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 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have
Speaker 1: an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed,
Speaker 1: we do lots of big political and foreign affairs news
Speaker 1: that is breaking this morning. First of all, the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign has now I guess officially launched like it had
Speaker 1: launched before, but then kind of really do anything now.
Speaker 1: He actually seems like he's doing some stuff. He was
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire, he's in South Carolina. Really interesting comments
Speaker 1: made there, in particular about a couple of his would
Speaker 1: be rivals, Rnonda Santis and Nikki Haley. So we'll tell
Speaker 1: you about that. We also, this is a great soccer find.
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson was on with Joe Rogan and he was
Speaker 1: actually going after Ronda Santis, which I was fascinated by it.
Speaker 1: I thought we would talk. Yeah, very interesting exchange. So
Speaker 1: in the spirit of like twenty twenty four and Ronda
Speaker 1: Santis is a potential Trump contender, we will bring you
Speaker 1: that as well. We also have some new not very
Speaker 1: good numbers for Joe Biden coming out of New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: Actually Trump, for all the media talk of his weakness
Speaker 1: in the Republican primary, by some measures, he's in a
Speaker 1: lot better position than Joe Biden is visa VI the
Speaker 1: Democratic base. So kind of interesting there. And also this
Speaker 1: is a little bit stunning. The Biden campaign is planning
Speaker 1: on running on how great the economy is, even as
Speaker 1: their own Treasury secretary said saying we're headed into a recession.
Speaker 1: Oh that smart. Lots of political news, we'll get into
Speaker 1: all of that. We also have some big news coming
Speaker 1: out of the Pentagon here there considering sending fighter jets
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. This of course on the heels of deciding
Speaker 1: to send tanks, after saying previously that they were not
Speaker 1: going to say tanks. We have Israel striking a Ron
Speaker 1: multiple times, drone strikes. What will the fallout of that? Be.
Speaker 1: We also have that absolutely disgusting, disturbing, gut wrenching video
Speaker 1: of police murdering Tyree Nichols in Memphis. We'll bring you
Speaker 1: a little bit of that and also talk to you
Speaker 1: about what it all means and what exactly happened there.
Speaker 1: And a new expert panel recommending some changes to gain
Speaker 1: a function research. So we're going to talk about all
Speaker 1: of that. We also have Jeffrey Stein in the show
Speaker 1: Jeffrey and never call him Jeffrey, just Seine. Let's call
Speaker 1: him Jeffrey just Stine the wasch and Post talking about
Speaker 1: some weird tricks that could diffuse the debt sealing crisis
Speaker 1: and whether any of them are actually realistically on the table.
Speaker 1: So let's start with the political news. Here. We had
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in New Hampshire and Donald Trump in South
Speaker 1: Carolina talking a little bit of trash about the potential competition,
Speaker 1: saying that he doesn't really think he has any Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen. Remember I used to in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: I talked about polls all the time. I'm in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: I didn't have to because we didn't have a lot
Speaker 1: of competition. We had no competition, and I don't think
Speaker 1: we have a competition this time either, to be honest,
Speaker 1: but I talked about the polls and I will say
Speaker 1: that our poles, we are absolutely we are so far
Speaker 1: ahead in the polls, both in New Hampshire. One came
Speaker 1: out this morning a very nice pole the way ahead,
Speaker 1: and one came out yesterday a nationwide pole, and we're
Speaker 1: thirty five points up, thirty nine points up. That's a lot.
Speaker 1: So Ron would have not been governor because of a name.
Speaker 1: Then what I hear he might run? You know, I
Speaker 1: consider that very disloyal to talk to her for a
Speaker 1: little while, but I said, look, you know, go buy
Speaker 1: your heart if you want to run. She's publicly say
Speaker 1: that I would never run against my president. He was
Speaker 1: a great president. So there you go saying, you know,
Speaker 1: same thing about Ron DeSantis and how it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: very loyal, he would never be anybody if it wasn't
Speaker 1: for me. With Nikki Haley, he's like, yeah, she apparently
Speaker 1: came to me. I said, okay, you know, follow your heart.
Speaker 1: But she said she would never run against her favorite president,
Speaker 1: which is me. Although Nikki apparently is looking at a
Speaker 1: February launch. Yes, she's like a presidential election. Good luck,
Speaker 1: That's all I have to say. I guess. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: comments about her I thought were particularly like passive aggressive,
Speaker 1: like oh yeah, sure she called me follow your heart.
Speaker 1: But of course she said she never run against her
Speaker 1: favorite president. So but in a way, Crystal, he is right,
Speaker 1: isn't that she is such a kiss ass? If you
Speaker 1: genuinely believe that Trump was bad a you worked for him,
Speaker 1: you didn't get fired, you quit b You kissed his
Speaker 1: ass all the way up until January sixth, then denounced him,
Speaker 1: but then kissed his ass again. Yeah, and so it
Speaker 1: is back here, like pressing the ring even before her
Speaker 1: own presidence. Make up your mind, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's one of these, Yeah she is. She's kind of
Speaker 1: a Kamala Harris of the Republican Party. Donor Glass loves
Speaker 1: this woman. They think she's the you know, next big thing.
Speaker 1: She's got all the like diversity checkbox, and there is
Speaker 1: so little there there. I mean, just in terms of
Speaker 1: like personal charisma and any sort of political talent, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, maybe I'm wrong, but I think she
Speaker 1: is a complete donor and media class phenomenon. So anyway,
Speaker 1: she looks like is really actually getting a team together
Speaker 1: and may jump in February. She might be the first
Speaker 1: other I guess John Bolton announced his presidential campaign as well,
Speaker 1: but other than him, she might be the first sort
Speaker 1: of challenger to jump in this race against him. We've
Speaker 1: been talking about how the field is kind of frozen
Speaker 1: because they're all terrified of him really coming after them
Speaker 1: in an aggressive way. Well they should be. And actually
Speaker 1: immediately after that campaign Trump put out truth last night
Speaker 1: quote the fake news media, it was good yesterday in
Speaker 1: the coverage of my stops in New Hampshire, other than
Speaker 1: the globalist Street Journal, which is rarely accurate, good they said,
Speaker 1: the day was really I mean, he is right, He's right,
Speaker 1: it was really amazing. The enthusiasm to make America great
Speaker 1: again has never been stronger here it is. The revelations
Speaker 1: about rondasanctimonious, doing far worse than many Republican governors, including
Speaker 1: that he unapologetically shut down Florida and his speeches was interesting. Indeed,
Speaker 1: DJT leading big. So what can we get from that?
Speaker 1: So it's been leaked down for quite some time that
Speaker 1: the dysantist tactic against Trump, if such a thing were
Speaker 1: to materialize would be I'm the one who fought against
Speaker 1: the COVID regime. Trump is the one who kept fauci.
Speaker 1: He's the one who kept a lot of the lockdown
Speaker 1: procedures in place while he was there. So I've always
Speaker 1: been skeptical of how potent that attack is because, look,
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty three, It's January thirtieth, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: Why are we still litigating the pandemic, especially the lockdown
Speaker 1: phrase of it, which effectively is been over at least
Speaker 1: for over a year. And then number two, it gets
Speaker 1: to I mean, look this think this is probably what
Speaker 1: Trump would say, and I do actually think he's correct.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons DeSantis was able to do effectively
Speaker 1: whatever he wants is because the federal government does not
Speaker 1: have the power to determine lockdown procedure in the state
Speaker 1: of California or in the city of San Francisco, like
Speaker 1: we have a federalist system. As president, you have actually
Speaker 1: very little leeway. And look, even at the time, like
Speaker 1: we really want to get into this, Trump was basically
Speaker 1: anti lockdown after what like July. I think at the
Speaker 1: beginning it was like we'll be opened by reopened by
Speaker 1: some kinds of what turned out exactly. Absolutely, I agree
Speaker 1: it was not accurate thing. It was a dumb move
Speaker 1: not to fire Fauci. That's absolutely very valid criticism, not
Speaker 1: to go after him on that, on some of the
Speaker 1: elements that were in it. But you know, by and large,
Speaker 1: like I don't know if DeSantis has a real substantive
Speaker 1: leg to stand on as far as it lands with
Speaker 1: the base. I mean, do people really love Ron DeSantis
Speaker 1: right now because of COVID and lockdowns? Or is it
Speaker 1: COVID anti lockdown? Economic growth, population growth under Florida and
Speaker 1: ty woke like just a major like owning the Libs
Speaker 1: energy for the last three Like how much of that
Speaker 1: is COVID and how much of that is just being
Speaker 1: hated by the media. So I'm just genuinely skeptical of
Speaker 1: this entire case. Yeah, I agree with you. I mean,
Speaker 1: I also think this puts the Christine Noum alliance with
Speaker 1: Trump in some perspective too, because if any governor in
Speaker 1: the country could make the case for like she really
Speaker 1: didn't give a care and just kept everything open the
Speaker 1: whole time and was aggressive about it, she was the
Speaker 1: one who really was sort of at the forefront of that.
Speaker 1: So if anyone could make the case that hey, you're
Speaker 1: kind of a fraud when it comes to what you're
Speaker 1: saying you did on COVID versus what you actually did
Speaker 1: on COVID, she would be a good figure in order
Speaker 1: to do that. But I do kind of agree with
Speaker 1: you that, listen. I mean we've looked at the polls.
Speaker 1: In the midterm polls, we continue to see, you know,
Speaker 1: what people rank as their top issue priorities, and whether
Speaker 1: it's Democrats or Republicans, for the entire country, people have
Speaker 1: moved on. So if this is the whole thing that
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis is going to hang his hat on, I
Speaker 1: don't know how far it gets him. I do think too, like, listen,
Speaker 1: Trump is out there. You may be waiting and abiding
Speaker 1: your time and whatever, Trump is not waiting to take
Speaker 1: shots at you. So if you aren't out there defending yourself, counterpunching,
Speaker 1: trying to gain some ground here, because Trump is right
Speaker 1: that at this point, I mean in most polls at
Speaker 1: this point, DeSantis is significantly behind, I think you're losing
Speaker 1: the opportunity to take advance of what was a period
Speaker 1: of weakness for Trump, which is quickly receding into the past.
Speaker 1: I think that what descent if he were to prosecute
Speaker 1: a case, the Reagan campaign of like nineteen seventy six
Speaker 1: would be the best one. Now, Reagan actually did not
Speaker 1: win in nineteen seventies. That came pretty damn close, and
Speaker 1: that's effectively what made him the nominee in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 1: He was propagating the message. He's like, we look, we
Speaker 1: need to move on from this madness of Nixon, from Ford,
Speaker 1: from all of this chaos, go towards the quote true
Speaker 1: conservative principle and fulfill the very Goldwater Revolution of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty four. And it was a forward thinking message that
Speaker 1: actually again became very close to actually knocking Ford off
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy six. And a lot of Gerald Ford
Speaker 1: people would tell you that Ronald Reagan is the guy
Speaker 1: who cost Ford the election because he's the one who
Speaker 1: weakened him amongst the conservative base so that he could
Speaker 1: then get elected in nineteen eighty. But the point is
Speaker 1: is that Reagan was able to almost successfully take down
Speaker 1: the sitting president Gerald Ford amongst the conservative base because
Speaker 1: it was a feeling of man, really stick with this guy.
Speaker 1: There's been all this madness with the Pardons, and then
Speaker 1: obviously you have the Saigon pull out, and it's like
Speaker 1: we just got to move on into a new phase,
Speaker 1: into a more hopeful phase. I don't know exactly how
Speaker 1: that translates, but when I'm looking at it, Reagan had
Speaker 1: the sunny energy and at the same time he was
Speaker 1: barbarous whenever he wanted to be. Yeah, with a political attack.
Speaker 1: That's I think the DeSantis kind of look at Florida
Speaker 1: open for business, where booming. That's what I want to
Speaker 1: bring to the entire country. Yeah, that's that's all I
Speaker 1: would really really with Donald, I thank you for your help.
Speaker 1: You did a great job while you were president, but
Speaker 1: it's time to move on. Yeah. I think that's actually
Speaker 1: a powerful message for a lot of people. Do you
Speaker 1: think that that would sell with the Republican base. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's the real question. Is you have to
Speaker 1: bet on the idea that the Republican base actually sees
Speaker 1: this as a period of chaos. Actually, you know, a
Speaker 1: majority of them really want to move on because and
Speaker 1: this is the other you know, it's the other proble
Speaker 1: we're talking about Nicky Haley getting in there. John Bolton, like,
Speaker 1: this is a whole cast of Mike penns is almost
Speaker 1: definitely gonna run, Glenn young Kin almost definitely going to run.
Speaker 1: If a whole cast of character is looking to jump
Speaker 1: into this race. And so it's one thing if you've
Speaker 1: got this true one on one Ron DeSantis versus Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But I think it becomes so much more difficult when
Speaker 1: you have a whole slate of people who are taking
Speaker 1: up media oxygen and energy and who are trying out
Speaker 1: their own tactics and shots that they're taking at Trump,
Speaker 1: and also have their own base of donors that, even
Speaker 1: if they don't really have any public support, are going
Speaker 1: to prop them up for longer than they really deserve
Speaker 1: to be in the race. Yeah, I think you're right. Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's talk about what Trump's strategy is this time around,
Speaker 1: at least thus far, because it is quite different from
Speaker 1: the stylistic approach that he took in both twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: and twenty twenty. Split this up on the screen from
Speaker 1: the New York Times. So, as I said before, he
Speaker 1: had these two events in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Speaker 1: The headline here from the Times is Trump tries a
Speaker 1: new campaign tech colon small scale at two events On Saturday,
Speaker 1: he embraced more traditional campaigning as he struggles to maintain
Speaker 1: support for his third White House bid. So in New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: He spoke in a high school auditorium in Salem, New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: which you know, that's like classic sort of what you
Speaker 1: do when you're on a campaign, but it's not the
Speaker 1: gigantic rallies that he's kind of known for. In South Carolina,
Speaker 1: this was kind of interesting. They say he's previously attracted
Speaker 1: thousands to rallies, but he introduced his state leadership team
Speaker 1: at the state capitol, an extraordinary setting for a politician
Speaker 1: known for upsetting the establishment and taking direct aim at
Speaker 1: long standing public institutions. One thing of note in South
Speaker 1: Carolina is it all depends on how you look at
Speaker 1: this thing, because on the one hand, he didn't get
Speaker 1: like unanimous support of the Republican Congressional delegation or all
Speaker 1: the elective I mean, obviously Nikki Haley is a vacuum.
