against us. And at
Speaker 2: the same time we try to go around this by
Speaker 2: just making deals with dictators. And these dictators have control,
Speaker 2: but they're not absolute monarchs in the way that we
Speaker 2: might like to think.
Speaker 3: So how these people.
Speaker 2: Think about us matters a lot in terms of our
Speaker 2: mobility in the region, the safety of our troops, and
Speaker 2: also of terrorism generally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's absolutely right and sort of exposes the lie
Speaker 1: of the idea that actually the thing that is in
Speaker 1: the interest of our security is to give blanket, unconditional
Speaker 1: support to Israel. So let's take a look at some
Speaker 1: of the actions that our government is currently co signing.
Speaker 1: Can put this up on the screen. These are images
Speaker 1: that just came out. This is from the ap of
Speaker 1: an AID truck being rated. You can see people running
Speaker 1: after it, climbing on top of it. This comes as
Speaker 1: there is wide spread, critical levels of hunger throughout the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. We can put this next piece up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Guy's Human Rights Watch just came out with
Speaker 1: a new report saying that Israel is using starvation as
Speaker 1: a weapon of war in Gaza. They go on to
Speaker 1: say that this is based on not only the actions,
Speaker 1: the level of hunger also be stated intentions of Israeli officials.
Speaker 1: Now you might say at this point, like, well, that's
Speaker 1: kind of obvious, but it was important for them to
Speaker 1: do an in depth investigation and see what people were
Speaker 1: experiencing on the ground. The UN World Food Program reported
Speaker 1: on December sixth that nine out of ten households in
Speaker 1: northern Gaza and two out of three households in Southern
Speaker 1: Gaza had spent at least one full day and night
Speaker 1: without food. International humanitarian law, of course, they point out
Speaker 1: or the laws of war, prohibit the starvation of civilians
Speaker 1: as a method of warfare. The Roman Statute of the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court provides that intentionally starving civilians by depriving
Speaker 1: them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeting
Speaker 1: relief supplies, is a war crime. Criminal intent does not
Speaker 1: require the attackers admission, but can also be inferred from
Speaker 1: the totality of the circumstances of the military campaign.
Speaker 4: Of course, we know that at the.
Speaker 1: Very start of this war, Israeli officials announced they were
Speaker 1: launching a complete siege. We know that conditions have only
Speaker 1: continued to deteriorate, and there are now some scattered reports
Speaker 1: coming out of people actually starving to death, children in particular,
Speaker 1: though those haven't been completely confirmed. If this continues in
Speaker 1: this direction, though, you can certainly expect that will be
Speaker 1: an additional cost and toll on civilians of this war
Speaker 1: and Sagar. In addition to this, the Washington Post, which
Speaker 1: we can put up on the screen, is taking a
Speaker 1: look at the spread of disease. This is actually something
Speaker 1: Rian has been highlighting from early on because recall, you
Speaker 1: got no fuel, you have no sanitation facilities. You have
Speaker 1: now one point nine million residents of Gazo been forcibly displaced,
Speaker 1: people living in crowded circumstances, in shelters, outside, in tents.
Speaker 1: So it is just a horrific situation in terms of
Speaker 1: the spread of disease. And then you add to that
Speaker 1: the fact that so many hospitals have been attacked. There's
Speaker 1: very little in the way of medical supply, so things
Speaker 1: that should be easily treatable, there's no ability to treat them.
Speaker 1: Let me just read you a little bit of this,
Speaker 1: because this report was really heartbreaking to give you a
Speaker 1: sense of what this is like for people who are
Speaker 1: living through this on the ground. One family, they talk
Speaker 1: about how is real Reilly strikes killed one of Tahani
Speaker 1: Abu Tema's sons and one of her brothers, but she
Speaker 1: fears a different killer is stalking what's left of her family.
Speaker 4: Disease.
Speaker 1: Abu Taima's two year old daughter is suffering from diarrhea, vomits, sneezes,
Speaker 1: and is shaking from the cold.
Speaker 4: And lack of food.
Speaker 1: The mother of six told The Washington Post, the child
Speaker 1: asks me for food all the time, but I am
Speaker 1: unable to provide, which forces me to give her anything
Speaker 1: even if it is contaminated. And once again, there is
Speaker 1: no ability to treat this child. So she's extremely concerned
Speaker 1: about her ability to survive. Staph infections, chicken pox, rashes,
Speaker 1: urinary tract infections, meningitis, momp scabies, measles, and food poisoning
Speaker 1: are all on the rise. The World Health Organization particularly
Speaker 1: concerned about bloody diarrhea, jaundice, and respiratory infections. The UN
Speaker 1: is tracking fourteen different diseases with epidemic potential that is
Speaker 1: according to Reuters.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Actually, one of the stats that really jumped out to
Speaker 2: me is that currently above the one point three million
Speaker 2: Gosdens who live in shelters, there is an average of
Speaker 2: one toilet for every two hundred and twenty people in
Speaker 2: a shower for every four thousand and five hundred, so
Speaker 2: unsanitary conditions. Obviously, and already it was one of the
Speaker 2: more densely populated regions on planet Earth. And it demonstrates
Speaker 2: too about the humanitarian disaster of which will continue if
Speaker 2: this is allowed. The real issue I think here is
Speaker 2: about something we continue to highlight, or at least I've
Speaker 2: been trying to make this point, which is really unfortunate.
Speaker 3: They probably the worst has yet to come. This is bombing.
Speaker 2: We have lawlessness, as we could saw with the aid convoys.
Speaker 2: Hamas doesn't care about the population. Israel doesn't really care
Speaker 2: about the population. They're basically offending for themselves. You've got
Speaker 2: the blockade and the Rafa crossing which continues to be
Speaker 2: completely closed both by the Egyptian government and the Israeli
Speaker 2: government on the other side.
Speaker 3: So these people are really stuck.
Speaker 2: And the issue I think is at the vacuum of
Speaker 2: where this is all going to emerge. We saw a
Speaker 2: lot of this play out in Iraq immediately after the
Speaker 2: so called liberation, where we had full blown looting across
Speaker 2: the city and similar you know, because we we were
Speaker 2: stupid and we fired the bath party and keepathifcation, we
Speaker 2: didn't have civil and city services. They took well over
Speaker 2: a year to come back, and Iraq was frankly a
Speaker 2: far more developed place and you know, had more a
Speaker 2: lot more governance, and they at least access to some
Speaker 2: croc border trade and other things that were available to
Speaker 2: them afterwards. So this is a really, really bad situation,
Speaker 2: and I do think it demonstrates that a lot of
Speaker 2: the day after Gaza situation is going to come down
Speaker 2: to genuine, crystal civil administration. The security situation will almost
Speaker 2: be a secondary concern because these amount of people living
Speaker 2: in these types of conditions. This is one where it's
Speaker 2: a powder keke not only of terrorism, but I mean,
Speaker 2: who knows, you could see a full blown run at
Speaker 2: the at the border to Egypt. You could see you know,
Speaker 2: a swarming of an ad truck today. Imagine six months
Speaker 2: from now, a year from now, two years from now,
Speaker 2: so that is where I think the big, the big
Speaker 2: flashing red light on this is going to be. And
Speaker 2: I mean, look the USPID. That's why Lloyd Austin began
Speaker 2: with all of those comments. He can see it very clearly.
Speaker 2: The only question is what US policy is going to
Speaker 2: compel a change and a difference.
Speaker 3: And of course that hasn't materialized yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not whatsoever. There's another incident that has really shocked
Speaker 1: and horrified people, including the Pope. We can go and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He spoke out and
Speaker 1: called terrorism. This incident where two people, a mother and
Speaker 1: her daughter were killed while they were at a Catholic parish.
Speaker 1: They one of them went out to go to the
Speaker 1: bathroom and they were targeted by the IDF. He says,
Speaker 1: some say this is terrorism, this is war.
Speaker 4: Yes, it is war.
Speaker 1: It is terrorism, going on to say that is why
Speaker 1: the scripture affirms that God stops wars, breaks the bow,
Speaker 1: splinters the spear.
Speaker 4: Let us pray to the Lord for peace.
Speaker 1: This is not the first time that the Pope has
Speaker 1: referred to to Israeli actions in Gaza as terror and
Speaker 1: has called for an end to the hostilities.
Speaker 4: We can put up the.
Speaker 1: Screen on the screen. The statement from the Latin Patriarchate.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen in Jerusalem on
Speaker 1: the shooting and killing of two women in that Catholic
Speaker 1: church in Gaza. So these are some of the details
Speaker 1: according to this local Catholic organization. Around noon today December
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, sixteen, a sniper of the IDF murder
Speaker 1: two Christian women inside the Holy Family Parish in Gaza,
Speaker 1: where the majority of Christian families have taken refuge since
Speaker 1: the start of the war. Nahita and her daughter Samar
Speaker 1: were shot and killed as they walked to the sister's convent.
Speaker 1: One was killed as she tried to carry the other
Speaker 1: to safety. Seven more people were shot and wounded as
Speaker 1: they tried to protect others inside the church compound. No
Speaker 1: warning was given, no notification was provided. They were shot
Speaker 1: in cold blood inside the premises of the parish. The
Speaker 1: spokesperson are top Aid or Bib Natanyahu was asked about
Speaker 1: this attack, in particular asked to justify it. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to how he responded.
Speaker 6: So I would reject the categorization of the words he
Speaker 6: used cold blooded killing that would indicate a deliberate targeting
Speaker 6: of civilians.
Speaker 7: That's something we don't do. We don't shoot people who
Speaker 7: are going to church to pray. It just doesn't happen.
Speaker 7: That's not the way the IDF operates. That's against our
Speaker 7: rules of engagement. We don't know exactly what happened, and
Speaker 7: I would urge people not to jump to conclusions. They
Speaker 7: have been in the past all sorts of stories put
Speaker 7: out by Hamas and their supporters accusing Israel of all
Speaker 7: sorts of terrible deeds, and in the end they've proved
Speaker 7: to be wrong. And we're talking about a combat area,
Speaker 7: there's exchanges of fire between Israeli forces and the Kamas terrorists.
Speaker 7: To say that Israel is deliberately targeting Christian worship is
Speaker 7: that's a terrible accusation that is unfounded.
Speaker 4: Would you acknowledge, mister Egev, that the bullets that killed
Speaker 4: these women were fired by the Idea.
Speaker 7: I did not know that to be true. Obviously, we're
Speaker 7: looking into it. Could they have been killed by Palestinian
Speaker 7: terrorists who were shooting at our people indiscriminately. I don't know,
Speaker 7: but we've got to be very careful. There been countless
Speaker 7: stories since this conflict began where reports out of Gaza.
Speaker 7: People are one hundred percent sure that Israel did something
Speaker 7: terrible or this, that or the other. And in the
Speaker 7: end it's been proven conclusively that that was not the case,
Speaker 7: and people have had to retract their words. Unfortunately, some
Speaker 7: have refused he.
Speaker 1: Is corrected as a terrible accusation, and if he cares
Speaker 1: about getting to the truth, he would allow an independent investigation.
