Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have for us?
Speaker 1: So indeed, we do lots of interesting things that are
Speaker 1: breaking this morning.
Speaker 3: First of all, we have more.
Speaker 1: Amazing results from our exclusive focus group of New Hampshire
Speaker 1: Republican voters. We ask them about some issues things like
Speaker 1: abortion and also social security, so we will play some
Speaker 1: of that for you. We also have kind of peak
Speaker 1: eggs over on the Democratic side about their very likely
Speaker 1: ticket headed into twenty twenty four. There is a freak
Speaker 1: out about the top of the ticket. There is a
Speaker 1: freak out about the vice president Kamala Harris. In fact,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi just this morning on CNN refused to say
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris was the best choice for the ticket,
Speaker 1: So we will play all of that for you, which
Speaker 1: is very interesting. We also have some new, very troubling
Speaker 1: numbers coming out in terms of the economy of inflation
Speaker 1: has ticked back up, child poverty has skyrocketed at the
Speaker 1: fastest clip literally since they've been tracking it.
Speaker 3: So we'll dig into all of that.
Speaker 1: And there is a lot of of course spin and
Speaker 1: cope coming from the Biden White House on those numbers.
Speaker 1: At the same time, kind of a surprise announcement from
Speaker 1: Senator Mitt Romney that he is going to retire. We
Speaker 1: will break down for you behind the scenes what is
Speaker 1: going on there and what he is saying about his reasons.
Speaker 1: And we have some new spin with regard to Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: his business dealings, his relationship with his father, etc. We're
Speaker 1: on the brink of a big possible strike tonight. We'll
Speaker 1: break that down for you. Saga is doing a little
Speaker 1: debunking of some alleged alien do it alien creatures that
Speaker 1: were presented before the Mexican Doubt. We'll give you all
Speaker 1: of those details as well. And late breaking last night,
Speaker 1: Bill Maher has decided to become a scab and restart
Speaker 1: his show real time in spite of the fact that
Speaker 1: the writers are still out on strike.
Speaker 2: It's an interesting choice. We will be covering it, okay,
Speaker 2: But before we get to that, just want to say
Speaker 2: again thanks to all the premium subscribers. You guys were
Speaker 2: the ones who enabled our focus group. We're planning on
Speaker 2: doing many more, so make sure you go ahead and
Speaker 2: sign up for breakingpoints dot com. You can help support
Speaker 2: our work. And we are going to be delivering the
Speaker 2: full focus group to all of the premium subscribers at
Speaker 2: some point later today and it will be available fully
Speaker 2: on the public feed tomorrow. So if you want to
Speaker 2: get it early and you want to be able to
Speaker 2: support our work, a little bit of an incentive there
Speaker 2: breakingpoints dot Com, as I said, But other than that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the actual focus group.
Speaker 3: Yep, absolutely so.
Speaker 1: We did this in partnership with Jail Partners and phenomenal
Speaker 1: moderator James who came in and did just a great
Speaker 1: job leading all of these We're already talking to them
Speaker 1: about what we might do next, so keep that in mind.
Speaker 3: As we're moving forward.
Speaker 1: But we wanted to get into how they felt about
Speaker 1: some of the top issues that are on people's minds
Speaker 1: as we head into the election. Of course, one of
Speaker 1: those top issues is abortion, and even more so than
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side, there has emerged a real split
Speaker 1: in terms of how Republican candidates are approaching the issue
Speaker 1: of abortion.
Speaker 3: This was represented by.
Speaker 1: Mike Pence versus Nicky Haley really in the debates, where
Speaker 1: Mike Pence has always been very stridently pro life, he
Speaker 1: has sort of stated some of his national reputation and
Speaker 1: certainly his presidential run here on that issue. Explicitly Nicki
Speaker 1: Haley arguing in the direction of more moderation and how
Speaker 1: she would put it sort of like pragmatism and practicality.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to how these New Hampshire Republican
Speaker 1: base voters reacted to the clip of Mike Pence staking
Speaker 1: out his position in the debate.
Speaker 4: My lifeless governor and as vice president. And to be
Speaker 4: honest with you, Nikki, you're my friend, But consensus is
Speaker 4: the opposite of leadership. When the Supreme Court returned this
Speaker 4: question to the American people, they didn't just send it
Speaker 4: to the states only. It's not a state's only issue.
Speaker 4: It's a moral issue. And I promise you, as president
Speaker 4: of the United states. The American people will have a
Speaker 4: champion for life in the Oval office. Can't we have
Speaker 4: a minimum standard in every state in the nation that
Speaker 4: says when a baby is capable of feeling pain and
Speaker 4: abortion cannot be allowed. A fifteen week ban is an
Speaker 4: idea whose time has come. It's supported by seventy percent
Speaker 4: of the American people. But it's going to take unapologetic leadership,
Speaker 4: Leadership that stands on principle and expresses compassion in crisis pregnancies.
Speaker 4: I'll do that as president.
Speaker 5: Of the United States. It is in the hands of
Speaker 5: the people and that's where it should be. Well, when
Speaker 5: you're talking about a federal ban, be honest with the
Speaker 5: American people. We haven't had forty five pro life senators
Speaker 5: in over one hundred years. So no Republican that can
Speaker 5: ban abortions anymore that a Democrat president could ban all
Speaker 5: those states. Wells, don't make women feel like they have
Speaker 5: to decide on this issue when you know we don't
Speaker 5: have sixty Senate votes.
Speaker 3: In the House.
Speaker 6: I just think putting a band on it right there,
Speaker 6: to me seems like a control thing. When I think
Speaker 6: about that, every baby is a baby, I mean from
Speaker 6: when they're conceived, and I don't think you can say
Speaker 6: fifteen weeks is a limit on it.
Speaker 3: It's a baby.
Speaker 7: I don't agree with a blanket ban.
Speaker 8: You're taking away a lot of choices for people, and
Speaker 8: not necessarily you know, in pro of you know, an
Speaker 8: unborn child or anything like that. It's still somebody's going
Speaker 8: to find a way one way or the other. It's
Speaker 8: not going to stop happening. And you're putting a band
Speaker 8: and you're forcing people into a corner, and it's not
Speaker 8: going to help anybody.
Speaker 9: Fifteen weeks feels our reshare to me actually personally, rather
Speaker 9: that it went back to where there was no government
Speaker 9: support for it.
Speaker 10: Save the child, take the child into adoption. People who
Speaker 10: can't have children want to have children instead of aborting
Speaker 10: them killing them. That's change the way we look at life.
Speaker 11: I still think it should be at the state's state level.
Speaker 11: I just don't agree with the whole federal oversight of that.
Speaker 11: I am a pro life candidate person, but I also
Speaker 11: think that Nikki Haley and the debate had a lot
Speaker 11: of points about consensus, like what are the things that
Speaker 11: people actually agree on? Like I know, I understand like
Speaker 11: intellectually that it's a human life and we shouldn't be
Speaker 11: bargaining with that. But I also think that there are
Speaker 11: things that people do agree like you don't think a
Speaker 11: federal ban is where it's at.
Speaker 12: I'd prefer to see a federal ban on all more murder,
Speaker 12: including them board child as well as our elderly. Any
Speaker 12: type of murder, in my mind, should be federally banned.
Speaker 2: Who would like to see that low? That fifteen week man?
Speaker 2: It hands up if you'd like that to be lower still.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I thought very interesting conversation there. You can
Speaker 1: see that group is fairly divided, and some of the
Speaker 1: people who had objections to the fifteen week ban, it
Speaker 1: was like it doesn't go far enough, and I think
Speaker 1: it's sort of underscores the buine Listen, Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: kind of in his own category. He can kind of
Speaker 1: stake down his own positions and people just like accept
Speaker 1: it and deal with it. For every other candidate, the
Speaker 1: people who are voting on this issue in the Republican
Speaker 1: primary are the most hard line. So they're the ones
Speaker 1: like the one woman in the front row who's all
Speaker 1: the way on the right. She seems to be sort
Speaker 1: of the most ideological and possibly like staking her vote
Speaker 1: on this issue, and so you know, they might accept
Speaker 1: someone who goes further than they want on abortion, but
Speaker 1: there are people in the Republican base who will not
Speaker 1: vote for you if you don't have a pretty hard
Speaker 1: stance on the issue, and that's kind of the bind
Speaker 1: for some of these candidates.
Speaker 2: Very difficult, very difficult. I did note though, that a
Speaker 2: lot of the people who were on the side of
Speaker 2: the issue, some of them were very Trump and it
Speaker 2: was clear to me that the Trump people it's not
Speaker 2: their top priority, but rightly undecided, it was a priority.
Speaker 2: And also it was interesting to see the viviake Ramaswami
Speaker 2: supporter there who talked about how this was. She was like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't like the idea of the band,
Speaker 2: and it actually tracks because she is not only more
Speaker 2: independent minded, but she's a bit more libertarian, and that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons she was supporting viveg So I
Speaker 2: really loved the way that that you could see that
Speaker 2: come through in normal rhetoric when they're like, well, I
Speaker 2: don't really like the idea of a national ban or
Speaker 2: like telling people what to do, seems like going up
Speaker 2: to the States is a reasonable position, even though I
Speaker 2: have a pro life position, and I was like, that
Speaker 2: is that's the big divide around how a lot of
Speaker 2: people feel about this. And this doesn't even take into
Speaker 2: account how non GOP voters feel, you know, amongst them
Speaker 2: though you could see even they don't agree, and so
Speaker 2: that shows you how minority of a position it is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point.
Speaker 1: Even within the Republican base, you don't have anywhere close
Speaker 1: to unanimous consent for a even a fifteen week band,
Speaker 1: which is a more moderate position than frankly what we've
Speaker 1: heard Mike Pence articulate in the past. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is someone who would certainly be on board with a
Speaker 1: absolute complete federal ban. I think he's floating the sort
Speaker 1: of more moderate position and make it more palatable to
Speaker 1: a broader audience. But yeah, the fact that you don't
Speaker 1: even have anywhere close to consensus within this group is noteworthy.
Speaker 1: The fact that the people who seem to be voting
Speaker 1: on the issue are the most hardline is noteworthy. And
Speaker 1: of course there's a huge gulf between how this plays
Speaker 1: within a Republican primary and how this plays with independence
Speaker 1: with Democrats in a general election, and that's kind of
Speaker 1: the bind that these candidates find themselves in. Another issue
Speaker 1: that has long been the sort of definition of the
Speaker 1: third rail and American politics, what about Social Security? And
Speaker 1: so Nikki Haley, after the debate, she became this kind
Speaker 1: of media and she's long been a donor class darling,
Speaker 1: and one of the top issues for the donor classes
Speaker 1: cutting Social Security. So she took the cable news airways
Speaker 1: and was making the case that we got to do
Speaker 1: something about this program. We got to cut benefits for
Speaker 1: some group of beneficiaries. So we wanted to get our
Speaker 1: group to react to her comments on that as well
Speaker 1: and see where they stood on the issue.
Speaker 3: Let's take to listen to how that went.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 13: You know, you've got multiple candidates on that stage that
Speaker 13: said they wouldn't touch in titlements, including Trump. And any
Speaker 13: candidate that says they're not going to touch entitlements means
Speaker 13: that they're basically going to go into the go into office,
Speaker 13: and then leave America bankrupt. Social Security is going to
Speaker 13: go bankrupt in ten years, Medicare is going to go
Speaker 13: bankrupt in eight. So the way we deal with it
Speaker 13: is we don't touch anyone's retirement or anyone who's been
Speaker 13: promised in But we go to people like my kids
Speaker 13: in their twenties when they're coming into the system and
Speaker 13: we say the rules have changed. We change retirement age
Speaker 13: to reflect life expectancy instead of cost of living increases.
Speaker 13: We do it based on inflation. We limit the benefits
Speaker 13: on the wealthy, and we expand medicare advantage plans.
Speaker 2: How'd you feel about the argument she's made that anyone
Speaker 2: can come in here? How do you feel about the Ocguman?
Speaker 7: She's not wrong. We are going to run out of
Speaker 7: money for it.
Speaker 8: There has to be other ways that we can look
Speaker 8: for pensions and such for people that have put in
Speaker 8: their time.
Speaker 7: It's not going to be there. My age group is
Speaker 7: not going to have it.
Speaker 14: To mean, it's just a scare tactic. They've been talking
Speaker 14: about this for decades and something that she says to
Speaker 14: make the vote to say, yeah, wow, she's right. But
Speaker 14: we got and increase people at social Security. I think
Speaker 14: it was last year sometime and it was a good increase.
Speaker 10: And for her to be.