Speaker 1: Tim Scott is not backing him, who also, by the way,
Speaker 1: both of them might run for president. But he got
Speaker 1: the governor of the state endorsed him, and I think
Speaker 1: several other statewide elected officials from South Carolina endorsed him,
Speaker 1: and you also had the senior centater, Lindsay Graham, who
Speaker 1: endorsed him, and I think three MS six of the
Speaker 1: Republican members of the congressional delegation. So do you see
Speaker 1: that as a show of force for a former president
Speaker 1: who's now, you know, but lost reelection, is running again,
Speaker 1: or do you see that as a sign of weakness
Speaker 1: that he no longer has complete control over all of
Speaker 1: the elected officials in the state. Yeah, it kind of
Speaker 1: depends on how you look at it. I look at
Speaker 1: it as what the actual state of affairs is. He
Speaker 1: has the most people are behind him in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: From what we can tell so far, a large part
Speaker 1: of the Republican establishment afraid to go up against him.
Speaker 1: You have some people who may oppose him but are
Speaker 1: being silent about it right now. And that's effectively the
Speaker 1: state of the case. And I'm sure in South Carolina
Speaker 1: he's got the first mover's advantage. And also we know
Speaker 1: that announcing early doesn't really guarantee you anything. You know,
Speaker 1: remember who was the first guy to announce in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: I think was to Tim Paulenti. I mean he was
Speaker 1: the last time he heard it right, last time I checked,
Speaker 1: he was like the chairman of the American financial lobby
Speaker 1: here in Washington, DC. So congratulations worked out at him,
Speaker 1: I guess. But look, that's my point is it's all
Speaker 1: game of timing. But it's also you have to have
Speaker 1: genuine appeal. So with Nikki Hayley, I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: has a genuine appeal behind her except for billionaires who
Speaker 1: are basically neo cons And you know, I mean, good luck,
Speaker 1: I guess in the race. I think would find out
Speaker 1: with her pretty quick. She definitely would be a Jeb
Speaker 1: Bush type character, but for a serious person, and I
Speaker 1: really think Desanta is the only person who might be
Speaker 1: able to do it. This is a tricky game. On
Speaker 1: the one hand, you know, you just won reelection by
Speaker 1: twenty you're cruising at a certain point. Either do it
Speaker 1: or don't. On the other, Trump has always destroyed everybody
Speaker 1: he's ever gone up against. Is it different this time? Look, well,
Speaker 1: we can only find out. Yeah, action, that's the difficulty.
Speaker 1: A couple other notes about the way Trump is approaching
Speaker 1: the campaign, which is also interesting. I mean, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: the messaging was very little in terms of policy focused.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of just like weird online grievance politics,
Speaker 1: very very hard to say, you know. He was talking
Speaker 1: about like, okay, the economy was great under me, and
Speaker 1: selling some of what he did in terms of COVID,
Speaker 1: but there wasn't a real sort of core policy argument
Speaker 1: like he was making back in twenty sixteen. And in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, he was successful because both people liked his style.
Speaker 1: They liked that he pissed off the people that they hated,
Speaker 1: but they also liked the core of a lot of
Speaker 1: the actual policy that he was selling. And then he
Speaker 1: is in office and doesn't do any of those things
Speaker 1: and ends up just being another Republican who gives the
Speaker 1: store away to the rich. He seems like he's trying
Speaker 1: to recapture some of that twenty sixteen energy. So in
Speaker 1: this article they point out that over the past six
Speaker 1: weeks on True Social Trump has been posting a bunch
Speaker 1: of videos about his policy positions, they say, including plans
Speaker 1: of protect social security and medicare. Oh again, that's like
Speaker 1: a twenty sixteen throwback. Ban Chinese citizens from owning US
Speaker 1: farmland or telecommunications, en energy tech, or medical supply companies.
Speaker 1: They say, the videos in which the former president speaks
Speaker 1: directly to his camera aimed at resaring supporters. He's focused
Speaker 1: on topics other than his twenty twenty defeat, an issue
Speaker 1: that flopped with midterm voters. But that doesn't mean he
Speaker 1: has let go of his election conspiracies. He still is
Speaker 1: harping on that to quite a significant degree. I think
Speaker 1: what I take and the saga. Clearly his campaign manager
Speaker 1: recognizes that just obsessing over the twenty twenty election is
Speaker 1: not going to be a winning strategy for him in
Speaker 1: the Republican primary or in a general election, and is
Speaker 1: trying to refocus him on these other issues. Does that work?
Speaker 1: Are you able to like actually corral him to talk
Speaker 1: about things when clearly his big obsession is over the election.
Speaker 1: Good luck with that. Trump will always say whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: So our background story, I don't even remember this lady's name,
Speaker 1: but somebody had accused. She was like, some lady went
Speaker 1: on TV and said that Trump had sexually harassed her.
Speaker 1: So I'm about to interview Trump. This happens the day before.
Speaker 1: So before I walk in there, Sarah Sanders is like, Hey,
Speaker 1: don't ask about this, And I was like that's not
Speaker 1: how this works. Like, I'm going to ask about whatever
Speaker 1: I want, and guess what the first thing he wants
Speaker 1: to talk about is. He's like, did you see this
Speaker 1: lady on the TV. It's one of those where, yeah,
Speaker 1: the staff tries to protect him, but if he wants
Speaker 1: to talk about it, he's going to talk about it,
Speaker 1: all right. He cannot. One thing have we learned at
Speaker 1: this point, it's been seven years of the Trump era.
Speaker 1: He will say whatever he wants, and so if he
Speaker 1: believes it, which he does by all accounts, I think
Speaker 1: we should take him at his word. Then we're going
Speaker 1: to hear a lot about it during the campaign. That's
Speaker 1: baked into any support of Trump or whatever. People who
Speaker 1: are like, oh, like the policies but not the tweets, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry they are not. They are completely indistinguishable whenever
Speaker 1: it comes to the man. Correct. That's just how it goes, correct,
Speaker 1: all right. So that's kind of an encapsulation where Trump
Speaker 1: and his campaign is at this point. I guess the
Speaker 1: last thing I will note is that in contrast to
Speaker 1: the very sort of contained launch speech that he gave,
Speaker 1: that was you know, kind of boring and dull and
Speaker 1: just reading off the teleprompter. These speeches were more like
Speaker 1: the you know, Trump ad libbing stem Winders of the past,
Speaker 1: So that was more the energy of these particular speeches,
Speaker 1: for whatever that's worth. H Okay, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: get to this interesting exchange between Joe Rogan and Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson on Ronda Santis, who of course is seen as
Speaker 1: Trump's primary rival in terms of winning the nomination. As
Speaker 1: you guys probably know and followed in the news, DeSantis
Speaker 1: has banned the ap African American history course from being
Speaker 1: taught in Florida schools. Obviously incredibly controversial move, and Peterson
Speaker 1: brought it up and took issue with it. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to the argument that he makes. Once you
Speaker 1: get to the point where the government has to step
Speaker 1: in and regulate, say what education systems are doing, you're
Speaker 1: already in deep trouble. And because it can't I don't
Speaker 1: see how it can really be done, because I can't
Speaker 1: define critical race theory, you know, I mean more or
Speaker 1: less you can get some sense of the cloud of
Speaker 1: ideas that's associated with it, but trying to draw the lines,
Speaker 1: how are you going to do that? And then of
Speaker 1: course you enable inevitably, no matter what your goal is
Speaker 1: to begin with, you're going to control a certain form
Speaker 1: let's say, of pathological communication misinformation that's just going to
Speaker 1: play into the hands of people who like the censor.
Speaker 1: And that's just as likely on the right as it
Speaker 1: is on the left. So no, it's a real dangerous game.
Speaker 1: And this is the problem, like the term critical race
Speaker 1: theory is it's open to interpretation. Yeah, well, it's often
Speaker 1: even hard, except in retrospect, to understand a lot of
Speaker 1: what these things actually are, you know, because new clouds
Speaker 1: of ideas emerge and they kind of have an animating spirit.
Speaker 1: Then they have a set of associated what would you say, presumptions,
Speaker 1: and you can often only see what that is in retrospect.
Speaker 1: So I was actually fascinated by that. Yeah, what did
Speaker 1: you make of that soccer? I don't know, because you know,
Speaker 1: he's also endorsed Rodd DeSantis. Actually I remember Peterson, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he did in November of twenty twenty two, Pijo Jordan Peterson.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he endorses the right word. I
Speaker 1: think he was like said something I would like about him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was curious just to see it because he also
Speaker 1: kind of brought it up unprompted. For those who haven't listened,
Speaker 1: it was within the first five minutes in the discussion
Speaker 1: of a Twitter Files episode. So I was like, huh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I'm curious, actually what you
Speaker 1: think because you did that monologue on the Crowder ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro thing, and like, by the way, some fun stuff
Speaker 1: coming out about Stephen Crowder, but how exactly you said
Speaker 1: it was relating to the GOP primary. And I was like, well,
Speaker 1: maybe he's you know, I mean he said he was
Speaker 1: pro DeSantis. Maybe this is like a political move. I
Speaker 1: know that their strife within the Daily Wire over being
Speaker 1: pro Trump or pro Rond Deascen, but I was just
Speaker 1: fascinated to hear it was Oh wow, that was just
Speaker 1: I was totally unexpected. That's actually layer ofvid that I
Speaker 1: didn't even consider because I wasn't even thinking about the
Speaker 1: fact that Peterson is now with the Daily Wire. I mean,
Speaker 1: is his employer. Shapiro is very clearly team Ron de
Speaker 1: Santis has been for a while. I mean, he was
Speaker 1: not an original Trump supporter. He was a Ted Cruz guy,
Speaker 1: and then you know, during the Trump era he was
Speaker 1: relatively supportive of trouble though. You know he would criticize
Speaker 1: a rough time to happen. Well, she's very pro DeSantis,
Speaker 1: so maybe this was like a you know, his attempt
Speaker 1: to carve out his own lane or put out a
Speaker 1: little bit of descent to that move. The fundamental point
Speaker 1: that he makes here, I think is a solid one,
Speaker 1: which is just basically like, listen, you can't run around
Speaker 1: being like I'm the free speech guy and then be
Speaker 1: bannon books and banning entire courses. And the case that
Speaker 1: he makes here of like, you know, once you get
Speaker 1: into okay, this is the sort of vague, amorphous concept
Speaker 1: that people have trouble even defining. But you're saying you're
Speaker 1: banning it, well, that can bleed over into a lot
Speaker 1: of air are I think seems like a reasonable case
Speaker 1: to make, especially to Rogan and a Rogan aligned audience.
Speaker 1: The one thing I will say is, you know, I
Speaker 1: like the idea of okay, we just want to teach
Speaker 1: the facts, and we want education to be neutral and
Speaker 1: stay true to the history whatever that history is, whether
Speaker 1: it's good, bad, or indifferent. The reality is that's not
Speaker 1: really possible because I mean, government is always going to
Speaker 1: have an influence on what is being taught, and so
Speaker 1: there is a real battle of ideas here. Now, I
Speaker 1: would say it's not the appropriate role of like the
Speaker 1: state executive to just top down to side. This is
Speaker 1: what's okay and this is what's not. This is why
Speaker 1: you have local control of schools, and in theory and
Speaker 1: best case scenario, you have a democratic local process where
Speaker 1: parents are involved and they're electing school board members and
Speaker 1: that's how curriculum are being ultimately being developed. But I
Speaker 1: do want to just say that I think it's a
Speaker 1: little bit of a fantasy to imagine that schools are
Speaker 1: not going to be political whatsoever, because the way you
Speaker 1: teach things, the type of courses that are included, those
Speaker 1: are always going to be somewhat political. I actually I
Speaker 1: completely agree with you, and that's why it's very difficult
Speaker 1: because I also believe in free speech. And you know,
Speaker 1: for example, this ap history exam, we're talking about the reparations.
Speaker 1: This is included in the curriculum, movement for Black Lives,
Speaker 1: Black queer studies, post racial racism and color blindness, intersectionality,
Speaker 1: and activism. I'm sorry, I mean, I'd be furious if
Speaker 1: that was taught to my child in a state environment
Speaker 1: and I'll give people the flip side. So I grew
Speaker 1: up in Texas. I grew up in Colinsation, Texas. I
Speaker 1: remember this vividly. My science teacher was required to teach
Speaker 1: us evolution and somebody asked her a question and they
Speaker 1: were like, hey, I'm not going to call her out,
Speaker 1: although I still probably think I should. One of my
Speaker 1: students students was like, what do you believe? And she
Speaker 1: was like, why I believe what my church something like
Speaker 1: that church teaches me. And I was like, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: it's like you just cast out as an authority figure
Speaker 1: on evolution and you're a freaking science teacher. And I
Speaker 1: was sitting there as a non Christian being like am
Speaker 1: I losing my mind? And she starts talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever they taught in the Bible or what. Look, that's fine,
Speaker 1: you want to do that at Sunday schoo be my guest,
Speaker 1: even though I think you're absolutely out of your mind,
Speaker 1: but this lady's in an authority figure. And I remember
Speaker 1: thinking in that moment, I'm like, oh wow, I'm like,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody really should like have a say over this,
Speaker 1: you know, And obviously I didn't because I was in
Speaker 1: the cultural minority. But the point that you're making is correct.
Speaker 1: We are going to have to fight about this. In
Speaker 1: a state school, private school, you can teach whatever you want.
Speaker 1: If you want to be at home, you want to
Speaker 1: teach this to your kids. I mean, frankly, I think
Speaker 1: you're crazy, but you be my guest. It's your right
Speaker 1: as an American citizen. The blanket banning of teaching black history,
Speaker 1: though from a top down executive I think strikes most people,
Speaker 1: including Jordan Peterson, who tends to be a very conservative guy,
Speaker 1: as going way too far. I mean, the things you're
Speaker 1: talking about to be taught about, Okay, what is the
Speaker 1: argument for and against reparations in a high school elected course?
Speaker 1: This isn't even something you know, you get to decide
Speaker 1: whether you're going to take this course or not. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's inappropriate whatsoever. So in any case, I
Speaker 1: do think that you know it is. It is a
Speaker 1: difficult balance for Ronda Santis to strike, where he's again
Speaker 1: trying to pain himself as like, oh, I'm against the
Speaker 1: woke mob, and I'm against cancelation, and I'm pro free speech,
Speaker 1: and that's my whole thing. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: you're banning more books than any other state in the country.
