Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Krystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot of interesting stories to dig
Speaker 1: into this morning. So Trump making some very noteworthy comments
Speaker 1: on abortion that Republicans, Democrats a lot of response to
Speaker 1: that one. Joe Biden already out with an ad on
Speaker 1: abortion that we want to share with you as well.
Speaker 1: The Rock is saying that he regrets endorsing Joe Biden
Speaker 1: last time around, and he will not be repeating that
Speaker 1: what he describes as a mistake this time.
Speaker 4: So kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: There so very noteworthy comments from an RFK junior state
Speaker 1: director his state drive of New York saying basically, vote
Speaker 1: for RFK Junior in order to elect Trump, so bringing
Speaker 1: those comments and also the RFK Junior campaign's response to
Speaker 1: what she is saying. There, for the first time in
Speaker 1: thirty years, according to Forbes magazine, none of the young
Speaker 1: new billionaires on the list are actually self made. What
Speaker 1: does that say about us? It's about our economy, about
Speaker 1: our society, about the future. Investors meanwhile, are taking over
Speaker 1: even more of the real estate market. Always important to
Speaker 1: track that Amazon is killing their just walk out stores.
Speaker 1: Turns out the technology never worked. It was kind of
Speaker 1: a farce, the whole thing. So we'll break that down
Speaker 1: for you net. Yahoo is announcing a date for that
Speaker 1: Rafa invasion. We also have some updates on what's going
Speaker 1: on with the ceasefire talks. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is saying
Speaker 1: that there is more than sufficient evidence to find that
Speaker 1: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Obviously that is very significant,
Speaker 1: and doctor Tree to Parsi is going to be here
Speaker 1: to look at how Aroan might respond to that Israeli
Speaker 1: attack on their consular building.
Speaker 4: So a lot that's going on this morning.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, before we get to that, we do
Speaker 3: have big things coming. I'm going to keep it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to keep it short this time, it's coming.
Speaker 2: If you want to be the first to hear about
Speaker 2: it Breakingpoints dot com, you can become premium subscriber and
Speaker 2: you can help support our work as well as some
Speaker 2: other major plans that we have for the coming election season.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate you. But as CHRISTL said, we're going
Speaker 2: to go ahead and start with abortion. So Trump had
Speaker 2: quite a bit of a dust up yesterday releasing some
Speaker 2: new comments, although not particularly all that new, for what
Speaker 2: his abortion policy would be if he were elected president.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Under my leadership, the Republican Party will always support the
Speaker 5: creation of strong, thriving, and healthy American families. We want
Speaker 5: to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies,
Speaker 5: not harder. That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments
Speaker 5: like IVF in every state in America. Like the overwhelming
Speaker 5: majority of Americans, including the vast majority of Republicans, Conservatives, Christians,
Speaker 5: and pro life Americans, I strongly support the availability of
Speaker 5: IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.
Speaker 5: What could be more beautiful or better than that? Many
Speaker 5: people have asked me what my position is on abortion
Speaker 5: and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person
Speaker 5: responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars
Speaker 5: both sides wanted and in fact demanded be ended Roe v.
Speaker 2: Wade.
Speaker 5: My view is now that we have abortion where everybody
Speaker 5: wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine
Speaker 5: by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they
Speaker 5: decide must be the law of the land, in this case,
Speaker 5: the law of the state.
Speaker 3: The law of the state. So a couple of very
Speaker 3: noteworthy things there. Politically.
Speaker 2: Number one, I'm very pro IVF we want babies buke
Speaker 2: of the Alabama law. Number two is there has been
Speaker 2: significant pressure from Lindsey Graham and other lawmakers, which we're
Speaker 2: about to get to, for Trump to embrace some sort
Speaker 2: of national ban. Previously, he privately had told some advisors
Speaker 2: that he may embrace a sixteen week band. But Crystal,
Speaker 2: as you always talk about here on the show, the
Speaker 2: polling has actually moved significantly away from that towards the
Speaker 2: rogue consensus. And yet, hilariously enough, this statement, which I mean,
Speaker 2: I would say, is the national pro life discourse and
Speaker 2: has been for decades now.
Speaker 3: Just leave it to the states.