Speaker 14: Saying that she needs to scare the people into voting
Speaker 14: for her.
Speaker 10: The problem is what using social Security? And you've got
Speaker 10: a lot of legal immigrants coming to this country who
Speaker 10: are qualifying for some of these benefits which we're paying for,
Speaker 10: or we're younger paying for this stuff to be using
Speaker 10: people who don't deserve to have it. It wasn't meant for that.
Speaker 9: It can't continue how it is, or it won't probably
Speaker 9: continue how it is, but I think it could be
Speaker 9: changed rather than just eliminated.
Speaker 12: I believe we had a culture in America at one
Speaker 12: point where the working class benefited in their senior years
Speaker 12: after they were done working, based on what they put
Speaker 12: into the system. And now we have a system that
Speaker 12: you don't need to work and you can get the
Speaker 12: most benefits in back we can penalize the rich to
Speaker 12: pay for those that don't work at all.
Speaker 11: Kind of struggling like as if I maybe I don't
Speaker 11: know something, but don't you have to pay into Social
Speaker 11: Security to get it? So the notion of people just
Speaker 11: getting it for free, I'm not quite. It feels like
Speaker 11: a talking point, but maybe you know that's not I
Speaker 11: wouldn't have come in here and said, oh, social Security's
Speaker 11: been number one priorities, so I don't know.
Speaker 10: We've had neighbors who've gotten on Social Security and they
Speaker 10: go on the premise either mental illness, or they couldn't hear.
Speaker 10: Once they get the hearing aid in or kind of
Speaker 10: hearing it, they get to fix the problem they could hear. Fine,
Speaker 10: they still don't have to go back to work. They
Speaker 10: still gotten Social Security, so it's becoming a handout benefit.
Speaker 8: I don't know about increasing it from my generation, like
Speaker 8: because it's just not going to work. There's too many
Speaker 8: of us. But for somebody who can't go back to
Speaker 8: work because they're physically just too old, like we can't
Speaker 8: leave them behind.
Speaker 3: Very interesting, a lot of confused in them.
Speaker 2: I love that lady who's like, I think we have
Speaker 2: to pay into him, Like, yeah, man, we do. That
Speaker 2: feels like a talking point.
Speaker 3: But I don't know she's trying to be very diplomatic there.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it's interesting to see, first of all,
Speaker 1: what they've taken in about the program. Everybody seemed to
Speaker 1: have taken in this. You know, what they accept is
Speaker 1: reality that all we can't just keep going in the
Speaker 1: same way. And you know, I mean, obviously you could
Speaker 1: change the program in a variety of ways to bring
Speaker 1: in sufficient revenue. You can just lift the income tap,
Speaker 1: the income cap, and then you'd have sufficient revenue. To
Speaker 1: fund the program. But you know, it felt like the
Speaker 1: the vibe in the room was very mixed, and so
Speaker 1: it frees candidates up to take whatever position they want
Speaker 1: in terms of Republican primary, knowing that in a general election,
Speaker 1: saying you're coming after social Security is absolutely poisoned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's It's also interesting that one man, you know,
Speaker 2: he's talking about social Security, was talking about but he
Speaker 2: was talking about the different part of the Social Security program.
Speaker 2: It's called SSDI, which is the Social Security Disability Insurance.
Speaker 2: He's talking about elderly Social Security payments. And you're right, Look,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think a lot of people really fundamentally
Speaker 2: misunderstand the way the Social Security is funded. It's funded
Speaker 2: obviously through the payroll tax. The vast majority of people
Speaker 2: in this country never make enough money to understand though
Speaker 2: that it's capped. Like if you're a doctor who makes
Speaker 2: four hundred grand a year, you only pay payroll taxes
Speaker 2: on a maximum set to one hundred and sixty thousand dollars,
Speaker 2: which means that they actually it's almost a benefit for
Speaker 2: them whenever they're going over that. So sure they have
Speaker 2: to pay federal income tax, but the normal tax that
Speaker 2: any normal person aut of us would pay is not
Speaker 2: even close to that. Yeah, for payroll taxes, and that
Speaker 2: doesn't even mention the fact that payroll taxes are not
Speaker 2: touched at all whenever it comes to the income, the
Speaker 2: dividend income and the other type of income that the
Speaker 2: fabulously wealthy people in this country actually do earn, where
Speaker 2: not only they pay lower tax rate effective to what
Speaker 2: they would have as income, they don't pay payroll tax
Speaker 2: on that at all. So there's a lot of stuff
Speaker 2: that we could do actually wouldn't touch anybody below. And
Speaker 2: you could even make it over a million dollars. You'd
Speaker 2: still make jillions of dollars if you just put it
Speaker 2: towards that. But you know, those people have a very
Speaker 2: powerful lobby in this country.
Speaker 1: Yes indeed, And you remember when just not that long ago,
Speaker 1: there was this whole freak out in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: after the Biden State of the Union, like how dare
Speaker 1: you say that we ever wanted to touch those security And
Speaker 1: then you know, just months later they're right back to
Speaker 1: the same talking points of like, yeah, we do actually
Speaker 1: want to cut social Security. So, like I said, I
Speaker 1: think it plays very differently in a Republican primary, where
Speaker 1: even in a Republican primary, again, like abortion, very mixed
Speaker 1: sentiment on what to do, how to approach it, whether
Speaker 1: this is a top issue at all versus the general public.
Speaker 1: And you know, once again Trump has really staked out
Speaker 1: the more politically palatable position of just saying I'm not
Speaker 1: touching it. This is something he's been saying since twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen every time he's run I'm not touching it whatsoever,
Speaker 1: which obviously plays better in a general election.
Speaker 2: Very true. But anyway, look, I think the fun part
Speaker 2: about the group is that we could see like division
Speaker 2: in real time and how people think very nuanced about
Speaker 2: the issue. And also you know about kind of first strikes,
Speaker 2: like that one man that was it's like this one gentleman,
Speaker 2: he's you know, I don't I'm not going to assume
Speaker 2: his age. He looks relatively older. It's like he's probably
Speaker 2: going to be receiving Social Security, but in his mind,
Speaker 2: it's not an elderly program. It's a disability program. Whereas
Speaker 2: the younger people that are like, well, yeah, solvency there.
Speaker 2: It does make sense in terms of what we're talking about,
Speaker 2: but I don't think we should let people off. And
Speaker 2: then the other woman, like you said, I'd be like,
Speaker 2: I think we pay into it. But you know, the
Speaker 2: other thing is I don't remember her occupation. But if
Speaker 2: you don't work, you actually don't get Social Security, which
Speaker 2: is the whole thing, you know, whenever it comes to
Speaker 2: house moms and stuff like that. So it actually makes
Speaker 2: sense if you haven't worked before, you don't really know
Speaker 2: that much about peril taxing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. So interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: Thanks again to Jail Partners for working with us on this.
Speaker 1: We're excited to do more going forward because I think
Speaker 1: we got a lot of Really, I mean, there's just
Speaker 1: no substitute for actually hearing real voters in their own words,
Speaker 1: grapple with these issues and get a sense of what's
Speaker 1: the priority, what's not the priority, how are they reacting
Speaker 1: to these various clips that we see all the time.
Speaker 1: And you know, reminded, this isn't scientific. This is just
Speaker 1: this group of voters and their particular view of the world.
Speaker 1: But I also feel like their perspectives and the breakdown
Speaker 1: of that group matches up with a lot of the
Speaker 1: pulling that we see too, in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: Trumps still being very dominant and who some of the
Speaker 1: potential second place contenders are and how they're viewing the
Speaker 1: issue landscape, etc. So always really useful and really interesting
Speaker 1: to hear voters in their own words.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, let's talk about President Biden. There's a lot going
Speaker 2: on in terms of the media just deciding to turn
Speaker 2: on President Biden at the elite level. There have been
Speaker 2: two particularly noteworthy instances in recent days. One is Joe
Speaker 2: Scarborough mourning. Joe, who once upon a time was on
Speaker 2: the right now kinds himself a quintessential Biden Democrat, and
Speaker 2: he has admitted now but that behind the scenes, every
Speaker 2: major Democrat that he talks to thinks that Biden is
Speaker 2: too old to run for president. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 15: Everybody we talked to every political discussion, all it talks
Speaker 15: a lot about Trump, but when it comes to Joe Biden,
Speaker 15: people say, man, he's too old?
Speaker 13: Is he?
Speaker 15: I mean, he's not gonna He's not really going to
Speaker 15: run every discussion. When I say every discussion, I don't
Speaker 15: need ninety nine percent of the discussion every discussion, we
Speaker 15: got it. I asked Reveren Now if he was hearing
Speaker 15: it all the time on our show this past week,
Speaker 15: He's hearing it as well. So you know, we often
Speaker 15: will complain about Republicans who will say one thing about
Speaker 15: Donald Trump off the air and another on air. Well,
Speaker 15: let me just say, Democrats off the air will say
Speaker 15: Joe Biden's too.
Speaker 1: Old, woah, too old, that he'll close home when it's
Speaker 1: you know, the elite show. Let me tell you, this
Speaker 1: show is on every TV in the Capitol building, in
Speaker 1: the White House, in the Senate gym. Like this is
Speaker 1: the breakfast consumption of every single politician.
Speaker 2: I'm tell you, When I walk my dog at six
Speaker 2: thirty in the morning, and people who have their windows
Speaker 2: open or whatever in the living room, it's morning Joe, Morning, Joe,
Speaker 2: Morning Joe, CNN Morning Joe moriy I probably walked past
Speaker 2: fifteen morning Joe spans in the morning. And that's how
Speaker 2: you know every single one of those people. It's like
Speaker 2: I all work in the government, they all work in
Speaker 2: the White House, these types of folks. So look, let
Speaker 2: it sink in about this level of impact that this
Speaker 2: segment will have as opposed to anything you and I
Speaker 2: ever discussed it, even though it's obvious, but the real
Speaker 2: strike at the heart was David Ignacious. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there please on the screen, guys, because this was
Speaker 2: the most momentous I think jump the shark moment where
Speaker 2: he says, quote President Biden should not run again in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. I'm not going to even bother reading
Speaker 2: it because this is obviously sound. He's like, I respect Biden,
Speaker 2: He's done some good stuff, but he's ready too old
Speaker 2: and he needs to have new blood. The thing is
Speaker 2: about Ignacious is he is of basically the voice of
Speaker 2: Langley and the CIA. This guy has gotten every leak
Speaker 2: unhumanly possible whenever it comes to Ukraine, Syria, Libya, going
Speaker 2: back more than a decade. And the thing is is
Speaker 2: when Ignacious writes something like this, I have to ask
Speaker 2: what's the angle because you could not find someone who
Speaker 2: is a more vociferous supporter of the Biden foreign policy
Speaker 2: in Ukraine, of even in this piece, he's like, I
Speaker 2: respect so many things about preident by any yeah, best presidence,
Speaker 2: but for him to come out and say shouldn't run again,
Speaker 2: also this late in the game, I mean their panic.
Speaker 2: It's a full blown panic at the elite media level.
Speaker 1: The timing is so interesting to me because I think
Speaker 1: the reason why there's this ground swell of elite panic
Speaker 1: about something that has been manifestly obvious to.
Speaker 3: All of us for quite a while.
Speaker 1: Now is because it's kind of the last possible moment
Speaker 1: when you could even imagine pushing Joe out and Kamala
Speaker 1: out and getting some different ticket in Now, I think
Speaker 1: it's a fantasy. I think that it's a lot of
Speaker 1: like Donor and other Democratic politician wish casting. I don't
Speaker 1: think Joe Biden is going anywhere. I think he has
Speaker 1: genuinely committed himself to the path, and without something outside
Speaker 1: of his control, some health event or whatever, I think
Speaker 1: that we are very likely looking at the Biden Trump
Speaker 1: rematch that almost literally no one wants. But that's what
Speaker 1: I read into the timing of this is there's we've
Speaker 1: had poll after poll after poll that has Biden and
Speaker 1: Trump basically tied. And it was one thing in the
Speaker 1: beginning when it's like, oh, maybe this is an outlier,
Speaker 1: maybe this is just a strange time period, maybe things
Speaker 1: will change once all the indictments come out, et cetera.
Speaker 3: And even after.
Speaker 1: All of that, you're getting all of these polls that
Speaker 1: say three quarters of the country don't want them to run.
Speaker 1: They think he's too old, you're getting it's tied with
Speaker 1: Trump or some poles saying, hey, Trump has a little
Speaker 1: bit of an edge on this guy. And remember both
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and again in twenty twenty, even though
Speaker 1: you know, both races ended up being really close, one
Speaker 1: Trump gets the win and one the Democrats get the win.
