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.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 3: Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. Ryan Grimm
Speaker 2: is in for Crystal Wall. It's great to see you, man.
Speaker 4: And to make this show even more amazing, what we
Speaker 4: decided to do is stack a live audience that's Tripe supporters.
Speaker 5: We're going to all show long. It's gonna be amazing.
Speaker 3: It's gonna be incredible.
Speaker 2: Ryan is referenceding a CNN town hall last night of
Speaker 2: which we have the best and the greatest moments from
Speaker 2: all of that multiple different avenues that we're going to
Speaker 2: be talking about.
Speaker 3: So everybody, please don't worry. It's not just about Trump.
Speaker 2: We have some of the more insane moments about Stopless Deal,
Speaker 2: Egen Carroll and all of that. Then we're actually going
Speaker 2: to talk about policy, but the debt ceiling, and we're
Speaker 2: going to talk about abortion. Then finally his answer on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: before we do some segments about Title forty two, about
Speaker 2: the ending today at the US Mexico border and the
Speaker 2: migrant crisis and everything that we know about that, and
Speaker 2: then finally a little bit of updates on the Tucker
Speaker 2: Carlson media empire, but also some Elon Musk invitations to
Speaker 2: Don Lemon, I'm actually doing a monologue about mammograms. I
Speaker 2: decided that since Crystal is gone, it's the Bro show,
Speaker 2: you might as well do a monologue by a male.
Speaker 3: About breast cancer.
Speaker 2: Will be shocked by the way about some of things
Speaker 2: that I've uncovered.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Shout out to doctor Vane Persod actually for flagging this
Speaker 2: to me. Some of you will be very very interested
Speaker 2: in this. It's a big story about big pharma and
Speaker 2: all of that. And then I have Senator jd Vance
Speaker 2: actually who's going to be joining us here in the studio.
Speaker 3: I always do have the need to do this full disclosure.
Speaker 2: Van's longtime personal friend that said he is joining the show.
Speaker 2: We will be talking to him about the railway safety
Speaker 2: Act that he introduced about East Palestine, Ohio, and we
Speaker 2: will be getting all the details from that in which
Speaker 2: he will be talking about the Republicans in the Senate
Speaker 2: Caucus who do not support that bill, and we'll get
Speaker 2: into it.
Speaker 3: But I always do feel the need to do the
Speaker 3: disclosure Ryan, and that.
Speaker 2: Actually gets us before we get to all of the
Speaker 2: Trump insanity from last night over at CNN. I just
Speaker 2: want to say once again, thank you all so much
Speaker 2: for the premium subscribers who've been signing up helping us
Speaker 2: out as we're rebuilding our studio, getting to a point
Speaker 2: where CNN is not the only place that has to
Speaker 2: do a town hall with the former president, has that capacity.
Speaker 3: If you want to see the ability to do things.
Speaker 2: Like that, you can sign up Breakingpoints dot com to
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber. Next week, we're very excited we'll
Speaker 2: very likely have RFK Junior here live in the studio
Speaker 2: of which we will be able to do a long interview.
Speaker 2: And this is exactly the level up of what we
Speaker 2: want to get to. That's why we're getting the new studio.
Speaker 2: That's where our building out our infrastructure, getting amazing partners
Speaker 2: like Ryan Ken Klippstein who broke that incredible story, so
Speaker 2: many other people that were proud and able to support
Speaker 2: because of all of you.
Speaker 3: So once again, monthly, yearly.
Speaker 4: Take a good look, take a good look at these bricks,
Speaker 4: because yeah, this might be it for them.
Speaker 3: That's right, you're not listen.
Speaker 2: I love the bricks, actually crystal more than anybody loves
Speaker 2: the bricks. But the bricks are gone. Most likely, we'll see,
Speaker 2: maybe they'll make a comeback. I actually fought for them,
Speaker 2: but we'll see. All right, let's go ahead and get
Speaker 2: to Trump. What do we have, Ryan A moment of
Speaker 2: complete insanity, seventy straight minutes of Trump, almost live on CNN,
Speaker 2: the clashes, the fact checking, to stop the steal.
Speaker 3: So much happened.
Speaker 2: So we decided to start and break it down by
Speaker 2: I guess, not only the timeline of how it began,
Speaker 2: but really in terms of content. First, we are going
Speaker 2: to start with stop the Steal, and with January sixth. Obviously,
Speaker 2: stop the steal in January sixth, noose around the wreck
Speaker 2: neck of the Republican Party on the general election. But
Speaker 2: as I have always said, with Trump, you get exactly
Speaker 2: what you see.
Speaker 3: And here's the thing.
Speaker 2: He's not going to change his mind no matter how
Speaker 2: many times you ask him whether the election was not
Speaker 2: stolen or not know how many times you want to
Speaker 2: fact check him live And as you can see, not
Speaker 2: only from his answers, he believes this stuff in terms
Speaker 2: of every possible conspiracy theory. But second, the Republicans who
Speaker 2: are in the audience, they believe him too.
Speaker 3: Take a listen.
Speaker 6: I actually say we did far better in that election,
Speaker 6: got the most that anybody's ever gotten as a president
Speaker 6: of the United States. I think that when you look
Speaker 6: at that result and when you look at what happened
Speaker 6: during that election, unless you're a very stupid person, you
Speaker 6: see what happens. A lot of the people, a lot
Speaker 6: of the people in this audience and proad maybe a
Speaker 6: couple that don't, but most people understand what happened. That
Speaker 6: was a rigged election.
Speaker 2: That, by the way, just everyone knows. That was the
Speaker 2: very first answer to the very first question. Now I
Speaker 2: do want to say, we'll bring this up later.
Speaker 3: With the focus groups. Everybody was like, oh, he immediately listen.
Speaker 2: They're the ones who asked him about stop the steel
Speaker 2: and they spent the first half an hour on all
Speaker 2: of Trump's personal problems, which I think is a huge
Speaker 2: programming mistake. That said, once again, if you do ask
Speaker 2: him about it, which of course the media will be
Speaker 2: asking him about.
Speaker 3: It, Ryan, he hasn't changed his mind.
Speaker 2: He doesn't think he did anything wrong on January sixth
Speaker 2: at all. There was a famous cinematic moment where he's like,
Speaker 2: you want me to see the tweets and he literally
Speaker 2: pulls out the time stamp of his tweets, which actually
Speaker 2: just vindicate the timeline that the CNN interviewer.
Speaker 3: But it doesn't matter because to the audience, they were
Speaker 3: eating it up. They loved it.
Speaker 2: And I actually thought Ryan that the stop the Steel
Speaker 2: answer and how it was supposedly repulsing Republicans. Again, I
Speaker 2: am not talking here about independent voters or Democrats who
Speaker 2: do genuinely hate stop the Steal and find it like
Speaker 2: repulsive and abhorrent, at least electorically.
Speaker 3: As we can see in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Two, what is the very second question that is asked
Speaker 2: at the town hall? Will you pardon the January sixth riders?
Speaker 2: We have some of that, let's listen.
Speaker 1: My question to you is, will you pardon the January
Speaker 1: six rioters who were convicted of federal offenses.
Speaker 6: I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can
Speaker 6: say for every single one, because a couple of them
Speaker 6: probably they got out of control.
Speaker 3: So probably they got out of a couple of them.
Speaker 2: One, two, Okay, stop the steal in January sixth, So far,
Speaker 2: what are you making of it? So, by the way,
Speaker 2: we know that most of you did not watch the
Speaker 2: town hall. We did our best to compile some of
Speaker 2: this stuff together. But if you do have the time,
Speaker 2: go watch the seventy minutes. We're going to try our
Speaker 2: best year, you know, to put as much of a
Speaker 2: narrative and all that. But I do encourage you if
Speaker 2: you have the time to go and watch the full
Speaker 2: thing for yourself.
Speaker 4: So like, yeah, on the one hand, I understand the
Speaker 4: criticism of the media here and the focus group called
Speaker 4: out ye see, and like, why does he keep talking
Speaker 4: about twenty twenty? Well, your first question was about twenty
Speaker 4: twenty or second questions about January six so gee, I
Speaker 4: don't know why does he keep talking?
Speaker 5: That's true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, However, on the other hand, the guy gives those answers,
Speaker 4: so you're like, wow, And I think it's important for
Speaker 4: the American public.
Speaker 5: To see that, Oh, I thought it was great. That's
Speaker 5: that is who he is.
Speaker 4: He is the by far the front runner for the
Speaker 4: Republican nomination, likely to be on the ballot, yes against
Speaker 4: sitting president. He's the former president of the United States.
Speaker 4: He's not just celebrity apprentice guy at this point. He's
Speaker 4: a former president. And if he's going to say that,
Speaker 4: he is going to probably pardon most of the January
Speaker 4: sixth rioters.
Speaker 5: That is newsworthy.
Speaker 3: No, not only newsworthy.
Speaker 2: But I think what it gets to is there is
Speaker 2: a level of high brow stop the steal which drives
Speaker 2: me insane, which Senator Holly is absolutely guilty of many
Speaker 2: of these other people Ted cruised.
Speaker 5: They're like, well, you know the commission, my commission, idea.
Speaker 3: Commission, not just the commission.
Speaker 6: Ryan.
Speaker 2: They'll be like, but did you know that the Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden laptop story. And we're like, yeah, of course we
Speaker 2: knew that. And by the way, you know who has
Speaker 2: covered that more than we have here. We did an
Speaker 2: entire segment about it, and in fact, that the Trump
Speaker 2: town hall hadn't.
Speaker 3: Happened, we would have done an entire nose about it.
Speaker 2: Where I'm very happy to and we will be covering
Speaker 2: it on our Monday show, Congratulations. The point is is
Speaker 2: that he doesn't believe that because the Hunter Biden laptop story,
Speaker 2: that the election was stolen and that is election interference,
Speaker 2: we can absolutely say that.
Speaker 3: But he believes that the votes.
Speaker 2: Were specifically rigged and changed in multiple different states, and
Speaker 2: that's what really hit.
Speaker 3: From the town.
Speaker 2: Hall, he'd be like, well, in Milwaukee in particular, you know,
Speaker 2: every city he has a story, and Georgia he has
Speaker 2: a story. Milwaukee has a story. In what Philadelphia he
Speaker 2: has a story. And I already know the magabots are
Speaker 2: gonna be in the comments being like, well did you
Speaker 2: see this one video? It's like, well, okay, prove it
Speaker 2: in court, you know, and guess what, as they brought
Speaker 2: up last night, correctly they lost every single court case.
Speaker 2: If you had such compelling evidence, then presumably one judge.
Speaker 2: You can't even if a pro live people can get
Speaker 2: some crank judge in Texas to take down the uh
Speaker 2: what is it? The abortionous hill for like a week
Speaker 2: and you can't get one judge to.
Speaker 3: Go, not one, not even a state guy to go
Speaker 3: along with your nonsense. What does that tell you about you?
Speaker 4: And this could be a good moment to do something
Speaker 4: for the YouTube censors here.
Speaker 5: Well, I'll say it's Lindsay Graham.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Lindsay Graham made the point that this was not stolen
Speaker 4: the night of January sixth or early January seventh.
Speaker 5: Go watch his speech. It was incredible. He's saying.
Speaker 4: What Sager is saying is like, you guys say ten
Speaker 4: thousand dead people voted in Georgia.
Speaker 5: I asked for five. I got none.
Speaker 4: You guys say that sixty thousand like Mexicans voted in Arizona,
Speaker 4: Show me four. You said one hundred thousand people in
Speaker 4: Milwaukee turned out, you know that voted twice, Like, show
Speaker 4: me ten of them and I got zero.
Speaker 5: So that's Lindsay Graham.
Speaker 4: And so to your point, right, he doesn't believe that
Speaker 4: it was unfair because the CIA, like coordinated with Hunter
Speaker 4: Biden and persuaded people to vote a different way exactly.
Speaker 4: He thinks that Jugo Chaves his ghost came in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, heally believes.
Speaker 2: And so and by the way, if you believe that,
Speaker 2: I think you know, I mean, I think you need help,
Speaker 2: but and I think you're wrong. But I guess at
Speaker 2: least you're honest you're more honest or as honest as Trump.
Speaker 2: You're dishonest though, if you're a Republican senator here in
Speaker 2: this town and you're singing a different tune about why
Speaker 2: the election was stolen, but not in the way that
Speaker 2: Trump says. And actually you brought up a good point,
Speaker 2: just so everybody knows. Every single time that we air
Speaker 2: a clip where Trump says that the election was stolen, we,
Speaker 2: according to YouTube guidance, have to make sure that we
Speaker 2: also say that the election was not stolen.
Speaker 3: Now, frankly, I mean, I don't.
Speaker 2: Think I should have to do that because even though
Speaker 2: I do don't believe that the election was stolen, but
Speaker 2: I still have to say it because apparently that's what
Speaker 2: the content policy is.
Speaker 4: They think that viewers as long as you and I say,
Speaker 4: and the viewers like, oh right, well, okay, never mind that.
Speaker 2: It's not like you're smart enough to figure it out
Speaker 2: for yourself.
Speaker 3: That's what I think anyway, that's the YouTube policy.
Speaker 2: And also become a premium member because that's why this
Speaker 2: is why things are precarious as they are. Let's go
Speaker 2: to the final clip here, probably honestly the most shocking moment.
Speaker 2: Trump not only talks about January sixth, not only defends
Speaker 2: Ashley Babbitt, the protester who shot dead at the Capitol,
Speaker 2: calls the cop who shot her quote a thug.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: Over one hundred and forty officers were injured that day.
Speaker 6: And a person named Ashley Babbitt was killed. Yes, you
Speaker 6: know what, she was killed and she shouldn't have been killed.
Speaker 6: And that thug that killed her there was no reason
Speaker 6: to shoot her at blank range, cold blank range. A
Speaker 6: shot her.
Speaker 3: Wo Ryan, That's uh, that's something.
Speaker 2: And what you can see from Trump there not only
Speaker 2: defending Ashley Babbitt, he said that protesters at January sixth
Speaker 2: had quote love.
Speaker 3: In their hearts whenever they arrived.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, in terms of litigating all of this,
Speaker 2: I do think it is a little interesting that the
Speaker 2: Republicans around the Ashley Babbitt case basically become the level
Speaker 2: of like BLM activists whenever it comes to Ashley Babbitt,
Speaker 2: but not so whenever it's like any sort of cop shooting.
Speaker 3: I do think we should be consistent, and I actually
Speaker 3: think it's totally legitimate.
Speaker 2: I was gonna I think it's actually totally the legitimate
Speaker 2: to be like, hey, was this a legitimate use of force?
Speaker 2: Like you have this so she broke through whatever, she
Speaker 2: broke through the window, right, and he immediately shot through
Speaker 2: the windows.
Speaker 3: And then you know, when we're talking about self defense and.
Speaker 2: All that, I actually think it's a legitimate conversation just
Speaker 2: about how we should handle these things. What do riot
Speaker 2: situations look like, what are the breaching rules and all
Speaker 2: that that said, I mean, I think there's a lot
Speaker 2: of inconsistency here and we're basically playing, like I caughp,
Speaker 2: identity politics in terms of when protesters it's okay and
Speaker 2: what's not. But I mean, regardless of that, media wise,
Speaker 2: you know that this is probably that's probably triggered them
Speaker 2: more than anything else from the night.
Speaker 4: You make a really good point because if you compare
Speaker 4: it to other police shooting videos where you will have
Speaker 4: ten officers surrounding one unarmed person, right, and the unarmed
Speaker 4: person is kind of freaking out because they're like getting
Speaker 4: conflicting orders.
Speaker 5: Put your hands behind your back, put your hands behind your.
Speaker 4: Head, get on your knees, don't move, no move, and
Speaker 4: then they move a little bit, and then they all
Speaker 4: shoot them down, shot them down, and they say, well,
Speaker 4: we were all in fear of our life because we saw.
Speaker 5: Him reach for his waist band.
Speaker 4: Ashley Babbitt was part of a mob that was kicking
Speaker 4: its way.
Speaker 5: Through the doors into the speaker's lobby. There the idea that.
Speaker 4: The person who saw somebody reach for their waistband was
Speaker 4: totally justified in ending somebody's life, but that this person
Speaker 4: should have de escalated this situation in a different way.
Speaker 4: I might agree that maybe it would be nice if
Speaker 4: there was a way to de escalate that, but I
Speaker 4: think that's a really good point to compare it to
Speaker 4: other police shootings where the same types of people.
Speaker 5: Are like, that was justified.
Speaker 4: Yes, you know, you know, play stupid games, win stupid
Speaker 4: prize acts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well listen, I think that's actually why I get so.
Speaker 2: This is why I think the discourse around this is
Speaker 2: so poisonous. It's like we're all criminal justice reform advocates
Speaker 2: whenever it comes for Chance six protester, which I do
Speaker 2: think many of them were very unjustly treated. But you know,
Speaker 2: at the same time, it's like some lock them up
Speaker 2: thing for any crime that they don't like. Not to
Speaker 2: be consistent, that's how the law works, right, and finally
Speaker 2: Mike Pence moment.
Speaker 5: This is shocking too.
Speaker 2: He still truly believes that Mike Pence had the ability
Speaker 2: to change the election results on January sixth, even though
Speaker 2: he had no absolutely zero capacity to do so.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 7: One person who was at the Capitol that day is,
Speaker 7: you know, was your Vice president Mike Pence, who says
Speaker 7: that you endangered his life on that day. I don't
Speaker 7: think he was danger mister president. Do you feel that
Speaker 7: you owe him an apology?