Speaker 1: Florida and Texas are the two top states in the
Speaker 1: country in terms of banning books. Back to your Texas
Speaker 1: example and your wholesale just saying no, we're not going
Speaker 1: to teach ap black history, not like, oh, hey, maybe
Speaker 1: we should make some tweets. No, we're just going to
Speaker 1: ban it every sing at every school statewide. I think
Speaker 1: that strikes people as going way too far and does
Speaker 1: smack of you just don't want to teach the ugly
Speaker 1: parts of American history that you know look bad for
Speaker 1: the state. You want the warm and fuzzy version that
Speaker 1: doesn't include like the ugliness of slavery and the Jim
Speaker 1: Crow South and all of those things. So in any case,
Speaker 1: I thought it was interesting that Peterson jumped on that
Speaker 1: particular issue and clearly wanted to bring it up in
Speaker 1: the podcast right away. Yeah, I was. I see that's
Speaker 1: where Look, we don't have to litigate it. But like,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I don't think that post racial racism, color blindness,
Speaker 1: and black queer studies is a goddamn thing to do
Speaker 1: with the American Civil War. I mean, I would love
Speaker 1: to for more people actually have an ad isn't this
Speaker 1: if we're talking about an ap black history course, shouldn't
Speaker 1: those struggles in those movements, Like why shouldn't they be covered? Well,
Speaker 1: who didn't you talk like, are we talking about Harvard
Speaker 1: Universities Color Department, you know, in terms of like how
Speaker 1: we understand color blindness and intersectionality? Are we talking about
Speaker 1: actual black people in Florida? But I think they want
Speaker 1: I think that's a good question because you're saying it
Speaker 1: should be up to Ron DeSantis and however he feels
Speaker 1: about I don't agree with that at all. I'm saying
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the curriculum being like, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: this is a problem. That said, I have honestly no
Speaker 1: idea how to deal with it. I mean, I just
Speaker 1: gave my example. Here's the truth. The vast majority of
Speaker 1: people in that class probably did not believe in evolution,
Speaker 1: and probably the principle who ran the school also didn't
Speaker 1: believe in evolution, but they required to teach it for
Speaker 1: a state standard, and at the same time they're casting
Speaker 1: doubt on it. I mean, is it my fault for
Speaker 1: living in the state. I don't know. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like one of those words I do want to listen.
Speaker 1: I in my opinion on this particular issue, abandoning an
Speaker 1: entire like black history course from entire state, I think
Speaker 1: that is clear cut over the line, way too far.
Speaker 1: But I do think that overall, the conversation of like
Speaker 1: what gets included an education curriculum, it's actually very complex
Speaker 1: because on the one hand, as I just said before,
Speaker 1: you have this principle of local control electing school board
Speaker 1: members and ideal situation parents having a lot of input.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, right, you can think if you
Speaker 1: think back into too, like the Jim Crow South, and
Speaker 1: you have a majority of the white citizens who think
Speaker 1: black people are inferior, is that should that be No,
Speaker 1: of course that shouldn't be taught to students. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: just be we have basic rights that should be included
Speaker 1: in the curriculum. So it's just like with all of
Speaker 1: our laws and institutions, it's not enough to just say
Speaker 1: majority rule. You also have to make sure that there
Speaker 1: is you know, a quality and basic rights that we
Speaker 1: recognize in the constitution that are reflected in that curriculm
Speaker 1: as well. So it's also not just as simple as saying, like,
Speaker 1: whatever the local community decides like if the local community
Speaker 1: is like, we don't like evolution, I would personally say
Speaker 1: I'd be like, I'm not down. No, I would personally say, like,
Speaker 1: this is the facts, this is science. Kids need to
Speaker 1: be taught this in a public institution. Well that kind
Speaker 1: of happened already, right, yeah, so that's already. Here's another
Speaker 1: fun one kids in the South. If you start hearing
Speaker 1: the War between the States, you need to start reading
Speaker 1: for yourself. Listen, that's a little bit of a flag
Speaker 1: for all that. Having grown up in a rural paw
Speaker 1: of Virginia, there were a lot of highly questionable parts
Speaker 1: of the curriculum, field trips that I went on, etc.
Speaker 1: That you know, we'll we'll just leave it there, all right.
Speaker 1: Let's get to the current president, Joe Biden. So this
Speaker 1: is a new report from our old colleagues over at
Speaker 1: the Hill. Is going to put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: I just can't help but laugh. Biden gets set to
Speaker 1: lean into the economy in twenty twenty four. One of
Speaker 1: the one of the journalists on this piece is Amy Parnes,
Speaker 1: very well respected, well sourced, and Sylvan Lane is the
Speaker 1: other one on the byline here. So let me read
Speaker 1: you a little bit of this with the State of
Speaker 1: the Union address on February seventh, which, by the way, guys,
Speaker 1: we are going to do livestream coverage of that. Biden
Speaker 1: is likely to give an upbeat tone on the economy
Speaker 1: that's going to roll into a campaign message that Democrats
Speaker 1: expect will highlight strong job numbers and rising wages. A
Speaker 1: senior vice president for the Third Way, like corporate centrist
Speaker 1: think tank, said the economy can and will be a
Speaker 1: winning issue for Biden. When you look at the top
Speaker 1: line stats, they're incredibly impressive. These are massive accomplishments. Guys.
Speaker 1: Reality check. We still have seventy plus percent of the
Speaker 1: country saying we are on the wrong track. You literally
Speaker 1: have the Joe Biden's Treasury secretary warning that we are
Speaker 1: headed into a recession. We have covered the way that
Speaker 1: banks are stockpiling cash because they are so fearful of
Speaker 1: what is happening in the future. You still have the
Speaker 1: Fed hiking interest rates. You have all kinds of weirdness
Speaker 1: and craziness in terms of the housing market, in terms
Speaker 1: of even the alan market. So for them to pretend like, oh,
Speaker 1: the economy's going to be great and this is something
Speaker 1: we can lean into for the election. I think that
Speaker 1: is totally delusional. Yeah, I obviously agree. You know, look, actually,
Speaker 1: what I'm taking away from this with Biden is he
Speaker 1: should run on social security and Trump madness. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what all the exit pollings that we have about
Speaker 1: Democratic overperformance or Republican underperformance has to do with Trump madness.
Speaker 1: And then Boomer's coming out because they thought that Republicans
Speaker 1: were going to cut their Social Security. I mean it's
Speaker 1: actually you literally have a whole debt ceiling fight going
Speaker 1: on right now. Yeah, they're on their back foot. That's
Speaker 1: what all all I would do is bash them over
Speaker 1: the head. I wish that the politics didn't work this way,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately we really do seem to be in the
Speaker 1: age of the defensive. When you vote Republican, you're voting
Speaker 1: against the Liberals. When you're voting Democrat, you're voting against
Speaker 1: the Republicans in a lot of ways. You know, the
Speaker 1: stop to Steal Madness was enough to keep people down
Speaker 1: or at the very least switch ticket up at the
Speaker 1: very top. For Biden, you just want to make a
Speaker 1: choice between stop Trump madness and me and also all
Speaker 1: protect your socials. Yeah, I mean simple Trump is very
Speaker 1: aggressively trying to inoculate himself against the social surity off
Speaker 1: whenever because it's a vibe. Right, So Biden can say
Speaker 1: I'm anti put deef on the police. What does it
Speaker 1: matter if the institutional left is for it? People are like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't believe you. You know, it's one of those
Speaker 1: things where Trump, by being in the Republican Party, if
Speaker 1: the Republican Party's going to be coded as anti entitlements,
Speaker 1: then you're going to have ultimately get the pushback. That's
Speaker 1: a fair that's a fair point. And also, you know,
Speaker 1: they're moving forward with this insane plan of like, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty percent national sales tax that they have to vote
Speaker 1: on in the House because this is one of the
Speaker 1: things that McCarthy gave to the holdout caucus. And you know,
Speaker 1: how's it going to sell to the American people? Like, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know how high your grocery bill is right now?
Speaker 1: You know how much you're paying for eggs and milk
Speaker 1: right now? How about we up that by thirty percent?
Speaker 1: How do you feel about that? Buddy? Good luck with
Speaker 1: that messaging too. I mean Democrats are going to have
Speaker 1: a Field Day with the vote that they're going to
Speaker 1: take on that ultimately. So anyway, that's the Democratic plan
Speaker 1: to try to pretend like the economy is all hunky dory.
Speaker 1: This is something the Obama administration tried as well, and
Speaker 1: it did not work out well for them either. I
Speaker 1: think this is an incredibly, incredibly foolish plan. And at
Speaker 1: the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact
Speaker 1: that Biden, even though the media narrative was after the midterms,
Speaker 1: solidified his position. He's looking stronger than ever and he's
Speaker 1: good to go in terms of, you know, being the
Speaker 1: nominee and probably winning the general election. The numbers in
Speaker 1: some of the early states really tell a different tale.
Speaker 1: So let's kind of put this New Hampshire pull up
Speaker 1: on the screen. So you've got the Republican primary results
Speaker 1: up top. You've got Trump with a lead over Ron
Speaker 1: DeSantis thirty seven twenty six. They also then threw Chris
Speaker 1: Nunu and there I don't know why. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's planning on running or not. Anyway, he gets
Speaker 1: thirteen percent in the state of New Hampshire, the named
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley four, Mike Penn's three, and basically Glenn Young
Speaker 1: gin Zyro good luck with that, buddy. And then on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, though, this is what's interesting is even
Speaker 1: though DeSantis is, you know, he's within eleven points, kind
Speaker 1: of nipping at Trump's heels there, Biden is actually in
Speaker 1: a position in the Democratic primary, then Trump is in
Speaker 1: the Republican primary. You've got Biden at only twenty five
Speaker 1: percent of New Hampshire Democrats saying they want to vote
Speaker 1: for this guy, Pete at sixteen, cell obamat can why
Speaker 1: do you include her fifteen percent, Kamala Harris five, Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom three undecided thirty six percent. So in any case,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of weakness here. This was the second
Speaker 1: New Hampshire poll to come out that found basically a
Speaker 1: majority of large majority of New Hampshire Democratic base voters
Speaker 1: wanting a different candidate than Joe Biden, and I just
Speaker 1: think it's absolutely remarkable if you dig into this poll.
Speaker 1: Another thing that I found really interesting is they say
Speaker 1: that Biden's best numbers are among low intensity Democrats, those
Speaker 1: who have just voted in one of the past four elections.
Speaker 1: He gets forty percent of those, versus among the four
Speaker 1: for fours they call him regular primary voters. Biden is
Speaker 1: at only twenty seven percent. So they say Biden's advantage
Speaker 1: over Bootage comes almost entirely from older, self identified conservative
Speaker 1: Democrats without college degrees, a fading part of the party's coalition,
Speaker 1: and also apparently with people who don't vote that often,
Speaker 1: which is you know, if you know anything about politics,
Speaker 1: those are not necessarily the people that you want to
Speaker 1: be the courier base. Oh, of course, I mean the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party primary base overwhelmingly at least increasingly now becoming
Speaker 1: a lot more college educated, and increasingly the overall vote
Speaker 1: share as a whole. So that's a terrible place to be.
Speaker 1: At the same time, that's exactly what you would want
Speaker 1: in a general election at at some point, I don't
Speaker 1: think it matters just because Bootajet is not going to
Speaker 1: it's not running, right, He's not going to run, So
Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't matter. That said, whenever it shows up,
Speaker 1: what can that tell us, which is high turnout? Save
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's ass. In the twenty twenty election, remember this, guys,
Speaker 1: we had one of the highest turnout elections in modern history.
Speaker 1: Like I think Trump, you know, that's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons Trump is always like, oh, one to ten million
Speaker 1: more votes. It's like, yeah, well you also got fifteen
Speaker 1: million people on the other side. But anyway, that's aside.
Speaker 1: The point is is that millions more people voted in
Speaker 1: twenty then year prior. I actually see no reason why
Speaker 1: that would go down. We just had a midterm with
Speaker 1: the highest record midterm turnout in decades. I think it
Speaker 1: was like two thousand and two or something like that.
Speaker 1: It came similar to in terms of the strife that
Speaker 1: we're feeling. I don't think anybody can doubt that twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four won't be, you know, at least a very
Speaker 1: emotive rematch between the two or whomever does ultimately become
Speaker 1: the GOP nominee. So I just see a scenario where
Speaker 1: your ability to motivate people to come out for you
Speaker 1: is so vitally important and for Biden. You know, if
Speaker 1: I'm Biden, you better bring it on your hands, knees
Speaker 1: and pray for Trump. That's the only thing that's going
Speaker 1: to save you. Otherwise, remember this, Republicans won the national
Speaker 1: popular vote by six points in the midterm elections. Your
Speaker 1: toast without that. Let me tell you, guys, don't under
Speaker 1: estimate trum Yeah, you know, and listen, I felt for
Speaker 1: it to Okay, listen, do it is gonna get indicted,
Speaker 1: Like the document thing seems like an open and shut case.
Speaker 1: You might get indicted also, and this might still happen
Speaker 1: for the some of the January sixth stuff, like, surely
Speaker 1: this is not gonna wear well to American public. You
Speaker 1: just had this massive repudiation of him in the midterms
Speaker 1: as clear as day. But again in this poll, according
Speaker 1: to this poll, and the polls can be wrong. We
Speaker 1: all know that Biden and Trump in a statistical tie
Speaker 1: for a general election head to head, and obviously New
Speaker 1: Hampshire's state that you know, Biden won previously democratic quite
Speaker 1: well in terms of the interm elections. And you're tied
Speaker 1: with this dude right now at this point when he's
Speaker 1: kind of at his like low ebb of popularity in
Speaker 1: terms of you know, Donald Trump anyway, So he's got
Speaker 1: an electability issue, he's got a lot of weakness with
Speaker 1: his own base. He's got a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are understandably like, bro, you're going to be eighty six
Speaker 1: by the time you finish this term. Are you really
Speaker 1: up for this? You really think you can handle this
Speaker 1: job for another four years, so they got some big
Speaker 1: problems on their hands bottom line in eighty six. Wow. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's move on to Ukraine. This is an important discussion.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there on the screen. The Pentagon
Speaker 1: a push to send F sixteen's to Ukraine is picking
Speaker 1: up steam. So, for those of you are familiar with
Speaker 1: fight Club, I've taken to a new phrase. On a
Speaker 1: long enough timeline, Ukraine is going to get anything that happens.
Speaker 1: First Patriot missiles were out, then they're in. Then tanks
Speaker 1: were out. Now tanks are in F sixteen's. And the
Speaker 1: no fly zone that was something that was out. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's back in. This is only the first step to
Speaker 1: a no fly zone, right, So, currently there is a
Speaker 1: major contingent of military officials pushing the Pentagon to approve
Speaker 1: F sixteen fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country
Speaker 1: defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks. Wouldn't you
Speaker 1: look at that? Ukraine has kept American made F sixteens
Speaker 1: at the very top of its wish list from the
Speaker 1: very beginning. However, Washington and Kiev have viewed artillery, armor,
Speaker 1: and ground based air defense as more urgent needs as
Speaker 1: Ukraine protects a civilian infrastructure, and as they are about
Speaker 1: to launch their new offensive, they view their ability to
Speaker 1: at least battle for air supremacy as a vital part
Speaker 1: of not only the Spring offensive, but possibly in the future. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why these fighter jets were not really under
Speaker 1: consideration at all is, well, everybody, what's the range on
Speaker 1: an F sixteen more than Ukraine. I can tell you that,
Speaker 1: what are they going to use it for? Well, we
Speaker 1: don't really know. They may tell us one thing, and sure,
Speaker 1: they're probably very useful in their initial Spring offensive to
Speaker 1: take back to territory in the initially invaded part of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But what about Crimea and what about Russia. Let's say
Speaker 1: that one of the things that you do when you're
Speaker 1: at war is you destroyer an enemy's ability to try
Speaker 1: and wage war upon you. So would then we not
Speaker 1: open up the ability to have F sixteens strike inside
Speaker 1: of Russian territory if they're provided by the United States.