Speaker 4: But I wouldn't hold member right.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, what's come out since then is that quote.
Speaker 2: The IDEF says that an initial review says that IDEF
Speaker 2: troops who were operating against Hamas Terras in the area
Speaker 2: operated against the threat that they identified in the area
Speaker 2: of the church. The IDEA was conducting a thorough view
Speaker 2: of the incident, and the Catholic Cardinal Pizzabala, he wrote
Speaker 2: in his letter, actually not only identified them, but said Crystal,
Speaker 2: that seven more people were shot and wounded as they
Speaker 2: tried to protect others inside of the church compound.
Speaker 3: No warning was given, no notification.
Speaker 2: They were shot in cold blood, as you said, inside
Speaker 2: the premises of the parish. The letter was then re
Speaker 2: published completely in full by the Holy See, which is
Speaker 2: the Vatican News agency. So I mean, obviously this is
Speaker 2: representing a split. Now it shouldn't matter whether you're Christian, Muslim,
Speaker 2: or or whatever. But I think what it does highlight
Speaker 2: is that there are a lot of other constituencies who
Speaker 2: may not necessarily have said anything, but who are now
Speaker 2: highlighting some of the situation inside of Gaza. And I
Speaker 2: actually saw a pretty significant crystal reaction by the Catholic
Speaker 2: community here in Washington, who are even in the Republican
Speaker 2: Party at this news. You'll remember too, when Justin Amash's
Speaker 2: relatives were also killed, you know, in this incident, because
Speaker 2: I think you know, and I hate to say this,
Speaker 2: but with a lot of these people, it's genuinely undeniable.
Speaker 2: Like they obviously have nothing to do with Hamas. You
Speaker 2: can't even say that they're like sympathizers or anything. They're
Speaker 2: they're they're literal Catholics, right, And this is the Latin Patriarchate,
Speaker 2: as I understand it traces its roots in the region
Speaker 2: all the way back to the Crusade, So they've been
Speaker 2: operating in the area for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Speaker 2: And this goes to the delicate balance of the religions,
Speaker 2: and you know, it probably at its best with at
Speaker 2: a time when all three could live in the region
Speaker 2: in peace. Obviously it also been warring now for some time.
Speaker 3: But Gaza is not a monolith, you know, we.
Speaker 2: Like to think of it, I think as a place
Speaker 2: where it's just like all Islamist and it's like some
Speaker 2: Muslim brotherhood has a Hamas and pij Palestini Islamic Jihad sanctuary.
Speaker 3: It's just not.
Speaker 2: It's it's a diverse society in the way that many
Speaker 2: you think of Syria, Druz, Christians and other ethnic groups
Speaker 2: that have lived in the region with thousands and thousands
Speaker 2: of years of history. I personally know actually some Palestinian
Speaker 2: Christians they trace their roots to back there just as
Speaker 2: long as everybody else. So it's a tragic incident, I think,
Speaker 2: and to me actually demonstrates again that the IDF and
Speaker 2: it's lack of discipl I.
Speaker 3: Don't know if you saw this.
Speaker 2: Just yesterday, I saw a girl idea of soldier who
Speaker 2: apparently participated in some dare where she stood in front
Speaker 2: of an artillery, a piece of artillery while it was
Speaker 2: fired as some sort of like TikTok dare and is
Speaker 2: now quote under investigation by the IDF. It just seems
Speaker 2: like people there are playing games and a lot of
Speaker 2: these people are their level of discipline, and that again
Speaker 2: you can even see. We've been contacted actually too by
Speaker 2: people who served in Iraq. They're like, I did four
Speaker 2: tours in Iraq and they're like, I've never seen anything
Speaker 2: like this before.
Speaker 3: The amount of the lack of discipline here.
Speaker 2: And one of the reasons why I keep harping on
Speaker 2: discipline and training is that even our reservist guys who
Speaker 2: are police officers in the National Guard, they had a
Speaker 2: lot of training there, are held are very strict and
Speaker 2: rigid standards whenever they're deployed to Iraq, specifically for this region,
Speaker 2: because the consequences of a single band incident are obviously ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I mean, here you have two people who were al
Speaker 2: you'd ly sniped, you know, by the IDF. They don't
Speaker 2: even appear to deny it honestly, you know, even though
Speaker 2: he suggested it was Hamas.
Speaker 3: But you've now.
Speaker 2: Gotten the freaking Pope calling you people act committing acts
Speaker 2: of terrorism. That's why you're supposed to And I understand,
Speaker 2: you know, bad things happen in war, but like we're
Speaker 2: looking at a pattern here of disciplinary issue after disciplinary issue,
Speaker 2: after lack of conduct issue, where the leadership both from
Speaker 2: Netanyahud all the way down to the taxical level of
Speaker 2: the IDF, they just don't seem to have a very
Speaker 2: good control of their soldiers. Yeah, which is you know,
Speaker 2: and that's this is just a military judgment. You can
Speaker 2: put the morals and all that if you want to.
Speaker 2: The question is is like, are you accomplishing what you're
Speaker 2: set out to do?
Speaker 3: Because it's clear if once you've lost, when you lost
Speaker 3: the pope, you.
Speaker 2: Know, in a war against Islamic jihad, I don't know
Speaker 2: what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you're right to lay out you know, why
Speaker 1: why highlight this incident when there have been now you know,
Speaker 1: ten thousand children alone killed by Israel in this conflict,
Speaker 1: and the vast majority of them of course Muslim children.
Speaker 1: It's because it is the war of words between the
Speaker 1: pope and you know, the spokesperson or top aid for
Speaker 1: Bibi Netanya who basically calling the Pope a liar or
Speaker 1: calling into question what actually happened here. And it is
Speaker 1: the fact that you know, there's no way that you
Speaker 1: can smear these people as somehow aiding and abetting Hamas
Speaker 1: somehow being you know, legitimate military targets. Everything about it
Speaker 1: screams violation of international law. From the location where they
Speaker 1: were this Catholic parish, walking over to a literal convent,
Speaker 1: to the fact that they are women, to the fact
Speaker 1: that they are Catholics. Everything about you know, this religious
Speaker 1: minority which has already been through quite a lot living
Speaker 1: in Gaza here. So everything about it screams outrage and
Speaker 1: there really is no justification for it whatsoever, And that's
Speaker 1: why it's caught so many people's attention. At the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, there are many other horrors. Is hard to
Speaker 1: pick which ones to cover. Every day, let's put up
Speaker 1: on the screen the UN is calling for an investigation
Speaker 1: into yet another hospital raid. This one is at Camal
Speaker 1: Adwan Hospital. There were a number of patients still at
Speaker 1: this hospital. The doctors who were there said that a
Speaker 1: number of these patients died of dehydration because of the
Speaker 1: raid on this hospital the fact that they had been
Speaker 1: completely cut off from any supplies. A nurse who asked
Speaker 1: that her name not be used, didn't provide a specific number,
Speaker 1: but said that a number who had non fatal injuries
Speaker 1: died of dehydration. There were also a number of infants
Speaker 1: who died when their incubators were shut off from a
Speaker 1: lack of fuel.
Speaker 4: What really extra.
Speaker 1: Horrified people, I suppose, is some of the images that
Speaker 1: came out afterwards. Let's go and put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen of bulldozers from the IDF coming through and
Speaker 1: plowing through the courtyard and buried under this rubble are
Speaker 1: dead bodies.
Speaker 4: Some reports I.
Speaker 1: Had seen indicated that these bulldozers had actually mowed down
Speaker 1: people who were alive. What the nurses and doctors on
Speaker 1: the scene are saying is that they had been forced
Speaker 1: to bury patients who had died in this courtyard, and
Speaker 1: that the bulldozers plowed over these already dead bodies. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the nurses there said they shoved
Speaker 1: them over without any respect of human dignity, into what
Speaker 1: looks like a pile of rubble. You can only imagine
Speaker 1: if it was your loved one who was there receiving
Speaker 1: this treatment after they had died. And just as a reminder,
Speaker 1: you know the number of hospitals that have been targeted here.
Speaker 1: According to euromen Monitor, twenty three different hospitals around the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip have been targeted and overall including those hospitals.
Speaker 1: One hundred and twenty six health facilities that includes ambulances, clinics,
Speaker 1: and hospitals have been targeted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it's a tragic situation, obviously, And it's
Speaker 2: so the more that these spread, this is connects back
Speaker 2: to and why, you know, why are we structuring the
Speaker 2: show this way is I think all of it traces
Speaker 2: back to the level of animus against us. And this
Speaker 2: is the difficulty and kind of like how I like
Speaker 2: to look at things too. There's the Israel situation in
Speaker 2: which we're trying to keep abreast of. There's a bit
Speaker 2: broader geopolitical situation though, of which the powder keg. And
Speaker 2: this is where I'm a little bit conflicted. On the
Speaker 2: one hand, I'm deeply annoyed that the entire sphere around
Speaker 2: it's like Israel right now is the sun and all
Speaker 2: of us are just orbiting around it. All of American politics.
Speaker 2: Our Defense secretary and National Security advisor are spending more
Speaker 2: time in Tel Aviv than they are here in Washington.
Speaker 2: So personally, I find that incredibly irksome because I'm like, hey,
Speaker 2: you know, we actually have problems here. Have got a
Speaker 2: whole thing, We got to talk about with US deal
Speaker 2: At the same time, why do we and all these
Speaker 2: policymakers have to dedicate so much time to it, because
Speaker 2: a single instance can set the entire world on fire,
Speaker 2: and we have to find a way here. I think
Speaker 2: of trying at best to bring things to a way
Speaker 2: where we don't ignite Middle East region against us and
Speaker 2: just think about this purely in terms of interest. I
Speaker 2: tried to make people think about this too, in terms
Speaker 2: of Ukraine and now here. The amount of blood, capital,
Speaker 2: treasure that we've already spent in this region and now
Speaker 2: continue to dedicate this region, not to mention, polarizing all
Speaker 2: of American politics on a third world ethnic conflict is insane.
Speaker 2: And yet the consequence is just simply because of the
Speaker 2: investment of so many of these global populations, means that
Speaker 2: it also is one which could decide the fate of
Speaker 2: our nation and Joe Biden's future too whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 1: And for me, it's not only that, but it's the
Speaker 1: fact that you know, there are lots of horrors unfolding
Speaker 1: around the world at any given point in time, so
Speaker 1: people say, oh, why focus so much on this one like,
Speaker 1: why do you care so much about this one? It
Speaker 1: is unparalleled what Israel is doing right now in Gaza
Speaker 1: in terms of the level of civilian death and in
Speaker 1: terms of our direct complicity.
Speaker 4: And you can just look.
Speaker 1: At the comparisons to previous mass bombing campaigns. You can
Speaker 1: look at the comparisons to civilian death ratios in this
Speaker 1: war on Gaza versus previous conflicts. I mean, you made
Speaker 1: this point earlier, and you've made it for a long time,
Speaker 1: which is completely accurate.