Speaker 6: No, because he did something wrong. He should have put
Speaker 6: the votes back to the state legislatures, and I think
Speaker 6: we would have had a different outcome.
Speaker 2: Should have put the votes back to the state once
Speaker 2: I had he doesn't have the capacity. I also do
Speaker 2: love Trump's his explanation for why he could have done so.
Speaker 2: He's like, well, he could have done so because they
Speaker 2: tried to pass the Electoral Count Act afterwards, and as he.
Speaker 3: Was like, oh, they strengthened it.
Speaker 2: Well real they took out is any shred of legal
Speaker 2: ambiguity around it, So you know, it is just one
Speaker 2: of those where he believes that people. That's the biggest takeaway.
Speaker 2: He believes the election was stolen that Hugo Shavis's ghost
Speaker 2: and Chinese dominions and all these other people individually conspired
Speaker 2: and acted together, while Mike Lindell apparently he's the only
Speaker 2: guy who's ever been able to find out about it
Speaker 2: to go in and change election results. And if you
Speaker 2: sign on to that, this is what you're signing on to.
Speaker 2: This is why I actually think this is a great
Speaker 2: service for all of us.
Speaker 5: This is it.
Speaker 2: This is Trump. He's not going to change. He will
Speaker 2: never ever ever change. And that's probably the most evergreen
Speaker 2: thing that we learned about him. So anyway, let's go
Speaker 2: to the second part here, because it's not like we
Speaker 2: couldn't get enough from Trump.
Speaker 3: They also had to ask him, of course.
Speaker 2: But you guys did a great job, by the way,
Speaker 2: talking about the EG and Carroll verdict what it was,
Speaker 2: what it wasn't all this a bit complicated because what
Speaker 2: was it? They found him liable of defamation, liable sexual abuse,
Speaker 2: but not liable of rape, which I'm still personally trying
Speaker 2: to wrap my head around.
Speaker 3: Trump also had his response to that.
Speaker 5: There's a rather graphic answer to that. Yeah, just yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: The good point if you're watching this with children, you
Speaker 2: should you know ear muffs.
Speaker 3: All right, let's take a listen just.
Speaker 6: So you understand. Ready, I never met this woman. I
Speaker 6: never saw this woman. This woman said. I met her
Speaker 6: at the front door of Bergdorf good Room, which I
Speaker 6: rarely go into other than for a couple of charities.
Speaker 6: I met her in the front door. She was about
Speaker 6: sixty years old. And this is like twenty two, twenty
Speaker 6: three years ago. I met her in the front door
Speaker 6: at Bergdorff Goodman. I was immediately attracted to her. She
Speaker 6: was immediately attracted to me. And we had this great chemistry.
Speaker 6: We'll walk in into a crowded department, so we had
Speaker 6: this great chemistry. And a few minutes later we end
Speaker 6: up in a room, a dressing room a Burgdoff Goodman,
Speaker 6: right near the cash register. And then she found out
Speaker 6: there are locks in the door. So she said, I
Speaker 6: found one that was open. She found one. She learned
Speaker 6: this a trial. She found one that was open. What
Speaker 6: kind of a woman meets somebody and brings him up
Speaker 6: and with ad minutes you're playing hanky panky in addressing room.
Speaker 2: Okay, crowd was eating it up there, Ryan crowd was
Speaker 2: eating it up.
Speaker 3: Everybody was like, oh, Trump you knows.
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, you first.
Speaker 3: Time, like first time I ever heard Trump.
Speaker 2: They also tried to get him on the what was
Speaker 2: it the answer that he gave in his deposition about
Speaker 2: when you grab him, you know, they let you do it,
Speaker 2: and he's like, well, you know, it's fortunate or unfortunately
Speaker 2: or fortunately, and he's like, well, you know, that's something
Speaker 2: that has always been kind of the case for famous people.
Speaker 3: What did you make of his response?
Speaker 4: What do you think what was interesting that he wanted
Speaker 4: to relitigate the access Holly, He is, yeah, that's how
Speaker 4: to reltigate everything.
Speaker 5: And he wanted to zero in on the word let
Speaker 5: because what.
Speaker 4: He was trying to say it seemed like, was that
Speaker 4: let implies consenth okay, okay, and that unfortunately or fortunately, powerful, rich,
Speaker 4: famous people are able to get consent like that. That
Speaker 4: was the whole riff that he was going in on.
Speaker 4: But it's just bizarre that he wants to relitigate that.
Speaker 4: But it's very Trump and to me, it was disturbing
Speaker 4: to watch the crowd hooting to his like mockery of
Speaker 4: Egene Carroll. That was the part where I was like, oh,
Speaker 4: this is just That was the part where I thought
Speaker 4: CNN was like really getting now maybe what they wanted
Speaker 4: because it's going to be ratings, but it was just.
Speaker 5: Horrifying.
Speaker 4: But it's like to think of an entire crowd of
Speaker 4: people like mocking that that moment while he's mocking it
Speaker 4: on stage. It's just it does not kind of portray
Speaker 4: the world that I wish that we lived in.
Speaker 3: Well, it's certainly not. Unfortunately.
Speaker 2: You know, in the eyes a lot of these people,
Speaker 2: everything is politicized, and everything is like, if you're going
Speaker 2: to turn this into politicization, that this is going to
Speaker 2: be a joke, and I'm going to treat it like
Speaker 2: a joke.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, that's how a lot of people.
Speaker 4: I think that's how people who are I'm sure against
Speaker 4: sexual assault rape in their in their daily life. They
Speaker 4: they think it's all right politicized and so therefore, but
Speaker 4: a lot of people watching it, I think, don't have
Speaker 4: not don't do not have the same twit or brain.
Speaker 2: That's that is genuinely a Ruschack test on Hi. I
Speaker 2: don't judge anybody who feels either way. You also got
Speaker 2: a point to uh, just the crowd and the level
Speaker 2: of which they were They're loving the that is a
Speaker 2: vintage classic Trump right. Well, another one was going after
Speaker 2: the moderator, Caitline Collins at CNN, calling her quote a
Speaker 2: nasty person.
Speaker 3: And again the crowd is eating this up. Take a listen.
Speaker 7: That's the question that investigators have, I think, is why
Speaker 7: you held onto those documents when you knew the federal
Speaker 7: government was seeking them and then it'd given you a
Speaker 7: subpoena to return.
Speaker 5: Are you ready?
Speaker 6: Can I talk?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 7: What's the answer?
Speaker 5: Can you mind?
Speaker 7: I would like for you dance the Bookay, it's very simple,
Speaker 7: That's why I asked it.
Speaker 6: It's very simple that you're a nasty person.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you you're a nasty person.
Speaker 3: Okay. And again, crowd they can cheer. I mean, this is.
Speaker 2: Also where you know it kind of get to your point, Ryan,
Speaker 2: which no offense, but there's a lot of pearl clutching
Speaker 2: going on where people are like, I can't believe the crowd.
Speaker 3: Which here I'm like, here's what you got. People need
Speaker 3: to understand. They hate you.
Speaker 2: They hate you so much, they hate you so much.
Speaker 2: The reason that they vote for this this.
Speaker 3: Like vulgar weird?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 2: You know, famous billionaire from New York is because of.
Speaker 3: Moments like that, and they will never understand it.
Speaker 2: I think you were intellectually capable of that, and that's
Speaker 2: why watching that I couldn't help but almost just because.
Speaker 3: I'm like, wow, like that right there.
Speaker 2: That is why since what seventy something million people voted
Speaker 2: for him in twenty two, they can never get enough
Speaker 2: of Trump via the media because the only person less
Speaker 2: popular than him is them.
Speaker 5: But also we say Trump can't change. But that was
Speaker 5: woke Trump. No, I didn't. Oh he said a nasty person,
Speaker 5: not nasty, right, Hillary Clinton was nasty? It was Hillary Clinton, Hillary. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 5: he's going that's good. He's like, this is not a
Speaker 5: gendered insult that I am leveling here. I like that.
Speaker 3: I like so well. I want him to start. Yeah,
Speaker 3: he got to.
Speaker 2: We need to stop him from saying things like the
Speaker 2: dumbest man on TELEIGENI say, the dumbest person on television.
Speaker 3: Nasty person, not a nasty woman. But yeah, that's Trump.
Speaker 5: Trump. Trump is Trump.
Speaker 2: And that's just really my maybe because I covered him
Speaker 2: for so long, you know, it was in in all
Speaker 2: this literally watched this play out on a day to day,
Speaker 2: but not a single thing that happened last night surprised
Speaker 2: me or shocked me at all. It just seemed like
Speaker 2: right back, return to where things are. Lots of media,
Speaker 2: like I said, Pearl clutching around this. But I think
Speaker 2: that the fundamental question for everybody to ask, for everyone
Speaker 2: who is involved and finds this repugnant.
Speaker 3: Is how do we get here?
Speaker 2: How do we get to a point where people are
Speaker 2: laughing at the Egen Carroll thing? How do you get
Speaker 2: to a point where people are cheering whenever you call
Speaker 2: a nasty person. I remember some of the biggest cheers
Speaker 2: that he used to get is at his rallies is
Speaker 2: when he would look at the back.
Speaker 3: You'd be like, you see those red lights and they're
Speaker 3: turning away then not showing the crowd. He's like, there's
Speaker 3: fake news CNN is the crowd would go wild.
Speaker 2: If you've ever been to a Trump rally and you've
Speaker 2: seen the press, you know, at the barricade in the back,
Speaker 2: and they became I mean, by the way, they love
Speaker 2: this too. Just so everybody knows, Jim Acosta would be there,
Speaker 2: he'd be like, look at the way that these people
Speaker 2: are trying. It's a bi directional thing. The crowd loves
Speaker 2: hating you and he loves me hated by the crowd.
Speaker 3: It helps him sell books.
Speaker 2: So don't act also like there's not a lot going
Speaker 2: on here but self perpetuating cancer.
Speaker 5: I was, I was at the dawn of this.
Speaker 4: Were you at Sarah Palin's speech? It was electric in
Speaker 4: a kind of terrifying way. Yeah, this way because McCain
Speaker 4: gets his acceptance speech, it's like a normal political speech.
Speaker 5: You know, the rest of the Republicans.
Speaker 4: Throughout that convintry first, normal stuff. When Sarah Palin hit
Speaker 4: that stage and she started coming out, I forget what
Speaker 4: she called us. It wasn't fake news, it was something else.
Speaker 5: But like you're talking about, she called out the whole whole.
Speaker 4: Press area and you could feel the energy of that
Speaker 4: room turned toward the press.
Speaker 5: Remember, like, whoa this is?
Speaker 4: This is something else, this is a different thing, Like
Speaker 4: these people hate me.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: There's another good clip if anybody wants to go watch
Speaker 2: it of Newt Gingrich going after the media in twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: similar time period. So if it's twenty twelve in the primary,
Speaker 2: ging Rich, it's like the CNN actually town hall or
Speaker 2: debate or something like that, and they opened it up
Speaker 2: by asking him whether he wants to apologize to his
Speaker 2: ex wife or something like that.
Speaker 3: For anyway me doing scummy things, like very scummy.
Speaker 2: I remember that, y yes, And he was like, well,
Speaker 2: I think, how dare you?
Speaker 3: And the biggest threat to this country is.
Speaker 5: And the crowd on their feet went wild.
Speaker 2: And gang Rich actually popped in the polls after that.
Speaker 2: That was one of the biggest precursors to what would
Speaker 2: eventually happen in the twenty fifteen primary. So all of
Speaker 2: the all of the breadcrumbs were there. The Sarah Palin
Speaker 2: hockey mom speech, if you remember that, it's like, what's
Speaker 2: the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
Speaker 2: Lipstick in the crowd is like absolutely losing it. Gingrich, Well,
Speaker 2: that's how we got of negativity. Yes, that's a good
Speaker 2: that's a good you know, people should go read about
Speaker 2: that too.
Speaker 3: That's that's some good stuff.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: Part three here, So we have alluded to this media figures.
Speaker 2: Democratic politicians, some of them named Alexandro Casio Cortez losing
Speaker 2: their minds at this CNN Trump Paul not for any
Speaker 2: of substantive reason, because to them, platforming it was anti
Speaker 2: democratic and uh, the anti democracy of all of this
Speaker 2: was just so irresponsible. AOC appeared on MSNBC as if
Speaker 2: they love democracy so much to denounce the CNN town hall.
Speaker 3: Here's what she had to say.
Speaker 8: I know you said earlier that you will not comment
Speaker 8: on the platforming of such atrocious disinformation, but I would.
Speaker 8: I think it was a profoundly irresponsible decision.
Speaker 5: I don't think that it would.
Speaker 8: I would be doing my job if I did not
Speaker 8: say that. And what we saw tonight was a series
Speaker 8: of extremely irresponsible decisions that put a sexual abuse victim
Speaker 8: at risk, that put that person at risk in front
Speaker 8: of a national audience. And I could not have disagreed
Speaker 8: with it more. It was shameful.
Speaker 3: It was shameful.
Speaker 2: Ryan Well, she's referencing she was on the Stephanie Rules Show,
Speaker 2: and actually Stephanie Ruld opened it be like, we will
Speaker 2: not be discussing or talking about this at all, really,
Speaker 2: because you're in the news business. Why not if you
Speaker 2: think it was shameful air the clip, Eric Forever, that's
Speaker 2: what we just did. You make up your mind, You
Speaker 2: make up your mind. Why don't we have enough trust
Speaker 2: in people that if Trump says that Venezuelan Chinese dominions
Speaker 2: stole the election.
Speaker 3: They go, yeah, you know, I don't think. I don't
Speaker 3: think that that happened.
Speaker 2: And then come voting time, whenever he gets a bunch
Speaker 2: of Republicans who endorse that on the ballot, they're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, I really hate Joe Biden. And even though
Speaker 2: I live in Arizona and I hate the Democrats, I'm
Speaker 2: just going to vote for one.
Speaker 3: Anyway. Democracy works. It works, you let people make up
Speaker 3: their own mind.
Speaker 4: I think, right, I think have more faith in the
Speaker 4: American public that Democrats I think ought to have been
Speaker 4: saying thank you for this.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, you're right. The smart ones we're saying that.
Speaker 4: Actually right, because it did a couple of things. One,
Speaker 4: it continued to scare away a bunch of independence and
Speaker 4: kind of democratic leaners.
Speaker 5: The ones who may come out may not come out.
Speaker 4: That didn't play well at all to them. I don't
Speaker 4: think we'll find out. But secondly, Trump thinks it played great,
Speaker 4: and Trump's base thinks that played so they're.
Speaker 5: Going to lean in.
Speaker 4: They're gonna be like, oh, we needed to make fun
Speaker 4: of EG and Carroll Moore. We make that a regular
Speaker 4: part of my stump speech. I need to continue talking
Speaker 4: about pardoning the January sixth rioders, I need to continue
Speaker 4: questioning the election results because that all worked for me,
Speaker 4: not realizing that yes it worked to fire up your base, excellent,
Speaker 4: but it's only going to bury you further. And so
Speaker 4: have faith that if Trump lets his freak flag fly,
Speaker 4: that enough of the American publics and be like, you
Speaker 4: know what, we don't I'm not sure we want the
Speaker 4: sleepy Joe guy, but this is if this is the choice,
Speaker 4: we're going with sleepy Joe.
Speaker 2: Which is literally what happened in the twenty twenty two election.
Speaker 2: Actually thought Biden had the best response. You know what
Speaker 2: he tweeted. It's simple, folks, do you want four more
Speaker 2: years of that? If you don't pitch into our campaign? Perfect,
Speaker 2: perfect response instead of oh democracy, democracy is being destroyed.
Speaker 2: One Rick Wilson, who you will remember from the Grifting
Speaker 2: Lincoln Project, has taken a break from the grift off
Speaker 2: of their Democratic boomer donors and has instead decided to
Speaker 2: come on the air and just on Twitter and denounce
Speaker 2: with almost tears in his eyes about what happened.
Speaker 3: Here's what we had to say.
Speaker 9: We're in a break now from the presidential town hall
Speaker 9: with CNN, Caitlin Collins and whatever the fuck they thought
Speaker 9: they were going to get out of this, they instead
Speaker 9: have set a match to democracy once again. You are
Speaker 9: letting an insane person stand there and make people giggle
Speaker 9: and laugh, and he jokes about rape. You make people
Speaker 9: giggle and laugh when he jokes about abortion, when he
Speaker 9: calls an African American police officer a thug. This insanity
Speaker 9: should be pulled off the fucking air.
Speaker 5: Chris licked.
Speaker 9: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Speaker 2: He should be ashamed of yourself. Morning Joe was on
Speaker 2: This Morning Ryan. Here's what jo Scarborough has to say.
Speaker 2: CNN's town hall was disgraceful on every level. The most
Speaker 2: shocking part was seeing the audience lapping it up. What
Speaker 2: I saw last night was as chilling as anything that
Speaker 2: I've seen on TV since January sixth. So if seeing
Speaker 2: Republicans love Trump is as triggering as jan six then
Speaker 2: you're in for it, my man.
Speaker 5: Our politics are actually disgusting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, welcome to America and shameful.
Speaker 5: And so what is the other option? Yeah, exactly like
Speaker 5: we can't make it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you and I can try as much as we
Speaker 4: can to make a better policies or should we.
Speaker 2: Have the power to do so, because no one person
Speaker 2: or two people or whatever ever have the power.
Speaker 5: Right. It's weird because what do they think their role
Speaker 5: is like?