Speaker 1: Look at the one hand, and this is what the
Speaker 1: Ukraine people always tell me, Well, it's not unprecedented in
Speaker 1: the history of the Cold War not to provide F
Speaker 1: sixteens to our allies in the fight. On the other
Speaker 1: Let's think back to Afghanistan, right. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: that we could only give the Mujahadin missiles that were
Speaker 1: in storage or ammunition, or sometimes you couldn't even give
Speaker 1: them a rifle with the scope on it was because
Speaker 1: we had very strict regulations at that time around what
Speaker 1: exactly surplus equipment and not not necessarily US provided equipment
Speaker 1: was allowable in the conflict, even if the Soviets knew
Speaker 1: that we were doing it. Lines were very well considered
Speaker 1: in the Reagan even one of the most hawkish administrations
Speaker 1: at that time. Now this is blowing just way and
Speaker 1: way past that White House right now says quote, they
Speaker 1: are considering it very carefully well with Kiev and its allies.
Speaker 1: What does that even mean. Also, don't forget this, it's
Speaker 1: not just US as F sixteen's. We could allow another
Speaker 1: country who we sold them to to sell it to you,
Speaker 1: or even just give it to Ukraine, But if they're
Speaker 1: a NATO we bear the brunt of it regardless. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to happen. Why because with Germany
Speaker 1: they won't even give them tanks without insisting that we
Speaker 1: give them tanks because they want US and our nuclear
Speaker 1: security umbrella to underwrite this entire thing. Yeah, they don't
Speaker 1: want to have their US, don't They want us to
Speaker 1: be taking the brunt of the blame here right. Listen,
Speaker 1: I've tried to be really, like very understanding to the
Speaker 1: case that Pentagon Biden administration are making here. This is
Speaker 1: insane and the logic always go no matter what happens
Speaker 1: on the ground, no matter what the actual conditions are,
Speaker 1: whether Ukraine is winning or losing, or Russia is falling
Speaker 1: apart or doing better whatever, it always seems to justify
Speaker 1: more escalation. And so this is the key point. There's
Speaker 1: a couple key points to take away here. Number one,
Speaker 1: we are continue to court World War three. I mean,
Speaker 1: don't forget that we are in a proxy war with
Speaker 1: another nuclear armed superpower. And this idea of like, well,
Speaker 1: they haven't blown up the world yet, so I guess
Speaker 1: we can do it whatever we want is pure insanity.
Speaker 1: We're creating a situation where not only are there no
Speaker 1: off ramps for Ukraine and Russia to bring this war
Speaker 1: to an end, but there are no off ramps for
Speaker 1: us to get out of this situation. So it really
Speaker 1: is looking more and war like in Afghanistan type situation
Speaker 1: where you know, remember the original idea of going into Afghanistan. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to get the bad guys and then we'll
Speaker 1: be out what ended up happening. I mean, we are
Speaker 1: creating that same sort of logic and inability to back
Speaker 1: out on the ground in Ukraine as we did there
Speaker 1: as well. Talking to our friend Bronco marcatic and about
Speaker 1: all of this, and he brought up a good point.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to read you what he said to me.
Speaker 1: He said, listen, there's two paradoxes of Western discourse on
Speaker 1: this war. Number one, if Putin and Moscow threaten escalation
Speaker 1: but don't act on the threats, the US should get
Speaker 1: more aggressive because they're bluffing and we'll never do so.
Speaker 1: If Russia does escalate, then they're dangerous madmen in the
Speaker 1: US should get even more aggressive because they can't be
Speaker 1: at peace, so all rosary lead to escalation. And then
Speaker 1: the second one is when Ukraine is on the back foot,
Speaker 1: the US must escalate and hold off onto diplomacy until
Speaker 1: Ukraine is in a strong negotiating position. When it gets
Speaker 1: to that position, the US must escalate and hold off
Speaker 1: on diplomacy because now Ukraine can win until it can't,
Speaker 1: then we go back to the start of the loops.
Speaker 1: So if Ukraine is not doing well, it's okay, we
Speaker 1: got to send them the tanks. We've got to do
Speaker 1: this and that so we can give them a stronger
Speaker 1: negotiating position, and then if they do better, then it's oh,
Speaker 1: if they can win, we're going to make them win.
Speaker 1: Can negotiate now, So again, all roads lead to escalation,
Speaker 1: and you are one hundred percent right, Saga. Over long
Speaker 1: enough time horizon, they have gotten everything they want. And
Speaker 1: the logic here of okay, we just agreed to the tanks.
Speaker 1: It's not okay, good, We're good, like thank you. It
Speaker 1: just justifies now we're going to push the envelope even
Speaker 1: more in terms of what we're going to ask for,
Speaker 1: because if you can justify tanks, then hey, why are
Speaker 1: you drawing the line now at F sixteen's there's no
Speaker 1: logic that would allow you to draw the line between
Speaker 1: those two offensive capabilities. And let's put this up there
Speaker 1: on the screen. Former Admiral James Travitis. He was also
Speaker 1: the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff putting
Speaker 1: it out a tweet saying this is the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. Tanks will be helpful, better aircraft will be decisive. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it certainly could be. It could be decisive,
Speaker 1: certainly in a lot of directions. I always try and
Speaker 1: look back to the history. So when you think about
Speaker 1: World War One, what's one of the one things that
Speaker 1: we all think about gas? Right? Well, the war lasted
Speaker 1: over nine months before the first gas attack ever happened.
Speaker 1: So think about the longevity of the amount of people
Speaker 1: and suffering in the war that was happening before that.
Speaker 1: Even we're not even barely one year into this conflict.
Speaker 1: The first year of the First World War, I could
Speaker 1: have made a very good case for why the Central
Speaker 1: Powers were going to win and why the United States
Speaker 1: would never enter and the things would never end up
Speaker 1: the way that we thought they would. Think about World
Speaker 1: War Two. If it's one year into the great film
Speaker 1: right now Narvik on Netflix, Fantastic Film, we're talking about
Speaker 1: the Nazi invasion Norway in the very first Hitler defeat.
Speaker 1: I one year into World War Two, appeasements looking pretty good.
Speaker 1: You're like, hey, these people rolled over France, they took
Speaker 1: over Norway, it's time to Negotia. There were people in
Speaker 1: the British cabinet making the point that I am making
Speaker 1: right now. They said, no, we're going to stand up
Speaker 1: against the Nazi colossus and hope that the United States
Speaker 1: eventually gets into this war. And by nineteen forty three, OK,
Speaker 1: that ends up becoming very clear. But there was a
Speaker 1: very good case to making forty two that it wasn't
Speaker 1: going to happen the point, and we had no idea
Speaker 1: where this thing is going to go, and it could
Speaker 1: end up as a freaking disaster. Yeah, right, Russia, right now.
Speaker 1: Peter Zihon made a great point all the Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: experience where he said, look, the history of all Russian conflict,
Speaker 1: you can go all the way back to Napoleon, even
Speaker 1: further if you want to, the first year it's a
Speaker 1: shit show. I'm quoting Peter directly. And then what do
Speaker 1: they do. They throw bodies at the problem and sacrifice
Speaker 1: proportionally far more of GDP and life than they ever
Speaker 1: actually needed to, but they end up winning. Am I
Speaker 1: saying that's going to happen here? No, I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but we could look back at that this call for
Speaker 1: the current conscription that might happen. Clearly nobody in the
Speaker 1: Kremlin is doing a damn thing to putin or there's
Speaker 1: no coup or anything. Well, we can at least understand
Speaker 1: from that that they're not going to stop. And if
Speaker 1: they're not going to stop, then what is the limiting principle?
Speaker 1: And so on a long enough timeline in that ten
Speaker 1: year period, can you confidently say that a call for
Speaker 1: a no fly zone won't happen? I cannot say that
Speaker 1: here given the current administration. And that's the point that
Speaker 1: I think we should always try to hammer home. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I completely agree with you. Let's go to the second
Speaker 1: part here, which is I said the current administration and
Speaker 1: that timeline. However, one of the people who is running
Speaker 1: for president right now, possibly the next president of the
Speaker 1: United States, is Donald Trump. And Trump is making very
Speaker 1: sustained calls for a negotiated peace in Ukraine. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up there on the screen quote. If I were president,
Speaker 1: the rush Ukraine would war would never have happened. But
Speaker 1: even now, if President I would be able to negotiate
Speaker 1: an end to this horrible and rapidly escalating war within
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. Such a tragic waste of human life
Speaker 1: interesting and could be a very politically popular message. Let's
Speaker 1: say two years later, let's say another one hundred billion later,
Speaker 1: maybe a couple f sixteen's later. And Trump was speaking
Speaker 1: to this on his campaign stop in South Carolina. And
Speaker 1: I think this is a very potent message. Right now.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen. Joe Biden has brought us to
Speaker 1: the brink of World War three, the brink of World
Speaker 1: War three, just because anybody doesn't know it. As president,
Speaker 1: I will bring back peace through strength. Peace through strength
Speaker 1: would have never happened if I was president. There would
Speaker 1: not have been a war with Russia in Ukraine, zero
Speaker 1: Chain said, Lindsay would be happy with that. That's better
Speaker 1: than any alternative, wouldn't It happened. And I will say
Speaker 1: this even now, despite tremendous loss of lives and destruction
Speaker 1: of much of that country, I would have a peace
Speaker 1: deal negotiated within twenty four hours. Peace deal within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. That is something which I really believe. Crystol
Speaker 1: could have a significant potency also in the general election,
Speaker 1: or sorry, also in the primary, but really in the
Speaker 1: general election, where a lot of polling and you've been
Speaker 1: taking a lot of look at this is what people
Speaker 1: are very split right now on support for Ukraine. The
Speaker 1: numbers have moved significantly in terms of how the public
Speaker 1: feels about continuing Ukraine support. There's an NBC News poll
Speaker 1: that just came out. It's kind of funny because they
Speaker 1: bury this at the very end of the write up
Speaker 1: and did not highlight it at all. Fifty to fifty
Speaker 1: split on whether we should send any more aid to
Speaker 1: Ukraine within the Republican base, that is, it is not
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty. Republican voters are very much on the
Speaker 1: side of not sending any more Ukraine aid, and those
Speaker 1: numbers keep shifting in that direction. So again this listen.
Speaker 1: Trump is full of shit on any number of things.
Speaker 1: He's been all over the map on Ukraine. He can't
Speaker 1: remember what was he like saying you should them with
Speaker 1: you Chinese right and put Chinese. So he's alternated between
Speaker 1: taking like insanely hawkish, psychopathic views and then now he
Speaker 1: clearly sees this as a political lane to exploit, and
Speaker 1: I think he is absolutely correct about it. He also
Speaker 1: put this down on True Social last week when they
Speaker 1: announced that they were going to send these Abrams tanks.
Speaker 1: He says, first come the tanks, then come the nukes.
Speaker 1: Get this crazy war ended? Now? So easy to do?
Speaker 1: I mean classic Trump, like, oh it's no problem. No
Speaker 1: one is saying this would be easy to end. But
Speaker 1: of course, in his mind, he's always always there to
Speaker 1: make the deal. So I do think this will be
Speaker 1: very potent in the Republican primary. I think it's a
Speaker 1: big sleeper issue that could end up being what gets
Speaker 1: him back in the White House. But with regards to
Speaker 1: the primary, he has already they've already telegraphed one of
Speaker 1: the cases they want to make against Ron DeSantis is
Speaker 1: that he was sort of a like classically hawkish John
Speaker 1: McCain style Republican when he was in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: which I think there is some, you know, some sort
Speaker 1: of record there in voting history that would indicate that
Speaker 1: is an accurate portrayal of how he was positioning himself
Speaker 1: at that time. So this could end up being incredibly
Speaker 1: potent in terms of the Republican primary. And DeSantis has
Speaker 1: said more sort of traditional like just we should be
Speaker 1: supporting Ukraine and very much position himself on the side
Speaker 1: of more Ah Ukraine. Within the Republican divide, on that issue,
Speaker 1: So it could be potent in the primary. And I
Speaker 1: think you're right, Zager, this could be this could end
Speaker 1: up being an extremely potent sleeper issue for the general
Speaker 1: election right now. You know, yes, the public is divided
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty on writers saying a to Ukraine. It's
Speaker 1: also not anybody's very few people's top priority. Yeah, in
Speaker 1: terms of how the thing is their issue. You know,
Speaker 1: they're worried about the economy and classic things that people
Speaker 1: concern about with regard to their pocketbook. But you never
Speaker 1: know when these sorts of things can really become The
Speaker 1: situation could become to stabilized, we could get pulled more
Speaker 1: directly into this thing, or you could just have continued
Speaker 1: public erosion of support for the endless direction that we're
Speaker 1: going in with right now with regards to Ukraine. So
Speaker 1: keep a close eye on this one, because I do
Speaker 1: think this is some Trump twenty sixteen instinctive, finding a
Speaker 1: political fissure to exploit saying the thing that no one
Speaker 1: else is really saying. But a lot of the American
Speaker 1: public are actually thinking, Oh absolutely, I think it will
Speaker 1: be very very powerful. Let's move on to Iran now,
Speaker 1: and let's talk about what happened over there. So there
Speaker 1: appears to have been a strike. I'll let you decide,
Speaker 1: and maybe we'll tell you about who exactly that strike
Speaker 1: was after we show you the video that happened on
Speaker 1: an AMMO depot and on facilities that were manufacturing Kama
Speaker 1: Kazi drones inside of Iran. Many of these drones currently
Speaker 1: have been shipped over to Russia who have been using
Speaker 1: them on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. So let's play some of
Speaker 1: the video here. I'm going to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: over it. You can see somebody who is filming and
Speaker 1: then a massive boom and a flash that happened. We
Speaker 1: don't have any information right now in terms of the
Speaker 1: exact munition that hit that facility, but there were several
Speaker 1: strikes that happened all across Iran on these facilities. And
Speaker 1: let's put this up there on the screen. They Iran
Speaker 1: is saying that this is a drone attack that targeted
Speaker 1: its defense facility, and that bomb carrying drones targeted the
Speaker 1: Iranian defense factory in the Central City overnight, causing some
Speaker 1: damage at the plant. Amid heightened regional international tensions. Much
Speaker 1: of this, again is coming after the provision of these
Speaker 1: drones and of military equipment to Russia, which has spawned
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion here in washing about how we
Speaker 1: have to get much tougher on Iran because now they're
Speaker 1: in the fight against Ukraine. Well, it turns out probably
Speaker 1: not a surprise. Let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 1: that the Israeli government appears to be the one that
Speaker 1: conducted the strike, likely at the behest of the United States,
Speaker 1: Israeli an American officials discussing new ways to combat Iranian operations.