Speaker 4: They're making what we.
Speaker 1: Did in Iraq and Afghanistan look like we were angels,
Speaker 1: and there was plenty to criticize there as well, which
Speaker 1: we did. This is on a whole other scale and level.
Speaker 1: And so to watch all of this unfolding and the
Speaker 1: number almost you know, very little dissent in Washington, even
Speaker 1: though the public is crying out for a cease fire
Speaker 1: and demanding an end to the hostilities and wanting to
Speaker 1: see humanitarian relief, come in to watch the number of
Speaker 1: people who can just justify things that I could never
Speaker 1: imagine people being able to justify. That's the other reason
Speaker 1: to care about what is happening here. So let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and turn to you know what may happen next.
Speaker 1: Israel has been very cagey about even whether they even
Speaker 1: have a day after plan, insisting they're just focused on
Speaker 1: the current mission of quote unquote targeting or hunting humas,
Speaker 1: which they seem to have had relatively little success in
Speaker 1: much more success plowing down civilians and bulldozing hospital courtyards.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen. This was a
Speaker 1: five step plan floated by this guy, Danny Dane, and
Speaker 1: he's a senior Lakud Kanesset member. He's also the former
Speaker 1: UN rep from Israel. And here's his Gaza the day
Speaker 1: after plan for what it's worth, which I think is.
Speaker 4: Worth digging into.
Speaker 1: Number One, demilitarized Gaza ensure the removal of all terror elements,
Speaker 1: including weapons, ammunition and rockets, and any other infrastructure connected
Speaker 1: to terror during and after the demilitarization period. The IDF
Speaker 1: will be granted full freedom of action, enabling Israel to
Speaker 1: respond to all security threats. He says the sole weaponry
Speaker 1: allowed into Gaz will be handguns for policing activities. So
Speaker 1: I suppose Israel has the right to defend themselves, but
Speaker 1: Palestinians not so much. Establishment of a security buffer zone.
Speaker 1: This would be a three kilometer area. He says the
Speaker 1: length of no less than three kilometers. Entry to the
Speaker 1: buffer zone will be strictly prohibited to all parties. This
Speaker 1: is something the US has been against, by the way,
Speaker 1: because it constitutes a taking of additional Palestinian land, something
Speaker 1: in the US at least claims to oppose. Number three
Speaker 1: is really presence at the Rafa crossing. The crossing on
Speaker 1: the Gazen side will be rebuilt with new technologies and capabilities,
Speaker 1: and it will serve as a crossing between the Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip and Egypt. It will be overseen by Israel and
Speaker 1: international forces, so no longer will Egypt be solely responsible
Speaker 1: for patrolling the Rafa Crossing. Israel will be involved as well.
Speaker 1: This one really got a lot of people's attention. Quote
Speaker 1: unquote voluntary immigration. Gazans who wish to immigrate voluntarily to
Speaker 1: countries that are ready to receive them will be given
Speaker 1: the opportunity to leave in an orderly manner to their
Speaker 1: destiny nation countries of choice.
Speaker 4: This very consistent with.
Speaker 1: What Natna who has reportedly said, which is his desire
Speaker 1: to quote unquote thin out the population of the Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip So the basic idea here is, after we render
Speaker 1: most of the Gaza strip completely unlivable, we will allow
Speaker 1: you to leave your home, and you know whether or
Speaker 1: not you return or not. We shall see number five
Speaker 1: economic rehabilitation. This one, in some ways was the most
Speaker 1: dystopian to me. An international framework will include countries in
Speaker 1: the region to promote economic rehabilitation, management of all civilian aspects,
Speaker 1: special emphasis on the creation of a new educational system.
Speaker 1: So an international coalition to create a new re education
Speaker 1: system in Gaza, each and every area of Gaza. They say,
Speaker 1: the pace of investments we closely match the pace of
Speaker 1: eradicating the culture of hate and incitement. So Saga, I
Speaker 1: wonder what you make of this plan and how significant
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 2: Well, in terms of its significance, I think really what
Speaker 2: it highlights is that the Israelis want the best of
Speaker 2: both worlds. They want total freedom of maneuver and security
Speaker 2: over Gaza, but then they don't want to govern Gaza
Speaker 2: and they don't want to deal with the quote unquote
Speaker 2: economic rehabilitation. This drives me insane because as you can see,
Speaker 2: they're like the management of all civilian aspects, a new
Speaker 2: educational system. It's like, Okay, you destroyed all of the infrastructure,
Speaker 2: and then you basically want to kill the people that
Speaker 2: you want and then leave and then just say hey,
Speaker 2: you win, and everybody else you guys come in and
Speaker 2: face it's like no, no, no, you're responsible for that,
Speaker 2: and you're paying for this shit.
Speaker 3: Nobody else is going to be paying for it.
Speaker 2: Especially so if you have such objections to their educational curriculum,
Speaker 2: go for it. You want to militarily occupy and compel
Speaker 2: the population and to try and work against a thousand
Speaker 2: years of hatred and all this other stuff. And if
Speaker 2: you if you think you're so good as an imperial power,
Speaker 2: be our guests.
Speaker 3: There's no way they're going.
Speaker 7: To do that.
Speaker 2: They don't have the military capability, they don't have the
Speaker 2: economic capability. That's one thing that we should we keep
Speaker 2: highlighting here. But I don't think the audience may understand
Speaker 2: the ration. This war costs one hundred to two hundred
Speaker 2: million a day because of the reservists. The Israeli economy
Speaker 2: is really suffering right now. Their prime age working population
Speaker 2: is either in the IDF or in Gaza, and now
Speaker 2: they've got to pay all these death and health benefits.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is this is serious business that you
Speaker 2: can't really move away from. And the backbone of the
Speaker 2: high tech economy and all that was built such that
Speaker 2: the Palestinians could serve and the Arab population as kind
Speaker 2: of the servant class would do, you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of the more lowly work.
Speaker 3: Now, what what are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: You're gonna import, you know, a mass amount of population
Speaker 2: at the same time you got these Palestinians here on
Speaker 2: your border. I think this demonstrates and I think you know,
Speaker 2: also in general, the misalignment of the israelis very rarely,
Speaker 2: at least more recently, I have just been saying in
Speaker 2: quiet part out loud, they're like, yeah, we'd prefer if
Speaker 2: people just left the US, Egypt, the Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: UAE is Like, that's a non starter.
Speaker 3: That's not going to happen.
Speaker 2: Then the UN is obviously calling for a humanitarian thing,
Speaker 2: and they're going to try and administer some of this
Speaker 2: to the best of your ability. But look at Somalia,
Speaker 2: look at and I could go on Kosovo, all these
Speaker 2: other places that have been under semi UN administration has
Speaker 2: failed miserably.
Speaker 3: So this is the worst of all worlds. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: we're going to end.
Speaker 2: Up in that situation, some sort of gray zone, you know,
Speaker 2: period where we'll see, you know, governance is up in
Speaker 2: the air, and full blown collapse is probably the most
Speaker 2: likely scenario for all of this.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The thing that I see most consistently reiterated is framing
Speaker 1: as humanitarian the desire to push Gozans out of the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip. And you know, the US says they're opposed
Speaker 1: to this. Egypt says they're opposed to this, they say
Speaker 1: they're very opposed to this. Other countries and regions say
Speaker 1: they're very opposed to this. But you know, they've already
Speaker 1: rendered northern Gaza completely uninhabitable. They're working on doing the
Speaker 1: same for much of southern Gaza. So then they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you can have a much better life after
Speaker 1: we've completely destroyed your home and all the infrastructure and
Speaker 1: all of the hospitals and all of the schools, et cetera,
Speaker 1: if you just leave. And you know, there was this
Speaker 1: bipartisan plan that we saw that's being floated here.
Speaker 4: In Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: To use US AID dollars to compel various countries in
Speaker 1: the region to take in Palestinian refugees. Joe Biden a
Speaker 1: little noticed, asked for dollars for our country to resettle
Speaker 1: both Ukrainian and Palestinian refugees here as well. So the
Speaker 1: groundwork is being laid here both in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: money's being appropriated, but also in terms of the sort
Speaker 1: of propaganda information war to try to get people to
Speaker 1: see this as a humanitarian outcome. So the question remains, though,
Speaker 1: of course, what it was rallies actually want, what are
Speaker 1: their thoughts about the day after in Gaza? And you know,
Speaker 1: we've talked to a number of people I've talked now to.
Speaker 1: You know, we talked about poster. We I spoke with
Speaker 1: another analyst who you know, had really analyzed sort of
Speaker 1: Israeli public opinion. Both of them said, Israelis are mostly Jewish.
Speaker 1: Israelis are mostly not thinking about the day after. They're
Speaker 1: thinking about the here and now. They're thinking about what's
Speaker 1: going on in Gaza right now today, the thing about
Speaker 1: October seventh. But to the extent that people are thinking
Speaker 1: about the day after, there's a new poll that just
Speaker 1: came out. Put this up on the screen. It was
Speaker 1: written out by the Times of Israel. So more than
Speaker 1: half of Israelis actually oppose annexing the Gaza Strip and
Speaker 1: re establishing settlements that there were used to be there,
Speaker 1: which were uproaded during Israel's two thousand and five disengagement.
Speaker 1: This is a poll from Hebrew University published on Sunday.
Speaker 1: You can see here thirty three percent, so about a
Speaker 1: third of the population supports annexing the Gaza Strip and
Speaker 1: re establishing settlements, fifty six percent pose annexing Gaza, and
Speaker 1: eleven percent are uncertain. I was also looking up, you know,
Speaker 1: how do people feel about like a two state solution,
Speaker 1: and the most recent poll finds majority opposition. Fifty two
Speaker 1: percent of Jewish Israelis oppose a two state solution and
Speaker 1: only thirty five percent support. So to me, Sager, it
Speaker 1: seems like there's a lot of sense of what people
Speaker 1: don't want, less of a consensus around what they do want.
Speaker 1: And if you dig into these numbers further, they also
Speaker 1: asked about, you know, some more specifics of what they
Speaker 1: would like to see in terms of governance of Gaza.
Speaker 1: Twenty three percent, that's the largest number of Israeli support
Speaker 1: a coalition of moderate Arab states overseeing affairs in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Twenty two percent are in favor of Israeli military rules,
Speaker 1: so those two solutions are basically tied. Eighteen percent would
Speaker 1: like to see an international force and a further eighteen
Speaker 1: percent lean toward that idea of Israel annexing Gaza outright.
Speaker 1: The least popular option is the one that the US
Speaker 1: has been pushing, which is the return of the Palestinian Authority.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and realistically, only two of these are going to happen.
Speaker 2: You're either going to have the Israelis who are going
Speaker 2: to occupy it, or the Palestinian authority.
Speaker 3: Most of them are very unrealistic. The Arab States will
Speaker 3: never do this. A.
Speaker 2: They don't have the military capability and they don't want
Speaker 2: to deal with it.
Speaker 3: Why would they. I wouldn't do it if I were them.