Speaker 1: He never had a lead in the polls or was
Speaker 1: even tied in the polls at this point in the race.
Speaker 3: So for them to be looking at these.
Speaker 1: Polls where you know, in their mind and we'll get
Speaker 1: to this in a minute, the reality versus their mind.
Speaker 1: But in their mind, they're like, oh, the economy is
Speaker 1: getting better, and we had all these accomplishments and we're
Speaker 1: still we're still tied with Trump in the polls. So
Speaker 1: there is a full blown elite freakout panic happening such
Speaker 1: that even they are allowing in a little bit of
Speaker 1: a glimpse of reality of what the rest of us
Speaker 1: have been seeing for like years now.
Speaker 2: Very obvious. And you know, another big moment. CNN even
Speaker 2: feels like they got to ask the White House about
Speaker 2: this whenever they have a White House spokesperson on let's
Speaker 2: take a lesson.
Speaker 16: A lot of people in Washington right now. And I
Speaker 16: know this is probably going to drive your team crazy
Speaker 16: that I ask it this way, but I think it.
Speaker 2: Matters because it's accurate.
Speaker 16: Because the columnist who wrote a piece today asking for
Speaker 16: the President not to seek re election, David Ignatius, is
Speaker 16: well respected within the building behind you. What's your response
Speaker 16: to that idea. It's not just about the president, it's
Speaker 16: also about the vice president, who you work for in
Speaker 16: the twenty twenty campaign.
Speaker 17: Yeah, well, I'm governed by the hatcheck and I want
Speaker 17: to be really careful. But obviously, the president has announced
Speaker 17: he's running for reelection, and the President is going to
Speaker 17: make his case to the American people. And I'll refer
Speaker 17: you to the campaign for any sort of campaign questions.
Speaker 17: But this president has a lot to be proud of
Speaker 17: and a lot to run on. He's delivered some of
Speaker 17: the most consequential achievements and economic progress in generations with
Speaker 17: the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Bill, the Chips Bill,
Speaker 17: which is opening new factories and creating new manufacturing jobs
Speaker 17: around the country. That's what he's going to be talking about.
Speaker 2: Look, clearly it makes him uncomfortable, but I mean, when
Speaker 2: you see CNN are asking the question when you see
Speaker 2: Joe Scarborough admit the obvious part out loud, the Ignacious column,
Speaker 2: which for me is the most important piece of all this.
Speaker 2: Like once, you cannot overstate how impactful Ignacious is in
Speaker 2: terms of like Washington Group think. He literally is like
Speaker 2: a spokesperson for the Blob, and the rest of his
Speaker 2: columns are just all about how we should give Ukraine
Speaker 2: everything up to like a nuclear bomb, and so that
Speaker 2: they can win the war. When that type of person
Speaker 2: decides to shift against Biden, you know that this is
Speaker 2: not only real, it is like being whispered and talked
Speaker 2: about everywhere, and if they can get rid of him,
Speaker 2: they will, But like you said, how is it possible
Speaker 2: this late in the game. Also, you'd have to go
Speaker 2: with Kamala, which we're about to talk about. But in
Speaker 2: the dynamic that you created, he's basically set himself up.
Speaker 2: So it's like a prisoner's dilemma where the only real
Speaker 2: choice is to go along with this man. Maybe Crystal,
Speaker 2: they're trying to hedge their bets so that in the
Speaker 2: future they can say I told you so if he
Speaker 2: does lose, just because they know earlier. Is like you said,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Yeah, you just don't know the impetus.
Speaker 1: Usually that type of like spin and throwing various people
Speaker 1: under the bus.
Speaker 3: That's usually towards the end of the campaign the writing start.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly when the writing's starting to be on the
Speaker 1: wall and the fall right before the elector like I
Speaker 1: told it, I knew this was a problem and they
Speaker 1: did this and that wrong, or this advisor was you know,
Speaker 1: the wrong whatever. Usually that comes a little bit later.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there is real concern among the
Speaker 1: donor set. Obviously, they're looking at the polls. They're you know,
Speaker 1: really freaked out. It reminds me a little bit of
Speaker 1: some of the dynamics in twenty twenty when there was
Speaker 1: all this handwringing about Biden, when Obama was sort of
Speaker 1: like tacitly backing a.
Speaker 3: Variety of their candidates.
Speaker 1: You know, a bunch of previous Obama people were going
Speaker 1: to Bato Rourke, they were you know, Pete Curious whatever.
Speaker 1: Like there was a whole searching for I can't just
Speaker 1: be the form of vice Frialy, like there's got to
Speaker 1: be somebody else. But that in the end, there was
Speaker 1: a realization of like if we're going to beat Bernie.
Speaker 1: This is the only guy that's really credible, the only
Speaker 1: guy left standing.
Speaker 3: And then the other problem.
Speaker 1: Is I kind of I think that they still believe
Speaker 1: that they would have to go with Kamala if Biden
Speaker 1: was to step aside. I don't actually think that's reality though,
Speaker 1: because she's proven herself to be so weak and her
Speaker 1: approval rating so low. I genuinely don't think there would
Speaker 1: be very much blowback. It's not like there's actually this
Speaker 1: ground swell of you know, black women who were hugely
Speaker 1: support We've just never seen that that's the case.
Speaker 2: Except on Twitter. White guys you call themselves the k Hive.
Speaker 1: Right exactly, they're repping for it, right, I mean for
Speaker 1: this imaginary group of people who are supposedly in love
Speaker 1: with Kamala Harris. But I genuinely don't think in the
Speaker 1: real world there would be a lot of low back.
Speaker 3: From just opening it up to democratic process.
Speaker 1: I mean, who could object to being like, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're going to have a democratic process, and if Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris comes out on top and people choose her, then
Speaker 1: she'll be our candidate, and she's the best person in
Speaker 1: place to defeat Donald Trump. Whatever but we're going to
Speaker 1: let voters have their say. I just can't imagine there
Speaker 1: would actually be a real world off of twitter blowback
Speaker 1: to letting voters actually get to decide in a democratic process.
Speaker 2: Well to your point, Crystal, there was a shocking moment
Speaker 2: from Nancy Pelosi on Anderson Cooper's show on CNN where
Speaker 2: he asked her three times are you going to endorse
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris for vice president? And she won't say it.
Speaker 2: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 18: Is a vice president Harris the best running mate for
Speaker 18: this president?
Speaker 19: He thinks so, and that's what matters. And by the way,
Speaker 19: she's very politically astute. I don't think people give her
Speaker 19: enough credit. She's, of course values based, consistent with the
Speaker 19: president's values and the rest, and people don't understand she's
Speaker 19: politically stu why would she be vice president? She were not,
Speaker 19: But when she was running for attorney general in California,
Speaker 19: she had six percent in the polls, six percent in
Speaker 19: the polls, and she politically astutely made her case about
Speaker 19: why she would be good, did her politics and became
Speaker 19: attorney general. So don't people shouldn't underestimate what Kamin Harris
Speaker 19: brings to the table.
Speaker 2: Do you think she is the best running mate?
Speaker 19: Then she's the vice president of the United States. So
Speaker 19: people say to me, well, why isn't she doing this
Speaker 19: or that? I said, because she's the vice president. That's
Speaker 19: the job description. You don't do that much. You know,
Speaker 19: you know, you're a source of strength, inspiration, intellectual resource
Speaker 19: and the rest and you and she. I think she's
Speaker 19: represented a country very well at home and abroad.
Speaker 2: All right, yeah, much true. By the way, shouldn't be true,
Speaker 2: but it is true.
Speaker 12: Wow.
Speaker 2: I mean I don't even know what to say about that.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's one of the most blatant. I mean,
Speaker 2: she had every opportunity. Is the biggest lay up in
Speaker 2: the world, Like, yeah, what's happening here? She won't endorse it.
Speaker 2: I mean we were talking about this before. What's the
Speaker 2: I mean, what is it? Is it some weird California
Speaker 2: stuff possible? Is it just that? I mean, look Pelosi, yeah,
Speaker 2: no fan over here, but got herself re elected a
Speaker 2: bunch of times. She's a huge Democratic fundraiser. She's probably
Speaker 2: hearing it from every billionaire on the planet. What have
Speaker 2: you done to us? Why have you saddled us with
Speaker 2: this woman? Maybe she's speaking on behalf of the constituent.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I guarantee you in the East Wing
Speaker 2: or wherever the hell her office is, you can take
Speaker 2: a notice of that.
Speaker 3: I have a guess of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Could be could be some weird California beef from twenty
Speaker 1: years ago.
Speaker 3: That's very possible.
Speaker 1: My suspicion is this is representing the donor class, because
Speaker 1: there's no constituency that Nancy Pelosi is closer to or
Speaker 1: who she depends on for her power board than the
Speaker 1: donor class. That's the whole reason why she's had so
Speaker 1: much power in Washington for so long, because she can
Speaker 1: raise boatloads of money at drop of a hat and
Speaker 1: still can. And you know, obviously she represents San Francisco,
Speaker 1: so all of those Silicon Valley type donors not to
Speaker 1: mention the wall shereet don't. I mean, she's just plugged
Speaker 1: in with the donor set that is her constituency. And
Speaker 1: so I think the reason why she is so reluctant
Speaker 1: to just you know, Nancy Pelosi lies all the time,
Speaker 1: Like why not just tell this particular lie that you
Speaker 1: think Kamala Harris is the best choice here. I think
Speaker 1: it's because she's trying to represent the donor angst over
Speaker 1: the fact that Kamala Harris is, you know, the vice
Speaker 1: president and is going to be Joe Biden's running mate
Speaker 1: once again. And you know, part of why this Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris question is so critical when Nancy Pelosi, in her
Speaker 1: very like passive aggressive way, is like, well, the vice
Speaker 1: president doesn't actually do that much. Why it so matters
Speaker 1: so much is obvious because Joe Biden is super old
Speaker 1: and there is a really uncomfortably high chance that he
Speaker 1: doesn't make it through another term. So it stands to
Speaker 1: reason that people are going to be evaluating that vice
Speaker 1: president finential selection and you know who the number two
Speaker 1: on the ticket is a lot more carefully than they
Speaker 1: might be if you had someone who was younger and
Speaker 1: you know, in the prime of their life.
Speaker 3: So that's why this question is so critical.
Speaker 1: And it's really I can't imagine how Kamala Harris felt
Speaker 1: watching that. I'm sure she was absolutely apoplectic that Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi would asked three times cannot bring herself to say yes,
Speaker 1: I think Kamala Harris is the best choice for vice president.
Speaker 2: I also don't have a lot of sympathy. She's terrible
Speaker 2: at her job. People deserve to be called out when
Speaker 2: they're terrible. I would personally like to see more of this.
Speaker 2: It's a slavish dedication. People are like, yeah, I don't
Speaker 2: think so, think she's bad, and the fact that they're
Speaker 2: willing to get away with it shows you how little
Speaker 2: power that she really has. Celosi, I don't think we'll
Speaker 2: be offering an apology or any of that, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's one of those where, yeah, if we read it
Speaker 2: in terms of the donors, which of course there's got
Speaker 2: to be some serious angst about this, well, clearly there's
Speaker 2: discussions going on behind the scenes, but what a clip.
Speaker 2: I still can't get over it. Truly shocking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, solutely absolutely.
Speaker 1: And so you know, part of the backdrop here for
Speaker 1: the tide poles and the Democratic angst is the fact
Speaker 1: that the economic reality for Americans is terrible. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just no two ways around it. Over the course
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration, you've had two phenomenon that have
Speaker 1: been really tragic, honestly for regular people. One is inflation,
Speaker 1: and the other is the fact that all the pandemic
Speaker 1: social safety net programs went away and so the things
Speaker 1: that were previously helping people and get into a little
Speaker 1: bit more of this in a moment are gone, leaving
Speaker 1: them racking up credit card debt and struggling to pay
Speaker 1: the bills at a time when prices keep going.
Speaker 3: Higher and higher.
Speaker 1: So in spite of that actual reality, you've had lots
Speaker 1: of pundits and mainstream economists coming out to say, I
Speaker 1: just don't understand why the American people aren't in love
Speaker 1: with this economy and giving Joe Biden all the credit
Speaker 1: in the world. I don't get why they don't love Bidenomics.
Speaker 1: And we had a perfect example of this from the
Speaker 1: New York Times economists Paul men going on and on
Speaker 1: about how great the economy is. Literally the day before
Speaker 1: we got inflation numbers that showed it had spiked once again.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he was saying.