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal has no qualms here, even though Israel
Speaker 1: is not taking credit for the strike, there directly attributing
Speaker 1: it to them, saying Israel strikes Aroan amid international push
Speaker 1: to contain Tehran. This was a drone strike targeting the
Speaker 1: defense compound, as quote, the US and Israel look for
Speaker 1: new ways to contain Tehran's nuclear and military ambitions. I
Speaker 1: also don't think it's a coincidence that Bib just happens
Speaker 1: to be back in the government and something like this happens.
Speaker 1: And also he's got coal where Bib is the centrisk
Speaker 1: guy right now in Israel in terms of who is
Speaker 1: ruling Israel. So just so everybody knows about that and
Speaker 1: who exactly he's calling for more posturing on Iran. It
Speaker 1: is probably the most hawkish far right government in Israeli history.
Speaker 1: I mean he is in terms of who he brought
Speaker 1: into his cabinet and positions of power. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are some really fringe characters with views that were outside
Speaker 1: of the mainstream until very very recently. He formed a
Speaker 1: coalition with these extraordinarily hardline far right parties. So yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no surprise, not an accident that Phoebe's back in charge.
Speaker 1: And this is the kind of thing you get. Also,
Speaker 1: just so everybody knows, maybe this has something to do
Speaker 1: with it or not. The CIA director William Burms actually
Speaker 1: made an unnounced tripped Israel just last week to discuss
Speaker 1: Iran and other regional issues. A week later, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: drones strike by Israel again not even being questioned really
Speaker 1: about what's happening here. And just last week actually, the
Speaker 1: US and Israel carried out their largest ever joint military
Speaker 1: exercise from both countries for air defense systems, refueling jetplanes,
Speaker 1: and others in the potential for a military conflict with Iran. Now,
Speaker 1: hopefully this does not escalate into anything but I think
Speaker 1: it is very clear that this is also Bibi is
Speaker 1: in a tough spot. Israel wants good relations with Russia.
Speaker 1: I should just know it is the only Western nation
Speaker 1: in the entire world which has not undergone significant criticism
Speaker 1: for saying no to ninety eight percent of requests to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: including refusing to provide iron dome, including refusing ammunition missiles.
Speaker 1: So I think bib probably, first of all, is never
Speaker 1: a bad thing for Israeli politics to strike Iran, all right,
Speaker 1: unless you get into a broader thing, but that's not
Speaker 1: where at right now. So probably helps him, helps his coalition,
Speaker 1: helps his government, something he personally believes in Number two,
Speaker 1: this is how you get the West off your back.
Speaker 1: You're like, hey, I'll do you a favor. I'll strike
Speaker 1: the drone facility and I'll go after Russia. It's like
Speaker 1: a two birds with one stone. While he's refusing to
Speaker 1: actually provide a lot of military aid to Ukraine. People
Speaker 1: don't know this, but you know a lot of Russians
Speaker 1: actually live in Israel, people who left during the Soviet.
Speaker 1: I think he's like one to eighth or something of
Speaker 1: the population. How they feel towards Russia is much more
Speaker 1: complicated than basically any other nation. And BB he's had
Speaker 1: very friendly relations with Putin and you know, it was
Speaker 1: like there were like posters up of him and Trump
Speaker 1: and Putin together, and so, I mean this is part
Speaker 1: of his sort of political identity, and he has even
Speaker 1: since the last government, he has struck a war sort
Speaker 1: of hands off approach towards the Russia Ukraine war. So yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a good way for him to both signal
Speaker 1: for his domestic base and posture in the hawkish way
Speaker 1: that he wants to with an increasingly hawkish Israeli domestic populace,
Speaker 1: but also pretend like with the US, like he's on
Speaker 1: our side in terms of the Russia Ukraine conflict. It
Speaker 1: was put well by one expert here quoted it at
Speaker 1: a Washington based think tank critical of Iran. They said,
Speaker 1: this is a smart trifactor where Israel can hurt Iran,
Speaker 1: help Ukraine, not risk its strategic interest in Syria, or
Speaker 1: run the risk of the diversion of its sensitive military
Speaker 1: technology of Russia and into Iran. I just have to
Speaker 1: point out the hypocrisy here when and you know, we're
Speaker 1: risking World War three to back Ukraine over the principle
Speaker 1: of territorial sovereignty. That's the principle that's at stake in
Speaker 1: Ukraine that we are willing to risk World War three over.
Speaker 1: And then our you know, buddies in Israel, probably at
Speaker 1: our behest, are striking Iranian territory and for some reason
Speaker 1: that's that's not a violation of territory. That's all fine
Speaker 1: and good. So, I mean, there is just a blatant
Speaker 1: hypocrisy here in terms of the way we approached these
Speaker 1: supposedly ironclad international rules and norms. Yeah, the last thing
Speaker 1: that this country needs is a war in another war
Speaker 1: in Italy and controversial statement. And the final piece to
Speaker 1: put on this is, of course the Obama administration. They
Speaker 1: struck the nuclear deal with Iran, which seemed to be
Speaker 1: working pretty well. Trump back sound of it. Biden could
Speaker 1: have gotten back in as treat to Parsi many times
Speaker 1: came on the show and talked about the window of
Speaker 1: opportunity was right at the beginning of the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: They could have just gotten back in. They didn't do that,
Speaker 1: and now that deal is basically off the table, and
Speaker 1: instead we have actions with our close allies in Israel.
Speaker 1: You know, once again putting war on the table and
Speaker 1: risking war with yet another country around the world. So
Speaker 1: it really is a dramatic failure and failing of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration here ultimately and how they've handled the situation absolutely.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, let's get to what is I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say about this story and this
Speaker 1: happening in American life. So guys probably followed a bit
Speaker 1: of this. On Friday, the Memphis Police Department released horrifying
Speaker 1: video of a twenty nine year old black man, Tyree Nichols,
Speaker 1: being savagely beaten by five police officers. We are going
Speaker 1: to show you a little bit of the footage. I
Speaker 1: just want to give you some of the backstory first.
Speaker 1: So Tyree was this is what we know. Tyree was
Speaker 1: on his way home from actually a local park. He
Speaker 1: was a FedEx worker there in Memphis. He worked with
Speaker 1: his stepdad at that facility. He lived with his mom
Speaker 1: and a stepdad. On his way home from a park
Speaker 1: where he was probably indulging his interest in photography, and
Speaker 1: he gets pulled over. Now, the officers initially said this
Speaker 1: was for reckless driving, no sign from any camera, and
Speaker 1: no indication that there was actually any reckless driving going on.
Speaker 1: And this was a band of five black officers who
Speaker 1: are part of this Scorpion Unit so called, which was
Speaker 1: sort of aggressively supposed to be tackling the street crime
Speaker 1: in one of the more tough neighborhoods in Memphis. So
Speaker 1: they pull him over, they pull him out of the car,
Speaker 1: they start beating him. He tries to run. He's very
Speaker 1: close to home, he's like one hundred yards from home,
Speaker 1: and they catch him. And the savage beating that they
Speaker 1: inflict on this man that ultimately three days later ends
Speaker 1: up costing his life, it's just beyond words and beyond description.
Speaker 1: I mean, they propped this man up so that they
Speaker 1: could take more shots at him, five men on one
Speaker 1: after he is shown in the video collapsed, he's mumbling. Eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, sixteen minutes later, an ambulance paramedics arrive on
Speaker 1: the scene. They don't take any action for a number
Speaker 1: of additional minutes, even as this man is clearly in
Speaker 1: a devastating state. And as I said previously, you know,
Speaker 1: there's no indication he did anything wrong here, and these
Speaker 1: five men literally end up beating him to death. Now,
Speaker 1: the officers were ultimately there was an immediate investigation. The
Speaker 1: officers were arrested. They've been charged with kidnapping. They've also
Speaker 1: been charged with second degree murder and is a part
Speaker 1: of an attempt at accountability, attempt at showing the public
Speaker 1: exactly what happened here so that there wasn't sort of
Speaker 1: like rumors and misinformation flying around. They released an hour
Speaker 1: of this horrifying, gut wrenching video. So I want to
Speaker 1: show you a little piece of this before I put
Speaker 1: it up on the screen. Guys, if you you know,
Speaker 1: just it's it's horrible. It's horrible to watch. So make
Speaker 1: a decision whether you want to see this or not.
Speaker 1: But I do want to show you a piece, so
Speaker 1: control them. Let's go ahead and put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. You know, this is after they you know,
Speaker 1: they have him here. They're holding him up and taking
Speaker 1: shots at him repeatedly again, five men punching him in
Speaker 1: the head, holding him up so that they can brutalize
Speaker 1: him further. If you listen to the audio, they're giving
Speaker 1: him all of these contradictory commands, you know, put your
Speaker 1: hands up, well, you're they're holding his hands behind his back,
Speaker 1: all of these things, and they just continue to kick him,
Speaker 1: beat him, punch him, et cetera. And you know again
Speaker 1: this this video is an hour long, so watch the
Speaker 1: footage if if you feel like that's the right thing
Speaker 1: for you to do. The other piece of there's a
Speaker 1: lot actually to say about this. Let me put this
Speaker 1: Washington Post piece up on the screen so you can
Speaker 1: see the distance between how the cops originally described this
Speaker 1: brutal completely uncalled, I mean, no justification for this attack
Speaker 1: and savage beating. Here's how they first described it in
Speaker 1: their reports. They said that a confrontation occurred following a
Speaker 1: traffic stop. They said he fled on foot and then
Speaker 1: quote another confrontation occurred of his fatal injuries. They said
Speaker 1: that he complained of having shortness of breath, and then
Speaker 1: the sub suspect was transported to Saint Francis Hospital in
Speaker 1: critical condition. Of course, the video footage paints a very
Speaker 1: different story of them pepper spraying him, punching and kicking him,
Speaker 1: and rather than simply complaining of shortness of breath he
Speaker 1: could barely sit up after the beating, they actually propped
Speaker 1: him up up against a police car, where he repeatedly
Speaker 1: slumped over. He can be heard groaning, it is not
Speaker 1: heard forming any words. He twists and rides against the
Speaker 1: police car, at times falling over on his side as
Speaker 1: he waits twenty two minutes for an ambulance, and at
Speaker 1: times is calling for his mother. So Blaytant lies in
Speaker 1: the report of the police chief to her credit and
Speaker 1: immediately thought that this report was strange and launched an investigation.
Speaker 1: But you know, Sager, the part of this that I
Speaker 1: think is really difficult is so many of the reforms
Speaker 1: that advocates have called for were actually instituted. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have body cameras, they didn't care. You had a
Speaker 1: female black police chief. You have a police I mean
Speaker 1: all five of these men black. You have a police
Speaker 1: force that actually the percentage of black officers on the
Speaker 1: force roughly matches the percentage of black citizens in the
Speaker 1: city of Memphis. And you know, none of these reforms
Speaker 1: which have been called for in the past by more incrementalists,
Speaker 1: none of them seem to make a difference. I mean,
Speaker 1: with the body camera, there's even some evidence that police
Speaker 1: were sort of using the body camera. They were narrating
Speaker 1: things on the body camera footage, knowing that they were
Speaker 1: almost like playing for an audience, like they said, oh,
Speaker 1: we grab reached for my gun, even though that's not
Speaker 1: on the video, to again try to use the body
Speaker 1: camera footage to sort of shape their narrative of what
Speaker 1: ultimately happened. So it's just devastating and there's just no
Speaker 1: other words for it. U's horrific, tach. I mean, even
Speaker 1: watching it's like gut wrenching over the video. Had watched
Speaker 1: this and the Paul Pelosi thing, and both of them
Speaker 1: just make you feel like completely sick. I almost wonder
Speaker 1: maybe this will come out. There's some seems something almost
Speaker 1: personal about this, right, I mean, I didn't know. I'm like,
Speaker 1: what would ever compel like five grown men to like
Speaker 1: literally beat someone within an inch of their life for
Speaker 1: literally no reason. I mean one thing, you could say,
Speaker 1: let's go and put this next piece up on the screen,
Speaker 1: because I think this is relevant. New York Times Memphis
Speaker 1: police disband that unit, so called Scorpion Unit, whose officers
Speaker 1: were charged in Tyree Nichols's death. Mister Nichols family and
Speaker 1: activists had demanded the scuttling of that group, the Scorpion Unit,
Speaker 1: which patrolled high crime areas of the city, and you know,
Speaker 1: there had been a lot of complaints about this unit before,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's personal. I think it has
Speaker 1: to do with when I mean, they basically turned into
Speaker 1: a roving band of terrorizing thugs with a lot of
Speaker 1: power and no accountability. And you know, so they felt
Speaker 1: this is this is the mentality that was created within
Speaker 1: this force. They said that, you know, this was a
Speaker 1: pattern in practice, There was a this was not the
Speaker 1: first time that there were incidents similar to this reported.
Speaker 1: The reality is, if Tyree Nichols had not died, we
Speaker 1: never would have heard about this incident. So God knows
Speaker 1: what was going on with this Scorpion unit before Tyree
Speaker 1: Nichols was ultimately killed. So even though obviously like these
Speaker 1: five individuals are wholly responsible, they're accountable, but then you
Speaker 1: had two other guys show up that didn't really do anything.
Speaker 1: You have the paramedics come, they don't administer AID, Like,
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on? How is there not
Speaker 1: one person who says who doesn't participate or who says, hey,
Speaker 1: that's enough, let's stop. It shows you this was a
Speaker 1: The structure of power they created here wholly corrupted the
Speaker 1: people that were ultimately evolved. I mean, that's that's the
Speaker 1: only thing that I can really come away with here.
Speaker 1: And then in terms of like where you go from
Speaker 1: here and what you advocate for, I don't even know, because,
Speaker 1: like I said, some of the basic things they seem
Speaker 1: to have completely failed. There is no evidence that having
Speaker 1: a police force that is demographically representative of the community
Speaker 1: that it makes for good police and there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that it actually changes the way and the level of
Speaker 1: brutality involved in policing. I have no idea what the
Speaker 1: answer is, Like you said, I've thought about it a
Speaker 1: lot too. Last couple of years have changed a lot
Speaker 1: of my thinking, honestly a lot. And I know this
Speaker 1: might not satisfy a lot of people, but like I
Speaker 1: take a lot of this as like a personal thing.
Speaker 1: Also in terms of at this point, like these the
Speaker 1: politics around this are toxic. Clearly the culture around here
Speaker 1: is toxic. Yeah, I don't really know what to tell people,
Speaker 1: unless like, if you're in an interaction with the law enforcement, infistile,
Speaker 1: use the hell out of this thing and just film
Speaker 1: the entire thing, because you know, I mean, they don't care.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I think you're right. I
Speaker 1: think something was going on here. I really want to
Speaker 1: know what the actual investment. If it was cultural, that
Speaker 1: is insane, and if that's what was happening, like on
Speaker 1: a broader level, and I think clearly obviously the unit
Speaker 1: of disbanded and now the eyes of the world are
Speaker 1: on this. It also should be a lesson to everybody
Speaker 1: out there, like, hey, if you do this, you know,
Speaker 1: at least in the age of HD video like you're
Speaker 1: going to jail the Saint nineteen ninety one where some
Speaker 1: guy happens to have a camquarder and films the Rodney
Speaker 1: King thing, it's like you are constantly I don't think
Speaker 1: that's true though, because again, if Tyrene Nichols didn't die,
Speaker 1: never would have known about. It would have been just
Speaker 1: another instance swept on the like nobody would have ever known.