Speaker 2: If I was the Jordanaian king and I watch how
Speaker 2: my country basically became Palestine, No way I would deal
Speaker 2: with that. Then you've got the eleven percent for return
Speaker 2: of the PA, which shows you the least popular option
Speaker 2: is the one that the general international consensus is around.
Speaker 2: And as part of why I'm so pessimistic here about
Speaker 2: the future, because you know, they even said, oh well,
Speaker 2: we're ready to turn over after twenty years of these
Speaker 2: morbund PA forces. They're going to roll into Gaza and
Speaker 2: administer good luck. Who's going to pay them, who's going
Speaker 2: to give them weapons? Also, what authorities are they going
Speaker 2: to have? What are their rules of engagement. It's more
Speaker 2: likely they're going to turn into a full blown military
Speaker 2: style dictatorship.
Speaker 3: Which I don't know. I mean, is that necessarily beneficial
Speaker 3: or not?
Speaker 2: Will they even have the capability to oppress the population
Speaker 2: if they want to, And then if the Israelis are
Speaker 2: the ones who are paying them, then they're going to
Speaker 2: be looked at as stooges by the population. Not a
Speaker 2: single option or any of this looks good. But I
Speaker 2: am at least heartened that they don't want to annex it.
Speaker 2: And I think one of the reasons why is because
Speaker 2: a lot of them lived through the you know, what
Speaker 2: is it, the deoccupation or whatever of Gaza, and a
Speaker 2: lot of them, you know, one of the things that's
Speaker 2: highlighted is that inside Israel is a very small country.
Speaker 2: And I just saw someone putting this out yesterday. Nearly
Speaker 2: every day the obituaries of fallen soldiers are in the
Speaker 2: newspapers and their photos are everywhere. This is going to
Speaker 2: climb day after people know what this would it take
Speaker 2: from annexation and military occupation. So I think that you know,
Speaker 2: the reality of some of this is beginning to set in.
Speaker 2: So they may be opposed to two state solution, but
Speaker 2: the more that you move away and less support that
Speaker 2: you have for full blown annexation, then it becomes pretty
Speaker 2: obvious what the eventual next step is going to be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and just so people are clear on what that
Speaker 1: removal of Israeli forces from within Gaza men and this
Speaker 1: is doctor Norman Finkelstein compares it to it's like taking
Speaker 1: the prison wardens from out of the prison and placing
Speaker 1: them outside of the prison. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: mythology around like, oh, we let them do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: This is complete nonsense. There is a complete blockade. Israeli
Speaker 1: Prime Minister has talked about quote unquote putting the Gaza
Speaker 1: population on a diet. No control over their airspace, control
Speaker 1: over the borders, no control even over the sea. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of Gosms who made their living as fishermen.
Speaker 4: That even was severely curtailed.
Speaker 1: So that has been the reality now for more than
Speaker 1: a decade in Gaza at this point, and even before
Speaker 1: this war, that led to horrific conditions for the human
Speaker 1: beings who lived there in terms of a lack of
Speaker 1: clean water, in terms of a lack of sufficient food,
Speaker 1: massive unemployment, majority of the population unemployed. So even before
Speaker 1: the destruction of the Gaza Strip, things were very difficult
Speaker 1: for people there on the ground.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, Okay, let's move on to US Steel.
Speaker 3: This is a big in a major store.
Speaker 2: US Steel, of course, probably one of the most important
Speaker 2: companies in history of the United States, and I don't
Speaker 2: really not exaggerating that has had.
Speaker 3: Its ups and downs.
Speaker 2: I think it's fair to say in this one hundred
Speaker 2: and two year history, but one hundred and twenty twenty
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty two year history, but recently is
Speaker 2: really in the center of what I think will become
Speaker 2: a major political firestorm and highlights all of the perils
Speaker 2: I think of the international financial system.
Speaker 3: So first, let's start with the news. Let's put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: A surprise announcement yesterday that Nipoon Steel, which is a
Speaker 2: Japanese steel conglomerate, will acquire US Steel for fourteen to
Speaker 2: one point fourteen point one billion dollars in cash. It's
Speaker 2: an all cash deal that is being floated here.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: The reason why this is important, Crystal is a US
Speaker 2: Steel has found itself in a couple of different problems
Speaker 2: and over the last couple of years. Just recently, they
Speaker 2: actually were offered a cash and a stock deal for
Speaker 2: half of this amount of some seven billion. So why
Speaker 2: does it make sense for this Japanese company to come
Speaker 2: in and pay fourteen billion. There's a couple of really
Speaker 2: interesting things about this number one Japanese Steel or Nipoon Steel.
Speaker 2: I think Nipoon is the word for Japan in Japanese.
Speaker 2: Nippon Steel is a Japanese government backed steel company. It's
Speaker 2: basically a piece and a tool of Japanese industrial policy.
Speaker 2: What they have looked at is that US steal is
Speaker 2: set to benefit from Inflation Reduction Act infrastructure spending. So
Speaker 2: what this Japanese company says is our steel production is
Speaker 2: very low. We are competing against China, which is one
Speaker 2: of the number one steel producers in the world. The
Speaker 2: US government is about to hand a bunch of money
Speaker 2: to US steel, So what do we do?
Speaker 3: We buy US steel at.
Speaker 2: A premium, and we are going to reap all of
Speaker 2: the benefits economic benefits to the Japanese shareholders and government
Speaker 2: of US infrastructure spending. And at the same time, US steel,
Speaker 2: which is probably steel probably the single most critical national
Speaker 2: security industry, will now be directly controlled by a foreign government. Now,
Speaker 2: the the counter to what I'm saying is, what do
Speaker 2: you care? Japan is one of our closest allies. I agree,
Speaker 2: but just because you're a close ally doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: you should be controlling the backbone of American steel industry
Speaker 2: and of American industrial policy, on top of some of
Speaker 2: the most important union jobs in the entire country. And
Speaker 2: it's not just me who is saying this. Senator John Fetterman,
Speaker 2: Senator Jdvance, and Senator Josh Holly have all now spoken
Speaker 2: out against a deal. Fetterman in particular, actually put this
Speaker 2: in very good terms. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8: And I just have to say, it's absolutely outrageous that
Speaker 8: they have sold themselves to a foreign nation and a company.
Speaker 5: Can't do that.
Speaker 8: Steel is always about security as well too, and I
Speaker 8: am permitted to doing anything I can do from using
Speaker 8: my platform or my position in order to block this,
Speaker 8: and I'm going to fight for the steel workers and
Speaker 8: their union way of life here as well too, and
Speaker 8: we cannot ever allow them to be screwed over or
Speaker 8: left behind.
Speaker 2: He is highlighting an important point which we'll get to,
Speaker 2: is that the steel workers union was not consulted by
Speaker 2: Nippon Steel Management before the sale. Senator Vance also put
Speaker 2: out a statement, let's go and put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. He says, a critical piece of America's dead
Speaker 2: defense industrial base was just opting off to foreigners for cash.
Speaker 2: I warned of this outcome months ago, rest assured I
Speaker 2: will interrogate the long term implications for the American people.
Speaker 2: So this is going to go to President Biden and
Speaker 2: to the Treasury Department for approval of this deal through
Speaker 2: something of it's a review process where any company which
Speaker 2: is critical to national security gets to either veto or
Speaker 2: approve the sale to a foreign company. And last, but
Speaker 2: not least, here just to highlight again the workers, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there. The USW, the United steel Workers Union,
Speaker 2: put out a statement slamming it. Say say we're disappointed
Speaker 2: in the deal is an understatement. It demonstrates the same greedy,
Speaker 2: short sighted attitude that guided US deal for far too long.
Speaker 2: We remain open throughout this process to working with US
Speaker 2: Steal to keep this iconic American company domestically owned and operated,
Speaker 2: and instead it chose to push aside the concerns of
Speaker 2: its workforce and sell to a foreign owned company. Neither
Speaker 2: US or Nippon reached out to our union regarding the deal,
Speaker 2: which in itself is a violation of our partnership agreement
Speaker 2: and requires US Steel to notify US of.
Speaker 3: A change in control or business conditions.
Speaker 2: And I think that highlights it really for me is
Speaker 2: that they didn't consult the workers.
Speaker 3: Clearly, this is a major national secure threat.
Speaker 2: And I have again nothing against Japan, but you need
Speaker 2: to ask yourself why is the Japanese government willing to
Speaker 2: pay double what a US company is for their own
Speaker 2: national security implications? Because you know it's a small island
Speaker 2: and they want as much control of supply as possible.
Speaker 2: I don't blame them, I would do. I have to
Speaker 2: do the same thing if I were them. But we
Speaker 2: got to look out for our own interests. And I
Speaker 2: hope that this becomes a major thing here in Washington
Speaker 2: with these three senators who are speaking out. I would
Speaker 2: expect people like Shared Brown and others, especially as union
Speaker 2: workers themselves. I mean, this is what destroyed the union
Speaker 2: wave of life is you know, Chinese, Mexican outsourcing and Japan.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, turn the clock back to the
Speaker 2: nineteen eighties. This was what they were doing.
Speaker 3: Back then.
Speaker 2: We had the infiltration of Toyota and all these other
Speaker 2: companies that make great cars, but you know, nothing against
Speaker 2: them on a production level. But just in terms of
Speaker 2: US market share and US control, it's never been worse
Speaker 2: than ever than right now.
Speaker 1: It makes sense that Fetterman, who a few consult yesterday's
Speaker 1: show you will see I have a lot of criticisms
Speaker 1: of the days, but that he has a sort of
Speaker 1: emotional connection to this company.
Speaker 4: These workers, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I used to live in the Greater Pittsburgh area and
Speaker 1: the steel industry is huge, I mean in terms of
Speaker 1: the sort of like cultural understanding of the place and
Speaker 1: how people see themselves, US steal being the most iconic
Speaker 1: of the American steel companies.
Speaker 4: And now if this deal.
Speaker 1: Goes through, which let's be clear, Biden should block this
Speaker 1: deal one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: He should block this deal.
Speaker 1: In the fact that you have some bipartisan support for
Speaker 1: blocking this deal, I would hope would encourage him to
Speaker 1: move in this direction. The number one steel maker in
Speaker 1: the world is China bao Wu Group. Number two is
Speaker 1: Arsler Mattal which is Indian, and then number three would
Speaker 1: be this Japanese steel company. So you know, it gets
Speaker 1: to the core of some of the problems with just
Speaker 1: the neoliberal view of shareholder value and and globalism over
Speaker 1: and profits over literally anything else. That's the sort of
Speaker 1: thinking that would lead you to say, yes, this is acceptable,
Speaker 1: and it's fine for us to just you know, sell
Speaker 1: our defense industrial base off to the higher spider wherever
Speaker 1: that comes from. I am hoping that there's been somewhat
Speaker 1: of a shift within both of the parties where they
Speaker 1: see the problems with that direction ultimately. But you know,
Speaker 1: for me, it's also actually very personal because I did
Speaker 1: used to live in this area, and you know, it
Speaker 1: used to be Sagury you were talking about, like the
Speaker 1: decline in the middle class and the end of the
Speaker 1: union way of life and all of those sorts of things.