Speaker 4: If you don't use the word platform, if you don't
Speaker 4: platform the Republican basically nominee for president, he's still on
Speaker 4: the ballot exactly, So what are you accomplishing exactly? If
Speaker 4: you think that people can't handle his views. What if
Speaker 4: then they get a distorted idea about what he believes
Speaker 4: and they think that he's actually moved on for act
Speaker 4: and he's not going to pardon the January sixth riders,
Speaker 4: then they vote for him. He gets in and does
Speaker 4: all the things that you were keeping him from sharing
Speaker 4: with the public that he was going to do.
Speaker 5: How does that serve democracy?
Speaker 2: So tell me about this. There was a huge debate.
Speaker 2: Let's put this on there on the screen. Though, by
Speaker 2: the way, the CNN actually cut their town hall short.
Speaker 2: It was scheduled for ninety minutes. The actual event was
Speaker 2: to go as long as seventy five. They stopped less
Speaker 2: than seventy minutes in. They could have gone longer if
Speaker 2: they wanted, which is usually what executives do with big
Speaker 2: rating straw. I think they personally thought it was a disaster. So,
Speaker 2: according to the commentariat online, the biggest mistake that Caitline
Speaker 2: Collins made is she didn't fact fact check him enough. Now,
Speaker 2: I want to know what you think about this. I've
Speaker 2: interviewed Trump four times. Guess what, every time you fact
Speaker 2: check him off derails the conversation. You don't get it.
Speaker 2: If you keep doing it longer, he'll just cut it off,
Speaker 2: so you're not going to get information. But in general,
Speaker 2: when I interview politicians, I let him talk and if
Speaker 2: they say a lie, we can talk about it afterwards.
Speaker 2: Maybe we can gently be like, hey, you know, this
Speaker 2: isn't another opposing view. What utility is there to the
Speaker 2: constant fact checking to somebody's face? And just so people know,
Speaker 2: I do this with Democrats and Republicans I've interviewed, doesn't
Speaker 2: Primelajaia Paul.
Speaker 3: I've interviewed all.
Speaker 2: These Democrats who I don't agree with it all, who
Speaker 2: in many cases I find like repugnant at least on
Speaker 2: a policy level. But I'm not going to sit there
Speaker 2: and like show my disdain to their face. I'm just
Speaker 2: gonna ask them a good faith question. I'll do the
Speaker 2: same thing with Republicans when anybody really is because I
Speaker 2: enjoy letting people talk and I believe in letting people
Speaker 2: judge for themselves. You know, I can try and add
Speaker 2: some context whatever, and I don't think I'm going to
Speaker 2: change anybody's mind.
Speaker 3: What do you think about the whole fact checking cons.
Speaker 4: I'm kind of with you on that because to me,
Speaker 4: it goes to what is the role of media? And
Speaker 4: we are interlocutors here, right if we have strong opinions
Speaker 4: about it's something that somebody's saying, and how the country
Speaker 4: we can run for office, right, Like, that's good, That's
Speaker 4: a path that is open to us. And so if
Speaker 4: a person is running for office, I think it's our
Speaker 4: job to question.
Speaker 5: Them, probe at their views.
Speaker 4: But setting yourself up like you're in a debate with
Speaker 4: them on a debate stage like one on one, you're
Speaker 4: in different roles, so that doesn't quite make sense you
Speaker 4: And then to your point, pragmatically and tactically, it just
Speaker 4: doesn't work. Like the whole fifty two mile thing was
Speaker 4: just so exhausting.
Speaker 3: Said this last night.
Speaker 2: She goes, we can't let you say that, and I said, really,
Speaker 2: did somebody elect CNN, Like, who what CNN's air is
Speaker 2: more powerful than the president's YouTube or something?
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly what do you want on YouTube?
Speaker 2: Because we actually can't literally, Yeah, But the point is
Speaker 2: is like, you know who elected you?
Speaker 3: Nobody?
Speaker 2: Like your job is to get info from Trump? And
Speaker 2: you know another thing I'm gonna know because we're going
Speaker 2: to spend the rest of our show on policy on Ukraine.
Speaker 2: The audience members asked the best damn questions the entire night.
Speaker 2: The best questions that came from Trump were about January sixth,
Speaker 2: like you said, they were also about the stolen election.
Speaker 2: They it sounded like those people didn't want to ask questions.
Speaker 2: What else did they ask about? Ryan Dead, ceiling, Ukraine abortion?
Speaker 2: Every single one of their questions was fantastic because the
Speaker 2: audience members want to get to what's really going on here.
Speaker 2: They're asking about, Hey, I'm having trouble.
Speaker 5: Paying my bills. And these are Republicans just so everyone knows.
Speaker 2: But even normal Republicans like they don't want to sit
Speaker 2: admire in this twenty twenty like election stuff.
Speaker 3: They want to be like, what are you going to
Speaker 3: do for me? What's going to even happen?
Speaker 4: Even they're like backward looking. January sixth, question was forward
Speaker 4: exactly are you going to party?
Speaker 5: Are you gonna party?
Speaker 4: Rather than what did you think of like the way
Speaker 4: that they ransacked the capitol or can you know, would
Speaker 4: you like to apologize to Mike Pence?
Speaker 5: It's like what forward about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because these people, you know, who are the people
Speaker 2: in the audience, were smart. They're smarter than us because
Speaker 2: we're probably still two in it right.
Speaker 3: We live in breed Polk. They are living their lives.
Speaker 2: They're the ones who actually vote at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, and they're the ones who picked their own
Speaker 2: president and their nominee, and they had better questions that
Speaker 2: served all of us. So we will be spending the
Speaker 2: bulk and the majority of the rest of the time
Speaker 2: actually talking about that. But we could not let this
Speaker 2: final thing go, which is as everybody at breaking points now.
Speaker 3: Chrystal and I we love a good focus.
Speaker 2: Group, especially with the focus group basically just slaps the
Speaker 2: media in the face. Here we had CNN, a bunch
Speaker 2: of Republican voters who were with the CNN with CNN
Speaker 2: after the town hall in which they stunned the actual
Speaker 2: interviewees because they didn't give them the answers they expected.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: Is it bother you that it keeps talking about twenty
Speaker 10: twenty and not twenty twenty four? I'll ask you for first.
Speaker 10: This is Jonathan Leslie's forty Republican voter for Trump twice?
Speaker 10: How do you feel about those lines?
Speaker 5: So I feel like part of it's also a media narrative,
Speaker 5: as you guys.
Speaker 6: Asking the first question at the time all about the
Speaker 6: twenty twenty election rather than turns up.
Speaker 10: So you may think it say it's time for me
Speaker 10: to start talking about twenty twenty four, and that lies there.
Speaker 11: I'm true.
Speaker 5: Couldn't the media ask him a question about twenty nine four?
Speaker 10: Well there were questions, but you're right that was the
Speaker 10: first thing that that's something that was on oline and
Speaker 10: that's why I was asked first. What I want to
Speaker 10: ask you first of all is do you think show
Speaker 10: of hands? Anybody think Donald Trump looks better after this
Speaker 10: town hall? And if you think it looks works and
Speaker 10: if you think the same thing about him as you
Speaker 10: did when you walked in, so all, do you feel
Speaker 10: that way?
Speaker 2: There you go, They're like, they're like, why was you
Speaker 2: kept saying all this tiff about twenty twenty. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: you asked them about twenty twenty and they're like if
Speaker 2: they're like, shouldn't you talk about twenty twenty four?
Speaker 3: They're like, but why don't you ask you? That's a
Speaker 3: great question. That's a great question. As usual they are
Speaker 3: they know so much better than we do.
Speaker 2: And that my personal favorite at the end there like
Speaker 2: raise your hand if you feel better about him, raise
Speaker 2: your hand to feel for real worse about him, raise
Speaker 2: your hand if you feel the same.
Speaker 3: I've talked about it here before. Debates and these types
Speaker 3: of things.
Speaker 2: Statistically, political science data we have like sixty years to
Speaker 2: tell us us have a zero impact on the election.
Speaker 5: Zero.
Speaker 2: It's almost always about more structural factors, personal stuff. It
Speaker 2: can matter, it can it's difficult to predict. But this
Speaker 2: also gets to my whole thing around the fact checking.
Speaker 2: What is the point of constantly being like, no, actually, sir,
Speaker 2: this is you know, fifty two miles of wall, not.
Speaker 3: Four hundred five.
Speaker 2: And guess what, the people who believe that Trump built
Speaker 2: the wall are never going to change their minds even
Speaker 2: if he didn't build a scrap a wall. And then
Speaker 2: also people who believe that there was not a single
Speaker 2: mile of wall built. We are not going to change
Speaker 2: their minds after you were like, well, actually there were
Speaker 2: fifty two.
Speaker 3: What you feel about Trump is baked in.
Speaker 2: He's been on the national stage now since twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: almost ten years. We were coming up on a decade
Speaker 2: of the Trump era in American politics.
Speaker 3: It's all here at this point.
Speaker 4: And the limits of fact checking were so exposed by
Speaker 4: that exchange too, because they were so obviously talking past.
Speaker 5: Exactly thank you what he was saying.
Speaker 4: He's like, look, I rehabbed a bunch of like rusty,
Speaker 4: old crappy fence, right, And they wouldn't count that in
Speaker 4: my fifty two miles, And she would say, well you
Speaker 4: did fifty two miles.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Secondly, it's like they're both right, Actually they are both right.
Speaker 4: But then secondly it's like, well, you guys don't want
Speaker 4: that wall anyway, So why are you kind of criticizing
Speaker 4: him for not building enough of the thing that you
Speaker 4: don't want him to build any of? Yes, So the
Speaker 4: whole thing, because when you get into fact checking, it
Speaker 4: takes the kind of ideology and ideas out of it.
Speaker 3: I don't believe in vindral fact checks.
Speaker 2: I actually think that outside of like literal math like
Speaker 2: two plus two or whatever physics, I don't think that
Speaker 2: there is such thing as a fact check. Everything is relative,
Speaker 2: Everything is basically up for debate. Everything is like everything
Speaker 2: is at the level of argumentation, you know, even you know, whenever,
Speaker 2: like we were talking about the stolen election, it's like, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: if you just put it that way, then you know,
Speaker 2: somebody can say about this, you know, if you put
Speaker 2: it the way Trump doesn't, Okay, like you can get
Speaker 2: in that. But even then, it's like, the point is
Speaker 2: is that about changing people's minds? And I think that
Speaker 2: the news at best what I like to do when
Speaker 2: we meet people out in the wild, like what's the
Speaker 2: most edifying thing they say, say, make me answer sense
Speaker 2: of the world. Hate help help my relationship with my parents,
Speaker 2: because I felt like we were talking past each other,
Speaker 2: and instead we watch your show together and we come
Speaker 2: away with different takeaways, and we sit down and we're like, well,
Speaker 2: here's what I agree with Sager said or Chrystal said it,
Speaker 2: Ryan said, or Emily said it. But I realized that
Speaker 2: because they could talk together afterwards, that you and I
Speaker 2: can talk now as well. I mean that the point
Speaker 2: is is that you can even start from the same
Speaker 2: show and come away with two completely different opinions.
Speaker 3: That's humanity.
Speaker 5: And I think you worry about getting too rigid.
Speaker 4: When Trump said, well, why did I make that call
Speaker 4: to Georgia, Yeah, because I was questioning the results of
Speaker 4: the election, He's just says it out right, yeah, And
Speaker 4: Democrats are going to be like, well, that's insane.
Speaker 5: You should go to prison for that.
Speaker 4: But I also think Democrats are going to regret in
Speaker 4: the future setting a standard by which it is wrong
Speaker 4: to question the results of elections. What if Republicans in
Speaker 4: Arizona or Wisconsin, Alabama democrats. Democrats are kind of in
Speaker 4: conflict here because on the one hand, they're always accusing
Speaker 4: Republicans of voter suppression and trying to steal elections, and
Speaker 4: then at the same time.
Speaker 5: Saying that you can never question the results of an election.
Speaker 4: So I bet in our lifetimes we're going to have
Speaker 4: a point where Republicans are going to straight up steal
Speaker 4: some elections somewhere, and Democrats are then going to be
Speaker 4: handcuffed a little bit in the way that they're able
Speaker 4: to point to the ways.
Speaker 3: Look at Stacey Abras.
Speaker 2: Stacy Abrams was allowed to do it in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: but then immediately after the Trump think they're like, hey, Stacy,
Speaker 2: shut up. Yes, Stacy, if you want to be able
Speaker 2: to continue selling books and you know, grifting off my
Speaker 2: killing us with all these other people in the eighteen things,
Speaker 2: you got to you gotta shut up. You got to
Speaker 2: accept it and just kind of walk away after you
Speaker 2: lost a couple more times. Anyway, I thought that these
Speaker 2: are our big like personality I guess takeaways. We're going
Speaker 2: to go ahead into the policy. Now, let's get to it.
Speaker 2: This Ryan, in my estimation, was some of the best
Speaker 2: that came out of this because Trump took a position
Speaker 2: in the debt ceiling fight, which is going to have
Speaker 2: massive ramifications in terms of how Republican voters and also
Speaker 2: the actual Republican policy makers respond to everything that's going
Speaker 2: on here right now. Let's look take a listen to
Speaker 2: this question about how the Republican should handle the debt ceiling,
Speaker 2: how Trump feels about the debt, and also about what
Speaker 2: Republicans should do in said defaulse type scenario.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: What do you think about the United States current debt
Speaker 6: situation and how can we move forward. Such an important question.
Speaker 6: So we're at thirty three trinllion dollars, a number that
Speaker 6: nobody ever thought simile. When we had our economy rocking
Speaker 6: and rolling just prior to COVID coming and like literally
Speaker 6: we were making a fortune and oil We're going to
Speaker 6: make so much money from, well, we're going to start
Speaker 6: paying off debt. But then with COVID coming in, we
Speaker 6: had to do other things. We had to keep this
Speaker 6: country alive because it was so serious. But we have
Speaker 6: to get the country back. We have to lower energy prices,
Speaker 6: we have to lower interest rates. Interest rates are through
Speaker 6: the roof. Energy has to come down. It all has
Speaker 6: to come down, and we have to start paying off debt.
Speaker 7: You once said that using the using the debt ceiling
Speaker 7: as a negotiating wedge just could not happen. You You
Speaker 7: said that when you were in the office, So why
Speaker 7: is it different now that you're out.
Speaker 5: Of office, now I'm not president.
Speaker 3: They couldn't get enough, Brian, I loved it.
Speaker 5: That's hilarious. I mean.
Speaker 3: That is you know what this is again?
Speaker 2: Why part of his appeal because he'll just when other
Speaker 2: politicians are inconsistent, they're like, well, technically things were different.
Speaker 3: He's like, no, I just not. He's like, I'm inconsistent,
Speaker 3: and because I'm a ruthless politician, position has changed.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, Now cynically, what I thought is like coming
Speaker 4: away from that exchange, was that Trump actually would appreciate
Speaker 4: a default because it will hurt Biden, of course, and
Speaker 4: hurt the economy and guarantee his election, right if he uh,
Speaker 4: you know, if there's enough of a hit. So for Trump,
Speaker 4: it's like he gets to talk tough and then all.
Speaker 5: But he also wants the car crash in this game.
Speaker 4: Of chicken, because if the car cars crash and you
Speaker 4: get unemployment back up to six percent by November twenty
Speaker 4: twenty four, Biden has a very difficult time getting reelected.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, listen, this is part of why this
Speaker 2: entire conversation drives me nuts.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 2: Under Trump, the national debt increased by seven point eight
Speaker 2: trillion from twenty He thought it was possible. He started,
Speaker 2: He started the administration with twenty trillion dollars in debt
Speaker 2: after the Obama years. That was in twenty seventeen. That
Speaker 2: was after an increase from ten to twenty trillion. So
Speaker 2: then it went from twenty to twenty eight trillion after
Speaker 2: the end of the Trump presidency. Now, I guess, to
Speaker 2: be fair to him, only five trillion of that was
Speaker 2: pre COVID, so half of it was post COVID. I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean, and listen, you're looking at two people who
Speaker 2: don't have that a lot, who don't have that many
Speaker 2: objections to deficit spending, or who probably have very very
Speaker 2: different views on default and or on default and debt,
Speaker 2: deaficit spending and debt, on national debt specifically, as in
Speaker 2: it's not the same thing as a household balance sheet
Speaker 2: because we're the world's superpower, so there's a little bit
Speaker 2: of a difference. You know, We're not like Bosnia or
Speaker 2: something like that. But if we were going to speak
Speaker 2: the language of what he's talking about, we have to
Speaker 2: get to national debt under control, you know all this
Speaker 2: other stuff. Well then uh, you know, it's a little
Speaker 2: hypocritical whenever you're going to sign one of the largest
Speaker 2: corporate tax cuts.
Speaker 3: And actually that's part of why as.
Speaker 2: Much as I enjoyed the hit the moment where Caitlan
Speaker 2: was said, you know, well, you said, as president, it's
Speaker 2: actually better to hit them with the genuine policy hypocrisy
Speaker 2: here to be like, listen, you literally signed the largest
Speaker 2: corporate tax in hit cuts in history, which he talked about,
Speaker 2: in which he talked and bragged about, and the case
Speaker 2: that you made was going to boom the economy, and
Speaker 2: I mean it kind of did. It also increases deficit,
Speaker 2: so and that's fine in my opinion a lot of
Speaker 2: people's opinion too, as the voters who are mostly were
Speaker 2: okay with that. But you know, you can't then say
Speaker 2: that we got to get our big or whatever out
Speaker 2: of control. Actually, the most effective tactic that I've heard
Speaker 2: yet is not objected to the spending overall. It's when
Speaker 2: people said, you're spending money on X, Y and Z,
Speaker 2: like spending money on an unpopular program like the I
Speaker 2: R S for example. Right, That is actually a way
Speaker 2: to get people to be like, yeah, hold on a second,
Speaker 2: maybe we shouldn't spend so much money on the IRS.