Speaker 1: And so actually, when I looked at this, the idea
Speaker 1: that this is just like a few bad apples, I
Speaker 1: don't I don't see how you can have five people
Speaker 1: there and then the other people who respond and then
Speaker 1: the paramatics as well. To me, while of course these
Speaker 1: men deserve what they get in terms of their punishment,
Speaker 1: you know, charged with murder, charge with kidnapping, all of
Speaker 1: these like they deserve to have the book thrown at
Speaker 1: them and go to prison for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, I don't see how you can look
Speaker 1: at that and say a few bad apples, because it
Speaker 1: was everybody involved in the interaction, and again there were
Speaker 1: significant reports of consistent abuses from this particular unit. So
Speaker 1: you can't have these, you know, like roving bands, empowered
Speaker 1: to however they set this thing up, this Scorpion unit.
Speaker 1: This needs to be a lesson of you can't this,
Speaker 1: This does not work, because this is just creating more pain,
Speaker 1: more crime ultimately, because obviously this was a crime they
Speaker 1: committed here and is not doing anything to solve the
Speaker 1: issues that you're claiming to try and solve. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: own the city. The sequel to the Wire, I highly
Speaker 1: recommend people. We had our friend John Blernhal on the
Speaker 1: show a little bit to talk about it. He's also
Speaker 1: got a podcast where he talks a little bit about
Speaker 1: this as well, both with cops and with people on
Speaker 1: the street who have been abused by police and have
Speaker 1: had interactions in conversation. Again, I wish I had that
Speaker 1: conversation or the answer to this one. It's a twisted
Speaker 1: a twisted one because right at the same time, it's
Speaker 1: I can't have you know, people will get pissed when
Speaker 1: there's a lot of high crime. They should be. You know,
Speaker 1: somebody was shot or robbed at gunpoint, like two blocks
Speaker 1: away from my house the other day. People around me
Speaker 1: are kind of freaking out. They're like, wow, well deserve
Speaker 1: they live in a safe neighbor Yeah, and exactly. And
Speaker 1: you know, here in Washington watching the city just really
Speaker 1: frankly descend over the last three years, it's been a tragedy.
Speaker 1: It's been killed a lot of businesses, So it's both
Speaker 1: community problem. Like I have no idea exactly what the
Speaker 1: balance is. I think it's probably way above pay grade.
Speaker 1: All it comes down to is like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: have compassion for each other. I don't really know why
Speaker 1: anybody would ever want to do that to another person
Speaker 1: for literally no reason, at least seemingly from what I
Speaker 1: could see from the video. It was truly horrific. And
Speaker 1: there are a lot of deranged and crazy people out
Speaker 1: there too, and you know, I guess some of them
Speaker 1: are on It's kind of like what we talked about
Speaker 1: with Santos, where those people like gravitate to the top.
Speaker 1: It's like, you know, people says like maybe if you
Speaker 1: want to be a cop, like maybe you shouldn't. It's
Speaker 1: one of those where if you get off on power
Speaker 1: over people and physical violence and all this stuff's like, well,
Speaker 1: maybe you shouldn't be in that position. I watched this
Speaker 1: video that was going around at the time a couple
Speaker 1: months ago. This guy Mike Glover. He's like a former
Speaker 1: Green He was actually just on the Rogan podcast, but
Speaker 1: he did like this whole takedown about Uvalde and he
Speaker 1: had a line which really stuck with me where he
Speaker 1: was talking about operator because he's a former Green brain.
Speaker 1: He's like, everybody wants to be an operator until it's
Speaker 1: trying to do times, until it's time to do operator
Speaker 1: shit where you're either like you get carried away with
Speaker 1: your emotions, you're training, you're just completely leading with like
Speaker 1: no leadership or any of that. And I don't know,
Speaker 1: I couldn't help but think about that when I was
Speaker 1: watching this, I'm like, this is just a total lack
Speaker 1: not even professionalism, this is just savagery for almost the
Speaker 1: sake of it. Well, the Uvaldi point is a really
Speaker 1: important one because when it actually counted, when you needed
Speaker 1: the good guys with guns, and you had a real
Speaker 1: bad guy nothing, this defenseless man who was trying to
Speaker 1: drive home from a park and is one hundred yards
Speaker 1: from his mom's house and apparently weighed like one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty six pounds. Oh you're real tough guy. Five
Speaker 1: of you beating this man to death. Real tough guys. Congratulations.
Speaker 1: There is a power structure here, and I do think
Speaker 1: that you're right. There is maybe some sort of self
Speaker 1: selection the type of person who would want to have
Speaker 1: that like power over another human being. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean to zoom out from this. I will say
Speaker 1: that in the broader conversation, we have a lot of
Speaker 1: societal ills. We got a lot of social problems in
Speaker 1: this country, and there's no way you're ever going to
Speaker 1: have a police force that can handle all of those things.
Speaker 1: Like if we had a healthier, more equal in society,
Speaker 1: we would have less crime to deal with, and then
Speaker 1: we would have less inclination of tough on crime politicians
Speaker 1: to send, you know, roving scorpion bands out on the streets.
Speaker 1: So I think it's always important. A lot of data
Speaker 1: actually bears that out. You know, a lot of them too.
Speaker 1: A lot of these guys have insane PTSD. Actually, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of studies about the amount of PTSD that
Speaker 1: a lot of these cops have. So you know, also
Speaker 1: even on that front where it's like, you see, we
Speaker 1: send these people in the situations which they like, Listen,
Speaker 1: what do you do Whenever you see somebody get the
Speaker 1: face blown off by their husband? You literally want to
Speaker 1: beat the crap out of the guy. And the guys
Speaker 1: sitting there saying I didn't do anything, she shot herself
Speaker 1: or someone. I can't even imagine what I would want
Speaker 1: to lose it in that situation, and then you've got
Speaker 1: to deal with that for twenty five years. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe you don't look. I mean, these are extraordinary circumstances
Speaker 1: of which we're always trying to like judge and look
Speaker 1: at from a point of normal view. And part of
Speaker 1: the problem is this is not a normal life in
Speaker 1: any way. So and I have no idea again how
Speaker 1: you get out of that. I think your point is
Speaker 1: probably the most correct, which is that you know, if
Speaker 1: you inhibit the amount of even conditions in which this
Speaker 1: stuff is going to happen, then we don't ever have
Speaker 1: to find out in the first place, and that's probably
Speaker 1: as difficult as it is as probably the correct answer.
Speaker 1: All right, let's move on here to gain a function.
Speaker 1: I know that there was a lot of discussion online.
Speaker 1: There was a video released by Project Veritas. So the
Speaker 1: video has actually been banned on YouTube, and since we're
Speaker 1: on YouTube, I'm going to do my best to describe it.
Speaker 1: So let me get the actual circumstances of this all
Speaker 1: in front of me. So there was a Project Veritas
Speaker 1: video in which James O'Keeffe and others confronted a scientist
Speaker 1: at Pfiser who was in the vaccine division. Supposedly, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's the other one on Pfizer, right, this is
Speaker 1: always the difficulty. Look, Project Veritas does themselves no favors
Speaker 1: in the credibility department with the amount of editing and
Speaker 1: the things that they've been caught just completely like inventing
Speaker 1: on a whole clause. I've said this before. Please stop
Speaker 1: with the editing and the music. It is genuinely it's
Speaker 1: like maddening because it actually and casts doubt on what
Speaker 1: Just play the raw video. That's all you gotta do. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So we have the Pfizer Allegedly, according to Project Veritas,
Speaker 1: we have a Phfiser director where he was on the
Speaker 1: cameras I guess supposedly on a date with an individual.
Speaker 1: I went ahead and watched the full again to what
Speaker 1: they have put out in terms of the music and
Speaker 1: all that stuff that I could find on Rumble, And
Speaker 1: in the course of that video, what he says is
Speaker 1: he was quote and they were working on mutating the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen virus. So there has been a lot of
Speaker 1: discussion around that point. What does that mean? Are they
Speaker 1: practicing gain of function research within the Pfeiser division of
Speaker 1: the vaccine on the coronavirus specifically, also with bi valain
Speaker 1: boosters and working on future boosters. Is it mutation with
Speaker 1: regards to trying to come up with vaccines against new strains?
Speaker 1: Is it a commonplace within the realm of vaccine production.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to choose my words care from the research
Speaker 1: that I've done around this, even though I do kind
Speaker 1: of have an opinion. So from what I can tell,
Speaker 1: what the guy was describing around the mutating the COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen virus and others was the lingo. Allegedly, this is
Speaker 1: what I've read from vaccinologists and others who work on
Speaker 1: this was the lingo at which they use, and maybe
Speaker 1: this is a broader structural conversation around vaccine development. Now
Speaker 1: I don't know actually a whole lot about the process
Speaker 1: I would like to learn. However, a lot of people
Speaker 1: were shocked by that, and it's sparking a conversation around
Speaker 1: gain of function research. So the reason I wanted to
Speaker 1: address this video around what allegedly might have been taking
Speaker 1: a place at Fiser. We don't know. They deny it,
Speaker 1: and we'll get to that around with this is with
Speaker 1: the conversation around gain of function broadly, that is a
Speaker 1: legitimate one. Whether Pfizer was doing that, I have no
Speaker 1: idea from the video or not. We don't actually have
Speaker 1: any proof. They deny it. We'll see not exactly a
Speaker 1: lot of trustworthy characters all around here. Here's what we
Speaker 1: do know. The United States government was fund and gain
Speaker 1: of function research, which is effect of lead mutating viruses
Speaker 1: and then trying to come up with cures for those viruses.
Speaker 1: Except for the problem is sometimes those mutt viruses, I
Speaker 1: don't know, they escape from a lab and maybe cause
Speaker 1: a global pandemic. Well, this conversation has been fring and
Speaker 1: its been basically on YouTube, the Joe Rogan Experience now
Speaker 1: for almost two years, so it has been cast as
Speaker 1: kind of a fringe one. However, actual scientific experts working
Speaker 1: behind the scenes have caught with a lot of what
Speaker 1: we're all talking about, a lot of what we're concerned about,
Speaker 1: and are now voting to actually put in place much
Speaker 1: stricter rules for the United States around funding gain of
Speaker 1: function research. So let's go ahead and put this up
Speaker 1: there on the screen. This is what broke just two
Speaker 1: days ago, actually, right around the same time as a
Speaker 1: Veritas video, an expert panel has voted for stricter rules
Speaker 1: on risky virus research. Now the hands are in the
Speaker 1: White House, so this was on Friday. It's a set
Speaker 1: of proposed changes to the federal government's program for regular
Speaker 1: experiments that involve tinkering with risky viruses and other pathogens.
Speaker 1: Now the Biden administration has to either decide or approve
Speaker 1: draft recommendations which quote ask health officials to extend oversight
Speaker 1: to less dangerous pathogens, including one similar to the coronavirus.
Speaker 1: Will remember that their removal on gain of function around
Speaker 1: back coronaviruses specifically was taken away by doctor Anthony Fauci
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. They also recommended an end to exemptions,
Speaker 1: and this is why this is directly related to the
Speaker 1: Pfizer video, an end to the exemptions for research related
Speaker 1: to vaccine development and the surveillance of emerging viruses. So
Speaker 1: right now we have an exemption in place actually for Pfizer, Maderna,
Speaker 1: and for any other vaccine makers that they are effectively
Speaker 1: allowed to do a type of gain of function in
Speaker 1: the lab as long as it's under the guise of
Speaker 1: creating a vaccine and maybe a future vaccine. That's why
Speaker 1: with the Verapas video really be some truth to it.
Speaker 1: This is a very roundabout way of saying it. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to completely dispatch with the Project Veritas
Speaker 1: video because they have zero credibility and you can't even
Speaker 1: find like this guy that they say is like senior advisor.
Speaker 1: What you can't even find this guy. He took his
Speaker 1: sad in off and anyway, so anyway, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say I don't trust the Project Veritas video. I will
Speaker 1: put that aside. In terms of the expert panel here,
Speaker 1: I mean, these recommendations seem to me, as a non scientist,
Speaker 1: to be a step in the right direction and something
Speaker 1: a lot of us have been asking for a lot
Speaker 1: more thought to be put into for a while, because
Speaker 1: even if you don't think that coronavirus came about because
Speaker 1: of a lab leak, we know that lab leaks are
Speaker 1: not uncommon. So it seems like a good time to
Speaker 1: look at and gain a function has been recognized to
Speaker 1: be dangerous and something that should be regulated and watched
Speaker 1: carefully and done owner strictly controlled environment. So this seems
Speaker 1: like a good time in the interest of preventing a
Speaker 1: future pandemic to tighten those controls based on expert recommendations.
Speaker 1: The piece of this I found interesting is, of course
Speaker 1: there's a big backlash of course among you know, people
Speaker 1: who basically make their careers off of doing this type
Speaker 1: of research, and they pen the letter and they are
Speaker 1: continuing to insist that in reality, there's no evidence that
Speaker 1: COVID leaked from the lab, even though the best you
Speaker 1: can say is that, you know, we don't know the
Speaker 1: truth of the matter, and they're there's continuing to use
Speaker 1: that idea that there's no chance that it leaked from
Speaker 1: the lab to justify like Oh, we don't need to
Speaker 1: make any changes. It's all good, and this is going
Speaker 1: to shut down needed research, et cetera, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: that the backlash to what these experts are suggesting in
Speaker 1: terms of tightening up the regulations was to me the
Speaker 1: kind of most interesting part. Yeah, look, to me, a
Speaker 1: lot of this is basically not about science. It's about
Speaker 1: money laundering. Because what are you going to take a
Speaker 1: take one view at all the quotes of the people
Speaker 1: who are pushing back against this, the duties of the
Speaker 1: director of the National Institute of Health, the virologist Vanderbi University,
Speaker 1: Johns Hopkins Center for Global Security at the Bloomberg School
Speaker 1: of Public Health. What do all these people have in common.
Speaker 1: It's called getting funded by NIH and doctor Anthony Fauci.
Speaker 1: The National Institute of Health is the number one distributor
Speaker 1: of scientific grants across the United States for virology research.
Speaker 1: If you piss off the head, then you're dead. My
Speaker 1: parents both work in academic environment. If you're a tenured professor,
Speaker 1: you got to cover your own salary. You got to
Speaker 1: get grants to not just cover you, but especially if
Speaker 1: you're in the stem field, you got to cover yourself
Speaker 1: and your whole lab. You got to get funding for that.