Speaker 1: It used to be in this town that I lived in,
Speaker 1: there was a large steel mill. People could basically graduate
Speaker 1: high school walk across the street, get a good job
Speaker 1: at the steel mill. I mean, this is tough work.
Speaker 1: Let's be clear, this was not like, you know, technic.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult, it's dangerous, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But you could afford a house, you could afford a vacation, you.
Speaker 1: Could afford to support a family on one income. And
Speaker 1: then you know, that basically went away, and that steel
Speaker 1: mill is all but shuttered at this point. It also,
Speaker 1: I believe was sold to a foreign buyer as well,
Speaker 1: and that area of the country has been thoroughly decimated
Speaker 1: by the outsourcing and destruction of those jobs. What also
Speaker 1: makes this noteworthy at this point is that you've had
Speaker 1: now two successive administrations trying to rebuild American steel. So
Speaker 1: Trump imposed a twenty five percent tariff on most steel imports,
Speaker 1: trying to you know, it's a bit of a protectionist
Speaker 1: action to try to bolster American steel. Trump and Biden
Speaker 1: later renegotiated many of those tariffs into quota arrangements, in
Speaker 1: which foreign governments agreed to limit the amount of steel
Speaker 1: they exported to the US. And as you pointed out, Sager,
Speaker 1: the Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act both were
Speaker 1: meant to drive up steel demand and prices by limiting
Speaker 1: competition from foreign markets. But they clearly did not do
Speaker 1: enough to forestall this type of outcomefort from occurring.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And look, I mean the main thing that we
Speaker 2: need to prevent is that US steel doesn't go in
Speaker 2: the way of Bethlehem Steel. I'm actually visited Bethlehem Steel.
Speaker 2: My in laws are from the region. It's actually a
Speaker 2: fascinating thing. I hope that everybody goes to get to
Speaker 2: go and see the steel stacks. It was a huge
Speaker 2: part of the US industrial base at that time, and
Speaker 2: the story of it is really sad. I mean, this was,
Speaker 2: you know, the ibeam that was very famous. I even
Speaker 2: have a T shirt with the ibeam on it, and
Speaker 2: you know, it was critical for World War one, world
Speaker 2: War two. It helped rebuild all of Europe. And then
Speaker 2: what happens. We rebuild Europe and Japan so well that
Speaker 2: by the nineteen seventies, US steel is actually too expensive.
Speaker 2: Bethlehem Steel and US based product produce steel is too
Speaker 2: expensive to the overall global market. And that's when the
Speaker 2: era of neoliberalism and globalism comes in and we allow
Speaker 2: Bethlehem Steel to basically go under and you guys want
Speaker 2: to know when Bethlehem Steel is today, it's a freaking
Speaker 2: casino and it's like a casino end and a wedding venue.
Speaker 2: It's nice, by the way, it's actually really cool, especially
Speaker 2: the party area and all that.
Speaker 3: But they've got markets and there's no steel.
Speaker 2: The steel production facility is a place to you go
Speaker 2: and you take a photo of that's really sad that
Speaker 2: we've basically turned it into a place of gambling and financialization. Yeah,
Speaker 2: basically a museum as well as mac truck and some
Speaker 2: of the other things in the area, as opposed to
Speaker 2: a place would actually produce things. And the entire industry
Speaker 2: of that region, the history of it was deeply linked
Speaker 2: to production.
Speaker 3: Production itself is so important.
Speaker 2: And the original reason why Bethlehem Steel flourished in the
Speaker 2: first place was because we had it here. We could
Speaker 2: control it, we could use it whenever we got caught
Speaker 2: flat footed and we had to rebuild for World War
Speaker 2: two and we had to put all these tanks and
Speaker 2: all of stuff.
Speaker 3: Where do you think it comes from?
Speaker 2: We think too about the global supply chain, about what
Speaker 2: are we been covering here? All of this craziness going
Speaker 2: on in the Red Sea you and I were talking
Speaker 2: privately yesterday about the Straits in Malacca, the Taiwan Strait.
Speaker 2: I mean, the era of international conflict on the high
Speaker 2: seas seems to be back, and the level of precarity
Speaker 2: in it from conflict is something that people really don't appreciate.
Speaker 2: Like if any one of those were to close or
Speaker 2: to pop off, not only would global inflation spike. I
Speaker 2: mean theoretically huge portions of the US economy would just
Speaker 2: go under overnight. That's because of globalization that we've allowed
Speaker 2: to occur. So whether the Japanese promised to keep the
Speaker 2: jobs here or any of that, it's about control, and
Speaker 2: it's about who actually is here in the US, and
Speaker 2: about critical decisions and relations with governments. And their government
Speaker 2: wants to buy it for a reason. So we should
Speaker 2: think about that, and we should say maybe we're the
Speaker 2: ones who should control it in the first place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's honestly about like the basics of statehood.
Speaker 4: Yes, do you have control?
Speaker 1: Do you have the capacity if you need to spin
Speaker 1: up production? And you know, we've been thinking about statehood
Speaker 1: in the context of Palestinians, and it's made me think
Speaker 1: a lot about like what are the components of actually
Speaker 1: having a real legitimate state and you know, having control
Speaker 1: over your own defense industrial base seems like a pretty
Speaker 1: critical component of that, especially for a wealthy, advanced nation
Speaker 1: such of ours, and one that we've obviously lost sight
Speaker 1: of now for decades at this point. Yeah, Saga, I
Speaker 1: wonder if you have any insight into whether you think
Speaker 1: Biden will block this, because I actually think I actually
Speaker 1: think that there's a chance, just because you know, his
Speaker 1: own sort of personal self conception and the way that
Speaker 1: he has been framing his economic pitch, blocking it, to
Speaker 1: me would be consistent with some of the other elements
Speaker 1: of Biden.
Speaker 2: I don't think he'll block it because it's an ally
Speaker 2: and because in the so, it's not just about Biden.
Speaker 2: It's about Sciphius, which is the actual board inside of
Speaker 2: the Treasury Department. We'll review all of this. The framework
Speaker 2: that you and I are talking about does not exist.
Speaker 2: The only framework that they have is oh threat, okay,
Speaker 2: that will nix that, and that actually took a decade
Speaker 2: to get to the point where we would block anything
Speaker 2: that's coming in from China. If it was Saudi Arabia
Speaker 2: or any other country, we would probably block it. But
Speaker 2: Japan is just considered such a bedrock US ally, and
Speaker 2: they're they're saying all the right things. They're like, don't worry,
Speaker 2: we'll keep the jobs here. Hey, we're doing this because
Speaker 2: you guys are spending money. It's all good. We'll work
Speaker 2: with this, you know, the union, et cetera. That within
Speaker 2: the like new neoliberal view where we acknowled is that
Speaker 2: China is like on the outs, but everything else is allowed.
Speaker 3: I don't see Jenny Yellen and others blocking this transaction.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, even just from naked like cynical
Speaker 1: political calculation. As I said, I mean, this is such
Speaker 1: an important part of the identity of western Pennsylvani is
Speaker 1: in and around the Pittsburgh area, which obviously critical swing state.
Speaker 1: That area is in particular critical for democratic performance.
Speaker 4: And you have, you know, the union that.
Speaker 1: Is adamantly opposed and speaking out as forcefully as they
Speaker 1: possibly can, a union which I'm not sure if the
Speaker 1: steel workers have backed Biden yet for his re election bid,
Speaker 1: but they were certainly behind him last time around, and
Speaker 1: he has close ties with union leaders there in other
Speaker 1: unions as well. So that's why I don't put it
Speaker 1: totally off the table that he could make the right
Speaker 1: decision here.
Speaker 3: It's possible, I would hope so.
Speaker 2: And look, the more that we see this type of action,
Speaker 2: we need, you know, bipartisan actual We need people like
Speaker 2: Shared Brown to come out. We need many others Casey
Speaker 2: and others like if that, if it becomes mobiles and
Speaker 2: a few people actually make this known that you care
Speaker 2: about something like this, or you know somebody in the area,
Speaker 2: and the Union way of life, all these things depend
Speaker 2: on you not to mention, you know, the overall national security.
Speaker 3: And we could get it done.
Speaker 2: But I'm I am really not hopeful just because Capital
Speaker 2: wants this.
Speaker 3: If you're a US.
Speaker 2: Steel shareholder, this is the best thing that ever happened
Speaker 2: to You just got one hundred percent premium on your stock.
Speaker 2: And these people are about to make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: So if you think that they're going to allow seven
Speaker 2: billion in profits just to go idly buy because you know,
Speaker 2: some YouTubers and a couple of senators say something, they
Speaker 2: are going to fight, I think tooth and nail to
Speaker 2: make sure this guys.
Speaker 1: Imagine if scrant and Joe is the one that allows
Speaker 1: the sale of US steel to a foreign country to
Speaker 1: go through all right, stranger.
Speaker 4: Things have happened.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about this new report from Pro
Speaker 1: Publica with regard to Justice Clarence Thomas. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Pro Publica has of course been
Speaker 1: doing a deep dive into the many luxury vacations that
Speaker 1: he has taken that have been footed by various wealthy
Speaker 1: individuals Harlan Crowe, in particular, the funding of his mother's house,
Speaker 1: the payment of private school tuition, the offering of a
Speaker 1: generous loan which he maybe never had to repay for
Speaker 1: this luxury RV etc. Well, now we are getting some
Speaker 1: insight into when all of these perks and all of
Speaker 1: this cash began to flow. They say, here a delicate matter.
Speaker 1: Put the tearshee back up the screen. A delicate matter.
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas's private complaints about money sparked fears that he
Speaker 1: would resign. What they track here is a conversation that
Speaker 1: he had in the early two thousands in which he
Speaker 1: expressed concern to a Republican lawmaker that he didn't make
Speaker 1: enough money and then he might have to resign from
Speaker 1: the court so that he could go and earn sufficient cash.
Speaker 1: Le me read to you this first quote that we pulled.
Speaker 1: Put it up on the screen. After almost a decade
Speaker 1: on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation.
Speaker 1: According to friends, he'd recently started raising his young grandnephew,
Speaker 1: and Thomas's wife was soliciting advice on how to handle
Speaker 1: the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars from a friend
Speaker 1: to buy a high end RV. That is a fancy RV.