Speaker 20: The striking thing if you look at it's not just
Speaker 20: you know, the economic data have been surreally good. I
Speaker 20: mean even optimists are just donne by how quickly and
Speaker 20: how painlessly inflation has come down. We're, you know, no
Speaker 20: hint of a recession, least so far, never know, but no,
Speaker 20: so far inflation not too far from the you know,
Speaker 20: the target of two percent and under three percent by
Speaker 20: most measures, and all of that just achieve painlessly.
Speaker 3: So this is great.
Speaker 20: This is this is a Goldilocks economy. People say it's
Speaker 20: a terrible economy. But what's really odd is that people
Speaker 20: don't behave as if.
Speaker 2: It's terrible economy.
Speaker 20: You know, we can talk about surveys which in which
Speaker 20: people seem to be relatively happy with their own financial situation,
Speaker 20: or can just look at behavior. People are out there
Speaker 20: with a lot of discretionary consumer spending, travel, hotels, restaurants,
Speaker 20: all of that is booming. So people are acting as
Speaker 20: if they're in good shape financially. And yet they say, wow,
Speaker 20: this is a disastrous economy. Somebody must be a disaster
Speaker 20: for somebody, but not for me. And you know, they
Speaker 20: we don't really understand why this is happening, but you know,
Speaker 20: and I can come up with with multiple stories, but
Speaker 20: it is I think important to point out that there
Speaker 20: is a really profound and peculiar disconnect going on.
Speaker 3: Goldilock's economy. Really good.
Speaker 1: This man has a Nobel Price in economics and he
Speaker 1: can't figure Outlet let me, let's help explain why people
Speaker 1: are not feeling the love on bidnomics. Well, we just
Speaker 1: got some numbers in let's put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen that inflation actually ticked back up again, and the
Speaker 1: primary reason is one that's kind of important to ordinary people.
Speaker 3: Gas.
Speaker 1: Gas is the biggest factor, accounting for over half the increase. Shelter,
Speaker 1: especially rent, also a big factor. Now, there were a
Speaker 1: million stories, Sager that listen, I am as nerdy about this.
Speaker 3: Stuff as anyone.
Speaker 1: I like to get it, okay, what things are going
Speaker 1: up and what's not and what's driving it, et cetera.
Speaker 3: There was a lot of spin about.
Speaker 1: How, well, actually these numbers are not that bad because
Speaker 1: it's just gas, and it's just rent, just gas, and
Speaker 1: it's right, what do you think that most people are
Speaker 1: spending their money on? Like what is hitting their pocketbook
Speaker 1: the hardest? And obviously those are two of the biggest
Speaker 1: factors in terms of people being able to make it
Speaker 1: month to month.
Speaker 2: Chrystal. The price of gas as of this morning, national
Speaker 2: average is three eighty five, which is very high. In California,
Speaker 2: the national of the average state price is five point fifty.
Speaker 2: All across the West, it is well over four dollars
Speaker 2: and remains five in some very very populous states. The
Speaker 2: only some of the cheapest gas in the country is
Speaker 2: down south in Georgia and in Texas, where it's still
Speaker 2: only three point forty a gallon. That's that's very high,
Speaker 2: especially when you compare it to where things were pre
Speaker 2: pandemic levels. There's no getting around it. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of conversation around why and what and how and energy production.
Speaker 2: Some of it usually doesn't keep in mind the Ukraine
Speaker 2: element to it, which unfortunately we don't discuss nearly enough.
Speaker 3: But the significant point.
Speaker 2: Is is that guess what, it's not good right now.
Speaker 2: Also his whole point about I'm doing well but other
Speaker 2: people are, that's not even true. Put this up there.
Speaker 2: Real incomes fell last year. Everyone keeps saying, oh, real
Speaker 2: wages rose, and they're talking about a quarter. Look at
Speaker 2: the overall dip in the real income for most people
Speaker 2: from twenty twenty up until now. I mean, whenever you
Speaker 2: have American real income overall fell in twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: from the previous year and then maybe have some slight
Speaker 2: increase in twenty twenty three, you're still down by almost
Speaker 2: two point three percent for the average real income on
Speaker 2: American's actual salary that's almost all entirely because of inflation.
Speaker 2: And so when you have that, you have a record
Speaker 2: and amount of people who either drop out of the
Speaker 2: labor force or are finding underemployment so they're technically employed
Speaker 2: but then unemployed to like the highest degree, and the
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, what if you go to the
Speaker 2: grocery store, try walking out of there with less than
Speaker 2: a hundred dollars in a single bag or sorry, in
Speaker 2: a single trip. It's almost impossible. Yeah, for the vast
Speaker 2: majority of people, it's just so obvious what's happening. But
Speaker 2: White House won't learn, and people like Krugnant and all
Speaker 2: the matter just keep scolding them. It's really like the
Speaker 2: Obama era. They're like, you're doing well, you're doing well,
Speaker 2: you're doing well. Yeah, but I don't have a house anymore.
Speaker 2: It's like, you know, it's like we're not talking about
Speaker 2: the last quarter. We're talking about I had a house
Speaker 2: and now I don't have one and I probably never
Speaker 2: will have one. Oh and now I'm sixty seven and
Speaker 2: inflation is nuking my entire salary.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's the real disconnect is between pundits like Paul Krugman
Speaker 1: and the reality that people are actually facing.
Speaker 3: Put B seven up on the screen.
Speaker 1: It's a Jacobin article from our friend Bronco Marcitic who
Speaker 1: broke down. Hey, guys, here is why people are not
Speaker 1: feeling the love when G seven Sorry. When it comes
Speaker 1: to quote unquote bynomics, he writes, inflation is slowing down,
Speaker 1: but working class life in the US is still hard
Speaker 1: to afford, and he goes through the numbers. This is
Speaker 1: not hard to do, guys, This is not hard to do.
Speaker 1: The spike in child care costs far outpaced the general
Speaker 1: inflation rate, forcing parents to fork over thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: a month or to drop out.
Speaker 3: Of the workforce to take care of their kids.
Speaker 1: And by the way, there is more funding that is
Speaker 1: drying up that was put in place during the pandemic
Speaker 1: to help make child care more affordable, so that situation
Speaker 1: is only set to get worse. Prescription drugs, which sixty
Speaker 1: six percent of all US adults use often as a
Speaker 1: condition of staying alive and healthy, have likewise blown past
Speaker 1: overall inflation with a whopping thirty one point six percent
Speaker 1: year to year increase, and the very moderate reforms that
Speaker 1: were put into the Inflation Reduction Act that only applies
Speaker 1: to seniors, and it only applies to like ten drugs,
Speaker 1: and it only applies in like three years time. So
Speaker 1: don't hold your breath on that really changed and the
Speaker 1: dynamic with prescription drug costs.
Speaker 3: He also talks.
Speaker 1: About how housing is wildly expensive, and obviously the measures
Speaker 1: that the Federal Reserve took to hike interest rates to
Speaker 1: try to get inflation under control has made housing perhaps
Speaker 1: the most expensive that it has ever been in history.
Speaker 1: And so and he also points to insurance premiums on homes,
Speaker 1: something we talked a lot about here, cars and healthcare,
Speaker 1: so on, all of the areas that are most critical
Speaker 1: to Americans just being able to afford to live and
Speaker 1: have a basic standard of living, something approaching or approximating
Speaker 1: a middle class lifestyle. All of those things have gone
Speaker 1: up and up and up. Really in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways predates even this current surge of inflation. But it's
Speaker 1: not hard to see why people would be financially strapped.
Speaker 1: And we have tracked these numbers, you know, I mean
Speaker 1: every week, I feel like there's a new indication of
Speaker 1: how much people are struggling because of two things. Because
Speaker 1: number one, you had all of the pandemic social safety
Speaker 1: net which genuinely helped people go away. And number two,
Speaker 1: you had inflation spike at the very time when people
Speaker 1: were losing the support that they previously had.
Speaker 2: Yes, and unfortunately the White House wants to keep telling
Speaker 2: us about how good things are. Their top economic advisor,
Speaker 2: Jared Bernstein, took the podium yesterday. Here's his case for
Speaker 2: why you're doing better than you actually are. Take a listen.
Speaker 21: Turning to Bidenomics, we start from a position of strength.
Speaker 21: The US economy is in solid shape, with real GDP
Speaker 21: growth supported by strong consumer spending that is itself supported
Speaker 21: by a strong labor market delivering wage gains accounting for inflation.
Speaker 21: I have a next figure showing that the extent to
Speaker 21: which you see inflation coming down and prices and wages
Speaker 21: actually beating prices there both for all workers and for
Speaker 21: middle wage workers.
Speaker 2: Well, once again, you know, we come back to that canard.
Speaker 2: As we just showed you, it's not even true if
Speaker 2: you look on the actual timescale. They're trying to shrink
Speaker 2: it so that they're like, oh, well, only in the
Speaker 2: last quarter, everything's good. Oh, unemployment is so great. Look,
Speaker 2: vast majority of people you can't tell them. You can't
Speaker 2: spin them away from the facts. It's obvious, it's true,
Speaker 2: and it's their own fault where they find themselves right now.
Speaker 1: You know, it is interesting the one group that has
Speaker 1: actually seen their real incomes increase is Americans with no
Speaker 1: high school diploma. Yeah, they saw their incomes increase by
Speaker 1: six point four percent over and above inflation.
Speaker 3: And that is a testament to the one.
Speaker 1: Number that you know, they really want to point to,
Speaker 1: which is the very low unemployment rate, which is part
Speaker 1: of what has enabled you know, the labor actions that
Speaker 1: we've been covering and all of that going on. But
Speaker 1: there's a lot more to the economy than just what
Speaker 1: is the unemployment rate. There's also does your job pay
Speaker 1: enough that you can live? How much are the costs
Speaker 1: of things that are critical to the thriving and basic
Speaker 1: survival of yourself and your family. And there seems to
Speaker 1: be just a total, I don't know if it's intentional
Speaker 1: blind spot or what, but complete blind spot over those pieces.
Speaker 1: And so let's move on to this next part. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is so predictable and so stunning. So we had
Speaker 1: during the early days of the Biden administration, they passed
Speaker 1: some pandemic recovery programs. They included a child tax credit
Speaker 1: that was fully refundable that you know, really dramatically reduced
Speaker 1: child poverty. And the assumption was that, all right, we're
Speaker 1: just going to do this for a short term, but
Speaker 1: it's going to be so popular that Republicans are going
Speaker 1: to be forced to join us, and Joe Manchin is
Speaker 1: going to get over himself and also get on board,
Speaker 1: and we're going to be able to make this thing permanent.
Speaker 1: Well that didn't happen for a variety of reasons that
Speaker 1: I'll just get into. And the long and short of
Speaker 1: it is that we've now had child poverty spike the largest.
Speaker 3: Amount that we've ever had in history. Put this up
Speaker 3: on the screen.
Speaker 1: Child powerty in the US more than doubled, and median
Speaker 1: household income declined last year when COVID era government benefits
Speaker 1: expired and inflation kept rising. This is according to new
Speaker 1: Census Bureau numbers. Let's go and put this next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen, because you can just visualize it
Speaker 1: so clearly. So, the child poverty rate in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two was twelve point four percent. Now, this individual, Zach
Speaker 1: Perilan points out that from nineteen sixty seven to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one. Previously, the largest year over year increase in
Speaker 1: the child poverty rate was ten point seven percent. Now
Speaker 1: we had a record increase, a one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: nine percent increase in child poverty from twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty two. This is a policy choice. You
Speaker 1: can see it right there. When politicians in Washington decided
Speaker 1: that it was important how the child tax cred and
Speaker 1: put it in place, child poverty fell off a cliff.
Speaker 1: And when they decided they didn't care about it that
Speaker 1: much anymore. And I want to say, listen, it was
Speaker 1: mostly Democrats who supported this thing.
Speaker 3: Joe Manchin kind of tanked it, and none.
Speaker 1: Of the Republicans supported So let's be clear about you
Speaker 1: know who stands where on this. But when the politicians
Speaker 1: in the town decided it was no longer a priority,
Speaker 1: it jumped up by record numbers. I did a whole
Speaker 1: thing last week about my view of Bidenomics. I think
Speaker 1: there are some genuine and genuinely good things that have
Speaker 1: been put in place for the long term. Industrial policy important,
Speaker 1: something we will never have seen under Obama, Bush Clinton,
Speaker 1: Corporate antitrust like trust busting. A rethinking of corporate power
Speaker 1: also really important. You see the Google anti trust lawsuit
Speaker 1: going on right now. I talk a nauseum about labor
Speaker 1: power and this Biden National Labor Relations Board and how
Speaker 1: that could be changing the game for union density and
Speaker 1: labor power in this country.