Speaker 2: And even that, you know, I think is up for debate. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: what do you make about his answer there on the default?
Speaker 11: Right?
Speaker 4: I think you're right that the way you go after
Speaker 4: him is to hit that wedge in between the kind
Speaker 4: of Paul Ryan Republicans who wrote that tax cut and
Speaker 4: Trump who kind of signed that tax cut right into law,
Speaker 4: because how can you on the one hand, you know,
Speaker 4: brag about this gigantic tax cut and then on the
Speaker 4: other hand say, isn't it isn't it such a shame
Speaker 4: that we now have thirty three trillion dollars.
Speaker 2: It's a great clip actually of Trump back in the
Speaker 2: day talking about real estate and he's like, I'm a
Speaker 2: real estate guy.
Speaker 3: I love debt, debt.
Speaker 5: You know, debt.
Speaker 4: But you know he's right, yeah, early on in his presidency,
Speaker 4: like the one the one thing that he really does
Speaker 4: understand his interest rates, because his whole real estate scheme
Speaker 4: was just skimming cash flow off off.
Speaker 2: Cash flow refinance, you know, refinance this property by this property,
Speaker 2: take this property, cash out, refinance on this madness. I
Speaker 2: don't really know how those people sleep at night, but
Speaker 2: just like from a stress level perspective, because that sounds
Speaker 2: insane to me, but I guess it worked out for him.
Speaker 2: The thing, though, is on the interest rates. It again,
Speaker 2: Trump has these savant moments where he understands consumer economics
Speaker 2: I think better than a lot of people who do
Speaker 2: this for a professional living. And in that answer, he
Speaker 2: specifically targeted interest rates, and while he was president. I
Speaker 2: don't know if a lot of people remember this, he
Speaker 2: would ruthlessly hammered Jerome Powell and the Frett Fedcher.
Speaker 3: It was like doing constantly on Twitter.
Speaker 2: He was like, he needs to bring down the rates.
Speaker 2: And that was when rates were like what like one point.
Speaker 5: Or something like that.
Speaker 2: He's like, bring him now more, make it zero, make
Speaker 2: it negative, make it hid exactly. Yeah, he had this
Speaker 2: again savant like not knowledge of the way that Americans
Speaker 2: interact with the economy, which at the end of the
Speaker 2: day is basically gas prices and ability to buy stuff,
Speaker 2: and not just that ability to buy stuff downstream from
Speaker 2: the ability of large corporations to also take out large
Speaker 2: amounts of debt for debt financing.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately in some cases stock buybacks.
Speaker 2: But you know, at least hopefully at least in some
Speaker 2: cases it trickles down and some way by letting people
Speaker 2: hire them and at least floating your payroll. That's what
Speaker 2: we see, right, And that again is where he displayed
Speaker 2: his ability to target in on what a lot of
Speaker 2: voters really care about whenever it comes to the economy.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of a very famous answer that Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton gave in nineteen ninety two in the presidential debate,
Speaker 2: a black woman asked him, well, how do you think
Speaker 2: about the national debt? Or something about the national debt?
Speaker 2: Clinton intuited. He's like, this answer is not about the debt.
Speaker 2: You're asking about the economy, and he goes, I know
Speaker 2: people have lost their jobs this administration. We've had twelve
Speaker 2: years of failed trickle down economics. It's a failed economic theory.
Speaker 2: We're going to get people back to work again. Remember
Speaker 2: it's in my hand. Because one of the best political
Speaker 2: debate moments I think ever that's ever happened, because it's
Speaker 2: about taking what somebody is asking about and not answering
Speaker 2: it on the face and getting to the core of
Speaker 2: how the voter really thinks about it. In that, I
Speaker 2: actually thought he did a good job. But now in
Speaker 2: terms of the policy and what it means, here's what matters.
Speaker 2: Trump endorsement of the McCarthy position gives McCarthy tremendous more
Speaker 2: leverage within the Republican caucus because he can go and say,
Speaker 2: why are you going against Trump on this? Trump endorsed
Speaker 2: me last night. He strengthened his negotiating hand whenever it
Speaker 2: came to Biden because this is the leader of the
Speaker 2: Republican Party, the former president of the United States, the
Speaker 2: most popular Republican in the entire country. Here's what he
Speaker 2: thinks we need to do in this specific instance. So
Speaker 2: it could actually help him from getting people to walk away. Now,
Speaker 2: at the same time, some of the people who would
Speaker 2: walk away are coming from like Biden plus five plus
Speaker 2: ten districts, so it's not like they need to hold
Speaker 2: down the fort, you know, for the general election.
Speaker 3: But anytime you have Trump on on your side in
Speaker 3: a debate like this is.
Speaker 4: Going to be better than not whenever you're in an
Speaker 4: entry GOP file, which to me is more reason for
Speaker 4: Biden to just walk away from the whole thing and
Speaker 4: do the fourteenth Amendment and.
Speaker 5: Say, right, say forget this because point or meant the.
Speaker 4: Coin, do whatever, say we're not playing these games, and
Speaker 4: just just say look Trump, Trump called for a default.
Speaker 4: Trump wants you guys to default with me, and I'm
Speaker 4: not playing that game.
Speaker 5: I'm done, I'm moving on.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go to the next part here.
Speaker 5: Abortion.
Speaker 2: This again was a very important moment during the town hall.
Speaker 2: The reason to me, Ryan before we even play the
Speaker 2: clip watch here how rambling, nonspecific, and how twisted and
Speaker 2: knots Trump is whenever it comes to the subject of abortion.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: If you are reelected and you're back in the Oval
Speaker 7: office and you get legislation to your desk, would you
Speaker 7: sign a federal abortion band into law?
Speaker 6: What I'll do is negotiate so that people are happy.
Speaker 6: But the fact that we were able, I was able.
Speaker 6: I'm so proud of it to put three great justices
Speaker 6: on the Supreme Court. We have almost three hundred federal
Speaker 6: judges owners are tame for.
Speaker 7: So you exactly are just toy claims resident, you would
Speaker 7: sign a federal abortion ban.
Speaker 6: I said this.
Speaker 2: I said this.
Speaker 6: I want to do what's right, and we're looking and
Speaker 6: we want to do what's.
Speaker 5: Right for everybody, what's right.
Speaker 6: But now, for the first time, the people that are
Speaker 6: pro life have negotiating capability because you didn't have it before.
Speaker 6: They could kill the baby in the ninth month or
Speaker 6: after the baby was born.
Speaker 5: Now they won't be able to.
Speaker 7: I think this is a really important question for you
Speaker 7: to answer because this is something every Republican, including those
Speaker 7: who are running against you for the nomination, are being
Speaker 7: asked about is would you sign a federal abortion ban
Speaker 7: into law?
Speaker 6: And many of them are going to give you the
Speaker 6: same answers. I am, first of all, I am honored
Speaker 6: to have done what I did. And a lot of
Speaker 6: people said, they said in one hundred and fifty years,
Speaker 6: he's now the most consequential president because he saved so
Speaker 6: many lives, and I'm honored.
Speaker 3: To have got honored to have done it.
Speaker 2: Ryan, come into a Democratic ad near you.
Speaker 3: You will watch them.
Speaker 2: At over and over and over and over again. And
Speaker 2: that is exactly why he's in a real bind. Do
Speaker 2: you appease the pro lifers who want more? Frankly, they
Speaker 2: want way more. They want the abortion ban, they want
Speaker 2: to go you know, six week and all these states
Speaker 2: and all that, which are not politically popular at all.
Speaker 2: And then he's he's not an idiot. And look, I
Speaker 2: don't I will never psy psychoanalyze anyone. I'm just gonna say, personally,
Speaker 2: I don't believe that Trump is actually pro life.
Speaker 3: Me personally, I don't think. I don't think that yet.
Speaker 2: I don't think that he had some crazy change of
Speaker 2: heart in his sixties.
Speaker 5: I mean, I guess it's technically possible. Anyway.
Speaker 2: The point is that it is hard of hearts, at
Speaker 2: least the political one. He knows people hate this, which
Speaker 2: is why he's twisted himself like a pretzel, being like, well,
Speaker 2: I believe in the exceptions. And then the Democrats and
Speaker 2: the late term abortion and a mon or two have
Speaker 2: done Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 3: But now it's up to the States.
Speaker 2: It was two and a half minutes almost just I
Speaker 2: didn't settle on anything, and she was like, well, what
Speaker 2: are you gonna do? Like are you sure? Like what
Speaker 2: about the band? Would you sign a band? He's like, well,
Speaker 2: we'll see. Some people have good ideas. I haven't made
Speaker 2: up my mind yet.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 5: You've had what?
Speaker 3: When did row happen?
Speaker 5: June?
Speaker 3: Right, it's been almost a year.
Speaker 2: It's been literally eleven months since this, uh maybe something
Speaker 2: like that, since this has all come down.
Speaker 3: How have you not made up your mind yet? You
Speaker 3: know why?
Speaker 2: Because he has made up his mind and he knows
Speaker 2: privately it's an electoral disaster anyway. So I saw that
Speaker 2: and I was like, man, Trump, he knows this is
Speaker 2: his kryptonite.
Speaker 4: And for twenty twenty four, and not even that privately
Speaker 4: he was fairly open you know, during this oh midterms,
Speaker 4: saying like, look, this is not going to be great
Speaker 4: for us, even though he plays such a significant role.
Speaker 3: And then he blamed abortion for the election.
Speaker 5: Blamed abortion, which he was right. Yeah, so that's why
Speaker 5: he has to he's trying. Susan B.
Speaker 4: Anthony came out recently saying that they would miss endorsed
Speaker 4: any candidate.
Speaker 3: You know, very powerful organs that wouldn't do you explain
Speaker 3: that to people?
Speaker 5: So, yeah, Susan B.
Speaker 4: Anthony maybe the most powerful kind of pro life group,
Speaker 4: the pro pro life group in the country, and they
Speaker 4: want a national abortion band. And they said after Trump
Speaker 4: refused to commit.
Speaker 3: To one like the Planned Parenthood pro lifers and.
Speaker 4: So, and they came out publicly and said, we will
Speaker 4: not work for, we will not endorse, We'll not support
Speaker 4: any candidate who refuses.
Speaker 5: To stop killing babies.
Speaker 4: And so that's who's in Trump's head when he's celebrating
Speaker 4: his overturning of Roe v.
Speaker 5: Wade.
Speaker 4: But then the polls are in his head when he's
Speaker 4: refusing to kind of commit to a national ban. Later
Speaker 4: in that clip, he says, you know, Lindsay Graham has
Speaker 4: a nice bill and Lindsay fifteen weeks or something, because
Speaker 4: that polls a little bit better, but it's still.
Speaker 3: Not fifteen weeks ironic.
Speaker 2: A Ryan was actually much more popular pre Row and
Speaker 2: now is less popular Row.
Speaker 3: Actually, well, it kind of gets to something.
Speaker 2: One of my core beliefs in politics is just don't
Speaker 2: take anything away from people. Like it was, you take
Speaker 2: some away, like it's not going to be good for you.
Speaker 2: I remember that, you know, like Obama. Obama was like, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to take away your healthcare, but everybody's gonna
Speaker 2: get better health care. I'm like, yeah, but you shouldn't
Speaker 2: screw with my healthcare man, because I hate it. And
Speaker 2: that was you know, he paid a huge electoral price
Speaker 2: for it, even though you know, by the numbers, technically
Speaker 2: more people got health care, but it was a mess
Speaker 2: even I you know how many Obamacare plans you saw.
Speaker 2: My current plan is like I have like a nineteen
Speaker 2: thousand dollars inductor or something. I'm like, well, I guess
Speaker 2: I hope I don't get hit by a bus. But
Speaker 2: point with that being that a lot of people like
Speaker 2: their healthcare plan the whole Like if you like your doctor,
Speaker 2: you can keep your doctor.
Speaker 3: Wasn't true.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that the very much the same thing
Speaker 2: kind of came with our abortion policy. Everyone's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's icky, but you know, it's relatively whatever it's done,
Speaker 2: and we'll just keep it that.
Speaker 4: Way, right, And if the fifteen week ban was it
Speaker 4: was national in the sense that you could get an
Speaker 4: abortion up to fifteen weeks anywhere in the country, then
Speaker 4: you might have a little bit more support for it.
Speaker 4: But what fifteen weeks says? No, that this is that's
Speaker 4: the cat's the cat's right.
Speaker 3: But but sorry, that's the ceiling, not the floor, right, So.
Speaker 5: Other states can then make it six weeks or or
Speaker 5: ban it completely. And so then.
Speaker 4: Democrats and abortion rights advocates are like, well, we don't
Speaker 4: need that because we like all you're doing then is
Speaker 4: putting a fifteen week abortion band in New York and California.
Speaker 2: Exactly why would a Democrat vote for that? In a
Speaker 2: lot of culture like here in Washington, d C. I'm
Speaker 2: pretty sure that you can get late term abortion like
Speaker 2: basically whenever you want.
Speaker 3: Now, you know, I think.
Speaker 2: That's I don't agree with that, But my point is like,
Speaker 2: why would somebody who lives in a state who has
Speaker 2: like late term abortion sign a fifteen week band, Like, no,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna campaign against this because you're basically making it
Speaker 2: so that everybody can go under if they want to,
Speaker 2: but not over if they want to. I actually kind
Speaker 2: of do believe in the whole leave it up to
Speaker 2: the states thing, because if you genuinely did leave it
Speaker 2: up to the states, quote unquote, like genuine no, abortion
Speaker 2: would really only exist in like four states in the
Speaker 2: whole maybe five, like in the whole country. After the
Speaker 2: democratic process, what kind of works its way out, I think,
Speaker 2: you know, at the end of the day, ironically, this
Speaker 2: is what I've said.
Speaker 3: I've told this to my own pro life friends.
Speaker 2: We probably will end up with more contraception and more
Speaker 2: abortion access in the United States post ROW, let's say
Speaker 2: ten years from now, just given.
Speaker 3: The way that look at what just happened with the FDA.
Speaker 2: The FDA just approved over the counter birth control that
Speaker 2: has never happened that in no way that happens without
Speaker 2: ROW versus WEAD.
Speaker 4: Although there's been pretty successful effort to close abortion clinics
Speaker 4: and people forget about people think about it just on
Speaker 4: a policy level and a legal level, but there's also
Speaker 4: a kind of structural operational level that you have to
Speaker 4: have doctors who are trained to perform abortion services, and
Speaker 4: then you have to have clinics that are able to
Speaker 4: actually serve clients. And as you have the laws in
Speaker 4: all of these different states constricting them, they're closing and
Speaker 4: that doesn't and then you lose a lot of legacy expertise,
Speaker 4: and so for that reason you may end up with
Speaker 4: much less depending on how things go. But yes, in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four, this is going to be a huge
Speaker 4: It's gonna be a huge issue.
Speaker 2: This is the in my opinion, this is the issue
Speaker 2: because and I don't want it to be. I never
Speaker 2: wanted to. I think the more you argue about guns
Speaker 2: and abortion, the more I feel like I'm five years
Speaker 2: old living in Texas again.
Speaker 3: But you're the ones who overturned.
Speaker 5: It, so you got it.
Speaker 3: Defend it, you know, for the American people.
Speaker 2: And I think that that is one where we have
Speaker 2: seen now state after state, referenda after referenda, election after election,
Speaker 2: abortion mattered so much more, frankly than I ever thought possible,
Speaker 2: more than Crystal thought possible. Maybe you two, going into
Speaker 2: twenty twenty when we were all here at the desk,
Speaker 2: who thought that when the midterm results were happening.
Speaker 4: And throughout Trump's first term, whenever he was in a jam,
Speaker 4: if you noticed, he would turn to the evangelical movement.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, those were his people at his back.
Speaker 4: And because he loves nothing more than loyalty, whether he
Speaker 4: agrees with you or not, I think he has complete
Speaker 4: contempt for them, but he loves the fact that they're
Speaker 4: loyal right to him, and so they became his favorit people.
Speaker 4: Now I think he's bothered. He's like, what is going
Speaker 4: on here? Like, why are these people not loyal to
Speaker 4: me anymore? I gave them everything they want because he
Speaker 4: can't get in their minds that they are just ideologically
Speaker 4: and religiously driven movement that is not stopping because it
Speaker 4: doesn't poll.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it's gonna be It's gonna be a bind.
Speaker 2: Been saying it now ever since the twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: election results and Trump's and I you know why I
Speaker 2: find this so interesting. I respect Trump as a politician,
Speaker 2: So when I see him floundering like that, I'm like, man,
Speaker 2: you got eleven months and that's the best he could
Speaker 2: come up with, because there is no not gonna be
Speaker 2: good for you.
Speaker 4: Because he can he can either do the politically smart
Speaker 4: damned if you do, and damned if you, which is to.
Speaker 5: Be for abortion rights. But he can't do that.
Speaker 4: He can't do that, he can't totally disavout what he did.
Speaker 2: So yeah, he's it's gonna be tough, jam tough gig.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to Ukraine. This again was actually
Speaker 2: one of the best moments of the entire night, policy wise,
Speaker 2: and possibly the most consequential should Trump ever become president again.