Speaker 1: And by the way, like we said, we don't know
Speaker 1: if he ever actually paid back that money. Let's put
Speaker 1: the next piece up on the screen. Thomas brought up
Speaker 1: the prospect of justices resigning to Stearns, the Republican lawmaker. Worried,
Speaker 1: Sterns wrote a letter to Thomas after the flight where
Speaker 1: they were together, promising to look into a bill to
Speaker 1: raise the salaries of members of the Supreme Court. Put
Speaker 1: the next piece up. Congress never lifted the ban on
Speaker 1: speaking fees or gave the justices a major race, but
Speaker 1: in the years that followed, as republic As reported, Thomas
Speaker 1: accepted a stream of gifts from friends and acquaintances that
Speaker 1: appears to be unparalleled in the modern history of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Some defrayed living expenses large and small, private
Speaker 1: school tuition, vehicle batteries, tires. Other gifts from a co
Speaker 1: of ultra rich men supplemented his lifestyle, such as free
Speaker 1: international vacations on the private jet and super yacht of
Speaker 1: Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow. Just to give people
Speaker 1: a sense of, you know, how tough were things for
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court justices, which, in fairness,
Speaker 1: many of the other Supreme Court justices either they were
Speaker 1: already wealthy or their spouse with wealthy. So he was
Speaker 1: legitimately one of the quote unquote poorest members of the court.
Speaker 1: But even in two thousand he was pulling in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court salary.
Speaker 4: It's not like it was nothing.
Speaker 1: It was the inflation adjusted equivalent of roughly three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifteen thousand dollars. So those were the poverty wages
Speaker 1: that were forcing him to potentially resign from the Court.
Speaker 2: I see this with public officials all the time, and
Speaker 2: I think to really explain the phenomenon, you have to
Speaker 2: understand the water within they swim is on paper, they're important,
Speaker 2: but they make an upper middle class salary. Let's be
Speaker 2: real too, it's a pretty good salary compared to majority
Speaker 2: of Americans. But the problem is is that they're dining
Speaker 2: and they're hanging out all the time with millionaires, multi
Speaker 2: millionaires and billionaires, and so your peer group becomes much
Speaker 2: richer than you are, and you start to ask yourself
Speaker 2: things like, Hey, my buddy's got a lake house over here,
Speaker 2: my other friends got a private jet, my other friend
Speaker 2: drives a range drover. I'm such an important guy. Why
Speaker 2: don't I get those things? But what they don't get
Speaker 2: is that you are welcome to any of that. You
Speaker 2: just have to leave. But if you left, then you'd
Speaker 2: have to compete in the marketplace and buy your own business,
Speaker 2: or at the very least sell out and be corrupt,
Speaker 2: and you wouldn't have the same level of power.
Speaker 3: The power so they want to have it both ways.
Speaker 2: He wants to both be a household name and to
Speaker 2: be a Supreme Court justice and have all the accouterment
Speaker 2: of the super rich, to which, again I say, Clarence resign.
Speaker 3: You can live a great life man.
Speaker 2: By all accounts, he loves his RVs and the motorcycles
Speaker 2: and all that. He could quit today and he'd make
Speaker 2: ten times more money, you know, just on the speaking circuit,
Speaker 2: but he doesn't want to do it because he loves
Speaker 2: being on the Supreme Court. And this is what really
Speaker 2: annoys me about it is these guys just simply have
Speaker 2: to accept that being in public service means taking a
Speaker 2: huge cut to your lifestyle, so be it. I don't
Speaker 2: even necessarily think it should be that way. I think
Speaker 2: that we could have come up with all kinds of
Speaker 2: different systems because my get you know, my want is
Speaker 2: to remove corruption entirely from the system. But I also
Speaker 2: just have such a hard time, you know, even explaining
Speaker 2: it this way, not sitting here and saying three hundred
Speaker 2: and eighteen thousand dollars in adjusted income.
Speaker 3: That's a ton of money.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's enough.
Speaker 2: You could make a mortgage, you could buy a house,
Speaker 2: and you could make your dumb you know payment on
Speaker 2: a less higher end RV. You could afford one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars IV. Why do you need a two hundred
Speaker 2: and six thousand dollars RV. This is where I just
Speaker 2: think they want, like absolute limitless of the resources of
Speaker 2: you know what they swim in. And I'm sorry, that's
Speaker 2: just not how America works, or become rich first and
Speaker 2: then do it. That sounds like a tried and true
Speaker 2: strategy too.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of middle class by blanc there
Speaker 1: who are able to afford a reasonably priced RV and
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas three hundred and fifteen thousand dollars, surely you
Speaker 1: would have been able to, you know, pursue your passions
Speaker 1: in that regard. I thought some of the quotes in
Speaker 1: this piece were remarkable. This congressman Florida Representative Cliff Sterns,
Speaker 1: who they describe as a vocal conservative who at that
Speaker 1: time in two thousand have been in Congress for eleven
Speaker 1: years and occasionally socialized with Justice Thomas. He said that
Speaker 1: in an interview with Pro Publica about this exchange where
Speaker 1: Thomas is h might resigned from the Court because I'm
Speaker 1: just not making enough cash, he said, quote, his importance
Speaker 1: as a conservative was paramount. We wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: he felt comfortable in his job and was being paid properly.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's as much a direct acknowledgment of this
Speaker 1: whole scheme as you could possibly get. At the same time,
Speaker 1: they track, they say, during his second decade on the court,
Speaker 1: after this conversation, Thomas's financial situation appears to have markedly
Speaker 1: improved with the help of his wealthy benefactors. I added
Speaker 1: that part in in two thousand and three, he received
Speaker 1: the first payments of a one point five million dollar
Speaker 1: advance for his memoir that was a record breaking sum
Speaker 1: for justices at the time. This is interesting to me,
Speaker 1: Jinny Thomas. His wife, who had been a Congressional staffer,
Speaker 1: was by then working at the Heritage Foundation and was
Speaker 1: paid a salary in the low six figures. So his
Speaker 1: wife gets a nice gig as well, paying her well.
Speaker 1: He's getting these dozens of expensive gifts, most of which
Speaker 1: were never reported.
Speaker 4: To the public.
Speaker 1: And so it seems like this circle of conservative donors
Speaker 1: in order to ensure that he and apparently the other
Speaker 1: justice they were concerned about at the time was Scalia,
Speaker 1: didn't resign and stayed on the court because Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: indicated like, oh, it's not just me, you know, it
Speaker 1: may be also at least one other justice who would resign,
Speaker 1: and Scalia was the other quote unquote least wealthy of
Speaker 1: the justices who were on the court, And so they
Speaker 1: ramped up their gifting, which all flew under the radar,
Speaker 1: and yeah, you know, it also exposes the distance between
Speaker 1: public expectations for quote unquote public servants and the schemes
Speaker 1: that they you know, the ethical schemes that they actually
Speaker 1: operate in. I mean, you still have the court really
Speaker 1: blocking any sort of scrutiny, any sort of code of
Speaker 1: conduct that would have any teeth.
Speaker 4: That's very different from the.
Speaker 1: Entire rest of the Federal judiciary, and I do think
Speaker 1: at its court it reminds me of like Bob McDonald,
Speaker 1: very similar story where you know, he and his wife
Speaker 1: were accepting all of these luxury gifts from people who
Speaker 1: had business with the States just to benefit from state
Speaker 1: policy and lo and behome. That goes to something he's
Speaker 1: found guilty of corruption, goes to the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court says, nah, we don't think that's corruption.
Speaker 1: Interesting that they would side with him on that case.
Speaker 3: It's a problem for them, it really is.
Speaker 2: And my only hope is that these stories are setting
Speaker 2: up standard at least in the federal judiciary, who are
Speaker 2: of those who are you know, future Supreme Court nominees
Speaker 2: where you have to learn to at the very least,
Speaker 2: even if none of this is illegal.
Speaker 3: It's like, what, you don't want to deal with this?
Speaker 2: In all these stories, this will be one of the
Speaker 2: probably the most enduring things that people remember about Clarence
Speaker 2: Thomas was Anita what is it?
Speaker 3: Anita Hill?
Speaker 2: And now this, And I think, you know, why would
Speaker 2: you want to tire your legacy that way? It's just
Speaker 2: not something that you would want to deal with. So,
Speaker 2: you know, at least let shame be a part of
Speaker 2: the guiding thing. Although I generally think most of these
Speaker 2: people are too shameless to ever care.
Speaker 3: We'll see.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to Biden. There's some extraordinary things happening
Speaker 2: in the Biden campaign.
Speaker 3: Pole just came out this morning.
Speaker 2: Crystal from New York Times Sanna Trump is actually winning
Speaker 2: with young voters. Every poll that we look at shows
Speaker 2: Trump leading in swing states, shows Biden losing, shows Biden
Speaker 2: at the lowest level for approval ever in the modern
Speaker 2: American presidency, including Jimmy Carter, and yet his campaign is
Speaker 2: completely calm. Here is a journalist who embedded with the
Speaker 2: Biden campaign describing their state of mind.
Speaker 3: Right now, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: This central article of faith that I heard over and
Speaker 9: over for the last six months Really, as I've been
Speaker 9: asking this question, which is what is the plan here,
Speaker 9: is that voters just aren't really paying attention in the
Speaker 9: way that they're going to a year from now when
Speaker 9: it actually comes down to vote eleven months from now.
Speaker 9: The point that they that I heard repeated over and
Speaker 9: over again is that once real Americans, real people who
Speaker 9: are currently not thinking about politics at all, once they
Speaker 9: lock into the fact that this is going to be
Speaker 9: another election where Donald Trump is on the ballot, everything
Speaker 9: is going to change. That's going to change for young voters,
Speaker 9: it's going to change, for voters of color, it's going
Speaker 9: to change for really the Biden coalition, Now I heard
Speaker 9: this over and over while Biden's numbers were tanking. To
Speaker 9: make a long story short and not to sugarcoat it,
Speaker 9: but their argument is that if you look at poles,
Speaker 9: if you look at focus groups, real people who you know,
Speaker 9: are the people who vote in elections, simply aren't. It's
Speaker 9: not just that they're not paying attention yet, they don't
Speaker 9: even understand that Trump is going to come back in
Speaker 9: a year on the ballot and that the major threat
Speaker 9: is there. So that's why the Biden campaign has started
Speaker 9: keying in on Trump more talking about what a second
Speaker 9: term would look like.
Speaker 2: I questions about that. Real people don't realize Trump is
Speaker 2: going to come back. Really, I don't think that's true.
Speaker 2: It's like, have more faith in the American public. Maybe
Speaker 2: they know that they just don't care nearly as much
Speaker 2: as you do, and they're like, well, when they find
Speaker 2: out the stakes, it's maybe going to flip on a dime.
Speaker 2: That's a pretty big bet to make. It's certainly possible.
Speaker 2: Let's put this one, please up on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is the actual profile that he wrote, The alarming calm
Speaker 2: of the Biden campaign Inside Reelection HQ, the President's aids
Speaker 2: feel confident the twenty twenty four race is totally under control.
Speaker 3: What sticks out to me is just abortion. It is
Speaker 3: very clear to me, they say.