Speaker 2: That's why I want to get rid of Row versus
Speaker 2: Wade was enough to then invite an attack from the
Speaker 2: largest pro life organization here in the United States, as
Speaker 2: Susan B. Anthony List. So let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. The pro life president of
Speaker 2: Marjorie Dan Filster. She says this quote, we are deeply
Speaker 2: disappointed in President Trump's position. Unborn children and their mother
Speaker 2: deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of
Speaker 2: the abortion industry. Dobbs clearly allows both states and Congress
Speaker 2: to act, saying the decision is back to the state
Speaker 2: seeds national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly
Speaker 2: to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Speaker 3: If successful, they will wipe out states. Right.
Speaker 2: So a bit tortured and confused logic here we went
Speaker 2: from again, I just want to reiterate, leave it to
Speaker 2: the states is the pro life mainstream position articulated by
Speaker 2: basically every Republican nominee since nineteen seventy two. And then
Speaker 2: Trump comes out and says it despite having ended Row
Speaker 2: versus Wade, and now the pro life groups say, oh,
Speaker 2: actually that's not enough, and really what do they want.
Speaker 2: They want to straight up national ben on abortion, which
Speaker 2: is stunning crystal because a they're obviously lying to us
Speaker 2: the entire time that this was actually in the discourse
Speaker 2: pre Row versus Wade.
Speaker 3: But they're not giving up.
Speaker 2: I mean, they are pushing this to the hilt, regardless
Speaker 2: of how unpopular it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So just to reflect a little bit on the
Speaker 1: Trump statement, a clear attempt to try to please everyone.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a little bit of red meat
Speaker 1: thrown in there for the pro life crowd, painting Democrats
Speaker 1: as extremists on the issue, you know, making up things
Speaker 1: about eight even after the baby's born.
Speaker 4: Kill the baby.
Speaker 1: So there was that, there was you know, clearly he
Speaker 1: can read a poll on IVF, so he wants to
Speaker 1: put on there upfront.
Speaker 3: Though.
Speaker 1: We got to protect IVF, which presumably would come from
Speaker 1: the national level. But you know, Republicans in Congress have
Speaker 1: blocked any attempts to actually protect IVF at the national level,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't go so far as to say he
Speaker 1: would do that. Somewhat contradictory to that is the idea
Speaker 1: we should leave it all to the states. But then again,
Speaker 1: he doesn't actually close the door on any sort of
Speaker 1: a national abortion ban. What he says is more descriptive,
Speaker 1: like you know, Roe versus Wade was overturned and now
Speaker 1: it goes to the States. It was more descriptive of
Speaker 1: what had actually happened, versus really affirming what his position
Speaker 1: on the issue is. To me, it's just really clear
Speaker 1: this has always been he's been all over the place
Speaker 1: on abortion since he entered into the public eye. You know,
Speaker 1: before he was running for president, he was and we'll
Speaker 1: show you the timeline of his evolution on the issue.
Speaker 1: I guess he was described himself as a very pro choice.
Speaker 1: It was clear when he was running back in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen that he was really unfamiliar with the contours of
Speaker 1: the debate with where he was should position himself if
Speaker 1: he was now going to stake out this new pro
Speaker 1: life position. We've had tons of reporting about how he
Speaker 1: instantly knew once Dobbs came down, even though he was
Speaker 1: the reason that Dobbs did come down, he instantly knew
Speaker 1: this was going to be a big problem for Republicans,
Speaker 1: and so he's really kind of trying to search for
Speaker 1: a message that's going to work for him and work
Speaker 1: for Republicans, and frankly, I've said this before, I just
Speaker 1: don't think there is one. I don't think that it's
Speaker 1: a box you can message your way out of, because
Speaker 1: the reality is so jarring and so stark to people.
Speaker 1: So it's not like you can you have this theoretical
Speaker 1: philosophical debate that was the land the issue was in
Speaker 1: before Roe versus Wade was overturned. And so now it's
Speaker 1: my sense that the best thing that Donald Trump could
Speaker 1: do on abortion is just to try to sideline it,
Speaker 1: to try to talk about it as little as possible,
Speaker 1: because the more you're talking about this issue, this is
Speaker 1: the one issue where Democrats have a very clear advantage
Speaker 1: over Donald Trump and over Republicans in general. So the
Speaker 1: more that you are talking about this, the more that
Speaker 1: the landscape is and the political landscape is defined by abortion,
Speaker 1: the worse off you're going to be politically.