Speaker 1: The university is not just going to be the one
Speaker 1: doing it. You're almost like a PR salesman whenever you
Speaker 1: go out and do this stuff. So when the number
Speaker 1: one dollar of the dollars is the guy who loves
Speaker 1: gain of function research, and it's not just about him,
Speaker 1: it's a cultural problem within the National Institute of Health,
Speaker 1: you're not going to speak out against it, even if
Speaker 1: you privately disagree with what's that. That's why with Lab leak,
Speaker 1: with nobody's willing to come out. Everything is in the shadow,
Speaker 1: in secret. I've spoken with some people were very high
Speaker 1: up in this field. None of them want to talk
Speaker 1: on the record because their careers are in danger. This
Speaker 1: is a cartel that is controlled by the scientific establishment,
Speaker 1: specifically with Fauci at the top. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I think that it took a lot of courage for
Speaker 1: these people to adopt even this. Meally mouthed like, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe we should end it in this way. And if
Speaker 1: you look at the language around the vaccine, here's what
Speaker 1: I've got around gain of function with vaccine exemptions. Remove
Speaker 1: blanket exclusions for research activities associated with surveillance and vaccine
Speaker 1: development or production. However, include an implement processes and procedures
Speaker 1: for urgent federal departmental review and evaluation of research critical
Speaker 1: for public health or national security. How can you possibly
Speaker 1: be against that? That's at least somebody in the FEDS,
Speaker 1: if you're going to get an exemption, should say, all right,
Speaker 1: what do you want it for? Which vaccine? Do you
Speaker 1: have to report this to us? Now it's subject to
Speaker 1: fouya up, subject to Congress. We can all talk about it.
Speaker 1: Why should fiz Maderna and all these other companies have
Speaker 1: a blanket exclusion on gain and function research as long
Speaker 1: as it's under vaccine development. That is nuts to me,
Speaker 1: I mean, and that's here, by the way, they had
Speaker 1: labs all across Europe and the United States. Who knows
Speaker 1: what's going on in our own shores and who knows
Speaker 1: how much of this subcontracted out to China, just like
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Virology, So I know that this
Speaker 1: is convoluted. It's difficult without being able to show the video.
Speaker 1: If you want to watch it, it's on Rumble. You
Speaker 1: can go ahead and watch the full thing. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying you'll necessarily take anything away, but it'll put
Speaker 1: some of what exactly we're talking about into context. Zoom
Speaker 1: out from Veritas. Clearly something is going on here. We
Speaker 1: have a chance to actually fix it. Now it's up
Speaker 1: to Biden. That's the key. The bottom line is, I
Speaker 1: think it has long been recognized in the scientific community
Speaker 1: that gain and function research search can be dangerous. We
Speaker 1: had a vivid example of that with the possibility that
Speaker 1: coronavirus escaped from a lab. The idea that there should
Speaker 1: be tightened regulations and restrictions on this type of research
Speaker 1: should be something that everyone can get behind an embrace.
Speaker 1: And it is no accident that the people who are
Speaker 1: disputing this idea and trying to keep the regulations as
Speaker 1: loose as they are right now are people who have
Speaker 1: potential career and financial interests in being able to continue
Speaker 1: this type of research. So that's what I take away absolutely,
Speaker 1: all right, Sager, what are you looking at? Well? A
Speaker 1: while back, I did a monologue on one of the
Speaker 1: most cynical and disgusting acts I've seen take place in
Speaker 1: the higher education space to date, certainly saying something considering
Speaker 1: these people may qualify behind only the pharmaceutical industry as
Speaker 1: the largest legalized criminals in the United States. But considering
Speaker 1: the trillion dollar scam that they've pulled on people, I
Speaker 1: think they deserve it. The sum of the scheme involved
Speaker 1: law schools. In this particular example especially, it goes like this,
Speaker 1: The top law schools in the country are all pulling
Speaker 1: out of the US News and World Report rankings. Normally,
Speaker 1: I celebrate this, I think the rankings are deeply flawed,
Speaker 1: but the timing of it was terrible. It's being done
Speaker 1: specifically because law schools know this Supreme Court is about
Speaker 1: to strike down affirmative action in college admissions across the board.
Speaker 1: Law schools know this, but they are also deeply wetted
Speaker 1: to a racialized view of college admissions. So what do
Speaker 1: you do if you want to keep affirmative action even
Speaker 1: if it's against the law, Well, you make it impossible
Speaker 1: to prove. How do you do that? You down rank,
Speaker 1: or you remove objective criteria like LSAT, test scores, GPA,
Speaker 1: and you move toward essays. Then, when you discriminate against Asians,
Speaker 1: you can't compare people's essays quantitatively. The racial numbers just
Speaker 1: happen to look the same there's only one problem in
Speaker 1: doing all of this. Whenever you downrank GPA and remove
Speaker 1: objective measures like the GPA or the LSAT, then you're
Speaker 1: going to drop in the rankings. So to prepare for
Speaker 1: your scheme, you pull out of the rankings and you
Speaker 1: claim it's a benevolent act. To be clear, this is
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy. It's out in the open. Already. Affirmative
Speaker 1: action activists have campaigned to kill the LSAT for law
Speaker 1: school admissions because of vote equity concerns. Starting in two years,
Speaker 1: the LSAT is no longer required by some of the
Speaker 1: nation's top law schools or the American Bar Association. Any
Speaker 1: merit in the admissions process, to the extent there was
Speaker 1: any at all is dead. But today I have an
Speaker 1: even more troubling news. It's not just the profession of
Speaker 1: law now, it's medicine, which arguably is one of the
Speaker 1: most important in a country where one fifth of all
Speaker 1: spending is healthcare related and we are fatter and more
Speaker 1: sicker than ever. Well, they took their cues from law
Speaker 1: schools Harvard University, Stanford School of Medicine, Columbia University, University
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania, many of already pulled out of the medical
Speaker 1: school rankings. This too is a benevolent act. They say
Speaker 1: they don't agree with the rankings, but in almost every
Speaker 1: single case, the medical school dean site quote philosophical concerns
Speaker 1: in pulling out. Conveniently, at this moment, I want people
Speaker 1: to really internalize how evil this is. These schools are
Speaker 1: trying to paint themselves as benevolent, keep their legacy Ivy
Speaker 1: League brands intact, all while removing the very idea of
Speaker 1: merit from their systems, specifically so they can admit targeted
Speaker 1: racial groups for the field of medicine. This is the
Speaker 1: same tactic Harvard a few generations ago was using to
Speaker 1: discriminate against Jews and against Catholics, and in modern times
Speaker 1: now Asians who cares about their test scores. They're not
Speaker 1: well rounded, that's what they used to say, or my
Speaker 1: personal favorite, test scores are bad because they're racists. Already,
Speaker 1: what happened to the LSAT is going to happen to
Speaker 1: the MCAT. The seeds for nuking it are already planted.
Speaker 1: Look here the American Association of Medical Colleges printing on
Speaker 1: front page op eds about eliminating bias from medical school
Speaker 1: admissions not biased against Asians. They say, you need a
Speaker 1: quote more holistic view of the whole student to do
Speaker 1: what you need to to rely less on the MCAT
Speaker 1: and GPA. By doing it would increase the amount of
Speaker 1: black medical students. He says. What I find disgusting about
Speaker 1: these arguments is actually the implicit racism that black students
Speaker 1: are scoring less on the MCAT or GPA because they
Speaker 1: can't figure them out, or maybe people who come from
Speaker 1: poorer backgrounds writ large, regardless of race, do badly on
Speaker 1: standardized tests. Why should we not care about merit? According
Speaker 1: to this doctor, to remove the MCAT and cannot consider GPA.
Speaker 1: Here's what he says, Quote diversity matters. It starts by
Speaker 1: educating a class of medical students who can provide culturally
Speaker 1: responsive care for an increasingly diverse patient population. I promise
Speaker 1: you this. If I am in a car accident and
Speaker 1: I'm at the hospital and someone is about to cut
Speaker 1: me open, all I want, and I think everybody wants,
Speaker 1: is somebody who knows what they're doing. Or let's say
Speaker 1: in that accident it's someone else's fault, you want to
Speaker 1: sue them, and you need a lawyer. Same thing. Do
Speaker 1: you know what you're doing or not? Because I don't,
Speaker 1: and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people
Speaker 1: who engage with both professions they don't care about the
Speaker 1: race or the gender of your doctor or your lawyer.
Speaker 1: You just want the job done. I say all this
Speaker 1: as someone who believes in equal opportunity for all, but
Speaker 1: that is the key opportunity to succeed, not rigging the
Speaker 1: outcome to be quote equitable according to whatever arbitrary social
Speaker 1: ideology that is in vogue at the time. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you actually care about having an equitable society, merit
Speaker 1: is one of the only things that guarantees it. Merit
Speaker 1: is what gives foreign applicants actually a fighting chance when
Speaker 1: they're applying to US schools. It is the only metric
Speaker 1: genuinely comparable across the world. Merit is what guarantees as
Speaker 1: someone from a low circumstance can emphatically stand out against
Speaker 1: their peers from a wealthier place, and ironically, by nuking merit,
Speaker 1: these idiotic schools have instead kept a system easier to
Speaker 1: preserve legacy admissions and let in any brain dead sun
Speaker 1: of a multimillionaire or billionaire without having to even pretend
Speaker 1: they were ever good at school. The rich will be
Speaker 1: completely fine under this system. It is the middle class,
Speaker 1: smart ones who have no chance in hell. Unfortunately, we
Speaker 1: are going in an opposite direction as a society. Woke
Speaker 1: bureaucrats like those of these medical schools have decided they
Speaker 1: would rather engineer the number of minorities that are doctors
Speaker 1: by lowering their standards, rather than help minorities reach something
Speaker 1: that would have that should have an objectively high standard.
Speaker 1: The ongoing war on merit will do nothing but lower
Speaker 1: confidence in these jobs, which are genuinely important to all
Speaker 1: of us as a society. And that's why you know,
Speaker 1: I tried to leave this and if you want to
Speaker 1: hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue, become a premium subscriber
Speaker 1: today at Breakingpoints dot com, Cristal, what are you taking
Speaker 1: a look at? Well, Guys. Since taking back a house,
Speaker 1: some Republicans have been floating using the debt ceiling as
Speaker 1: a cudgel to force through cuts to Social Security. The
Speaker 1: popular and effective program has been under attack from conservatives
Speaker 1: literally since its inception, and who have at every turn
Speaker 1: sought to undermine, cut, or privatize our nation's single most
Speaker 1: successful social welfare program. Well, those who are considering pushing
Speaker 1: for such a move this time around might want to
Speaker 1: take a look at what is happening right now in France,
Speaker 1: where market fundamentalist president Emmanuel Macron has been on a
Speaker 1: multi year quest to lift the retirement age in that
Speaker 1: nation from sixty two to sixty four. So just over
Speaker 1: a week ago, millions took to the streets of France
Speaker 1: in a general strike to protest Macron's proposed changes. Here.
Speaker 1: These marches occurred in over two hundred French cities. They
Speaker 1: brought together all sorts of unlikely allies. That movement has
Speaker 1: united labor unions across the political spectrum, has even put
Speaker 1: leftist leader Jean Luke Melinchamp on the same side as
Speaker 1: far right leader Marine la Penn. While there were some
Speaker 1: classes in Paris between strikers and police, the protests were
Speaker 1: largely peaceful. That doesn't mean they didn't pack a punch,
Speaker 1: though far from the American style toothless march with placards
Speaker 1: that politicians feel free to ignore. This general strike cut
Speaker 1: energy production, shuttered public transit, and generally ground business as
Speaker 1: usual to a halt across the country. Our wonderful partner.
Speaker 1: Max Alvarez from the Real News interviewed one of the
Speaker 1: strikers there. Here is what they had to say about
Speaker 1: their fight and their strategy. We fight for our dirispict
Speaker 1: to our grandfather who vote for this system, against Nazi fascists.
Speaker 1: We fight for us, and we fight for the for
Speaker 1: the next generation, even for the working class down the bone. No,
Speaker 1: we fight for them. We fight for principle. That's very important.
Speaker 1: So three days ago we was on general strike. There
Speaker 1: is seventy percent of the schools was closed in the
Speaker 1: entire country. The train, the buses, the metro, the airport
Speaker 1: was paralyzed, the factory was closed, the refinery was the
Speaker 1: pipes was turned off, et cetera, et cetera. And we
Speaker 1: was about two million people in the street in the
Speaker 1: entire country, including half million people in Paris, and we
Speaker 1: claim not one years more, not one euro less. So
Speaker 1: that was Matthew Boufada. He is a train conductor and
Speaker 1: general secretary of a CGT union local in Versailles. And
Speaker 1: as if that energy wasn't already incredible, Matthew and his
Speaker 1: brothers and sisters, they are going even further here as
Speaker 1: France twenty four Quote robin Hood energy strikers are giving
Speaker 1: free power to French schools, hospitals and low income homes.
Speaker 1: Amid national strikes and energy sector some workers in France
Speaker 1: have found a novel way to protest. The article says,
Speaker 1: on Thursday, quote Robinhood operations unauthorized by the government provided
Speaker 1: free gas and electricity to schools, universities and low income
Speaker 1: households throughout the country. Among the facilities provided free energy
Speaker 1: were public sports facilities, daycare centers, public libraries, some small
Speaker 1: businesses and homes that had been cut off from power.
Speaker 1: So these trade unionists are literally giving power to the people.
Speaker 1: French citizens, like many others, have been struggling with high
Speaker 1: inflation and especially with soaring energy prices due to Russia's
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine and the NATO response to it. Already
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, a quarter of French citizens struggled
Speaker 1: with energy costs. Gas and electricity prices there they are
Speaker 1: expected to spike another fifteen percent this year alone. So
Speaker 1: needless to say, there's a lot of French citizens who
Speaker 1: are in need of help from any corner they can
Speaker 1: get it right now. The voice of capital, though, is
Speaker 1: quite panicked about this tactic. In a new article, The
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal cried about threats from radical trade unionists
Speaker 1: to not only give power to the poor, but to
Speaker 1: cut it to the billionaires and political elites who are
Speaker 1: attempting to force through this wildly unpopular retirement age change.
Speaker 1: So far, the union CGT has claimed responsibility for cutting
Speaker 1: power for three hours to the office of one of
Speaker 1: Macron's political allies, and they have also name checked a
Speaker 1: billionaire media mogul as a potential target as well. Though
Speaker 1: the boss class might cry palling suggests the public is
Speaker 1: firmly on the side of the protesters. Some seventy to
Speaker 1: eighty percent of the public opposes Macron's plan to lift
Speaker 1: the retirement age plan, which mccrown was already forced to
Speaker 1: abandon after a mass public resistance just a few years prior,
Speaker 1: in spite of winning re election by a comfortable margin.