Speaker 2: It started with a voter. It's interesting how that works.
Speaker 2: He was very concerned about the amount of money going
Speaker 2: to Ukraine and wanted to know what President Trump thought
Speaker 2: about it. And then Kitlin decided to insert herself into
Speaker 2: some sort of win lose situation for Trump's policy whenever
Speaker 2: it came to diplomacy.
Speaker 3: Here's the full exchange. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: The current administration has made it clear that we should
Speaker 12: continue to provide military equipment to Ukraine so that they
Speaker 12: can defend themselves. Do you support this decision and how
Speaker 12: would you deal with the increasing threat posed by Vladimir Puvin.
Speaker 6: First of all, thank you very much. It's really nice
Speaker 6: and it's an important question, so important because we're giving
Speaker 6: away so much equipment. We don't have ammunition for ourselves
Speaker 6: right now, we don't have ammunition for ourselves. We're giving
Speaker 6: away so much.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, do you want Ukraine to win this war?
Speaker 6: I don't think in terms of winning and losing. I
Speaker 6: think in terms of getting it settled. So we stopped
Speaker 6: killing all these people and break you down is subject?
Speaker 7: Well, what do you can I just follow up on that?
Speaker 3: And you said you.
Speaker 7: Have to get you to follow up on that because.
Speaker 5: That's a really important. Let me just follow in there.
Speaker 7: Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to
Speaker 7: win this war?
Speaker 6: I want everybody to stop dying. They're dying, Russians and Ukrainians.
Speaker 6: I wanted to stop dying. And I'll have that done.
Speaker 6: I'll have that done in twenty four hours.
Speaker 5: I'll have it done.
Speaker 7: And it comes to what's happening there. When you were
Speaker 7: in office, you said that you respected President Putin? Do
Speaker 7: you still respect him today?
Speaker 6: He made a tremendous mistake he made. He's a smart guy,
Speaker 6: you know, I remember I said he was smart. She
Speaker 6: was smart. Putin made a bad mistake. In my opinion.
Speaker 3: What was his.
Speaker 5: Mistake was going in. He would have never gone in.
Speaker 6: If I was president, we used to talk about it there.
Speaker 2: Okay, so uh, he made a mistake. He's not endorsing
Speaker 2: the Russian position by going in. Well, first, he's like
Speaker 2: he never should have done it and never would have
Speaker 2: happened if I had been there, of course, so that's
Speaker 2: the starting boy.
Speaker 3: Second, he made a huge mistake.
Speaker 2: Third, this was the most thoughtful answer I've seen a
Speaker 2: US politician make yet.
Speaker 3: There is no winning.
Speaker 2: I want people to stop dying whenever he says the
Speaker 2: other you know, funny thing is is that if you say, quote,
Speaker 2: I want Ukraine to win this war, well, what does
Speaker 2: that mean?
Speaker 3: Do you want Ukraine to invade Russia?
Speaker 2: Do you want Ukraine to fully take back all of
Speaker 2: its territory pre twenty twenty two or pre twenty and twelve,
Speaker 2: because those are actually or yeah, or which borders?
Speaker 3: You know what it's like talking about Israel like settlements.
Speaker 2: I'm like, well, sixty seven forty five whatever, and it's
Speaker 2: like boufour declaration. There's a lot of different ways that
Speaker 2: we can talk about it, right, and that's why it's
Speaker 2: a nuanced answer. It was the best answer I've heard yet.
Speaker 2: I want everyone to stop dying. I want to bring
Speaker 2: the conflict to an end. And actually the admission by
Speaker 2: the press and by the freak out over this is
Speaker 2: that any thing that you say where I want the
Speaker 2: war to end and not necessarily one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: the the terms that Ukraine wants is some sort of
Speaker 2: capitulation towards Russia. That's the ludicrous part of the reaction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, to say I don't think in terms of winning
Speaker 4: and losing is a genuinely kind of nuanced, enlightened way
Speaker 4: to think about war and peace. Taking a controversial anti
Speaker 4: death position, right, he wants that he wants people to
Speaker 4: stop dying. If you went back to the Vietnam era,
Speaker 4: you would you would see you would see the media
Speaker 4: coming after a president saying who is against the war,
Speaker 4: saying what, you don't want South Vietnam to win?
Speaker 5: Well, what does that mean South Vietnam to win?
Speaker 4: Does it mean we're gonna take over all of South
Speaker 4: Vietnam and run out.
Speaker 5: All of the grills.
Speaker 4: I mean we're gonna take over North Vietnam and unify
Speaker 4: the country. If you said at the time, I don't
Speaker 4: think in terms in Vietnam of winning and losing, I
Speaker 4: think of stopping the death and you accomplished that policy agenda,
Speaker 4: there would be millions, millions of Vietnamese that were that.
Speaker 5: Were still alive as a result of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or think about the Korean War or any of
Speaker 2: these others. These are messy conflicts the borders.
Speaker 5: South Korea never won, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean my opinion, they did.
Speaker 2: They ended the war and they became one of the
Speaker 2: most prosperous nations and developed nations on Earth. They literally
Speaker 2: sell us cell phones and cars. I mean, I've worked
Speaker 2: out for them.
Speaker 4: I feel a whole bunch of military dictatorships and yeah squads,
Speaker 4: but true, Okay, but.
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna say, like, you know, at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, like if they first and they gave
Speaker 2: me k pop, all right, so they gave me bts.
Speaker 3: So at the very least, they absolutely did.
Speaker 2: When people, you know, in North Korea, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 2: they're cracking down on K pop because they viewed as
Speaker 2: some sort of cultural My point being that like when Lou,
Speaker 2: if you talk to people in South Korea today, they're like, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 2: we're glad that.
Speaker 4: Again, it's also into the conclusion that if you go
Speaker 4: to Vietnam today, yeah, they.
Speaker 3: Don't even care about us. They don't think about there.
Speaker 5: There's gigantic Coca Cola billboards.
Speaker 4: You're like, what was this war over? We lost, but
Speaker 4: doesn't look much different than it would.
Speaker 5: Have we won.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think the most gracious thing about
Speaker 2: the Vietnamese is that they really don't hold it that
Speaker 2: very much against you, which I think is not you know,
Speaker 2: having spent.
Speaker 5: Some time two million people, I personally could.
Speaker 2: Not imagine you know, having yeah exactly and not that
Speaker 2: long ago. I mean, you know, life not for example,
Speaker 2: when I when you watch the Ken Burns documentary and
Speaker 2: you're watching the people who fought in the Vietnamese War,
Speaker 2: both on the American side but on the Vietnamese side, and.
Speaker 5: You're like, wow, they're they're just they're talking like the
Speaker 5: boom right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't even exactly they're literally but they probably
Speaker 2: got twenty thirty years left. I know, I actually have
Speaker 2: well future family members who fought in Vietnam, And you know,
Speaker 2: it's actually kind of interesting for me because I'm like, Hey,
Speaker 2: tell me, what was that like in nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 2: Like what was America like and life like kind of
Speaker 2: at that time. But the fact that I could do
Speaker 2: that about that conflict, and then you know, fifty something
Speaker 2: years later, still being a place where those people who
Speaker 2: you know were descendants, maybe fathers, even grandfathers, who were shot, killed, named,
Speaker 2: burned to death, whatever, don't you know, hold it against
Speaker 2: the I think really what we're trying to say is
Speaker 2: these are messy making policy on herministic statements like win lose.
Speaker 5: Miss the point unless.
Speaker 3: You're Ukrainian, and I think that's where I can have
Speaker 3: some sympathy.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely You're right, Ukrainient. You are free to do
Speaker 2: whatever you want. And if I were you, by the way,
Speaker 2: I would think the.
Speaker 5: Exact same thing.
Speaker 3: But I'm not you. You know, we're us.
Speaker 2: We could decide, like to the extent that this marginal
Speaker 2: conflict matters at all to our lives, to our national policy,
Speaker 2: to these billions of dollars into our own national security,
Speaker 2: how and what we treat that, And that's you know,
Speaker 2: people don't like to hear that, but sorry, I don't
Speaker 2: know what to say.
Speaker 3: Ukraine really doesn't matter to.
Speaker 2: The fate of America either way, and it's nice when
Speaker 2: you help them, but that's pretty much it.
Speaker 4: I think if Biden, if Biden can get the war
Speaker 4: to a resolution over the course of the next year.
Speaker 4: So that's just from a crass, cynical electoral perspective.
Speaker 5: He'd be in better shape strike if he can strike.
Speaker 4: After whatever this counter offensive is.
Speaker 3: Everyone can breathe a little bit, be like okay, yeah.
Speaker 4: And we don't know how it's going. It doesn't mean
Speaker 4: there won't be another war in ten years mm hmm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, then another.
Speaker 5: But you know, you can't stop that anything.
Speaker 2: To the point about the freak out, we probably should
Speaker 2: have put this up there earlier, put this up there
Speaker 2: on this but we're having such a good time. We're
Speaker 2: talking Adam Kinzinger, you know. The freak out on the
Speaker 2: Republican side. For Trump not to say he wants Ukraine
Speaker 2: to win is insane. Chris Christie calling him Putin's puppet.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump says he would end the war in Ukraine
Speaker 2: in twenty four hours. Despite how ridiculous this is to say.
Speaker 2: I suspect he would try to do it by turning
Speaker 2: Ukraine over to Putin and Russia.
Speaker 3: Hashtag Putin's puppet.
Speaker 2: Chris Christy taking a little bit of a book out
Speaker 2: of boomer Mom's resistance Twitter, How's that going to work out?
Speaker 2: In a Republican primary.
Speaker 4: Interesting, right, that struck me as his signal that either
Speaker 4: he's not definitely not running for president uh huh, or
Speaker 4: thinks that there's.
Speaker 5: Some lane that doesn't exist. What did you make of
Speaker 5: that Putin's puppet?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: I just thought it was so foolish or outrageous, ridiculous
Speaker 2: both on his face and politically. I think Chris Christy
Speaker 2: loves the one thing that he's always been pretty good at,
Speaker 2: and that's called attention. And guess what we're talking about it,
Speaker 2: And so was all of the major networks. So now
Speaker 2: he gets to go on ABC as a contributor, and
Speaker 2: CNN and everywhere else and they all get to do
Speaker 2: segments about how Chris Christy called Trump Putin's puppet. And
Speaker 2: I think that's really the only currency he's ever cared about.
Speaker 2: So I guess, congratulations to Chris. You know, congratulations Enough
Speaker 2: of Trump. Let's talk about the news and Title forty two.
Speaker 2: So let's go ahead and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. The United States is currently finalizing asylum restrictions
Speaker 2: to ramp up bordered deportations. After Title forty two collapses,
Speaker 2: let's spend some time Ryan first on Title forty two.
Speaker 3: What is Title forty two.
Speaker 2: Title forty two was the emergency quote unquote emergency policy
Speaker 2: that has been effect now for three years at the
Speaker 2: southern border, which gives the United States, based on pandemic
Speaker 2: CDC related guidance to expel migrants who crossed the US
Speaker 2: Mexico border, regardless of their asylum status, return them to Mexico.
Speaker 3: Basically a pre biden.
Speaker 2: We were at a status quo during COVID of the
Speaker 2: Remain in Mexico policy combined with Title forty two, which
Speaker 2: significantly reduced the number of border crossings. Now, what is
Speaker 2: remain in Mexico because this is also something that we
Speaker 2: need to discuss. Remain in Mexico is a policy through
Speaker 2: which Central American migrants or really migrants from anywhere who
Speaker 2: travel through Mexico to the United States to claim safe
Speaker 2: harbor status must instead of applying for asylum in the
Speaker 2: United States as previous law and policy dictated, where they
Speaker 2: would remain again remain in America. Eventually through some sort
Speaker 2: of catch and release program, were basically released into the
Speaker 2: wild and said show up at a court in four
Speaker 2: years something like that. A lot of them didn't show up,
Speaker 2: or a lot of them would show up to one hearing,
Speaker 2: but then when they found out that the asylum hearing
Speaker 2: wasn't gonna take it, then they wouldn't show up at all.
Speaker 2: And it was basically backdoor illegal immigration, all right.
Speaker 3: So that was the previous policy. Remain in Mexico was instituted.
Speaker 2: By the Trump administration that said, apply for asylum in America.
Speaker 2: You have to remain in Mexico. While you do so,
Speaker 2: US asylum officers and others would hear your claim, it
Speaker 2: would be adjudicated in the United States, and whether you
Speaker 2: got asylum or not, would it happen in America, and
Speaker 2: post asylum status, if granted, you were allowed to remain.
Speaker 2: If not, otherwise you return to your country of origin.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: So Biden came into office and said one thing, I'm
Speaker 2: going to end remain in Mexico, but I'm going to
Speaker 2: keep Title forty two. Title forty two, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: was a political blessing to him because he didn't have
Speaker 2: to deal with it for something two and a half years.
Speaker 2: He basically got to continue the policy of expulsion of
Speaker 2: not as much.
Speaker 3: Cash and release and all that.
Speaker 2: Then what happened in the latest congressional session, there was
Speaker 2: an official end to the pandemic. By ending the pandemic
Speaker 2: the emergency Pandemic, you also end and sunset Title forty two. Now,
Speaker 2: with the end of Title forty two, tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of migrants from across Central America and even South America.
Speaker 2: A lot of these people are coming from Venezuela now
Speaker 2: at this point have transferred via Central America via Mexico
Speaker 2: and are on the other side of the border waiting
Speaker 2: for today because they know that they can no longer
Speaker 2: be expelled under pandemic authority. Now, a flood of migrants
Speaker 2: was predicted. The reason why is because we were going
Speaker 2: to previously, if this change had not come into place,
Speaker 2: returned to catch and release policy, where these people would
Speaker 2: come to the United States, they would be given a
Speaker 2: court date. They'd be like, I fear for my life
Speaker 2: or something like that, and they were like, Okay, show
Speaker 2: up at court in four years.
Speaker 3: And by the way, here's a work license and you
Speaker 3: can go do whatever you want.
Speaker 2: Now, what Biden has done is the one thing Ryan
Speaker 2: he promised not to do. He has effectively brought back
Speaker 2: the remain in Mexico policy by using the asylum restriction
Speaker 2: that we just showed you where the new restriction will
Speaker 2: ramp up swift deportation of migrants who come across the
Speaker 2: US Mexico order by deploying US asylum officers and saying
Speaker 2: that they will have to basically go to Mexico and
Speaker 2: request refugee status quote in another country on their journey
Speaker 2: to the southern border before they will be heard their
Speaker 2: asylum case in the US. So Biden promised on the
Speaker 2: campaign trail not to do this. He tried every which
Speaker 2: way to get out of it, to get this.
Speaker 3: Way, that way, and all that, and now.
Speaker 2: We're basically right back to where we started after three
Speaker 2: years of Biden saying he's not going to do anything
Speaker 2: that Trump did at the border. And on top of that, Ryan,
Speaker 2: he's deploying fifteen hundred active US.
Speaker 3: Duty military troops to the southern border.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine the freak out if Trump was president,
Speaker 2: if that was happening, so that anyway.
Speaker 5: We don't have to imagine it.
Speaker 3: Your reaction there was.
Speaker 4: A freak out, like heay appropriately, So I think one tweak,
Speaker 4: not one hundred percent sure on this. People could maybe
Speaker 4: correct on correct me in the comments. Sure, I don't
Speaker 4: think you can get a work visa when you get released.
Speaker 4: So maybe we can figure that. Maybe we can figure
Speaker 4: this action release. I mean, it depends on the it's
Speaker 4: like a work permit.
Speaker 3: Just that, just clear.
Speaker 2: So here is the investigation, the most dis the ones
Speaker 2: it will be harmed. Basically, the Biden administration denies it
Speaker 2: is granting employment authorization or However, recent articles suggests that
Speaker 2: at least some of migrants are being issued work documents
Speaker 2: at the time that they're being released from CBP custody.
Speaker 3: I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Speaker 2: Under Section two thirty five B the Immigration and Nationality Act,
Speaker 2: DHS is required to detain all aliens from the point
Speaker 2: at which they are encountered to the time that they
Speaker 2: were removed or granted status in the United States. However,
Speaker 2: with the increase of the border emergency catch and release policy,
Speaker 2: it has led to some instances through which work permits
Speaker 2: and work authorization is permitted on a case by case basis.
Speaker 4: That's where we'rerat and to me, if somebody is in
Speaker 4: the country, they should have work authorization, like it's bizarre.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, well, it depends if you're here illegally. I don't know.
Speaker 2: About that, right, because then that's basically is the incentive
Speaker 2: is like as long as you can get here and
Speaker 2: then you get to work and you get to pay
Speaker 2: some security and all that.
Speaker 3: I mean, personally, I have a problem with that in
Speaker 3: terms of our immigration law.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I was going to do my monologue today on sanctions
Speaker 4: on Cuba and break down, which we dumped it for
Speaker 4: so that we could talk more about the town hall
Speaker 4: from last night. But so there was a letter and
Speaker 4: we talked about this briefly with Rocana yesterday. Who signed
Speaker 4: this letter, so Veronica Escobar, who is the congresswoman from
Speaker 4: El Paso, so one of the border towns that deals.
Speaker 3: With this basically in a state of emergency.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, So she led this letter and it comes
Speaker 4: after a report by the Center for Economic Policy and
Speaker 4: Research that expansively studied the consequences of sanctions and found
Speaker 4: that they do not perform the political function that people
Speaker 4: are that claiming that they're going to perform, which is
Speaker 4: to pressure a government into you know, bending its will
Speaker 4: to the United States. But they do miserate economically the
Speaker 4: population of the country.