Speaker 4: Kind of, no matter what you say. At this point, I.
Speaker 2: Think this is the best he could do, and it's
Speaker 2: still not a particularly strong position, and because it also
Speaker 2: highlights a lot of the intracoalitional fighting. For example, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen here, you got
Speaker 2: Lindsey Graham I mean, who is no social conservative traditionally,
Speaker 2: but even he says I respectfully disagree with President Trump's
Speaker 2: statement that abortion is States rights issue. Dobbs does not
Speaker 2: require that conclusion legally, and the pro life movement has
Speaker 2: always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child, not geography.
Speaker 2: I mean, these people are just saying it out in
Speaker 2: the open. They want a straight up national policy on
Speaker 2: the issue. I would remind everyone Lindsay Graham pulled this
Speaker 2: exact stick in twenty twenty two, introducing the fifteen week ban,
Speaker 2: which I believe was very influential in keeping the policy
Speaker 2: alive and well the debate ahead of the midterm elections,
Speaker 2: and of course that is what ended up being the
Speaker 2: single most potent issue when it came to the poll. So,
Speaker 2: I mean this also demonstrates too the problems that the
Speaker 2: Republican Party has the Susan B.
Speaker 3: Anthony List.
Speaker 2: Look, it's not powerful nationally, very powerful within the GOP
Speaker 2: and specifically within the primary electorate. Only Trump really is
Speaker 2: the person who can go out there and actually retaliated
Speaker 2: and attacked her and Lindsay Graham immediately after this statement
Speaker 2: and get away with it. There's not a single other
Speaker 2: National Republican Mike Pence also said that Trump's statement was
Speaker 2: quote a slap in the face.
Speaker 3: Again despite the fact.
Speaker 2: It's very easy go and look what all these people
Speaker 2: were saying in the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 3: Leave it to the states. Leave it to the states,
Speaker 3: that's all we want.
Speaker 2: But I saw a very insightful piece of analysis Crystal
Speaker 2: which said that if Republicans realized that leaving into the
Speaker 2: states meant that in red states, even Kentucky, that they
Speaker 2: would lose abortion by twenty points, they never would have
Speaker 2: said that in the first place, because they assumed that
Speaker 2: they were going to win. They never understood deeply the
Speaker 2: inherent unpopularity of their position. But one person who does
Speaker 2: is the Biden campaign, and the Biden campaign releasing a
Speaker 2: absolutely new, devastating ad against Trump. This has thirty million
Speaker 2: dollars behind it and it will be playing in every
Speaker 2: single battleground state.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: This is one of our willow boxes.
Speaker 4: This is just filled with some of the things that
Speaker 4: we had started gathering for her while I was pertinent.
Speaker 7: Yep, here's for a little baby book.
Speaker 1: Let's just the outfit that she was gonna maybe wear
Speaker 1: home from the hospital.
Speaker 6: All of these.
Speaker 7: This is.
Speaker 6: The blanket, the chewing, then her little footprints.
Speaker 7: It's okay.
Speaker 3: I'm Joe Biden and I approved this message.
Speaker 2: Brutal ad for those just listening. It depicts a Texas woman,
Speaker 2: Amanda Zurawski. She was she was developed an infection when
Speaker 2: she was eighteen weeks pregnant. The doctors were denied her
Speaker 2: a medical abortion. She ended up going into sepsis, being
Speaker 2: admitted to the ICU, almost dying twice, and is unlikely
Speaker 2: to be able to bear children in the future. This
Speaker 2: is exactly the type of case previously that we had
Speaker 2: previewed with another Texas woman who again these are people
Speaker 2: who wanted to have these babies to keep the baby,
Speaker 2: were denied medical a procedure that was outlawed by Texas
Speaker 2: law and is being highlighted now very reminiscent of that
Speaker 2: Kentucky ad which was very, very influential in a Democratic
Speaker 2: victory in twenty twenty two Crystal. And it just highlights
Speaker 2: again and again that with this issue, you know, you
Speaker 2: can try and states rights your way out of this,
Speaker 2: but even when people in Ohio or people in Georgia
Speaker 2: are looking at Texas, Georgia is a state where something
Speaker 2: like this actually could become the law or could continue
Speaker 2: to be so, and is one where it could very
Speaker 2: much be influential, even if it doesn't mean that Texas
Speaker 2: itself is going.