Speaker 3: Those are all long.
Speaker 1: Term trends that isn't helping anyone out right now in
Speaker 1: the current reality where they are trying to pay their bills,
Speaker 1: trying to you know, keep their kids fed, trying to
Speaker 1: keep a roof over their house, trying to keep the
Speaker 1: lights on. All of those things have become more difficult
Speaker 1: during the Biden administration. And then you have these people
Speaker 1: turning around like I just don't get it. I don't
Speaker 1: get why these people don't love us. I don't get
Speaker 1: why they don't love Bidenomics. I don't understand why they're
Speaker 1: not flocking the polls and like enthusiastically ready to support us.
Speaker 3: It's very clear, guys, it's not complicated.
Speaker 2: It's really not complicated at all. And you can just
Speaker 2: watch how it all continues to drop structurally as well.
Speaker 2: Not even we're just talking about child poverty, because that
Speaker 2: just feeds into so many things about how people feel insecure,
Speaker 2: and it has a lot of developmental problems and impacts
Speaker 2: on children. It puts people behind because they have to
Speaker 2: go into debt because they want to provide for their kids,
Speaker 2: and then that makes it so that they can't reach
Speaker 2: even further milestones, you know, further on down the line.
Speaker 2: But the story of the Biden presidency is just pretty obvious.
Speaker 2: It's like, and also why people and why it's so stupid.
Speaker 2: I saw recently they're like, well, we're going to define
Speaker 2: Bidenomics and Maganomics. So I'm like, well, actually, if you
Speaker 2: look back, most people feel like they're doing pretty well
Speaker 2: under Trump. Unambiguously it maybe not even had anything to
Speaker 2: do with Trump, low interest rate, environment and no COVID
Speaker 2: and low inflation. But it was better then and it's
Speaker 2: not now. So if the story is that you're getting
Speaker 2: worse worse, worse worse, well things aren't. Uh, things aren't
Speaker 2: looking up for you.
Speaker 1: Here's the other thing where they do themselves no favors
Speaker 1: by completely denying any sort of democratic primary process. Is
Speaker 1: part of why Biden was forced into promising anything on
Speaker 1: economics in twenty twenty was because he had to be
Speaker 1: on stage with primarily Bernie Sanders, but also you know,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren was pressing him on certain things whatever, and
Speaker 1: so he had to have at least somewhat of an
Speaker 1: affirmative economic vision. It was, you know, one of the
Speaker 1: lowest common denominator in terms of the people on the stage,
Speaker 1: but he had to say and promise something, and some
Speaker 1: of those things he went ahead, and the you know
Speaker 1: went forward with you know, we had checks at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the administration.
Speaker 3: We had this child to ax credit at.
Speaker 1: The beginning of the administration that now has expired with
Speaker 1: a student loan debt cancelation.
Speaker 3: So the fact that.
Speaker 1: He isn't being pressed in any sort of a democratic
Speaker 1: primary process means what is he He hasn't promised anything
Speaker 1: for our next term. So if people aren't feeling the
Speaker 1: Bidenomics love now and again long term, I think there
Speaker 1: are some really good things. I personally think that you know,
Speaker 1: supporting the Biden National Labor Relations Board versus the union
Speaker 1: busting Trump National Labor Relations Board is really important.
Speaker 3: But these are long term things.
Speaker 1: This is not I'm going to benefit materially right now today,
Speaker 1: and that matters. So if people aren't feeling the love
Speaker 1: you got to make a case for them. What are
Speaker 1: you gonna do that's going to help him out? Like
Speaker 1: it's not enough just to point at Trump. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's enough, even though it has been a very
Speaker 1: potent issue, to just say, hey, we're not going to
Speaker 1: make things worse on abortion. I genuinely believe that if
Speaker 1: they want to get out of this slump, they need
Speaker 1: to persuade people that they're going to actually deliver them,
Speaker 1: make things better for them, or else they are in
Speaker 1: a world of trouble and no, you know, additional Trump
Speaker 1: charges they're going to save them.
Speaker 2: We'll find out. I'm excited to see that test case.
Speaker 2: Who knows they've gotten away with that on abortion once,
Speaker 2: which means they're just going to play that all over again.
Speaker 2: Let's go to Mitt Romney. Stunning, I guess not all
Speaker 2: that stunning. He was slated to decide on whether he's
Speaker 2: going to run for reelection in the state of Utah,
Speaker 2: where he's currently the junior senator. He obviously would face
Speaker 2: a brutal primary in the GOP. He already has multiple
Speaker 2: people who had announced against him. He is well into
Speaker 2: his seventies, and he had decide, am I going to
Speaker 2: step down or am I going to actually run for reelection?
Speaker 2: And look, there's a lot of disagreement here on the
Speaker 2: show with Senator round Me on a variety of different topics,
Speaker 2: but this one part of his retirement video I deeply
Speaker 2: respect and I want people. I want to hold up
Speaker 2: anybody who is willing to actually say the honorable part
Speaker 2: out loud. Let's take a lisson.
Speaker 18: I've spent my last twenty five years in public service
Speaker 18: of one kind or another. At the end of another term,
Speaker 18: i'd be in my mid eighties. Frankly, it's time for
Speaker 18: a new generation of leaders. They're the ones that need
Speaker 18: to make the decisions that will shape the world they
Speaker 18: will be living in.
Speaker 11: Now.
Speaker 18: We face critical challenges mounding national debt, climate change, and
Speaker 18: the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China. Neither President Biden
Speaker 18: nor former President Trump are leading their party to confront
Speaker 18: those issues. On deficits and debt, both men refuse to
Speaker 18: address entitlements, even though they know that this represents two
Speaker 18: thirds of federal spending. Donald Trump calls global warming a hoax,
Speaker 18: and President Biden offers field good solutions that make no
Speaker 18: difference to the global climate. On China, President Biden under
Speaker 18: invests in the military, and President Trump under invests in
Speaker 18: our alliances. Political motivations too often impede the solutions that
Speaker 18: these challenges demand. The next generation of leaders must take
Speaker 18: America to the next stage of global leadership.
Speaker 2: So look, he've listed a lot of different things. Well
Speaker 2: not even to get into the issue number one problems
Speaker 2: a national debt. Okay, but he said I would be
Speaker 2: in my mid eighties. It's time for somebody else's step in.
Speaker 2: I cannot help but celebrate that. And there's a new
Speaker 2: profile of Senator Romney coming from a fourth point book
Speaker 2: about him written by the McCay coppins over at The Atlantic,
Speaker 2: And he actually has a great section that Romney describes
Speaker 2: about why the Senate is such an old folks. So
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. The average
Speaker 2: age in the Senate was sixty three years old. Several
Speaker 2: members Romney included were in their seventies or even eighties.
Speaker 2: He sensed many of his colleagues attached enormous psychic currency
Speaker 2: to their position that they would do almost anything to
Speaker 2: keep it. He talks about it this way, Crystal. Further,
Speaker 2: they're free meals on site, barbers doctors within one hundred
Speaker 2: feet at all times. There is an edge to that observation.
Speaker 2: And he also says most of us have gone out
Speaker 2: tried playing golf for a week and it was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm going to kill myself. He told me. Job preservation
Speaker 2: in this context became almost existential. Retirement was death, which
Speaker 2: tells us what it's all ego. It's one hundred percent ego.
Speaker 2: They don't care about you. They care about themselves. They
Speaker 2: care about the feeling of being important, which is why
Speaker 2: the Capital tried to describe it before. But it's difficult
Speaker 2: for me. People who've never like been in the inner sanctum.
Speaker 2: It is the greatest old folks home of all time.
Speaker 2: You never open a door. You got dreams of people
Speaker 2: around you at all times who either care about what
Speaker 2: you think in the form of the reporters, or you
Speaker 2: got all these lads whose salaries that you pay. Your
Speaker 2: literally a titan. You can force your interns and others
Speaker 2: to go get your dry cleaning for you. You don't
Speaker 2: do anything. It's like being a billionaire without having to
Speaker 2: be a billionaire, and why would you give that up?
Speaker 2: And the taxpayer they fund everything you do. You get
Speaker 2: to have important votes, you get to go on the news.
Speaker 11: You know.
Speaker 2: That's the thing you always find about really old people,
Speaker 2: is they you know, they always like want to relive
Speaker 2: their glory days. They don't want to give up the
Speaker 2: glory day at all, and there's no forcing mechanism to
Speaker 2: make them get out.
Speaker 1: I thought this was a very simple comment about why
Speaker 1: they hang on. I mean, Diane Finestar, so come on, wait,
Speaker 1: miss McConnell, you don't think anyone else could fill your shoes.
Speaker 1: Come on, you're not that special. Joe Biden same thing,
Speaker 1: You're not that special. I mean, I think he's deluded
Speaker 1: himself into thinking he's the one and only guy that.
Speaker 3: Can beat Trump.
Speaker 2: I mean, to have a Titanic ego.
Speaker 3: To be Titanic. Yeah. Absolutely. But you know, they're they're
Speaker 3: actually they're basically.
Speaker 1: Addicts to this kind of you know, sense that they're
Speaker 1: rush that they get from feeling like they're at the
Speaker 1: center of the world and they're so special and important
Speaker 1: and whatever. And you take that adrenaline that they get
Speaker 1: every day from that away from them, and it's, like
Speaker 1: Mitt says, there, they feel like they're going to kill themselves.
Speaker 3: They just can't. They can't get off the sauce.
Speaker 1: It really is like a drug to them and they
Speaker 1: can't let go of it. So, as you said, lots
Speaker 1: of issues with I mean, mtt Romney is not a moderate, right,
Speaker 1: this is a very hard line economic conservative, very culturally considered, Like,
Speaker 1: very few agreements with Mitt Romney in terms of policy.
Speaker 1: But the fact that he is able to as a
Speaker 1: billion or however much money he has, like it shouldn't.
Speaker 2: Be that hard to do.
Speaker 1: He's going to have a very nice life. But apparently
Speaker 1: for many of these other individuals who are also very wealthy,
Speaker 1: like they just can't give it up. So kudos to
Speaker 1: him for being able to take a step back and
Speaker 1: step away from all of this. And I also think
Speaker 1: saga what comes through in this McKay coppins piece too,
Speaker 1: is he talks about the way Ronny thought about how
Speaker 1: his Senate term was going to go and what kind
Speaker 1: of role he could serve. And he thought because Utah
Speaker 1: has been culturally the most skeptical of Trump, like it's.
Speaker 2: One of the least Mormons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's one of the least sort of trumpy
Speaker 1: Republican states. Although I think it has shifted some now
Speaker 1: over time, but he felt like coming in representing Utah,
Speaker 1: he might be able, in being the former presidential candidate
Speaker 1: and one of the leaders of the party whatever, he
Speaker 1: could maybe serve as the leader of a coalition of
Speaker 1: people who were able to be critical of Trump from
Speaker 1: within the Republican Party, and that just didn't work out,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent whenever he would pype up
Speaker 1: and say something critical of Trump or vote against him
Speaker 1: on different things, he would get all of these pats
Speaker 1: on the back behind the scenes of people saying like, oh,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you saying that I appreciate you doing that.
Speaker 1: I wish that I could do that too, But in
Speaker 1: terms of giving anyone else the courage to stand up
Speaker 1: and say what they actually thought about Donald Trump, it
Speaker 1: just didn't happen. And so I think he also realized,
Speaker 1: you know, whatever his listed priorities.
Speaker 3: Were, they weren't getting done.
Speaker 1: His vision of being the leader of this kind of
Speaker 1: like anti Trump resistance within the Republican Party that was
Speaker 1: not coming to fruition whatsoever. And so you can see
Speaker 1: how he's like, well, gee, why would I stay when
Speaker 1: the core things that I came here to try to
Speaker 1: accomplish are clearly not happening, and I have no hope
Speaker 1: that they're going to happen.
Speaker 2: Oh he's right. I mean so look, if you want
Speaker 2: to be a legislator, actually do something, then you're hearing
Speaker 2: the wrong job. Which sounds ridiculous, but that's basically how
Speaker 2: it's been for a really long time, especially if you've
Speaker 2: got no seniority. So look, I want to commend the man.