Speaker 5: They don't really hurt the elites.
Speaker 4: They only ensconced the elites Venezuela is envoy Venezuela's opposition envoy.
Speaker 4: So this is the pro us dude who's here in
Speaker 4: Washington trying to, you know, rally support for you know whoever,
Speaker 4: the next Gui Juan Guido is who we're going to
Speaker 4: like back in whatever coup attempt we try again in
Speaker 4: the future. He came out and said, I really do
Speaker 4: not think that is a good idea if these sanctions
Speaker 4: on Venezuela continue, because what you're going to do is
Speaker 4: you're going to create a political issue for Florida politicians,
Speaker 4: and you're going to ensconce the Venezuelan elite and leadership
Speaker 4: in power. The claim is that you're going to be
Speaker 4: hurting Venezuela and political leadership with these sanctions, but in fact,
Speaker 4: it just stunts the economy uh and it and it
Speaker 4: stunts any ability for the for that economy to grow,
Speaker 4: which is kind of a prerequisite for producing an opposition uh.
Speaker 4: And it otherwise creates a calcified situation. If sanctions and
Speaker 4: embargoes we're going to do anything, you would not have
Speaker 4: the same government in power in Cuba that you had
Speaker 4: seventy years ago. And so what we're and Ben Ben Rhodes,
Speaker 4: who was Obama's Obama's National Squitrey advisor, now a posse
Speaker 4: bro who the the posse Bros have been on a
Speaker 4: roll lately, on a bunch of stuff, and he made it.
Speaker 4: He made a great point. He's like and and he
Speaker 4: gets listened to in the Biden administration, so it's important
Speaker 4: what he says. He was like, so, we currently have
Speaker 4: a policy of producing economic catastrophes in Cuba and Venezuela
Speaker 4: that then produce out migration flows, and then we're going
Speaker 4: to close the border and punt them back to Mexico.
Speaker 4: It's like, what what I mean? Now, I'm sure some
Speaker 4: viewers like, we don't close the border, it's wide open.
Speaker 5: Whatever.
Speaker 4: The policy is that they're not opening the border and
Speaker 4: granting asylum to every Cuban in Venezuelan, yet we're also
Speaker 4: producing migration crises out of those countries.
Speaker 5: He's like, do one or the other.
Speaker 4: So his argument is like, enough with these sanctions, Like
Speaker 4: I think these countries.
Speaker 5: I agree with that.
Speaker 2: The only reason why I do think it is cope,
Speaker 2: at least on the part of a lot of liberals,
Speaker 2: is this comes to the heart of the idea that
Speaker 2: we are solely responsible for, like whatever is going on
Speaker 2: in Central and South America, to which I just fundamentally reject.
Speaker 2: Chris A don't have about this debate a million times,
Speaker 2: but like listen, you know, it's like the Cia San
Speaker 2: Denista ku was like it was like fifty years ago
Speaker 2: or what forty years ago? Actually maybe more now that
Speaker 2: I think about it, I just don't think that is
Speaker 2: the major cause of migration to the United States. Like
Speaker 2: El Salvador being drug infested is its own problem. Like
Speaker 2: that's a problem that, yes, America has contributed to somewhat,
Speaker 2: but democratically they.
Speaker 3: Have decided to come up with a solution.
Speaker 2: You may not like that solution, but they have it
Speaker 2: certainly in place right now with what's going on there,
Speaker 2: and I look at it multifaceted.
Speaker 3: I don't even disagree.
Speaker 2: I actually do think we should probably remove these sanctions
Speaker 2: if that is what's contributing. At the same time, though,
Speaker 2: to me, it's ludicrous that we don't have something called
Speaker 2: a safe third country agreement with Mexico. So what people
Speaker 2: don't understand is if you we were to traverse the
Speaker 2: United States and go to Canada to request asylum, they
Speaker 2: would reject your asylum claim because America is a safe
Speaker 2: third country as in under UN the UN Refugee Asylum
Speaker 2: Law or whatever. If you are declared a safe third
Speaker 2: country and we have an agreement in between states, they
Speaker 2: would say, no, we're not accepting your asylum claim in
Speaker 2: Canada because you should have applied in America.
Speaker 3: Well, the reason why people are able to traverse.
Speaker 2: Mexico and enter America is that Mexico is not a
Speaker 2: declared safe third country. Now, unfortunately for our PRIs this
Speaker 2: is for to get Mexico become a safe third country agreement,
Speaker 2: we would have to get them to agree they're a
Speaker 2: safe third country.
Speaker 3: And why would they agree to that.
Speaker 2: They don't want to deal with all the asylum down
Speaker 2: on their Guatemalan border, just as much as we don't
Speaker 2: want to deal with what's going on down there too.
Speaker 3: So I would look at it two things.
Speaker 2: Agree, we should reduce migration, but I also think the
Speaker 2: idea that these people are quote unquote fleeing for their
Speaker 2: lives is ludicrous, because here's the truth. Ask them yourselves.
Speaker 2: They're coming here for economic migration, and that's jitimate. That's
Speaker 2: fine by saying my parents came here for economic for
Speaker 2: economic reasons, but they had to go through a legal process.
Speaker 2: And my point is that you don't get to just
Speaker 2: decide you want to come to America.
Speaker 3: You have to apply.
Speaker 2: It's onerous and now you can just debate whether it
Speaker 2: should be easier or not. I think that the way
Speaker 2: we do immigration is stupid because it's mostly family base
Speaker 2: called chain migration. It should be more based on skills
Speaker 2: and on merit. But my point is that we all
Speaker 2: need to be more honest here. They're coming here for
Speaker 2: economic reasons that you're not. You know, like if people
Speaker 2: are like, oh, we're fleeing violence, fleeing domestic abuse. By
Speaker 2: that standard, any person who's ever been in a domestically
Speaker 2: violent situation would qualify for asylum in the United States.
Speaker 2: That's like a billion people, right, I mean, it's it's
Speaker 2: just not going to work. It's not practicable for having
Speaker 2: a genuine system.
Speaker 4: Right, And if that's true, then we should just lift
Speaker 4: the sanctions, like because what it's with them?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Right, And I'm sure you've had this argument a thousand times,
Speaker 4: like you said with Crystal, but I would just add,
Speaker 4: like the Hillary Clinton's basically you know, coup in Honduras
Speaker 4: with two thousand and nine. The guatemal And Dirty War
Speaker 4: didn't end until the nineteen nineties. L Salvador's gang problem
Speaker 4: comes from the mass deportation of gang members from Yeah.
Speaker 3: But they were here illegally, like we're.
Speaker 11: Not, We're not.
Speaker 5: Why were they here? Why were they here illegally?
Speaker 4: Because we backed the Dirty War in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 4: that's I mean we.
Speaker 2: Also they had their own problems Ryan, they had big
Speaker 2: earthquakes and all these other nats. They had disasters which
Speaker 2: crashed it. I'm just saying it's not all America's fault. First,
Speaker 2: this is why I always point to why is Costa
Speaker 2: Rica doing so well?
Speaker 5: We had didn't We didn't cool them, and we mine created.
Speaker 2: Dirtstory because in the same place geographically they have the
Speaker 2: same uh you know, they have no military, they have
Speaker 2: no problems.
Speaker 5: Exactly, no US backed military.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, to be fair, we basically guarantee their security,
Speaker 2: so it's not like America doesn't happen, So let's.
Speaker 5: Do that everywhere.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, I don't know if I wanted to guarantee
Speaker 3: security for all these places.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, you're you're you don't get anything for free,
Speaker 4: like yeah, and This is also the coming coming to
Speaker 4: roost of our hollowing out of our middle class, because
Speaker 4: the deal that we made with our middle class and
Speaker 4: our manufacturing base was that we're going to destroy our
Speaker 4: capacity to like produce here in the United States, but
Speaker 4: in exchange, you're going to get a lot of cheap crap,
Speaker 4: cheap toys, cheap bananas. She's mostly made in Mexico, and
Speaker 4: it's going to be made in Mexico, and then once
Speaker 4: that gets too expensive, it's going to be made in
Speaker 4: Central America. And in order to make it in Central America,
Speaker 4: we're going to have to prop up vicious right wing
Speaker 4: dictators who are going to you know, who are going
Speaker 4: to run desk squads, They're going to kill union organizers,
Speaker 4: and we're going to make sure that unions and leftists
Speaker 4: cannot gain power in these countries because that would raise
Speaker 4: the price of consumer goods. And if consumer goods are
Speaker 4: more expensive, then we can't hollow out our industrial core.
Speaker 4: And so the result of that is these kind of
Speaker 4: desiccated Central American and South American countries which are now
Speaker 4: sending people flooding north.
Speaker 2: Certainly, yeah, look, I'm not going to deny that America
Speaker 2: to never roll. I don't think we're the will cause
Speaker 2: of all their problems. But I also think here's the
Speaker 2: other issue, and I always think about this, by the
Speaker 2: idea that America, if it was America's fault that Central
Speaker 2: American nations are all this way, then why is it
Speaker 2: fair for Central Americans to be able to come here
Speaker 2: and get asylum just because they can walk here and
Speaker 2: not Iraq I mean, by that standard, every Iraqi should
Speaker 2: be able to get asylum in the United They've got
Speaker 2: way more right to it, I think than anybody else.
Speaker 5: I'm not I'm not saying I agree with that.
Speaker 2: I'm saying though, by that standard, it's not really fair
Speaker 2: because Iraqis can't just walk here.
Speaker 3: And they probably would come if they could.
Speaker 2: Actually some people at the border actually from the Middle East,
Speaker 2: ironically enough, So anyway, I think that ideologically, I understand
Speaker 2: where people are coming from. Nobody's saying you don't have compassion,
Speaker 2: like a compassion for anybody who wants to come to
Speaker 2: this country. I've been all over this world and everybody
Speaker 2: you know, anytime you meet somebody, and especially in developing
Speaker 2: situation that I was like, Wow, America, I would love
Speaker 2: to go there. Sometime, and I think that's great, I
Speaker 2: really do. But that doesn't mean, though that everybody does
Speaker 2: have the right to come here. And I think that
Speaker 2: is where a lot of people have the presumption and
Speaker 2: if we have the standard of which, well, if you're
Speaker 2: fleeing you know, third world status. I mean that's there's
Speaker 2: what four billion people or whatever who live in that bleom.
Speaker 3: So we got to have a law.
Speaker 2: You gotta have a standard, and then we get to
Speaker 2: decide what that standard is. We did so in nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty five. That's the last time that we really had
Speaker 2: a wholesale change of our US immigration system. And I
Speaker 2: think everything should be up for debate, you know, everything
Speaker 2: they were talking about here. So I appreciate the conversation though, Ryan,
Speaker 2: it actually was I think was thoughtful and.
Speaker 5: People, well, we can agree on lifting the sanctions.
Speaker 3: Sure absolutely.
Speaker 2: I think actually a lot of my swingers outside of
Speaker 2: the Florida people and.
Speaker 4: You guys are done because it's not a swing state anymore.
Speaker 4: So we don't want to hear from you.
Speaker 2: Leave us a comment and let us know what we think. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go to the second one here.
Speaker 5: You're from Florida. Not interesting that you're from Florida.
Speaker 2: Although they trust me, though my dms get very full
Speaker 2: of Cubans every time we talk about this. All right,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead to the last part here and talk
Speaker 2: about Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, Elon Musk, and everything that's
Speaker 2: happening there. We don't want to make it all just
Speaker 2: about CNN, did we?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 2: Ironically, after Tucker announced that he's coming to Twitter, I
Speaker 2: did that breaking news segment for everybody. Elon actually is
Speaker 2: now inviting Don Lemon onto the platform. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Elon invites XCNN
Speaker 2: anchor Don Lemon to host a show on Twitter. He
Speaker 2: replied to one of his tweets, have you considered doing
Speaker 2: your show on this platform?
Speaker 3: May be worth a try. Audience is much bigger.
Speaker 2: And this all comes amid questions around how the Tucker
Speaker 2: Show is going to work and Elon making Twitter into
Speaker 2: a place for long form video and podcasting.
Speaker 3: Cards on the table.
Speaker 2: I am personally skeptical that this is going to work out,
Speaker 2: and I listen. I think Elon is a legendary engineer
Speaker 2: and all of that. Here's the if anybody you could
Speaker 2: do it, maybe it could be him. Here are the
Speaker 2: reasons why it would be trepidacious. Number one, they already
Speaker 2: tried video on Twitter and Facebook.
Speaker 3: It was called the pivot to Video. I actually lived
Speaker 3: through it and watched it fail.
Speaker 2: There was a show called Am two DM, which was
Speaker 2: by BuzzFeed News that was on Twitter. It was like
Speaker 2: a morning show on Twitter. It was a horrendous failure.
Speaker 2: It was a disaster.
Speaker 3: Now that said, those.
Speaker 2: Hosts were not talented, and Tucker is you know, but look,
Speaker 2: you can hate the man, but you can you can
Speaker 2: very very least. You have to agree he's good at
Speaker 2: what he does. So generational talent much better at what
Speaker 2: he does. Built an audience, built in elite interest, right,
Speaker 2: that's going to be there. Not in the same way.
Speaker 2: My question is about the long term sustainability. You know,
Speaker 2: the hot news around launching that only lasts. I mean,
Speaker 2: how long did it last year? Breaking points? Maybe two
Speaker 2: weeks before we were into you know, kind of a rhythm.
Speaker 2: You got to have the tools and the platform, the
Speaker 2: ability to be able to watch long form content and
Speaker 2: consume long form content. And my concern around Twitter is
Speaker 2: is that when you're scrolling, especially Twitter video, like if
Speaker 2: you watch Twitter video, What's what are the videos you
Speaker 2: watch on Twitter?
Speaker 5: For me, it's news clips.
Speaker 3: And then like brawls in the middle of randomly.
Speaker 2: A bunch of brawls, like so and so smacks so
Speaker 2: and so in the face, a camel walking across the
Speaker 2: sport or camel or like a turtle, or if my
Speaker 2: fiance is dving me cat videos as I'm watching these.
Speaker 2: But here's something universal I've noticed with my Twitter video consumption.
Speaker 5: I very rarely listen to the clip.
Speaker 2: I hover over it, I watch what happens, a grin,
Speaker 2: and then I keep scrolling. That's not really what's happening
Speaker 2: here on YouTube. The vast majority of people who are
Speaker 2: watching this clip clicked on it and are doing so intentionally.
Speaker 3: A lot of them are watching it on their phone.
Speaker 2: They've got their earbuds in, they're sitting there, and they're
Speaker 2: locked into what you and I are saying. They're locked
Speaker 2: into a long form thing. They don't even have the
Speaker 2: ability really to scroll if they don't want to, unless
Speaker 2: I guess if you have YouTube Premium or whatever. The
Speaker 2: point being that, whenever you are watching a YouTube clip,
Speaker 2: the platform is designed around watching and retention. Twitter is
Speaker 2: designed for something else, not saying again he can't do it.
Speaker 2: Just that Facebook tried this too, their whole pivot to video.
Speaker 3: They had the mic dot com.
Speaker 2: You remember this, Yes, all those shows when I worked
Speaker 2: at the Daily Caller.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, guys.
Speaker 5: Were shower money on news outlets.
Speaker 2: We were going all in on Facebook and then overnight
Speaker 2: they decided to just drop it and nuked a bunch
Speaker 2: of companies.
Speaker 3: So what do you make of it? Because you let
Speaker 3: you lived through all of.
Speaker 5: This, just like I did.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's it goes the question of first screen second screen,
Speaker 4: and so YouTube is like a first screen where or
Speaker 4: and your television is like a first screen. It's like
Speaker 4: that's the thing that you're primarily watching. Your second second
Speaker 4: screen app is something that you're messing with on the side.
Speaker 4: Twitter is a second screen app. It is fed content,
Speaker 4: which Tucker knows because he said that, yes, he said
Speaker 4: in his video recently that cable produces the material.
Speaker 5: Then we then talk about on Twitter.
Speaker 4: So it raises the question, if you're watching Tucker on Twitter,
Speaker 4: how do you tweet? You got to And people's fingers
Speaker 4: are going to be like shaking, because because as people
Speaker 4: are watching on YouTube right now, if they have thoughts
Speaker 4: about what we're saying. They go over to Twitter and
Speaker 4: they'll be like, can you believe what Ryan said? That's
Speaker 4: the craziest thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 3: Yes, and people do it all the time.
Speaker 4: But if you are watching it on Twitter, then you
Speaker 4: have to leave what you're watching in order to tweet.
Speaker 4: And people's I think impulse to post is so strong
Speaker 4: in this in this distracted, scattered time that we live
Speaker 4: in that they're not gonna be able to maintain their
Speaker 4: attention through a ten minute Tucker monologue because they want
Speaker 4: to comment on.
Speaker 2: Here's a good point too to who we just made.
Speaker 2: Eighty percent of all Twitter users are on a mobile device.
Speaker 2: So then you got to think about whenever you're in
Speaker 2: the Twitter experience in the app, I'm watching a video,
Speaker 2: but I also have tweets going by. Maybe underneath do
Speaker 2: I have a comments? Am I able to tweet underneath
Speaker 2: as a comment? How does the comment system work? Can
Speaker 2: we upvote, downvote, you know, retweet, you know, reapply and
Speaker 2: all that.
Speaker 5: We have all that.