Speaker 2: Beyond the economy and Trump's lean into fascism he declined
Speaker 2: to give, it is abortion that is most likely to
Speaker 2: play a fundamental role in shaping the electorate. Democrats have
Speaker 2: made it a centerpiece of their argument, and Trump was
Speaker 2: crowing about the end of row. Ron de Santis also
Speaker 2: asked about it, and they point to consistently the underperformance
Speaker 2: on the ballot of these abortion state measures. For the
Speaker 2: reason why they remain hopeful. I think again, that is
Speaker 2: a good case. I think it remains probably the only
Speaker 2: case as to how Biden will get reelected. But then
Speaker 2: at the same time, Crystal, I look at a New
Speaker 2: York Times Siana pol which shows Donald J. Trump leading
Speaker 2: with young voters from eighteen to thirty four, and I
Speaker 2: see RFK Junior, who was sitting at this desk just
Speaker 2: last week, and he's leading amongst young voters, And I
Speaker 2: think about who he could take votes away from, and
Speaker 2: then level of chaos, and so I could see it
Speaker 2: every single way. I could see a Trump blowout win,
Speaker 2: a Trump blowout loss. I could see a Biden, you know,
Speaker 2: a marginal edge. I could see Biden winning but not
Speaker 2: getting the popular vote or at least the smallest share
Speaker 2: because of someone like RFK. I just think this is
Speaker 2: a hell of a thing to gamble on. But it
Speaker 2: fits with Biden's career. He's stoic, and he's an egomaniac.
Speaker 2: He believes most in himself, and he's like the American
Speaker 2: people will come to me and to see, you know,
Speaker 2: the benefits and why Trump is so so bad. But
Speaker 2: there's not a lot of data to support that right now.
Speaker 4: It's wild to me.
Speaker 1: They start this piece with a presentation that Biden campaign
Speaker 1: operatives were giving to some other political operatives who'd been
Speaker 1: associated with the Obama campaign. And these Obama campaign people
Speaker 1: were like, wait, you don't have like, you're not pushing
Speaker 1: the panic button. You don't have any more of a
Speaker 1: plan than this. I mean, part of their plan is
Speaker 1: literally just an assumption that Biden's numbers.
Speaker 4: Are going to get better.
Speaker 1: They say in this piece, the Biden strategy assumes that
Speaker 1: his poll numbers will get a cyclical improvement.
Speaker 4: Why, like that just doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe typically or usually or whatever, but you're
Speaker 1: not going to do anything to try to make that happen.
Speaker 1: And you're out here telling everybody like this is a
Speaker 1: profound threat to democracy and the whole reason Biden's running
Speaker 1: again is because of Trump and what a unique risky is,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And then you're just like everybody, relax.
Speaker 1: All of these poll numbers one after another that show
Speaker 1: Biden losing in literally every single swing state and bleeding
Speaker 1: support by the way from his own base. You're just
Speaker 1: cool with that. You think it's just naturally gonna revert.
Speaker 3: Maybe yeah, maybe maybe the polls are wrong.
Speaker 1: Maybe once people dial in on Trump or whatever, they're
Speaker 1: reminded of how obnoxious and chaotic he is.
Speaker 4: Or maybe the criminal chart.
Speaker 1: Maybe, but you're not doing anything really to try to
Speaker 1: effectuate that outcome.
Speaker 4: I do think one thing that they.
Speaker 1: Point to, which seems like a pretty obvious failure to me,
Speaker 1: is you know that Biden camp. I mean that Obama
Speaker 1: campaign back in twenty twelve against Mint Romney.
Speaker 4: They actually ran a brilliant strategy. They got on extremely early.
Speaker 4: It was it.
Speaker 1: Was risky because they blew a lot of cash early,
Speaker 1: defining Mitt Romney for the public as this out of
Speaker 1: touch billionaire.
Speaker 4: And it worked.
Speaker 1: It stuck, It worked. Romney's personality sort of played into that.
Speaker 1: He made a number of horrific gaps on the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: et cetera that really cemented that image. They've done very
Speaker 1: little to even remind people of. If your whole thing
Speaker 1: is like I'm better than the other guy, and you
Speaker 1: may not love me, but Trump is horrific, Like, why
Speaker 1: aren't you amplifying some of the things about Donald Trump
Speaker 1: that you think are horrific? Why aren't you talking more
Speaker 1: about the criminal charges, the fact that this dude could
Speaker 1: very well be found guilty and be put in prison.
Speaker 1: You know, if that's your angle, if you're running on,
Speaker 1: you know, the lesser of two evils, and that's your
Speaker 1: whole thing, which has always been their whole thing, rather
Speaker 1: than an affirmative agenda, you better start leaning into that
Speaker 1: and making that case because people aren't feeling that in
Speaker 1: the way that they perhaps used to feel that. They
Speaker 1: say in this piece of that. The campaign has an
Speaker 1: unofficial motto it might be quote unquote calm the f down,
Speaker 1: trust the process, and vote for Joe Biden one more time.
Speaker 1: Really inspiring stuff there, Guys really really dialed in on
Speaker 1: the American public.
Speaker 2: Right now that ought to do it, I think, and
Speaker 2: again to highlight this is please the mommoth polling that
Speaker 2: we have, can we put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The job approval rating is at an all time low
Speaker 2: thirty four percent approved, sixty one percent disapprove.
Speaker 3: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: And you know, on the issues, I really think this
Speaker 2: highlights a big discussion we had yesterday about immigration.
Speaker 3: Can we put this up there please?
Speaker 2: About the overall ones on infrastructure, forty two percent actually
Speaker 2: approve fifty two percent disapprove, Jobs, forty two percent approve,
Speaker 2: fifty three percent disapprove. Climate change thirty eight percent approve,
Speaker 2: fifty four percent disapproved. Go to the next one, and
Speaker 2: these are arguably the most important. Inflation twenty eight percent approve,
Speaker 2: sixty eight percent disapprove. Immigration twenty six percent approve sixty
Speaker 2: nine percent. I mean, these are fatal numbers, inflation and immigration.
Speaker 2: Immigration is going to be the number one issue that
Speaker 2: Trump talks about that he's got the best ground on,
Speaker 2: and inflation's gonna be the number one thing that is
Speaker 2: on American's minds. Now, will abortion, where he does certainly
Speaker 2: hold a double digit lead, will that be able to
Speaker 2: trump everything else? It worked in twenty eighteen, Now will
Speaker 2: it work in twenty and twenty or sorry, twenty twenty two?
Speaker 2: Will it work in twenty twenty four is just the
Speaker 2: most open question. And as you pointed out too on
Speaker 2: the Obama campaign, the reason the Obama people are a
Speaker 2: gast is, you know, they would never take this for granted,
Speaker 2: They would never believe it all on the line up
Speaker 2: until some you know, magic thing will carry you across
Speaker 2: the finish line the way that you really win and
Speaker 2: you do well. I think at really anything is that
Speaker 2: you attack it always as if the stakes are existential,
Speaker 2: especially when you're in a one on one context. Should
Speaker 2: be working as hard as you are today, as hard
Speaker 2: as you can today as you would the day before
Speaker 2: the election, because you could win somebody over here.
Speaker 3: You can win somebody over here.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like death by a thousand or winning by a
Speaker 2: thousand cuts, I guess you would say. But they just
Speaker 2: seem resigned to this, and that's just a tremendously risky strategy.
Speaker 2: It's just not the way that really high functioning and
Speaker 2: good people would operate anything a business, a campaign, or
Speaker 2: whatever that you're trying to do in life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the big shift over the past two months
Speaker 1: has been among Democratic base voters, and in particular among
Speaker 1: young voters, who you know, have a lot of issues
Speaker 1: they're concerned about, but their view on Israel is diametrically
Speaker 1: opposed to the Biden policy on Israel. And so that's
Speaker 1: part of what is contributed to this New York Times
Speaker 1: Siana pol that just came out, which I think counterpoints
Speaker 1: are probably covering depth tomorrow. But voters between eighteen and
Speaker 1: twenty nine, nearly three quarters of them disapprove of the
Speaker 1: way that Biden is handling the conflict tank Gaza. Among
Speaker 1: registered voters, they say they would vote for Trump by
Speaker 1: forty nine to forty three. That's young voters going for
Speaker 1: Trump by six points. And it's not like that's been
Speaker 1: that way forever. Back in July. Just over this summer,
Speaker 1: those same young voters were backing Biden by ten percentage points.
Speaker 1: So we went from a ten percentage point lead with
Speaker 1: young voters to a six point loss among young voters.
Speaker 1: And you know, they interview some of these young voters
Speaker 1: in this piece, A number of them say, listen, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to vote for Trump, but I just may
Speaker 1: stay home. One of them was like, oh, which doesn't
Speaker 1: make a lot of sense, but they were like, I'm
Speaker 1: unhappy with Biden over Israel. I might vote for RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: Their positions are not actually apparently.
Speaker 4: Different to promote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a protest, so you know, people aren't always
Speaker 1: paying attention to the ins and outs of what everybody's
Speaker 1: position is. They just feel like, this is disgusting what's
Speaker 1: unfolding right now. I may as well try something different.
Speaker 1: Even if the profess views are not all that, you know,
Speaker 1: not all that different, because the truth of the matter is, Trump, Biden,
Speaker 1: and RFK Junior are more or less lockstep in terms
Speaker 1: of Israel, with different sort of like rhetorical flourishes.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, Yeah, I just think that this is the most
Speaker 2: precarious and crazy situation proceeding into election that we have
Speaker 2: seen since ninety two, and the stakes are so much
Speaker 2: higher today than they were in nineteen ninety two. At
Speaker 2: that time, Honestly, not all that much would have changed
Speaker 2: regardless whether Bush or Clinton or would have won, although.
Speaker 4: Pro would have been Perau would have been different.
Speaker 3: Honestly, Yeah, he was man, man, what.
Speaker 4: A missed opportunity. He's block NAFTA.
Speaker 2: He would have been a fantastic president, but it probably
Speaker 2: was never on the table. But I think that the
Speaker 2: stakes today have literally I mean, I know everybody says
Speaker 2: it in terms of why you should vote for me,
Speaker 2: when I say hi, just in terms of the tremendous
Speaker 2: uncertainty in the global system and for the American future
Speaker 2: and the variety of directions that we could go. And
Speaker 2: I just have no idea sitting here because of such
Speaker 2: a high number of like variable outcomes that actually.
Speaker 1: Cold, Yeah, we're at a very chaotic pivot point. And
Speaker 1: that's why it really matters who the next leader is,
Speaker 1: and you know the direction they take to that. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it would be nice if we had some more aspiring
Speaker 1: choices than what we do.
Speaker 2: There's a new movie coming out from a twenty four
Speaker 2: kind of an indie art house film called Civil War
Speaker 2: that will be hitting theaters ahead of the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election, with some troubling scenes trying to play on
Speaker 2: the strife in the American political system. Let's take a
Speaker 2: look at some of the trailer and then a particular
Speaker 2: map of how they think a civil war would play
Speaker 2: out in this country.
Speaker 3: Let's take a list. Nineteen states have succeeded in the
Speaker 3: United States. Army rams of actimity, White House.
Speaker 6: Issue warning to the way certain warses as well as
Speaker 6: the Florida Allian There's some kind of misunderstanding here, right, Well,
Speaker 6: you're American? Okay, okay, what kind of American are you?
Speaker 5: You don't know, God bless America.