Speaker 2: I'm glad he's leaving. I hope somebody and look, I
Speaker 2: hope that the people of Utah have a rigorous primary
Speaker 2: democratic process and can select somebody who best, you know,
Speaker 2: fulfills what they want. That's what they deserve, and I
Speaker 2: think we should see a hell of a lot more
Speaker 2: of this. Okay, let's move on to Hunter Biden. So
Speaker 2: there's a lot going on with Hunter Biden. Counterpoints did
Speaker 2: a great job yesterday of covering the impeachment inquiry that
Speaker 2: the Republicans are opening over on the House side into
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the business dealings. But on
Speaker 2: the Hunter side itself, the Biden White House has just
Speaker 2: found itself contorting in every different direction as to what
Speaker 2: level of legitimacy they can grant. The idea that Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden a did something bad and to what level that
Speaker 2: Biden was involved because recall, first, Joe Biden had never
Speaker 2: spoken with Hunter about his business dealings. Then, he had
Speaker 2: never met with any of Hunter's business partners then, and
Speaker 2: now the current line is he did do that, but
Speaker 2: they didn't talk about business. And now the latest line
Speaker 2: from the White House is that he did these business
Speaker 2: meetings because Jess he loved his son as any other father.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen, is.
Speaker 16: The president was present at some of the meetings between Hunter,
Speaker 16: Biden and his business associates. Why was the president at
Speaker 16: those meetings on those phone calls?
Speaker 17: Well, again, I think this is part of the right
Speaker 17: wing's misinformation machine to try to confuse people about what
Speaker 17: the truth is. The truth is that the President, as
Speaker 17: he has said publicly for years, calls his family every
Speaker 17: day to check in. He calls his son every day
Speaker 17: to check in. He calls his other family members to
Speaker 17: check in to see how they're doing.
Speaker 3: He loves them.
Speaker 2: They're a tight knit family.
Speaker 17: And what the GOP's own witness testified in this case
Speaker 17: is that that's exactly what the President was doing. He
Speaker 17: was checking in with Hunter during a particularly hard time
Speaker 17: I might add a time where the family was going
Speaker 17: through Hunter's brother, BEA's illness, and of course the president
Speaker 17: checks in with his son and talks to them. But
Speaker 17: again that witness testified no business dealings of Hunter, Biden's,
Speaker 17: or any ones was discussed in these conversations. And so
Speaker 17: again they're trying to make this sort of strange connection
Speaker 17: when their own investigation has disproved in these claims.
Speaker 2: That is actually not what Devin Archer said at all.
Speaker 2: If you recall Crystal we had Archer I almost respect
Speaker 2: his disgusting level of cynicism in that interview that he
Speaker 2: had with with Tucker, and he's like, look is how
Speaker 2: Washington works. You guy, get a guy on the phone.
Speaker 2: He got a bunch of Ukrainians in the room, and
Speaker 2: they're like, wow, man, he's got the vice president there
Speaker 2: on the phone. It doesn't matter Hunter was using it,
Speaker 2: even if he was just checking in. Biden knew that
Speaker 2: he was being called into business meetings. He said it
Speaker 2: happened on dozens of times. Yeah, that had a direct
Speaker 2: monetary benefit to Hunter. And then there's the question of
Speaker 2: well Hunter said ten percent of the big buy I
Speaker 2: don't know. I mean, listen, That's part of the reason
Speaker 2: I think Gampeach Winter inquiry is fine. I actually would
Speaker 2: love to know whether he got any of that money
Speaker 2: or not the whole We do know his brother got some,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's brother, and that the Biden family was getting
Speaker 2: all it would basically a slush fund for what they
Speaker 2: were using to use all these foreign, foreign corrupt monies
Speaker 2: in order to fund lavish lifestyles that all those guys
Speaker 2: are doing. And then you've got all these crazy things
Speaker 2: going on since with the art and all this other nonsense,
Speaker 2: and it's like, guys, having love for your son is
Speaker 2: obviously something that people can relate with. But what people
Speaker 2: you know, and I think we've talked about this before too,
Speaker 2: whenever it comes to Hunter and the previous you know
Speaker 2: element where Biden would refuse to acknowledge his like Hunter's
Speaker 2: love child until she signed away the mother signed away
Speaker 2: the right for them to use the Biden family name.
Speaker 2: It was one of those where you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of people can forgive, like supporting your son, but what
Speaker 2: a lot of people can't forgive is that said son.
Speaker 2: When your son is going through a hard time, if
Speaker 2: you're a normal American, they go to jail or they
Speaker 2: face consequences, and that actually he's gotten special treatment in
Speaker 2: every single area of this, and it's been writing off
Speaker 2: of your name with no consequence to the tune of
Speaker 2: tens of millions of dollars, and you obviously knew about
Speaker 2: it and do and do anything. There's also an infantilization
Speaker 2: element that really bothers me on this whole thing. He's
Speaker 2: just a dad.
Speaker 3: He loves his boy like Hunter could be my dad
Speaker 3: is fifty.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's look it up, all right, let's okay.
Speaker 3: I completely agree with you that he could be my father.
Speaker 2: He literally could be my father. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: As a parent, I can say part of loving your
Speaker 1: children and being a.
Speaker 3: Good parent is also saying no.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when your son is like, hey, dad, will you
Speaker 1: just like hang out on speakerphone on this like shady
Speaker 1: ass business call up?
Speaker 3: No, the answer is no. It's really not that hard
Speaker 3: to do. Just say no.
Speaker 1: I got a lot of thoughts on this, I mean,
Speaker 1: because everybody is just sort of shameless on this issue.
Speaker 1: Number one, I am perfectly happy and comfortable with Republican
Speaker 1: setting a precedent of we're actually going to care about
Speaker 1: presidential Please apply this across the board. Please, if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump gets back in there, let's have that precedent. Let's
Speaker 1: actually care about the disgusting, outrageous, like brazen levels of
Speaker 1: family corruption going on.
Speaker 2: It's better than a perfect phone call.
Speaker 1: Inside the Trump white ass. Like let's talk about Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Evaga, Let's talk about the way that
Speaker 1: they you know, cashed in even during the presidency and
Speaker 1: post presidency and Trump himself with live golf and all
Speaker 1: this crap, Like, let's actually care about corruption one hundred
Speaker 1: percent here for that particular precedent to be set.
Speaker 3: So that's number one. Number two.
Speaker 1: On the Biden side, it has always been absurd for
Speaker 1: them to pretend like, oh, he's just you know, it's fine,
Speaker 1: he's just doing business. And of course Joe had no
Speaker 1: idea about it. They've changed their line on that number
Speaker 1: of times. So obviously they're not being straightforward here either.
Speaker 1: Republicans have wildly overplayed their hand. You know, they've claimed,
Speaker 1: they've claimed all this evidence of like, you know, having
Speaker 1: direct evidence of money being exchanged directly to Joe Biden, etc.
Speaker 1: They have not produced that proof, and so they've wildly
Speaker 1: over played their hand.
Speaker 3: On the politics of it.
Speaker 1: The impeachment inquiry from Kevin McCarthy feels like an attempt
Speaker 1: to placate people in his caucus who want an actual,
Speaker 1: you know, actual impeachment, because an impeachment inquiry it's kind
Speaker 1: of meaning it's just an investigation, right, So he's trying
Speaker 1: to placate them. It's mostly like a kind of conservative
Speaker 1: virtue signal is the idea here from McCarthy. It's not
Speaker 1: even appeasing the people he's trying to appease. But I think,
Speaker 1: just like Democrats were punished when they spent so much
Speaker 1: time doing impeachment actual impeachments with Donald Trump, I think
Speaker 1: for Republicans politically be a disaster. If they tied up
Speaker 1: the nation's capital in endless impeachment hearings and actually went
Speaker 1: forward with that, I think the American people would be
Speaker 1: very frustrated.
Speaker 2: There's a lesson from the Perfect Phone Call impeachment, which
Speaker 2: is that the American people turned on the Democrats. A
Speaker 2: lot of people forget. There's January twenty twenty GOP identification
Speaker 2: and never been higher because people didn't give a shit
Speaker 2: about the Ukraine funding and all that other stuff, which
Speaker 2: is a real precursor to a lot of the debates now,
Speaker 2: but that's beside the point. So my thing is is,
Speaker 2: do not impeach him unless you actually have the goods,
Speaker 2: as you said, I had. Listen, let's set the precedent.
Speaker 2: I love it. You know, this is far more legitimate
Speaker 2: in my opinion than that the idiot phone call on impeachment.
Speaker 2: This is one of those where we should have this
Speaker 2: and now that it's been broken. But like you said,
Speaker 2: you sure do it against Trump, do it against anybody.
Speaker 2: I don't care who the president is, if they have
Speaker 2: bad business dealings or any other stuff. Everyone likes to
Speaker 2: look back at what was the Hillary one that was
Speaker 2: happening white Water Whitewater. No, this is deep cut Whitewater,
Speaker 2: which is nineteen ninety four. I want to say. They're like, oh,
Speaker 2: it was a witch hunt and all that. If you
Speaker 2: actually go read the details, they're totally nuts about the
Speaker 2: Clinton family and how Hillary was profiting even at that
Speaker 2: time off of the governorship of Arkansas. Anyway, I think
Speaker 2: those are legitimate. I think they are good. I don't
Speaker 2: care if they are a partisan right now, because it
Speaker 2: just sets better precedent. So that's great. Yeah, the point though,
Speaker 2: that you said is very important. Do not go forward
Speaker 2: on us unless you have smoking gun proof. Yeah, the
Speaker 2: issue is I don't know if it exists. That said,
Speaker 2: if it does, I mean it's one of those where
Speaker 2: at this problem we've had four years, the president obviously
Speaker 2: is subject to some level of scrutiny on irs and
Speaker 2: all that we have. They have to go and uncover
Speaker 2: the actual ten percent payment or the actual like exchange
Speaker 2: of money. That's very difficult to prove, unfortunately, because people
Speaker 2: who do this stuff usually are very good at hiding
Speaker 2: their tracks. So we'll see. I mean, I would really
Speaker 2: like to see whether the actually did financially profit or not.
Speaker 2: And there is a basic point though where their lifestyle
Speaker 2: absolutely does not match you know, how much money they make.
Speaker 2: He was actually quite poor before he became vice president.
Speaker 2: So it's like, well, yeah, how are you buying all
Speaker 2: these houses?
Speaker 1: But one percentage of DC of DC politicians, do you
Speaker 1: think is guilty of that same type.
Speaker 2: Of one hundred percent maybe one hundred and fifty percent, right.
Speaker 1: Which is why they never take it seriously, which is
Speaker 1: why you know Ted Luke can come on with us
Speaker 1: on rising like what people sit on board?
Speaker 3: They are in salaries, what's a big.
Speaker 1: Deal because that's how all of these people operate. And
Speaker 1: so that's the problem for the Republicans is proving something
Speaker 1: beyond the shit that they're all doing too and so
Speaker 1: far they have not been able to produce that evidence.
Speaker 1: And lord knows they've been looking. I mean they're looking
Speaker 1: for certainly years now, trying to find some smoking gun
Speaker 1: proof that there is natural money that went into Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's hands and Joe Biden's bank account. So that's what
Speaker 1: they're you know, that's what they're trying to find and listen,
Speaker 1: more power to Like I said, I would love for
Speaker 1: DC to take corruption seriously in a bipartisan manner where
Speaker 1: both sides applied the same set of rules.
Speaker 3: Do I have a lot of hope that that's going
Speaker 3: to happen? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: Well, we will see, Chryssel. What are you taking a
Speaker 2: look at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: At midnight tonight, the negotiating deadline for Big three automakers
Speaker 1: and the United Auto Workers expires. As it stands right now,
Speaker 1: looks very much like these workers are headed into a
Speaker 1: historic and possibly transformational strike and a sign that they're
Speaker 1: on the brink. Uaw's new president, Sean Fain, took to
Speaker 1: Facebook live last night to reveal the strike plan.
Speaker 3: That they have devised.
Speaker 1: In order to exert maximum pressure on these auto executives,
Speaker 1: let's take a lesson.
Speaker 22: For the first time in our history, we may strike
Speaker 22: all three of the Big three at once. Our message
Speaker 22: to the companies was clear, if we don't have a
Speaker 22: fair contract by midnight on Thursday night, we will strike.
Speaker 22: The second big difference is the way we're going to
Speaker 22: strike is going to be very different. In fact, we're
Speaker 22: inventing a whole new way to strike, and we're calling
Speaker 22: it the stand up strike. The name stand up strike,
Speaker 22: of course, recalls the movement that built our great union,
Speaker 22: the sit down Strikes of nineteen thirty seven. Just as
Speaker 22: in the nineteen thirties, we're living in a time of
Speaker 22: stunning inequality throughout our society. We're living in a time
Speaker 22: where our industry is undergoing massive transformations, and we're living
Speaker 22: in a time where our labor movement is redefining itself.