Speaker 2: Figured out on YouTube, on Rumble, on Odyssey, any of
Speaker 2: these video platforms. And the thing is they're designed for video,
Speaker 2: so it's just it just looks different to me once again.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it can't be done, right, I'm just
Speaker 2: raising all of the engineering like problems at a very
Speaker 2: first principles level. That raised my mind end of like, hmm,
Speaker 2: I don't know about this. Like my immediate reaction is, wow,
Speaker 2: that's a gamble. A lot of some people contacted me
Speaker 2: though it's not a gamble like Elon knows what he's doing.
Speaker 2: I'm like, I'm not even saying that. I'm just like,
Speaker 2: it doesn't exist yet, right, so by definition, so stance,
Speaker 2: come on, I'm willing to see I mean, right now,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you what. The main thing that annoys me
Speaker 2: is I can't speed up the clips. Drives me nuts.
Speaker 2: I never watched a YouTube video one x unless it's you.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm just like, oh my time.
Speaker 2: I have so many other things they could be doing
Speaker 2: at this moment, but I'm one of those freaks who
Speaker 2: listens to three point five speed.
Speaker 3: So what do I know?
Speaker 2: Not on YouTube on Spotify because thanks to them for
Speaker 2: giving me that ability.
Speaker 5: And soccer speaks in two points two do speak in
Speaker 5: two x?
Speaker 4: People have told me that before I speak in like
Speaker 4: point five x, well then.
Speaker 3: We balance out.
Speaker 2: So that means you should listen to us at one
Speaker 2: point five and then you'll get it at a very good,
Speaker 2: very good speed. Let's go to the second part here,
Speaker 2: which is important. Put it up there on the screen there, guys,
Speaker 2: please semaphore inside Tucker Carlson's new media plan.
Speaker 3: So this is pretty interesting, really.
Speaker 2: It gets one of the biggest questions, which is why
Speaker 2: did Tucker go.
Speaker 3: To Twitter in the first place.
Speaker 2: And there's actually a fascinating contract piece which debuts inside
Speaker 2: of this. Inside of Tucker's contract with Fox. According to
Speaker 2: his people who leaked this to Semaphorex, he had a
Speaker 2: provision of his contract Ryan where he was allowed to
Speaker 2: have personal control over his Twitter on. So because of that,
Speaker 2: they have a better argument as to why a show
Speaker 2: on Twitter is not a breach of contract or non compete.
Speaker 2: And so what do we come to the conclusion of
Speaker 2: this is a major reason why not on top of
Speaker 2: the free speech and all this suff that he talked
Speaker 2: about in his relationship with Elon, why he might have
Speaker 2: chosen to go with Twitter in the first place was
Speaker 2: specifically because they believed that a they could sue Fox
Speaker 2: for violation of contract, but b that Fox would have
Speaker 2: a harder time in court with some sort of c
Speaker 2: to desist if they were to debut on Twitter.
Speaker 3: It's first place. It actually makes perfect sense whenever you
Speaker 3: think about.
Speaker 4: It, right, And whenever Fox signed that contract, A they
Speaker 4: didn't think they'd be firing A Tucker. But see, they
Speaker 4: didn't think Elon would be buying Twitter, because Elon buying
Speaker 4: Twitter opens.
Speaker 5: Up the possibility for this to happen.
Speaker 4: Even if it's true, which I don't necessarily believe that
Speaker 4: they don't have a deal. Even if that's true, the
Speaker 4: old Twitter would probably be like throttling him. Oh of course, yeah,
Speaker 4: it would take him down de platform, and so it
Speaker 4: wouldn't it wouldn't be the kind of avenue that it
Speaker 4: is for him now. And they also didn't see Elon's
Speaker 4: kind of pivot to video coming because they didn't se
Speaker 4: Elon coming. So, with all that we said about the
Speaker 4: problems with Twitter as as a first screen kind of
Speaker 4: video platform, if that's all you got because of this
Speaker 4: loophole in your contract, then yeah, by all means go,
Speaker 4: it'll produce viral clips, which question which perhaps is all
Speaker 4: he needs in order to stay relevant until he can
Speaker 4: get back on.
Speaker 2: Here's whatever that they say, Tucker prioritize influence. Tucker on
Speaker 2: Twitter allows him to not just be another podcaster, to
Speaker 2: get in front of a large, influential audience, he could
Speaker 2: get back to talking about the news quickly there. So
Speaker 2: that is, frankly the only piece I totally disagree with.
Speaker 2: And I am not saying that we have any influence.
Speaker 2: I wish we had more influence. I would love that
Speaker 2: if I did. But my thing is that it's like
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan seeks no influence, but because of
Speaker 2: his audience size, he has influence. So saying just another podcaster,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, is a little bit a little bit
Speaker 2: to Robbintry.
Speaker 3: Not at us.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about at the podcasters who do have I
Speaker 2: mean Charlomagne that God is technically a podcaster. I mean,
Speaker 2: guess what, He's an influential figure and his clips go
Speaker 2: viral no matter what. So I think what he's getting
Speaker 2: at is Republican politics. But here once again I want
Speaker 2: to quibble, Matt Walsh is a podcaster. In my opinion,
Speaker 2: he is probably the single most important person in the
Speaker 2: GOP outside of elected officials today.
Speaker 3: That's not an endorsement. I'm saying, like if you think.
Speaker 2: Like libs of TikTok is like account associated with Matt
Speaker 2: walsh'sm Walsh with what is a Woman documentary? With his
Speaker 2: Twitter account, he basically single handedly kind of started the
Speaker 2: bud Light thing.
Speaker 3: You can't deny the results.
Speaker 2: So that would be like me, that would be like
Speaker 2: saying that Matt Walsh is just a podcaster and has
Speaker 2: no influence. No, I mean influence is not you know,
Speaker 2: being a podcaster has nothing to do with influencer. Not
Speaker 2: influence itself does Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro is one of
Speaker 2: the most influential people in Republican politics today. There's no
Speaker 2: question in terms of the amount of young Republicans and
Speaker 2: others who consume his content. It's off the chain, Tim Poole,
Speaker 2: all these other people. And the way I know that
Speaker 2: Tim Poole is influential is I see Republican politicians on
Speaker 2: a show.
Speaker 3: Guess what.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't be going on a show if they didn't
Speaker 2: think that it mattered. If I see Matt Gates on
Speaker 2: a show, I'm like, yeah, he's influential. Steve Bannon is
Speaker 2: a podcaster. Do you believe that Steve Bannon doesn't have
Speaker 2: any influence Jaded Vance who was on our show, he
Speaker 2: was on War Room yesterday. Why because of influence, That's
Speaker 2: the reason. So influences what you make of it, not
Speaker 2: what you whether you're a podcast or not.
Speaker 3: That's my only major quibble with this.
Speaker 5: It is maybe a date it is.
Speaker 4: It is exposing I think Tucker's somewhat dated. Like newsview,
Speaker 4: He's a Washington creature. And that's not a criticism or
Speaker 4: or not, because I'm creature too, But so he has
Speaker 4: a little Washington brain there. That and he still thinks
Speaker 4: of Twitter as the place where you know, pundit's politicians
Speaker 4: and the elites are gathering.
Speaker 5: Even's interesting to hear him kind of still want.
Speaker 2: That, even what he said in his video, Remember when
Speaker 2: when you you brought up where he said, Twitter is
Speaker 2: the place we talk about cable news. It's also the
Speaker 2: place that we talk about Matt Walsh. It's also the
Speaker 2: place that we talk about at Shapiro. It's a place
Speaker 2: where clips of all kinds go viral. Right, our clips
Speaker 2: have gone viral before on Twitter, not always for the
Speaker 2: best reasons, but they go, but they go viral.
Speaker 5: Can't control that.
Speaker 2: People often actually will react to most of the time
Speaker 2: when elites are reacting to our show, it's because of
Speaker 2: some stuff that went viral on Twitter.
Speaker 3: No, but none of them actually would watch the show.
Speaker 2: But my point is that Twitter is just a place
Speaker 2: to debate and to distribute into It's not just about cable.
Speaker 3: Sometimes it's about cable.
Speaker 2: Cable is fun, you know, to dunk on, but people
Speaker 2: dunk on, you know, YouTubers are dunking on each.
Speaker 3: Other on Twitter all the time.
Speaker 2: And my point is that it's just more about the
Speaker 2: function of the medium more than the clip itself. Also
Speaker 2: worth noting Elon, According to Elon's put us up there
Speaker 2: on the screen says he wants to be clear. Quote,
Speaker 2: we have not signed a deal of any kind whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Tucker is subject to the same rules and rewards of
Speaker 2: all content creators. Rewards means subscriptions and advertising revenue share
Speaker 2: quote coming soon, which is a function of how many
Speaker 2: people subscribe and the advertising views associated with the content
Speaker 2: that actually gets to something. We were just talking about
Speaker 2: Ryan building out the ad shares that YouTube I mean,
Speaker 2: the YouTube ad program is what ten years in the
Speaker 2: making maybe more, And the algorithm and the cut and
Speaker 2: the way you think about all of that is very difficult.
Speaker 2: I would also say if I were Tucker, I ever
Speaker 2: would want to be in a situation where I'm reliant
Speaker 2: on advertising revenue. Ever, again, given the amount of advertisers,
Speaker 2: a boycott at a show, so you know, how do
Speaker 2: you know the advertsarivisors I'm going to boycott on Twitter
Speaker 2: or going to be like, don't you dare serve my
Speaker 2: content on the Tucker Punt.
Speaker 5: Now you're in the exact same boat.
Speaker 2: I mean, hopefully he has enough money he doesn't have
Speaker 2: to worry about this, but it is a concern.
Speaker 4: His show is kind of the peak example of the
Speaker 4: thing that advertisers are scared of, and foxes out there
Speaker 4: claiming that they're now getting all this extra advertising revenue into.
Speaker 5: The eight o'clock hour.
Speaker 4: Broadly, politics in general is advertising kryptonite?
Speaker 2: Correct, And as we see this on YouTube for examples
Speaker 2: all the time, I'll take people inside when I talk
Speaker 2: to YouTubers who work in tech, their average CPM as
Speaker 2: in the amount of costs that they get paid per video,
Speaker 2: not so that's RPM revenue per millionaire whatever. See their
Speaker 2: average CPM on advertising in terms of the dollar amount
Speaker 2: that they're allowed to sell is double and sometimes triple
Speaker 2: what we sell here on breaking points. We don't sell
Speaker 2: anything YouTube obviously does. And you know why is ours
Speaker 2: is less politics. Politics is toxic. This is a reason
Speaker 2: we don't rely on advertisers because you know, the only
Speaker 2: advertisers who care about politics, who are they? Ryan people
Speaker 2: who want to influential the political process. I ain't taking
Speaker 2: any big pharma process. Won't be taking a dime from
Speaker 2: them either in terms of our support for counterpoints. So yeah,
Speaker 2: the point is that that's not the way we run
Speaker 2: our business.
Speaker 3: Hence we have a subscription revenue.
Speaker 2: Why there are pitfalls in this all in the first place,
Speaker 2: And uh yeah, it's a very very interesting time. I've
Speaker 2: often said here COVID opened my eyes to the corruption
Speaker 2: of the medical system before the pandemic. I thought some
Speaker 2: doctors organizations were acting like idiots whenever it came to
Speaker 2: the culture war, like gender ideology. But but you know,
Speaker 2: on most other areas they could buy and large be trusted, right.
Speaker 2: I knew pharma was corrupt on the drug front, but
Speaker 2: my eyes were not open to the totality of corruption
Speaker 2: in the entire field. Doctors both socially and financially doing
Speaker 2: what's in their best interests, medical journals being used as
Speaker 2: tools of the establishment, abandoning real science, and most important
Speaker 2: of all, the pervasion of money into the very root
Speaker 2: of the system.
Speaker 3: Since then, my eyes are now open.
Speaker 2: My default position now for doctors is when you make
Speaker 2: a recommendation to me, prove it. Why do I actually
Speaker 2: need something? Why is it not part of a larger
Speaker 2: money making scheme. And it's with that orientation that I
Speaker 2: saw an interesting piece of news pop up yesterday. From
Speaker 2: five years ago, I never would have thought anything about
Speaker 2: quote new draft recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task
Speaker 2: Force that state that women who are between the ages
Speaker 2: of forty and seventy four should have screening mammograms every
Speaker 2: two years. The guidance is a big deal because previously
Speaker 2: biennial screening was not suggested for the age of forty,
Speaker 2: while those between the age of forty and fifty were
Speaker 2: considered on a case by case basis. Now, according to them,
Speaker 2: because of increasing rates of breast cancer in the forty
Speaker 2: to fifty year old demographic, they're increasing screening recommendations for everyone.
Speaker 2: Pre COVID Zaga would have been like, okay, whatever sounds
Speaker 2: reasonable on its face. Post COVID, though immediately I'm thinking
Speaker 2: this sounds like a multi billion dollar gift to the
Speaker 2: mammogram industry, and the doctors and the nurses have performed
Speaker 2: these procedures, so am I right. Let's think about it
Speaker 2: a little bit, shall we. It only took me like
Speaker 2: ten minutes to find that, not even ten years ago,
Speaker 2: doctors involved women's health. We're singing a very different tune
Speaker 2: about mammogram screening. In twenty fifteen, a major study in
Speaker 2: Health Affairs analyzed seven hundred thousand women from twenty eleven
Speaker 2: to twenty thirteen between the ages of forty to fifty
Speaker 2: nine who had routine mammograms. Eleven percent of these women
Speaker 2: had quote suspicious manograms and were subjected to further testing,
Speaker 2: including repeat mammograms, ultrasounds, and needle biopsies.
Speaker 5: Quote.
Speaker 2: For nearly all these women ninety eight points experts ninety
Speaker 2: eight point six percent cancer was not confirmed in further testing.
Speaker 2: Now that's crazy, right, but actually gets crazier. The study
Speaker 2: authors found that false alarms for women for the entire
Speaker 2: female population over forty was costing the United States two
Speaker 2: point eight billion dollars each year on follow up test
Speaker 2: results for suspicious results that were not cancer and that's
Speaker 2: just the dollars. Over treatment was actually even more of
Speaker 2: a concern. They said that even when cancer was detected,
Speaker 2: those tumors might be of low risk to the patient,
Speaker 2: but that once we're suspicious, suspicions were raised. Over treatment
Speaker 2: was the result, including misectomy, chemotherapy, radiation in women who
Speaker 2: may not have needed any medical treatment at all otherwise.
Speaker 2: A similar finding actually occurred in a major study of
Speaker 2: Danish and Norwegian women just last year. They found that quote,
Speaker 2: the advantages of breast cancer screenings have steadily diminished.
Speaker 3: To the point where they are no longer outweighed by.
Speaker 2: The costs associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The study reason
Speaker 2: that quote, one in five women receive a superflorous diagnosis
Speaker 2: because of screening that they would never have noticed or
Speaker 2: felt that they had breast can answer during their entire lifetime,
Speaker 2: which leads to painful overtreatment and higher costs of tests.
Speaker 2: In fact, the Breast Cancer Action Network is a group
Speaker 2: based in the US which is entirely premise on providing
Speaker 2: women with an average chance of breast cancer with facts
Speaker 2: like this. Consider this graphic that they actually produce. If
Speaker 2: a group of one thousand and fifty year old women
Speaker 2: is screened over the next ten years, one hundred will
Speaker 2: get a false positive, twenty three will get breast cancer,
Speaker 2: five will die with or without screening, one will die
Speaker 2: without screening, but five will be diagnosed with cancer that
Speaker 2: will never be life threatening or require treatment. To be clear,
Speaker 2: the group and people who are raising awareness about this
Speaker 2: actually do care a lot though about preventing breast cancer,
Speaker 2: but instead they want people to focus on what prevention
Speaker 2: will actually look like and stop it in the first place.
Speaker 2: That will be less toxic and more affordable, both for
Speaker 2: them and for all of us. That's the final and
Speaker 2: most important point. The average cost of a mamorant in
Speaker 2: the United States is somewhere around five hundred dollars now
Speaker 2: considering the biennial recommendation. That's two hundred and fifty dollars
Speaker 2: a year for women from the age of forty onwards.
Speaker 2: That is tens of billions of dollars a year paid
Speaker 2: in fat insurance premiums to the health insurance companies who
Speaker 2: give it away to the healthcare industry, and none of
Speaker 2: it makes the difference that they say that it will make.
Speaker 2: That's the issue with our medical system in a nutshell,
Speaker 2: we're don't even focus on real prevention, everything ranging from exercise,
Speaker 2: obese proper diet, a myriad of prevention techniques with other
Speaker 2: doctors like doctor vannaperside can tell you about reducing all
Speaker 2: cos mortality all cos mortality on cancer specifically and instead,
Speaker 2: though we're spending billions on programs supposedly to help but
Speaker 2: may do mess just as much harm instead. This is
Speaker 2: a common theme these days. What's so called screening practices
Speaker 2: recommended by doctors reminds me of colonoscopes. That practice was
Speaker 2: recommended to millions of men now for years as massively effective.
Speaker 5: It didn't really work that well though at all.
Speaker 2: When it had a goal standard trial, it only reduced
Speaker 2: their colon cancer risk by one to fifth below the
Speaker 2: previous estimates of the test efficacy and quote didn't provide
Speaker 2: any significant reduction and colon cancer mortality. Modern medicine is
Speaker 2: premised on the idea that technology has conquered biology. It's
Speaker 2: what justifies their secret knowledge and their primacy in society.
Speaker 2: In some cases that is true, but it's not always true,
Speaker 2: and this.
Speaker 3: Case highlights why all the US and all.