Speaker 2: Civil war it's coming crystal according to them. And if
Speaker 2: you didn't catch that, that whole what kind of American?
Speaker 2: Now just think in your head. Let's say there was
Speaker 2: a civil war how would things divide? Would it be
Speaker 2: north and would it be south? Would it be west
Speaker 2: versus East? Here is how the foreign creator of this
Speaker 2: movie decided that a civil war in America would play out.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen. So here's
Speaker 3: the map that he's got.
Speaker 2: According to him, the Second Republic of Texas and the
Speaker 2: Republic of California would be in an alliance together. The
Speaker 2: loyalist states would basically include every but the old Confederacy
Speaker 2: in something called the Florida Alliance, which includes Oklahoma to Florida,
Speaker 2: the Deep South, and Tennessee. Then the western forces would
Speaker 2: have Colorado looped in with Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho.
Speaker 7: And so.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing, Crystal, just looking at all.
Speaker 2: This, this map doesn't make any goddamn sense, literally zero.
Speaker 2: It is hilarious that said, I'm declaring my allegiance to
Speaker 2: the Second Republic of Texas in the Republic of California.
Speaker 3: So here's my case. I'm curious who you're sticking with.
Speaker 2: Just let's even put aside, like what, like why and
Speaker 2: how this could happen politically obviously would be stupid. California
Speaker 2: and Texas are two of the only states in this country,
Speaker 2: which are more akin to nation states. So for Texas
Speaker 2: on its own, would be the eighth largest economy in
Speaker 2: the world. California, I believe, would be larger than the
Speaker 2: almost every other country inside of the G seven except
Speaker 2: for Japan. If you combine them together, and I actually
Speaker 2: checked into this, it would be the equivalent of some
Speaker 2: five point nine trillion dollars in GDP, So it would
Speaker 2: be the second largest economy or the second largest economy
Speaker 2: in the entire G seven, behind the US. And then
Speaker 2: if it would be US, China, and it would be
Speaker 2: this whatever. This alliance is so a powerhouse. They've got
Speaker 2: huge populations one and two in terms of overall US density.
Speaker 2: Then you consider the fact that you have Pacific port access,
Speaker 2: you've got Atlantic port access, You've got easily they would
Speaker 2: gobble up Arizona, New Mexico.
Speaker 3: I don't know why those two were included in the
Speaker 3: loyal estates.
Speaker 2: So they would control the vast majority of the border
Speaker 2: with Mexico.
Speaker 3: So that's who I'm betting on in this so call.
Speaker 2: Also, they have a lot of military aged males, infrastructure
Speaker 2: and bases and other things in this area.
Speaker 3: But that's who I'm going to stick with in the
Speaker 3: so called Alliance.
Speaker 1: Well, my reasons are much less tactical and much more emotional.
Speaker 1: Every state I've ever lived in is in the Loyalist Alliance.
Speaker 1: In the states where my parents are from is also
Speaker 1: in the Loyalist Alliance. So I've lived in Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky,
Speaker 1: and New York. So I got to stick with the
Speaker 1: And also, I'm an American Patriots, so I'm gonna stay
Speaker 1: loyal to the American project. Here we do have, though,
Speaker 1: you know, a tremendous industrial base in the Loyalist Alliance.
Speaker 1: The old industrial Midwest can get a new burst of
Speaker 1: energy with this with the Civil War apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: when I initially saw the map, let's put the map
Speaker 1: back up on the screen. When I initially saw it,
Speaker 1: I reacted negatively to the fact that it's so preposterous.
Speaker 1: But I'm actually kind of glad they made it preposterous,
Speaker 1: because otherwise you just turned the movie into some other
Speaker 1: like proxy war in our endless culture battles. If you
Speaker 1: had it more of like a red state versus Blue
Speaker 1: state situation, it would be the move. It would make
Speaker 1: the movie like insufferable. And you have you know, blue
Speaker 1: state Democrats cheering for one side in the movie and
Speaker 1: red state Republicans cheering for another side. And even that
Speaker 1: wouldn't make a lot of sense because you think about
Speaker 1: a state like Georgia, So Georgia overall it's a swing
Speaker 1: state and there are incredibly conservative Trump loving Republicans and
Speaker 1: there are extremely pro Joe Biden, you know, democrats in
Speaker 1: the urban areas. So because so much of our cultural
Speaker 1: divides now are more based on education, based on urban rural,
Speaker 1: it doesn't there wouldn't really be a map split that
Speaker 1: would make sense.
Speaker 4: So I'm kind of.
Speaker 1: Glad that they made it preposterous so that you don't
Speaker 1: get into these like weird cultural devices.
Speaker 4: This is the thing.
Speaker 2: There's a big thing online people like to talk about
Speaker 2: and play act and cosplay civil war. It just doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense because our problems are not geographic anymore,
Speaker 2: and to the extent that they are, they are class based,
Speaker 2: and they are from a sorting of urban versus rural.
Speaker 2: If you live in our area, far more likely to
Speaker 2: be a liberal, to be college educated, to be hire income,
Speaker 2: to have separate cultural tastes, and you could be I
Speaker 2: don't know, ten fifteen miles away from somebody who you
Speaker 2: would never interact with ever.
Speaker 3: On a daily basis.
Speaker 2: You know, the whole thing about the original North and
Speaker 2: South Civil War is that the dividing question of that
Speaker 2: time was slavery and the economic system of which it
Speaker 2: helped to perpetrate, which was industrial North and the slave
Speaker 2: owning South, and agrarian versus industrial economies. And it happened
Speaker 2: to divide amongst geography. But today that's not what our
Speaker 2: problems are. It's all based on education, it's all based
Speaker 2: on class, that's cultural taste, and it's just city versus urban.
Speaker 2: So to that extent, it doesn't make any sense. Another reason,
Speaker 2: here's one reason though, to be doubtful of the loyal estates,
Speaker 2: the Western Forces or Western Alliance or whatever it's called.
Speaker 2: Within the map, they have I think a decent portion
Speaker 2: of the nuclear weapons, and they would have control on that,
Speaker 2: so I'm not so sure how much control there would be.
Speaker 2: The question too here about this so called like civil
Speaker 2: war and Balkanization, is that any true Balkanization, if it
Speaker 2: were to ever come in America, would be rle versus urban.
Speaker 2: And that's also why it's just not going to come
Speaker 2: because of the way that the governing authorities are. We
Speaker 2: are not even close to the levels of what things
Speaker 2: look like in the eighteen sixties, and people should actually
Speaker 2: read a ton more about how the actual country came
Speaker 2: apart between the eighteen thirties and all the way up
Speaker 2: until eighteen sixty one, the dividing questions of slavery, the
Speaker 2: way that it worked through the so called compromises.
Speaker 3: We're not even close to that. So I agree with you.
Speaker 2: The fact that the map is so dumb is to
Speaker 2: a benefit of the movie because it purely exists in
Speaker 2: the realm of fantasy and what it would look like.
Speaker 1: It sort of reminds me of when mister Beast did
Speaker 1: the Olympics y and he just great world randomly solved all.
Speaker 4: These different territorial disputes.
Speaker 1: But because he did it in a non ideological way
Speaker 1: that was just totally.
Speaker 4: Happy, wholes random, it was fine.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like that, like the idea that Kentucky
Speaker 1: and West Virginia and New York would be an alliance together,
Speaker 1: and that you know, Colorado and Idaho or the only
Speaker 1: one that makes any sense is really the what are
Speaker 1: they called the Florida for whatever Florida Alliance.
Speaker 2: But then why would Oklahoma not join Texas. Oklahoma's well
Speaker 2: this is Oklahoma' are gonna get upset, But you guys
Speaker 2: are basically Texas. So if you go and at least
Speaker 2: the way I was taught, we have, actually do they
Speaker 2: have in Virginia of Texas history like Virginia history. We
Speaker 2: have an entire year of curriculum dedicated to Texas history,
Speaker 2: which I've always thought is amazing. And the first thing
Speaker 2: they always teach you is that we were our own
Speaker 2: country once and we can be, which.
Speaker 3: Is why we are allowed to fly our flag as
Speaker 3: high as the US flag, because we were once a republic.
Speaker 3: So so Texan.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure. I'm not a big fan of Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I would really want to own Oklahoma.
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean, I haven't spent much time there. It
Speaker 2: seems okay. It looks like some decent farmland, you know,
Speaker 2: some things out there. They can feed the capitol in Austin.
Speaker 2: That's what we'll get. A little Hunger Games action going.
Speaker 2: So anyway, Look, it's going to be a fun. It's
Speaker 2: going to be a fun.
Speaker 4: Do you think it's going to be good? The movie?
Speaker 3: If we were talking about this before. It's got high variants.
Speaker 2: It's even going to be horrible or it's going to
Speaker 2: be a fantastic and there's no in between. The guy
Speaker 2: made X Makina, which is a great movie if I
Speaker 2: were to I mean the cast. I love Jesse Planmon's
Speaker 2: love him. His wife is Kirsten dun So they're both
Speaker 2: playing in there. Nick Offerman is he's a great actor.
Speaker 2: The other guy who played Pablo Escobar from Narcos, I've
Speaker 2: only ever seen him as esco Ar. I don't know
Speaker 2: much about him, so it's a big lift for him
Speaker 2: to play such a leading role. The African American gentleman
Speaker 2: who is in there, I know him from the wire.
Speaker 3: He's a very good actor. So we'll see.
Speaker 2: I think it's probably going to code like capital L liberal,
Speaker 2: which means will probably be bad, but we'll see it
Speaker 2: is I will see, Sue, I.
Speaker 1: Will watch I mean, you liked Barbie, which was the
Speaker 1: most capital L liberal movie of all times.
Speaker 3: I watch a lot of movies. I love movies.
Speaker 2: I'm an AMC A list member like I will basically
Speaker 2: watch almost anything as long as it's got a decent
Speaker 2: enough review just to go check it out.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I'm the wrong person to ask.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna I want to see it, but I
Speaker 1: will do what I always do, which is let other people.
Speaker 4: See it first and then if it's worth my time.
Speaker 3: Right now on my list is Wanka, big shot head.
Speaker 2: I'm praying. I'm hoping for him. He's our only chance
Speaker 2: at a next generation movie star. I needed to bulk
Speaker 2: up a little bit though. That's what we need from him. Anyway, Guys,
Speaker 2: you've heard enough of this commentary. We appreciate it. We're
Speaker 2: actually filming, as you said, one of those segments that
Speaker 2: will be releasing later, so that's why we're ending things
Speaker 2: a little bit earlier.
Speaker 4: Today.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have more that we'll be filming evergreen content
Speaker 2: on Thursday. Those Norm Finkeles scene and Tucker Carlson interviews
Speaker 2: exclusively released to our premium subscribers first before them being publicly,
Speaker 2: so if you can support us Breakingpoints dot Com otherwise,
Speaker 2: we will have a fantastic counterpoint show for all of
Speaker 2: you tomorrow, and we'll see you on Thursday.