Speaker 3: To go blue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, and even if you support the states rights
Speaker 1: argument that Trump is making here, that means he supports
Speaker 1: what Texas is doing. It means he supports the six
Speaker 1: week ban in flo Florida. And what the ad highlights
Speaker 1: is something very real, which is even when you put
Speaker 1: in these exemptions for let's say the life of the mother, well,
Speaker 1: how do you draw that line? How desperate do the
Speaker 1: circumstances have to be before you will actually, you know,
Speaker 1: perform the procedure to save the mother's life and health.
Speaker 1: So there have been stories of women who are basically
Speaker 1: told to, you know, go wait in the parking lot
Speaker 1: and bleed out further so that the medical team can
Speaker 1: feel confident that they're in accordance with law and they're
Speaker 1: not going to be you know, taken to court overtreating her.
Speaker 1: So this is a very real issue, and you know,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, most political ads at this point were
Speaker 1: so honora to them, like they don't make you feel
Speaker 1: anything this ad makes people feel something because everyone can
Speaker 1: relate to, you know, the heartbreak of wanting to have
Speaker 1: a family and having that door closed because of some legislative,
Speaker 1: bureaucratic decision.
Speaker 4: It's outrageous.
Speaker 1: And so that's why I feel like, you know, this
Speaker 1: is the one issue where learly Democrats they really have
Speaker 1: a huge upper hand. And it's very emotional and it's
Speaker 1: very motivating because people feel this sense of loss that
Speaker 1: they had rights that have now been taken away from them,
Speaker 1: that things are going backwards for them, for their loved ones,
Speaker 1: for their daughters, their sisters, their wives, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: it's extremely potent, and you know, I just think it's
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anywhere the Republican Party can be
Speaker 1: on this issue at this point that's going to work
Speaker 1: out for them, because even if people feel like a Trump,
Speaker 1: he's more of a moderate on this issue. You know,
Speaker 1: he's not like one of these hardliners. Look at who
Speaker 1: the Speaker of the House is, you know, Mike Johnson
Speaker 1: is a hardliner. Look at some of the people who
Speaker 1: were in his administration last time and who will be
Speaker 1: in his administration this time. Look at some of the
Speaker 1: powerful voices inside of this coalition, and it's not crazy
Speaker 1: for people to think, like, I don't trust you on
Speaker 1: this issue, and you are the reason why we're here
Speaker 1: in the first place. You know, the Biden team already
Speaker 1: has their SoundBite of him bragging about overturning Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 4: That's really all they need.
Speaker 1: So no attempts to spin it at this point or
Speaker 1: you know, try to make it seem like he's more
Speaker 1: of a moderate on the issue. I just don't think
Speaker 1: that that is really going to register for voters if
Speaker 1: they are voting on this issue. Just to underscore Soccer
Speaker 1: what you were saying about the Kentucky ad which really
Speaker 1: many observers in that state attributed that ad to Andy Basheer,
Speaker 1: the Democratic governor, being able to get re elected in Kentucky. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: Kentucky's an unusual state. It is very read at the
Speaker 1: federal level, at the state level, it can go back
Speaker 1: and forth. But still in this era, for a Democrat
Speaker 1: to get re elected in the state of Kentucky is
Speaker 1: quite extraordinary. And it was another heartbreaking abortion story about
Speaker 1: a young girl who was raped and she says, you know,
Speaker 1: Daniel Cameron and forced me to would have forced me
Speaker 1: to have that baby. So these emotional stories seem to
Speaker 1: really land with the electorate, even in a state like Kentucky.
Speaker 1: And the last point I'll make saga, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: I think that's is very astutis idea of Like, well,
Speaker 1: Republicans probably wouldn't have even said they wanted to just
Speaker 1: send it back to the states if they realized, even
Speaker 1: in a state like Kentucky or Alabama, that would be
Speaker 1: a disaster for them in terms of the population and how.
Speaker 4: They feel about the issue.