Speaker 2: Of us must take back responsibility for our own health.
Speaker 2: Doctors and medical associations do not get to make decisions
Speaker 2: for us.
Speaker 3: We do.
Speaker 2: It is on everyone do research, ask questions, because if
Speaker 2: you don't, we are going to keep getting swindled in
Speaker 2: the name of keeping us all healthier. What did you
Speaker 2: make of this, Ryan, It's something that I had never
Speaker 2: thought about it.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: Let's get to our interview with Senator jd.
Speaker 5: Vance.
Speaker 2: I do want to say this because I believe that
Speaker 2: this is ethical. I have a previous, prior relationship with
Speaker 2: Senator Vance. I think that anybody who sees me interviewed
Speaker 2: and should know that we're personal friends years before he
Speaker 2: ever ran for the Senate. That being said, I tried
Speaker 2: my best in this interview, and Ryan Grimm was there
Speaker 2: to help me be accountable. Let's get to it. Joining
Speaker 2: us now, our guest, Senator jd Vance of Ohio. It's
Speaker 2: great to see you, sir. Thanks for joining to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so we're going to talk about the Railway Safety Act.
Speaker 2: We're actually going to talk about some policy on television
Speaker 2: it's a shopping thing that's going to put it up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. Senator President Trump actually endorsed the bill,
Speaker 2: he said, Crooked Joe Biden has still not visited the
Speaker 2: incredible patriots of East Palestine.
Speaker 3: Our movement will be their voice. We will never forget them.
Speaker 5: JD.
Speaker 2: Vance has been working hard in the Senate to make
Speaker 2: sure something like this never happens again. That's why it's
Speaker 2: so important for Congress to pass his Railway Safety Act.
Speaker 3: So JD.
Speaker 2: Tell us a little bit about this bill that has
Speaker 2: now been uniquely endorsed by President Trump and President Biden.
Speaker 3: Never seen anything like it.
Speaker 11: Yes, First of all, it's one of the weird ways
Speaker 11: in which President Trump has sort of re oriented the
Speaker 11: Republican Party. It's hard to imagine a Republican president ten
Speaker 11: years ago coming out and endorsing a legislation like this.
Speaker 5: But it's pretty simple and straight forward.
Speaker 11: So Number one, East Palestine had this terrible problem, the
Speaker 11: terrible train crash and a chemical fire afterwards, and the
Speaker 11: firefighters had no idea what they were dealing with as
Speaker 11: they went in to fight the fire. Right changes the
Speaker 11: notice requirement to change that. The second thing is it
Speaker 11: enhances the safety and inspection requirement, so hopefully the next
Speaker 11: East Palestine doesn't happen in the first place. And of
Speaker 11: course this has caused the railway lobby and the usual
Speaker 11: suspects in Washington, DC had come.
Speaker 5: Out against it in a lot of ways.
Speaker 11: I think it illustrates a broader fight that's happening within
Speaker 11: the conservative movement right now, which is do we stand
Speaker 11: up for the people who sent us to Washington, or
Speaker 11: do we stand up for the special interests who have
Speaker 11: dominated conservative politics for so long. I'm very gratified that
Speaker 11: we've got a lot of good bipartisan in support. I
Speaker 11: think we're going to get it out of the Senate
Speaker 11: and then of course onto the House.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, what I'm interested in is the intra Republican fight.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Please.
Speaker 2: We've got Ted Cruz coming out saying he will not
Speaker 2: be Oh, he's going to oppose the Bipartisan Railway Safety Act.
Speaker 2: I know that there was some discussion in markup in
Speaker 2: which it called what he was saying ridiculous. Talk and
Speaker 2: break down a little bit about why what he was
Speaker 2: saying was ridiculous.
Speaker 5: Well, look, Ted CRU's a friend.
Speaker 11: Right, he's one of the few people that I knew
Speaker 11: in the Senate before I got to Washington. But I
Speaker 11: think the fundamental argument here that Ted made is he
Speaker 11: doesn't like the fact that the bill gives any discretion
Speaker 11: or any authority to the Biden administration. Right, Well, the
Speaker 11: Biden administration forces the laws. So I've been saying for
Speaker 11: the past three months, and a lot of Republicans have
Speaker 11: been echoing me, the Biden administration needs to do more.
Speaker 11: So here's a piece of legislation that forces the Biden
Speaker 11: administration to do more. You can't, on the one hand,
Speaker 11: say they're not doing enough and on the other hand
Speaker 11: fight a piece of legislation that forces them to actually
Speaker 11: take action. There's a deeper problem here, which is if
Speaker 11: you think that we're going to have to fight back
Speaker 11: against corporate America, against big tech, against the pharmaceutical industry,
Speaker 11: if you think we have to do these things, well,
Speaker 11: the government's pretty much the only path in town. That
Speaker 11: is the representation of the people, That is the entity
Speaker 11: that has the actual authority and the power to go
Speaker 11: after something like a big tech or like the railway industry.
Speaker 11: So you've got to be willing to use the power
Speaker 11: that the people gave us under this constitutional system. And
Speaker 11: I understand people are reactive and look, sometimes, of course
Speaker 11: the government. Oftentimes the government does things that shouldn't do.
Speaker 11: Sometimes it fights progressive battles that it shouldn't fight. But
Speaker 11: if we're going to win the argument, we have to
Speaker 11: be willing to actually use the levers of power and
Speaker 11: use what the people gave us.
Speaker 3: That's what this fight is all about.
Speaker 4: And I'm wondering about the partisan politics a little bit
Speaker 4: because about six years ago, Rob Portman, former senator from Ohio,
Speaker 4: was working with Democrats on an opioid treatment bill, and
Speaker 4: Democratic leadership really did not want Democrats working with him
Speaker 4: on this because they didn't.
Speaker 5: Want him to get a win in an election year.
Speaker 4: Sure, and I'm wondering if Shared Brown is one of
Speaker 4: your co sponsors on this bill, he's up for reelection.
Speaker 4: Have you gotten any pressure from kind of Republican establishment
Speaker 4: for us as saying what are you doing, You're just
Speaker 4: going to help You're going to help Democrats get elected here?
Speaker 5: No, not at all.
Speaker 11: Actually I've wondered about that, but everybody's pretty much given
Speaker 11: me the line of look, you have to serve your constituents.
Speaker 11: This is a very very important issue to the people
Speaker 11: of Ohio, and so you have to work on it.
Speaker 11: And so I've gotten no pressure on that front. I mean, look,
Speaker 11: I'm a Republican Shared and I have worked on this,
Speaker 11: but I'm gonna endorse Shared's opponent. I'm going to try
Speaker 11: to work to get that Republican elected. Nobody doubts that.
Speaker 11: But at the same time, you have to do the
Speaker 11: business that the people sent you to do. You can't
Speaker 11: use parties in politics as an excuse to not do
Speaker 11: your job every election cycle, because I mean, hell, we're
Speaker 11: an election cycle pretty much every year in this town.
Speaker 2: So I have seen some opposition in the House that
Speaker 2: We've looked a little bit about Troy Neil's and the
Speaker 2: other committee members, and this is where the bill probably
Speaker 2: will face most of its opposition from, again inside the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. Now that President Trump has endorsed that, do
Speaker 2: you think that will make a difference in the way
Speaker 2: that you can try and move this bill through.
Speaker 5: Well, it definitely makes a difference.
Speaker 11: The question is whether you know, three months down the road,
Speaker 11: after we've already had the debt ceiling fight and hopefully
Speaker 11: successfully resolved it.
Speaker 5: Where are we actually at on railway safety?
Speaker 11: The one thing I've realized about this town I'm a
Speaker 11: new guy, right, I've been here for five months, is
Speaker 11: that it's very important to get things done when the
Speaker 11: town's energy is focused on a particular issue. We were
Speaker 11: really focused on East Palestine two months ago.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 11: We're a little focused on East Palestine today. I'm very
Speaker 11: focused on it, but the town is focused a little
Speaker 11: bit on it. Where are we at in three months?
Speaker 11: That to me is going to be the biggest hang up.
Speaker 11: Trump gave us a lot of momentum. The question is
Speaker 11: where we actually land in a few months.
Speaker 4: There will be another kind of union railroad executive contract
Speaker 4: struggle in a couple of years from now. You just
Speaker 4: missed right the last vote by a couple couple of weeks.
Speaker 4: I'm curious, but there was some hint that there might
Speaker 4: be some Republican support for the youth for the rail workers.
Speaker 5: Are you sensing any more?
Speaker 4: Would and would you do you think you would if
Speaker 4: you were in the Senate at the time, Would you
Speaker 4: have voted with the with the workers? You think you
Speaker 4: would in the future if the contract fight comes to
Speaker 4: the Senate.
Speaker 11: So one.
Speaker 5: I would have voted with unions too.
Speaker 11: To his credit, Ted Cruz, Josh Hall, a few others
Speaker 11: actually actually aligned with the unions there, which is what
Speaker 11: was exactly the right thing to do. Look, whether you're
Speaker 11: you like the unions or you don't like the unions,
Speaker 11: it is not the job of the US Senate to
Speaker 11: do a bail out of the rail industry by settling
Speaker 11: their labor dispute. It is between the union and the
Speaker 11: rail industry. Let them settle it. And this is one
Speaker 11: of the arguments I've actually made about this particular bill,
Speaker 11: is if you're going to as a US Senate, as
Speaker 11: a US Congress, bail the railways out of their labor disputes,
Speaker 11: you can't then come to me and cry free market
Speaker 11: when we try to force those unit or first the railways,
Speaker 11: to observe some proper safety standards. The other crazy thing
Speaker 11: about this is I can't think of any industry that
Speaker 11: has such a socialized risk.
Speaker 5: Loss business model.
Speaker 11: If the rail industry crashes a train or sets off
Speaker 11: a chemical bomb in a place like East Palestine, the
Speaker 11: taxpayers pick up a huge amount of that tab. If
Speaker 11: we're going to pick up the tab, we can demand
Speaker 11: some common sense safety standards.
Speaker 2: Well, pharma would give them a run for their money.
Speaker 2: So we're talking here about railway. Here is a bigger question,
Speaker 2: I think, and kind of gets to the philosophy. You
Speaker 2: reference the debt ceiling fight and whether we're going to
Speaker 2: get through it before we walk in here, President Trump
Speaker 2: actually endorse saying if we don't cut spending and default,
Speaker 2: how do you, as a Republican who is you know,
Speaker 2: I would say divorced at least some what from previous
Speaker 2: conservative orthodoxy? How do you think about the debt ceiling
Speaker 2: and how do you think about spending?
Speaker 11: Well, look, I mean, you know, I'm one of the
Speaker 11: few Republicans who during my campaign, you know, I endorsed
Speaker 11: critical parts of the social Safety Net. I've endorsed the
Speaker 11: idea that every American should have healthcare, though I may
Speaker 11: disagree with Bernie Sanders on how we actually get that done.
Speaker 11: But we do have a massive problem of way too
Speaker 11: much money going into the economy, which is inflating the
Speaker 11: prices of a lot of things, and that's actually emiserating
Speaker 11: a lot of people at the lower end middle income.
Speaker 11: So I actually do think that we have to get
Speaker 11: some control of the federal budget here, and I think, look,
Speaker 11: Joe Biden doesn't like what McCarthy has done. Okay, I
Speaker 11: guarantee you the two hundred and seventeen House Republicans who
Speaker 11: voted for what for McCarthy's package, every single one of
Speaker 11: them could have picked something that they didn't like about
Speaker 11: that package, but they at least have advanced a solution here.
Speaker 5: The thing that really.
Speaker 11: Bothers me about the President's posture is he sort of
Speaker 11: stepped back and say said, my way the highway. Well,
Speaker 11: you can't do that. You have to negotiate with these guys.
Speaker 11: I think we have to cut spending. I think we basically.
Speaker 11: The way that I think about it is twenty nineteen,
Speaker 11: the federal government spent four point four trillion dollars. Now
Speaker 11: we're talking about spending six to seven trillion dollars. We
Speaker 11: can get back to pre COVID spending levels or something
Speaker 11: like it without causing emisiration of the poor.
Speaker 5: And that should be the goal.
Speaker 4: And Biden's response to Kevin McCarthy saying, isn't there anything
Speaker 4: we can cut was like, hey, look, we can do
Speaker 4: more on Medicare, prescription drug negotiation. There's corporate tax cuts.
Speaker 4: I mean there's corporate tax cuts we could roll back.
Speaker 4: There's tax cuts for the wealthy we could roll back.
Speaker 5: Where do you come down on that?
Speaker 11: Well, look, I think everything should be on the table here.
Speaker 11: We have to pay the country's debts, and everything should
Speaker 11: be on the table. Though, I think it's interesting President
Speaker 11: Trump during the town hall last night, endorsed a negotiating
Speaker 11: posture which is fundamentally.
Speaker 5: Rooted in reality.
Speaker 11: I think the headline is President Trump gives financial advice.
Speaker 11: He's telling everybody, just go ahead and drive things off
Speaker 11: the cliff, allow the default. I didn't take that as
Speaker 11: what he was saying at all. He's talking about the
Speaker 11: negotiating posture here. You have to be willing to go
Speaker 11: right to the end if you're in a game of chicken,
Speaker 11: and so that was sort of how I took that.
Speaker 5: But look, I mean, if McCarthy and Biden come.
Speaker 11: Up with a deal, that is the deal that's going
Speaker 11: to work for the American people. The one thing that
Speaker 11: the Senate is, at least Senate Republicans have been pretty
Speaker 11: consistent on is, look, we don't control the system.
Speaker 5: Right, we are the minority party in the Senate.
Speaker 11: This fundamentally has to be negotiating negotiation between McCarthy and Biden.
Speaker 11: The deal they come up with is fundamentally the deal.
Speaker 11: It's going to pay the country's debts.
Speaker 2: Final question for me jd. President Trump. The big town Hall.
Speaker 2: We're spending a bunch of our show on it. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of hand ringing in this Washington, in Washington
Speaker 2: and New York City today about democracy, all that you've
Speaker 2: endorsed President Trump. Anything changed from the town hall, from
Speaker 2: the Egene Carroll and all of that as to your
Speaker 2: posture towards the president.
Speaker 5: No, nothing has changed.
Speaker 11: Went on to CNN last night the first time I've
Speaker 11: been sing CNN in a while, and gave a full
Speaker 11: throat at endorsement to the President.
Speaker 5: I thought he did a very good job.
Speaker 11: What I really liked last night is that was Trump
Speaker 11: and his very best. He was funny. This town is absurd.
Speaker 11: A lot of what goes on here is absurd. That
Speaker 11: people were sort of pearl clutching and talking about the
Speaker 11: end of democracy. They're the ones who are going to
Speaker 11: drive this country off a cliff. Because everybody else looks
Speaker 11: at this and says, you know, it's kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 5: We should be able to make fun of it.
Speaker 11: And I think having a little bit of self awareness
Speaker 11: and a little bit of humor makes it easier to govern,
Speaker 11: not harder.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the audience agreed with you as we
Speaker 2: kept saying Republican voters like Trump that particular, that particular
Speaker 2: audience liked him. I meant that audience not necessarily hard.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you'll get some hate, but I do too,
Speaker 2: So it is what it is. Thank you so very
Speaker 2: much for joining us, sir. We really appreciate your good guys.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Ryan. By the way, I thought you did a great
Speaker 3: job in that interview. Thank you.
Speaker 5: I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I just want to say go ahead.
Speaker 4: No, we were talking just before that. I wasn't sure
Speaker 4: if he would remember it or not. And like when
Speaker 4: whenever he was he had finished up, he'll be you.
Speaker 4: He had come to the Huffing and Post to promote it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and Ariane.
Speaker 5: Was like, you need to pocket your j D. Bat
Speaker 5: He's such a wanderful young man.
Speaker 4: And we had a long phone call where I gave
Speaker 4: him tips on how to promote the book really worked
Speaker 4: out for them, and then it was like six months later,
Speaker 4: the things like the National Best Son, like well, obviously those.
Speaker 2: Tips worked right, Yeah, exactly, It's all right, Grim. That's
Speaker 2: why our Deity Advance is in the Senate. I want
Speaker 2: to say thank you man for sitting in. You and
Speaker 2: Emily are such a fantastic addition to the team. You
Speaker 2: guys do a really great job.
Speaker 4: It's a great show with you. How was the How
Speaker 4: was the right wing show?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 5: We loved it.
Speaker 3: Well I wasn't right wing. I'm the liberal.
Speaker 2: According to my MAGA critics, I am the liberal here
Speaker 2: on the show. You can never please these people, which
Speaker 2: is why you shouldn't even try anyway. Look, thank you
Speaker 2: everybody who helps support the show helps you know, it
Speaker 2: helps support the work.
Speaker 3: That we do. We're building this new studio. We had
Speaker 3: Centaert de Vance here.
Speaker 2: I look at that CNN town hall and I look
Speaker 2: at something that I don't want that to be only
Speaker 2: in the domain of cable. That's got to be in
Speaker 2: the domain of people like us. For the ability to convene.
Speaker 2: We have RFK Junior, hopefully right here in the studio
Speaker 2: at the desk that we'll be able to question him
Speaker 2: and treat him in a professional way, but in a
Speaker 2: challenging way if possible.
Speaker 5: We should pack it with RFK junior fans. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: We should have only o RFK junior fans here. But
Speaker 2: my point is is that there's no reason why they
Speaker 2: need to be ones making news. It can be all
Speaker 2: of us. So help you help us, support our work
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot com and otherwise.
Speaker 3: We'll see you all next week then