Speaker 22: In the spirit of the sitdown strike, the stand up
Speaker 22: strike will keep the companies guessing. It's going to rely
Speaker 22: on discipline, organization, and creativity. The stand up strike begins
Speaker 22: with all of our locals from parts distribution centers to
Speaker 22: assembly plants maintain a constant strike readiness. It's really important
Speaker 22: that we're clear on this point. We will not strike
Speaker 22: all of our facilities at once. We will strike all
Speaker 22: three companies a historic first, initially at a limited number
Speaker 22: of targeted locations that we will be announcing. Then, based
Speaker 22: on what's happening and bargaining, we're going to announce more
Speaker 22: locals that are going to be called to stand up
Speaker 22: and strike. These locals will join those that are already
Speaker 22: on strike, so that our strike at each company will
Speaker 22: continue to grow over time.
Speaker 3: So we will see.
Speaker 1: But it sounds to me like they are going out
Speaker 1: and tonight at ten pm, fans going to do another
Speaker 1: Facebook Live to announce striking locals if indeed those negaged
Speaker 1: negotiations fail. So prepare yourself to see one thousand panic
Speaker 1: headlines about workers tanking the economy.
Speaker 3: But the economy that.
Speaker 1: They are really worried about isn't the one that determines
Speaker 1: whether you can earn enough money to feed your family,
Speaker 1: because workers flexing power can only be good for that economy.
Speaker 1: The economy they're worried about is the one that funnels
Speaker 1: all profits constantly to the top. If there is one
Speaker 1: thing you should know about the dynamics of this potential strike,
Speaker 1: it's that the Big Three can easily afford to pay
Speaker 1: their workers a lot more, and it's only sheer corporate
Speaker 1: greed that prevents them from doing so. How do we
Speaker 1: know that, Well, first of all, these companies are so
Speaker 1: flush with cash that they have authorized five billion dollars
Speaker 1: in stock buybacks in the past year alone. Now, stock
Speaker 1: buybacks amount to a giant shareholder giveaway in which companies
Speaker 1: use their cash not for research or investment or worker pay,
Speaker 1: but simply to buy their own stock, artificially pumping up
Speaker 1: the price.
Speaker 3: So they got plenty enough money for.
Speaker 1: Giveaways to themselves and are wealthy shareholders, but are suddenly
Speaker 1: crying poor when it comes to people who are responsible
Speaker 1: for generating all that money.
Speaker 3: And the cash, by the way, it continues to pour in.
Speaker 1: In the first six months of twenty twenty three, the
Speaker 1: Big Three reporting twenty one billion dollars in profits. The
Speaker 1: history of these companies is also critical to remember too.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just taxpayers that bailed on Detroit in the
Speaker 1: financial crash. Workers took a huge hit at the time
Speaker 1: to bail these companies out per the lever the UAW
Speaker 1: agreed to eleven billion dollars in labor cuts, twenty one
Speaker 1: thousand layoffs, a wage freeze for workers, a tiered wage
Speaker 1: system for new workers, and no strike agreement until twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: and the transfer of retirees' healthcare and pension benefit costs
Speaker 1: from GM to the UAW in order to save GM
Speaker 1: three billion dollars. Workers have never made up for the
Speaker 1: losses that they shouldered to float these abusive companies, even
Speaker 1: as these companies reach extraordinary new levels of profitability. So
Speaker 1: now armed with a new militant UAW president, the energy
Speaker 1: of a union renaissance, the backing of an actually pro
Speaker 1: worker NLRB, and a massive eight hundred and twenty five
Speaker 1: million dollars strike fund that's expected to last for nearly
Speaker 1: three months, these workers are coming for what they have
Speaker 1: long been doe. Now, what exactly are the workers demands?
Speaker 1: While under the slogan record profits mean record compras the
Speaker 1: UAW is demanding significant gains. They are asking for, among
Speaker 1: other things, forty percent pay hikes over the course of
Speaker 1: four years to match the payhikes that the big three
Speaker 1: CEOs have enjoyed They're also pushing for bold quality of
Speaker 1: life improvements, like a shift to a thirty two hour
Speaker 1: work week. They want to restore the cost of living
Speaker 1: and pension benefits that they had prior to the auto bailount,
Speaker 1: and they want to make sure their workers are protected
Speaker 1: in the event of plant closures. Now, corny and to fain,
Speaker 1: none of the Big three have come close to meeting
Speaker 1: these demands, but you can also see they've definitely gotten
Speaker 1: these companies' attention. All three companies have offered close to
Speaker 1: a twenty percent payhike over the next four or so
Speaker 1: years and some level of cost of living adjustment. Just
Speaker 1: behold the awesome power of the union. Imagine being able
Speaker 1: to scoff at a twenty percent payhike and be like,
Speaker 1: screw you, I deserve more.
Speaker 3: And you know what, they do deserve more, and so
Speaker 3: do you. Now.
Speaker 1: In terms of the larger effects here, they have the
Speaker 1: potential to be massive. Obviously, there will be a direct
Speaker 1: impact in the short term on the auto market, but
Speaker 1: in some ways that's the least of the potential impact.
Speaker 1: There's perhaps no industry in America more iconic or more
Speaker 1: synonymous with the American middle class than the Big three automakers.
Speaker 1: Henry Ford famously was very little anti union, but he
Speaker 1: did believe his workers should be paid well enough that
Speaker 1: they can afford the product that they're building, and his
Speaker 1: imposition of a forty hour work week, along with massive
Speaker 1: union pressure and organizing, help to invent something we all
Speaker 1: take for granted now, that's the weekend. So it is
Speaker 1: no stretch to say that auto workers could single handedly
Speaker 1: redefine what workers should expect from their employers in times
Speaker 1: of record profits, especially coming on the heels of the
Speaker 1: successful ups contract negotiations which saw their driver's land significant
Speaker 1: wage and safety gains. Few things are more pivotable pivotal
Speaker 1: for the future of the working class in America right
Speaker 1: now than the ability for unions to grow their membership
Speaker 1: after years of decline, and nothing could be more compelling
Speaker 1: for workers considering unionizing than witnessing the massive gains that
Speaker 1: union workers are able to secure now. There's also a
Speaker 1: big old political fight tangled up directly in this negotiation.
Speaker 1: The automakers of their own accord, but also spurred by
Speaker 1: investments from the Biden Administration's Inflation Reduction Act, they're working
Speaker 1: to shift away from gas powered cars to electric vehicles. Now,
Speaker 1: typically when these industry shifts occur, they're used as an
Speaker 1: excuse to hasten a race to the bottom shipping jobs
Speaker 1: overseas or at least to the most low wage, anti
Speaker 1: union parts of the country. Thanks to Joe Manchin being
Speaker 1: the literal worst, the Biden administration has asked the incentives
Speaker 1: for automakers to keep these new EV jobs, union frustration
Speaker 1: that has led to the uaw withholding their endorsement from
Speaker 1: Biden's reelection. So this contract negotiation is also designed to
Speaker 1: try to secure a just transition to evs that make
Speaker 1: sure workers are in on the big industry of the future,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely critical. So when you put all of
Speaker 1: this together, this looming strike with a midnight deadline tonight
Speaker 1: could serve as a wake up call to the boss
Speaker 1: class and their political allies, and it could serve as
Speaker 1: an awakening for workers that they do not have to
Speaker 1: continue to accept a smaller and smaller piece of the
Speaker 1: pie year after year after year. And that shift in
Speaker 1: consciousness and the balance of power could be a whole revolution.
Speaker 1: So I'm watching this one very closely.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's
Speaker 2: monologue become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, Sager, tell us what you're looking at.
Speaker 2: I'm actually not doing a monologue today, or at least
Speaker 2: a written one, because in a few minutes from now,
Speaker 2: the NASA UFO report will come out and I'll be
Speaker 2: doing a live reaction either in this show or probably
Speaker 2: later on our channel, depending how long it takes to digest.
Speaker 2: But I did think it would be fun to preview
Speaker 2: that with a little bit of skepticism, so people do
Speaker 2: know that I don't accept everything around the UFO topic.
Speaker 2: You might have seen the internet dominated recently with these
Speaker 2: images after the so called unveiling of alien bodies before
Speaker 2: the Mexican Congress. Let's go ahead and play the video
Speaker 2: for everybody up there on the screen, Crystal. As you
Speaker 2: could see, these are basically almost like et level bodies
Speaker 2: that have been compiled and been put together. Of people
Speaker 2: who are watching. This is literally was a video taken
Speaker 2: directly from the feed that was there, And I've actually
Speaker 2: got a lot of messages about this, like, oh my god,
Speaker 2: is this real? Is what's actually happening? Are the bodies?
Speaker 2: How come nobody is paying attention to this and listen, guys,
Speaker 2: this is just a massive red flag for me on
Speaker 2: every level, aside from the fact that the bodies quite
Speaker 2: literally look like et let's just give a little bit
Speaker 2: of a background about the person who is behind this,
Speaker 2: and once I don't want to smirch anybody's character. I'm
Speaker 2: just giving you somebody's record here. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there. All of this has really been
Speaker 2: pushed by a guy named Jaime Mussan. He's a Mexican
Speaker 2: UFO ologist. He's got a big YouTube channel, and just
Speaker 2: off the bat, I can't help but think of one
Speaker 2: of the most legendary incidents that has happened in the
Speaker 2: UFO alien world, where he had something called the Roswell
Speaker 2: slides and which purported to show a dead alien and
Speaker 2: as you could see there, this was back in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: he actually had to apologize, admitting that the picture actually
Speaker 2: showed the mummified body of a child. I would also
Speaker 2: know that Ryan Graves, one of the pilots who has
Speaker 2: come forward and talked about his experiences and also the
Speaker 2: experiences of others about the UFO phenomenon and encounters by
Speaker 2: US military pilots, was present and has now denounced the
Speaker 2: said incident. Let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: he says. Quote. After the US Congressional UFO hearing, I
Speaker 2: accepted an invitation to testify before the Mexican Congress, hoping
Speaker 2: to keep up the momentum of the government interest in
Speaker 2: the pilots. Unfortunately, yesterday's demonstration was a huge step backwards
Speaker 2: for the issue. My testimony centered on sharing my experience
Speaker 2: and the UAP reports I hear from commercial and military
Speaker 2: aircrew through the ASA Witness program. I will continue to
Speaker 2: raise awareness as an urgent matter of aerospace safety, national security,
Speaker 2: and science. But I am deeply disappointed by this unsubstantiate stunt.
Speaker 2: I also, unfortunately have to flag for everybody that Chrystal.
Speaker 2: This is not even the first time that Hyma Wassan
Speaker 2: has passed some of this stuff off. In twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: he had actually published videos called Special Report Unearthing Nasca
Speaker 2: as in the Nasca Lines in Peru where these supposed
Speaker 2: bodies come from, and in twenty eighteen he gave it
Speaker 2: another presentation actually to the Peruvian Congress during a four
Speaker 2: hour meeting, again called the Mummies of Nasca. He has
Speaker 2: did it in a twenty nineteen documentary. So this is
Speaker 2: not even the first time that these bodies or mummies
Speaker 2: or whatever have been presented. I guess it's only the
Speaker 2: first time that they've been presented to the Mexican Congress.
Speaker 2: The other thing is everyone was like, oh, well, he's
Speaker 2: testifying under oath. Actually that was a pro forma thing.
Speaker 2: It's not. It's not the same actual under oath as
Speaker 2: if before the US Congress. I guess what everybody focused
Speaker 2: on was that one of the people who spoke his
Speaker 2: name is Jose Sanchez. He was the director of the
Speaker 2: Mexican Navy's Forensic Medical Service, said quote, I can affirm
Speaker 2: these bodies have no relation to human beings, and said
Speaker 2: how it's bones, muscles, and ligaments were put together, and
Speaker 2: said that they have three fingers in a wrapping manner
Speaker 2: to hold things. I would point out the DNA analysis
Speaker 2: compared with more than one million species, we found their
Speaker 2: significant difference between what is known and these bodies, but
Speaker 2: has not had any peer review of those claims or any.
Speaker 3: Of that, So red flags everywhere.
Speaker 2: We got a guy who already got fooled once with
Speaker 2: a dead body to say that it was nailing we
Speaker 2: got bodies which have been passing around. He's been passing
Speaker 2: these things around for four or five years. And then
Speaker 2: we have no substantiation on the DNA claim. We have
Speaker 2: no real under oath. All we really got is a
Speaker 2: hilarious video and some fantastic memes. By the way, there's
Speaker 2: some great things that are out there. But I gotta
Speaker 2: tell you, I'm calling bs at least on this, and
Speaker 2: very very respected people in the UFO community to all.