Speaker 1: It's not like Macron is a popular political figure. He
Speaker 1: won even though a lot of the public really actually
Speaker 1: detested him. It's just that they detested far right leader
Speaker 1: Marine la Penn Even more, this inspiring model is one
Speaker 1: Biden chief of staff Ron Klaine, name checked as a
Speaker 1: potential blueprint for our president's own reelect. Now, mccron has
Speaker 1: been malleable on a whole range of issues, shifting with
Speaker 1: his view of the political wins, but on this particular
Speaker 1: issue he seems rigidly ideological, despite damn near unanimous opposition
Speaker 1: to his plan. Now, the French, of course famously protective
Speaker 1: of their social safety net and social contract. I understand why,
Speaker 1: but I would suggest Americans might be moving towards more
Speaker 1: French relationship, towards work careers and the elite class. In fact,
Speaker 1: Matthew had a message for Americans who are watching all
Speaker 1: of this unfold. To the American people, I would tend
Speaker 1: to you, we are workers, and we are proud to
Speaker 1: be workers because we create all the beautiful things in
Speaker 1: the world. The trader they create nothing, The CEO, they
Speaker 1: create nothing that we the workers, the walking class, we
Speaker 1: have gold in our ends from nothing from the Natuu.
Speaker 1: We create building train with a bread, especially in friends,
Speaker 1: because I know you have not bread good likly in France.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry about that. And we create all the wealthy thing,
Speaker 1: all the beautiful things in the world. And we prove
Speaker 1: that when we are on strike, because we prove when
Speaker 1: we stop the works the friends collapse. So we prove
Speaker 1: that we are the only the only class, the working class.
Speaker 1: We have the only class. We create something, so they
Speaker 1: have to respect us, and they have to share with
Speaker 1: us all the profits we create for them, for the companies.
Speaker 1: So we want, as a nagatache, say give me my
Speaker 1: money back. I create, you know, I create the profits.
Speaker 1: I want my share and I want it to know.
Speaker 1: More and more Americans are waking up to exactly this realization,
Speaker 1: after being deemed essential and yet treated as disposable, after
Speaker 1: realizing that without their work literally everything stops, or for
Speaker 1: white collar workers, after realizing that perhaps there was more
Speaker 1: life than their credentials and their career. Those who are
Speaker 1: thinking of messing with our social contract would do well
Speaker 1: to take a look at what is happening right now overseas,
Speaker 1: and those who plan to fight back might take some
Speaker 1: notes as well. And sager it seems to me there
Speaker 1: are sort of like two potential and if you want
Speaker 1: to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium
Speaker 1: subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. As you guys know,
Speaker 1: the Republican House Caucus is threatening to use the debt
Speaker 1: sealing that we have already actually technically hit in order
Speaker 1: to extract some kind of spending cuts. Our friend jeffs
Speaker 1: Dinine over the Washington Post has been looking at ways
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration might deal with this particular situation
Speaker 1: that would not require them negotiating with the Republican House. CAUs,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and put Jeff's tweet up on the
Speaker 1: screen before we bring him in. So he wrote a
Speaker 1: piece about the seven different quote unquote gimmicks for dodging
Speaker 1: the debt limit listed here. They are number one, mint
Speaker 1: the coin, number two, declare laws unconstitutional, Number three self
Speaker 1: federal assets, number four by discounted bonds, Number five Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment Ver six console bonds with no maturity date, and
Speaker 1: number seven fed remittances. And Jeff joins us now to
Speaker 1: break all of these various things down for It's great
Speaker 1: to see sarth dese man. Thanks so much for having
Speaker 1: me back on guys. Yeah, always our pleasure. So I
Speaker 1: guess let's just go through these first of all, top
Speaker 1: line it, do you think it is realistic to expect
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden would use any of these tricks, And
Speaker 1: maybe start with the one that you think is the
Speaker 1: most sort of plausible among them. I think there's basically
Speaker 1: no chance he does any of these Ahead of a crisis.
Speaker 1: I think the White House sees political upside as really,
Speaker 1: you know, to continue to just sort of they feel
Speaker 1: like they sort of have the Republicans in a hold
Speaker 1: and they can just keep hitting them over and over
Speaker 1: again with this message, you guys are trying to destroy
Speaker 1: the economy to cut social Security and Medicare, which is
Speaker 1: true for many of the Republicans. It's an accurate line
Speaker 1: in many respects. So they feel and I think for
Speaker 1: O there's more substance of reasons. They feel like they
Speaker 1: can't really go down any of these routes now. But
Speaker 1: if we hit a situation where the debt limit not
Speaker 1: you know, as you mentioned, we've hit the debt limit,
Speaker 1: but we're in this weird limbo purgatory period where the
Speaker 1: Treasury's extraordinary measures are keeping US afloat by shuffling money
Speaker 1: around with thorough government. Once we get beyond that and
Speaker 1: markets start to freak out, and if there's still no
Speaker 1: chance of a deal, then I think these options are
Speaker 1: going to come back, especially because some of them are
Speaker 1: we can get into this. Some of them are more
Speaker 1: or less dramatic. Obviously, the mint the coin being the
Speaker 1: most fun one to discuss and to think about. I'm
Speaker 1: actually doing so, Jeff. All of this presumes they're actually
Speaker 1: not to negotiate and we are going to default. What
Speaker 1: that just seems extraordinary unlikely. I know that Speaker McCarthy
Speaker 1: is actually meeting with President Biden, I believe, on Wednesday
Speaker 1: to begin hashing this out. Everybody says they're not going
Speaker 1: to negotiate. Clearly, somebody's going to negotiate. What do you
Speaker 1: think of the odds of even getting to a UNIL
Speaker 1: or to an actual default actually are It's one of
Speaker 1: these hard things as a reporter where you're like, I
Speaker 1: want to convey to people that there is a real
Speaker 1: danger here, you know, like that there I think the
Speaker 1: I don't even I don't see how a deal gets done.
Speaker 1: And that's why we're covering the story. You know, it
Speaker 1: really seems hard for envision because if I saw the
Speaker 1: path of this, it would be kind of a non story.
Speaker 1: At the same time, to your point, like McCarthy and
Speaker 1: most of the Republicans and the President and the Democrats
Speaker 1: in the Senate, everyone understands that they cannot have a a
Speaker 1: fault on the debt. And so it's this like awkward
Speaker 1: position as a reporter where you're at risk of crying
Speaker 1: wolf and feeling like you're like running around screaming, hey,
Speaker 1: like this is a huge thing that we all need
Speaker 1: to be worried about. And I feel like I've seen
Speaker 1: this already, which I totally sympathized with, where some readers
Speaker 1: are saying, every time this comes up, you guys are
Speaker 1: running around shrieking like this is a big deal, and
Speaker 1: then nothing ever happens. But the fact that it hasn't
Speaker 1: happened so far doesn't mean that it won't, right of course,
Speaker 1: of course, And the reason that I'm more nervous now
Speaker 1: than I have been in any of other previous stead
Speaker 1: fights than we can discuss this, you know at length.
Speaker 1: But if you look at all the pieces on the
Speaker 1: chess board, none of them seem to point towards a
Speaker 1: resolution here. I just don't see how any of the
Speaker 1: major actors here has an incentive to do what would
Speaker 1: be required to reach an agreement. I don't think the
Speaker 1: White House could, or maybe he should offer substantive concessions.
Speaker 1: I'm cutting major domestic programs after winning, you know, expanding
Speaker 1: their Senate majority. Republicans have this incredibly thin margin in
Speaker 1: the House that they barely squeak by, and the idea
Speaker 1: that Biden should give in to Republican threats to blow
Speaker 1: up the economy, to cut you know, you know, major
Speaker 1: programs that people rely on. You know, the White House
Speaker 1: sees that as rewarding hostage taking, and it's hard to
Speaker 1: sort of discount that opinion. Similarly, I just don't see McCarthy.
Speaker 1: I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't see
Speaker 1: him giving up his speakership for the sake of getting
Speaker 1: this done and protecting the nation's credit worthiness. And then similarly,
Speaker 1: I just don't see House conservatives telling McCarthy, yeah, reached
Speaker 1: some sort of proform a deal that doesn't have any
Speaker 1: meaningful of cuts or teeth, and we'll go along with it.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you guys see Gates or Lauren Bobert
Speaker 1: going through something that is like kind of obviously a
Speaker 1: fake win for the right. So and Trump obviously is
Speaker 1: in the background, like yelling at the Republicans to be
Speaker 1: tough and stand strong. So I just don't I don't
Speaker 1: really know where this goes, which is why I think
Speaker 1: we're looking at the unilateral options again, but these options
Speaker 1: are really not that good. I mean, the coin would
Speaker 1: be really really fun to cover and really exciting to
Speaker 1: watch happen, and we could debate who would be on
Speaker 1: it and everything, but I just don't see it happening
Speaker 1: for reasons that we can discuss. The primary one is
Speaker 1: that if we did one of these so called gimmicks,
Speaker 1: Republicans would immediately denounce the subsequent Treasury auction of debt
Speaker 1: as illegal, and then investors would demand a substantial risk
Speaker 1: premium on purchasing US government debt, and we could drive
Speaker 1: up our barmbing costs by hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: which is a real dramatic downside to going down any
Speaker 1: of these routes. And even if you believe in their legality,
Speaker 1: you have to contend with Supreme Court and Republicans mucking
Speaker 1: it out after the administration tries it exactly well. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is what was sort of revealed in the exchange
Speaker 1: with that you had with two of the individuals who
Speaker 1: have really been sort of thought leaders. I guess behind
Speaker 1: the mint the coin idea, which is basically like, okay,
Speaker 1: so what happens if you know, the scenario you just
Speaker 1: discussed unfolds where basically the markets are demanding a risk
Speaker 1: premium on this debt, or potentially the chargery doesn't accept it,
Speaker 1: or it goes to the Supreme Court. In Supreme courts
Speaker 1: like no, we're we don't, We're not buying this. What
Speaker 1: you do, and they're basically like, ignore the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: send the military to the FED and force them to,
Speaker 1: you know, to accept the coin. And when you look
Speaker 1: at that, you're like, there's no way Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: going to ultimately do that, and that, you know, sounds
Speaker 1: like that's a lot for the American people to take too,
Speaker 1: Like you're going to ignore the Supreme Court and you're
Speaker 1: sending troops fed. That's just a lot going on there.
Speaker 1: So do all of these ideas basically suffer from that
Speaker 1: same flaw because you know, another one that I had
Speaker 1: seen floated, I guess most commonly is the idea that
Speaker 1: you effectively have two laws that are in conflict. Congress
Speaker 1: has already appropriated this money and said we are spending it.
Speaker 1: Here are the things that we're doing, and at the
Speaker 1: same time they're saying, but you can't you know, borrow
Speaker 1: what it takes to spend the money that we already
Speaker 1: said spent to spend. So you have two things that
Speaker 1: are just in direct conflict. So in that situation, you
Speaker 1: could have the present just say, listen, these I'm getting
Speaker 1: conflicting instructions from the Congress. Or the way the government
Speaker 1: is going to execute this is we're going to decide
Speaker 1: to follow what they said in terms of the appropriations process.
Speaker 1: Does that still then ultimately suffer from some of the
Speaker 1: same flaws as the other ideas here? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: to your point, my sooss in the administration think that
Speaker 1: that second route, the one that you identified about just
Speaker 1: saying these laws are in conflict, we have to pick one.
Speaker 1: Let's do the one that doesn't destroy the global economy.
Speaker 1: That one seems much more palatable to them. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, these are early discussions happening at the White House.
Speaker 1: But if we get to a point where we're you know,
Speaker 1: this is still months away. Unfortunately, I guess fortunately or unfortunately,
Speaker 1: depending on how you want to think about it. But
Speaker 1: from a reporter's perspective's unfortunately we're gonna do covering this
Speaker 1: for months and months. I think that path seems much
Speaker 1: more politically feasible. I think the coin strikes people in
Speaker 1: the White House as kind of ostentatiously out of the box,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of so beyond people's expectations, is kind
Speaker 1: of easy to make fun of and grab hold of,
Speaker 1: and sort of doesn't have that sort of technical legal veneer.
Speaker 1: I mean, the coin advocates that you reference to would say,
Speaker 1: I think, not unreasonably that at the core these different
Speaker 1: ideas are not that dissimilar. You're trying to say that
Speaker 1: the spending powers, you know, that the debt limit that
Speaker 1: Congress has approved is in some way not a valid law,
Speaker 1: and we need to find a work around. The coin
Speaker 1: is obviously more colorful one. But they would say, you know,
Speaker 1: even if you were to go down the route of
Speaker 1: ignoring the Supreme Court, that that that is a usurpation
Speaker 1: of executive the usurpation of judicial authority and conressional authority,
Speaker 1: where the executive is stepping in and asserting is its
Speaker 1: unilateral power the troops going to the Fed is obviously
Speaker 1: a very colorful illustration of what that looks like. But
Speaker 1: that's really when you're deciding to overturn barbary Us and
Speaker 1: get rid of the process of judicial review. You are
Speaker 1: kind of asserting that you will use the military force
Speaker 1: of the White House and the executive over the other
Speaker 1: branches of government. I just think it's really hard to
Speaker 1: see the White House ignoring the Supreme Court. I mean,
Speaker 1: putting aside the substance of question. This is not the
Speaker 1: kind of White House that wants to be seen as
Speaker 1: wildly out of step with American political norms. And even
Speaker 1: if you think that is totally justified by the law
Speaker 1: and circumstances, it's just impossible to see them. You know, Biden,
Speaker 1: the guy who's in the center for forty years, going
Speaker 1: for something yep. I think you are absolutely spot on
Speaker 1: with that. And to be clear, I think you're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing. I think the odds of default ween
Speaker 1: the odds of default in twenty eleven, we're high. The
Speaker 1: odds of default today are high. Whether we actually get
Speaker 1: out of it or not, who knows. And you should
Speaker 1: continue going, don't listen to people saying that you're playing
Speaker 1: it up or not just because the consequences of it
Speaker 1: are so high, and continue to do your job. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Jeff, That's what we have you on.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you always great to see you, Jeff. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be bucked up on here. Thanks guys, appreciate it
Speaker 1: any time much. Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it. We've got great shows for everybody this week.
Speaker 1: A little programming note Thursday the show we're going to
Speaker 1: be coming in remotely or we're going to be in Austin, Texas.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have fun times while we're down there. You
Speaker 1: can go ahead and guess what we're doing. It's called
Speaker 1: the Live Show, that's what it is. It's on Friday.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a great show for everybody who is
Speaker 1: in attendance. Just programming note there. We will still have
Speaker 1: Tuesday show. Counterpoints will still premiere on Wednesday. We still
Speaker 1: have a show for everybody on Thursday, so don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. We're always working very hard for all of you.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for our premium subscribers. We really appreciate you,
Speaker 1: especially with all this stuff going on with our business
Speaker 1: right now with expansion, you're gonna hear much more about it.
Speaker 1: We will see you all tomorrow. Love you guys, see
Speaker 1: you tomorrow.