Speaker 2: I reached out to them privately, all warned me about
Speaker 2: this guy's reputation. They're like, look, I basically don't word
Speaker 2: that the man says. So I think it's unfortunate. I
Speaker 2: actually think it's step back for the issue because just
Speaker 2: it's like, come on, what you think. You know, alien
Speaker 2: bodies just materialized in out of Nasca and been lying
Speaker 2: there for a thousand years, and you know, if it
Speaker 2: was real, then obviously a lot of people will be
Speaker 2: paying attention, So listen. It's uh, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: reason to be skeptical. Yeah, there's a lot of reasons.
Speaker 3: The visual alone is sort of hilarious.
Speaker 23: Come on, god, I mean it just I mean, I
Speaker 23: won't be the first that it literally just looks like
Speaker 23: et Yeah, Like they just were like, you know, cartoonish
Speaker 23: image of what an alien would look like from some
Speaker 23: like nineteen fifties movie or whatever, and like, let's do that.
Speaker 1: And then the dust why is it like dusty? And
Speaker 1: that I showed this to my kids because we were.
Speaker 2: Talking about it was funny. Yeah, and they just.
Speaker 1: Started laughing, like even to a child, this seemed absurd
Speaker 1: and ridiculous.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: It's unfortunates all I have thattunate. The thing is is
Speaker 2: that the reason went viral is because of the video
Speaker 2: and the whole like oh, they're testifying onunder oath. It's
Speaker 2: just like it falls apart.
Speaker 1: The Mexican government part was the part that and also
Speaker 1: who you know, there were some news out I don't know,
Speaker 1: it was like Daily Mail or somebody like that that
Speaker 1: writes this up kind of like credulously, like all these
Speaker 1: they say that there are eggs in the body, and
Speaker 1: you know, and the whole there's the DNA doesn't match one.
Speaker 1: They don't mention any of the parts of like oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, they're not under the oath.
Speaker 3: By the way, this guy has.
Speaker 1: Been caught like pushing things that were complete hoaxes before.
Speaker 1: By the way, you know, there was no pure review
Speaker 1: of the supposed DNA evidence or whatever. By the way,
Speaker 1: there's no evidence of these alleged eggs inside the bodies.
Speaker 1: Somehow that all got left out of the report, and
Speaker 1: so people read it and take it at face value
Speaker 1: when they should not.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing dealing with this topic. You mean, a
Speaker 2: lot of people, and a lot of people really believe
Speaker 2: a lot of the things that they tell you. So
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say the guy's a liar. I
Speaker 2: think he probably believes it. That said, sometimes we believe
Speaker 2: things a little bit too hard. I want to believe, Okay,
Speaker 2: I want to believe. I want to see it. I
Speaker 2: want to be like, oh my god, it's real. But
Speaker 2: you got to you gotta if you do believe. Actually,
Speaker 2: if you're somebody who thinks there's something that there's real
Speaker 2: truth out there, well you Havetually, it's incumbent on you
Speaker 2: and especially me in this case, in order to tell
Speaker 2: people be like, guys, I'm not seeing this one. Even
Speaker 2: a tiny little bit could be proven wrong. But until
Speaker 2: some serious stuff goes through peer review and we see
Speaker 2: a hell of a lot more evidence and our people
Speaker 2: get involved and all of that. Then I'm going to
Speaker 2: be having my skeptic hat on. Now what I don't
Speaker 2: have my skeptic hat on is that, hopefully soon we'll
Speaker 2: be able to bring on this channel, is that NASA,
Speaker 2: by congressional mandate, has had to put out a actual
Speaker 2: full report with sixteen independent people astronauts and others as
Speaker 2: well as a NASA administrator to tell us a little
Speaker 2: bit about what they know based upon the technology that
Speaker 2: we have in space as mandated and pushed by Congress,
Speaker 2: that they have fought against at every turn, that I'm
Speaker 2: actually very interested in, and we'll be doing some analysis,
Speaker 2: but this one. Just hold your horses, folks. Sorry to
Speaker 2: burst your bubble, but no way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just when you want to believe, you actually have
Speaker 1: to be even more skeptical to check your own biases.
Speaker 3: So thank you for that presentation. Welcome, we appreciate.
Speaker 2: I'm excited for the NASCY UOFO report though. Look out
Speaker 2: for that on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely stay tuned for that. Okay, we had one
Speaker 1: that we wanted to had to add this into the show.
Speaker 1: So Drew Barrymore had already decided she wanted to break
Speaker 1: the writer's strike and bring her daily talk show back
Speaker 1: on which I sort of barely knew existed anyway. But
Speaker 1: she was the first to break the seal and become
Speaker 1: a scab. Now we have another individual, another real scab
Speaker 1: here in Bill Maher. Put this back up on the
Speaker 1: screen Real Time coming back. Unfortunately, songs writers are writing.
Speaker 1: Has been five months and it is time to bring
Speaker 1: people back to work. The writers have important issues that
Speaker 1: I sympathize with and hope they are addressed to their satisfaction.
Speaker 1: But they are not the only people with issues, problems,
Speaker 1: and concerns. Despite some assistance from me, much of the
Speaker 1: staff is struggling mightily. We all were hopeful this would
Speaker 1: come to an end after Labor Day, but that day
Speaker 1: has come and gone and there still seems to be
Speaker 1: nothing happening. I love my writers, I'm one of them,
Speaker 1: but I'm not prepared to lose an entire year and
Speaker 1: see so many below the line people suffer so much.
Speaker 1: I will honor the spirit of the strike by not
Speaker 1: doing a monologue dust Be's new rules or editorial the
Speaker 1: written pieces that I'm so proud of on Real Time,
Speaker 1: and I'll say it upfront to the audience. The show
Speaker 1: I'll be doing without my writers will not be as
Speaker 1: good as our normal show full stop. But at the
Speaker 1: heart of the show is an off the cuff panel
Speaker 1: discussion that aims to cut through the bullshit predictable partisanship,
Speaker 1: and that will continue the show will not disappoint. Very
Speaker 1: similar to some of the comments that he made recently
Speaker 1: that we covered what he was with Jim Gaffigan, I think,
Speaker 1: and he was talking to him about the writer's strike,
Speaker 1: and it sounded very similar to what this justification is here.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, I mean, this is the devastating blow to
Speaker 1: writers because he is so prominent, and the more shows
Speaker 1: that you have, and the more prominent, famous, wealthy personalities
Speaker 1: you have that are willing to cross the picket line
Speaker 1: and become scabs and break the strike, the easier it
Speaker 1: is for other shows to follow suit. So I see
Speaker 1: this as truly devastating, and he seems to place What
Speaker 1: really bothers me about this statement is he seems to
Speaker 1: place the onus of the burden of the fact that
Speaker 1: there's been a shutdown for so long on the writers,
Speaker 1: rather than saying a word about the studios, who explicitly
Speaker 1: at the start of this said Hey, We're going to
Speaker 1: starve these people out. We're going to make sure they're
Speaker 1: losing their homes and getting kicked out of their apartments.
Speaker 1: That's our strategy. And you don't have a word of
Speaker 1: criticism for them. You're putting all the blame on the
Speaker 1: writers who are trying to just be able to eke
Speaker 1: out a living now and into the future.
Speaker 3: Just disgraceful.
Speaker 2: Another thing I thought which was weird is that he says,
Speaker 2: at the heart of the show is an off the
Speaker 2: cuff panel discussion that aims to cut through the bullshit
Speaker 2: and predictable partnership. You have a podcast, it's called Club Random.
Speaker 2: You've been doing it right. You actually have panels. They
Speaker 2: had Tarantino actually watching that one, the one with Tarantino
Speaker 2: and I forget. I think it was Judd Apatow, the
Speaker 2: three of them like talking over wis gay. I loved it.
Speaker 2: That was really interesting. That said It's like, well, if
Speaker 2: the heart of the show is that you already have it,
Speaker 2: and you don't have to do that by crossing the
Speaker 2: picket line or any of that. Now, Look, I think
Speaker 2: it's year that he feels bad for let's say the
Speaker 2: camera guys or any of the other people who are
Speaker 2: impacted by this, I also feel very bad for them too,
Speaker 2: But I haven't seen any of those people come out
Speaker 2: and demand an end to the strike. A lot of
Speaker 2: those people are union, they're all they're in a different union,
Speaker 2: so they're, I mean, from what I understand, very much
Speaker 2: in solidarity with what's happening with the writers. So overall
Speaker 2: very puzzling. Let's also see if they do with the
Speaker 2: Drew Barrymore show has been doing where they're like searching
Speaker 2: people's bags for pro WGA buttons.
Speaker 1: Killing people out who are wearing like, you know, pro
Speaker 1: union merch what.
Speaker 2: Like, what are we doing here? The thing is it
Speaker 2: also Drew Barrymore, you know, I have you bear a
Speaker 2: child star, you're an et. We're just talking about aliens.
Speaker 2: You don't have enough money that you guys, like, what
Speaker 2: are we doing here?
Speaker 3: Listen?
Speaker 1: I also have a lot of sympathy for, as he says,
Speaker 1: the other below the line, people who you know, depend
Speaker 1: on this work and it's important, Like huge sympathy for them,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to pretend that there's no cost
Speaker 1: there whatsoever. But again, whose fault is it that they're
Speaker 1: still out on strike? It's the fault of the studios
Speaker 1: that will not come to the table and give them
Speaker 1: a decent deal that they could then say, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: good with this, let's move forward. It's not the writer's fault.
Speaker 1: They are just trying to secure the basics of a living.
Speaker 1: And remember what Bill said, which was even worse than
Speaker 1: you know, my irritation with this statement is he said
Speaker 1: something like the writer, these writers they think they are
Speaker 1: o a living and they're not. I mean to me,
Speaker 1: that really gave away the game of you know, a
Speaker 1: level of contempt, a level of being disconnected from what
Speaker 1: the reality of your regular There's a lot of regular
Speaker 1: like paycheck to paycheck working folk in Hollywood, and so
Speaker 1: for you to, oh, they just don't even deserve to
Speaker 1: make a living, you know, you put it at the
Speaker 1: times out you're like, listen, if you're like turning your
Speaker 1: first script and you've never done this before, Okay, that's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about union members. We're talking about people
Speaker 1: who this is their job and their career and they've
Speaker 1: been putting in the time and doing the work for
Speaker 1: a long Yes, of course they deserve a living. So
Speaker 1: it's very it's just very disappointing to see because I
Speaker 1: genuinely think it is a big blow to the leverage
Speaker 1: and ability of writers to be able to strike a deal.
Speaker 1: And remember, part of what they're fighting is there's a
Speaker 1: huge technological revolution that we are right now on the
Speaker 1: brink of where these studios want to be able to
Speaker 1: use chat, GPT or other AI to generate first scripts
Speaker 1: and then bring writers on after the fact, to just
Speaker 1: do polish work at a much lower rate and for
Speaker 1: many fewer hours, and be a lot less integral and
Speaker 1: just basically like strip as much of the humanity and
Speaker 1: creativity out of these shows and movies and out of
Speaker 1: film production overall. So this is something that we all
Speaker 1: have a stake in and it's to me, it's just
Speaker 1: really disgraceful to scab like this and have such an
Speaker 1: impact in terms of trying to break this strike. I
Speaker 1: just I think it's really going to have an impact,
Speaker 1: and that's unfortunate.
Speaker 2: The real question is how many guests ors are you
Speaker 2: going to get who are willing.
Speaker 3: I'm wondering about that too.
Speaker 2: You're actually willing to go ahead and participate in this,
Speaker 2: I would be very curious to see how.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he won't have any trouble getting like his conservative guests. Sure,
Speaker 1: you know who don't really support unions to start with.
Speaker 1: But if you're like a democratic politician and you're thinking
Speaker 1: of going on Bill Maher right now.
Speaker 11: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: If you are anyone who considers yourself to be you know,
Speaker 1: at all supportive of unions or left of center or
Speaker 1: liberal or whatever, and you're thinking of going on that show.
Speaker 3: Yes, nope, agreed, We'll be watching carefully.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you guys so much for watching. We really
Speaker 2: appreciate it. Like I said, the UFO report is out.
Speaker 2: I've got it in front of me. I'll be doing
Speaker 2: a reaction just in a little bit. But thank you
Speaker 2: all so much to the premium subscribers who enable the
Speaker 2: focus group. It was a really fun week, this big
Speaker 2: week for us to be able to do that, and
Speaker 2: you guys mean the world to all of us, and
Speaker 2: so Breakingpoints dot Com. We'll have that full focus group
Speaker 2: special out for all of you earlier later today and
Speaker 2: then tomorrow for everybody else on the public feed. We'll
Speaker 2: see you all on Monday.
Speaker 12: Who