Speaker 1: But I honestly think that the direction post Row has
Speaker 1: affirmed some of the most alarmist voices coming from you know, liberals,
Speaker 1: leftist Democratic Party, et cetera, anyone left of center who
Speaker 1: said no, no, the real end goal is to completely
Speaker 1: ban abortion for everyone. It turns out they were right,
Speaker 1: you know, for the most hardline elements of the movement,
Speaker 1: who are quite influential. They're the ones who organize around this,
Speaker 1: vote on this, to donate money on this.
Speaker 4: Et cetera. That actually is the goal. And it's even
Speaker 4: further than that.
Speaker 1: It's things like banning IVF, which is an issue that
Speaker 1: you know, a few years ago, no one would have
Speaker 1: even imagined was really on the table. Is taking us
Speaker 1: back to like the stem cell debates of the early
Speaker 1: two thousands, et cetera. So it turns out the most
Speaker 1: alarmist voices on this issue were actually correct about what
Speaker 1: the real goals, what the real end goals of the
Speaker 1: movement are.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it's true.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those two where the pro life
Speaker 2: people said for years it's not true, it's not true,
Speaker 2: don't worry about it, etc. This is you know, this
Speaker 2: is actually a popular issue. Well, you know, I got
Speaker 2: news for you. People didn't want to hear it. Back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two. I heard a lot of people
Speaker 2: in my mentioned saying otherwise. But I guess it's okay.
Speaker 2: We all find out who's right in the end. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. This is particularly hilarious.
Speaker 2: A full timeline of Trump's positions on abortion. I really
Speaker 2: enjoyed going down memory lane so October in NBC News,
Speaker 2: Meet the Press. I am very pro choice. I hate
Speaker 2: the concept of abortion. I just believe in choice. Again,
Speaker 2: it may be a little bit of a New York background,
Speaker 2: because there's some different attitude. I was raised in New York,
Speaker 2: I grew up, in work, everything else in New York City.
Speaker 2: I am strongly pro choice. Asked whether he would ban
Speaker 2: any abortion, even including partial birth abortion, Trump says no,
Speaker 2: I am pro choice in every aspect as it goes,
Speaker 2: but I hate it. February twenty eleven, he now says
Speaker 2: returns to sapack. When he's considering a twenty twelve run,
Speaker 2: he says, I am pro life, and that was basically it.
Speaker 2: August twenty fifteen, he is now divided over defunding Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 2: He says, I would look at the good aspects of it.
Speaker 2: I would look because I'm sure they do things properly
Speaker 2: and good for women.
Speaker 3: I would take a look at it.
Speaker 2: February twenty sixteen, He then says he will defund Planned Parenthood,
Speaker 2: but now says he will still praise the group. March
Speaker 2: of twenty sixteen was the infamous Maybe there needs to
Speaker 2: be some form of punishment for the woman who are
Speaker 2: seeking abortion. He says yes that immediately he reverses that
Speaker 2: and says that's not his position. October twenty sixteen, he
Speaker 2: vows to overturn a Row versus way. This is probably
Speaker 2: the single most impactful thing along the journey because that
Speaker 2: leads to the publishing the list of the Supreme Court Justices.
Speaker 2: January twenty seventeen, nominates Neil Gorsich to the US Supreme
Speaker 2: Court and says specifically about that that he would be
Speaker 2: nominating him for the end of trying to overturn Rowe
Speaker 2: versus Wade. Then we continue more and more down memory lane,
Speaker 2: where we see Amy Cony, Barrett, we see Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 2: and others. Twenty twenty two, he celebrates in a statement
Speaker 2: the overturning of Roe versus Wade and says, quote, I
Speaker 2: think in the end that is something that will work
Speaker 2: out for everybody, and this is the bridge to the future.
Speaker 2: This brings everything back to the States where it has
Speaker 2: always belonged. Now, since then he has had very different tunes.
Speaker 2: He attacked Ron de Santis for the six week abortion ban.
Speaker 2: He said, what did he say?
Speaker 3: Said? It was cruel that he's had there. He says he's.
Speaker 2: Strongly in favor of quote the exceptions whenever it comes
Speaker 2: to test and life of the not funny topics.
Speaker 3: It's funny the.
Speaker 2: Way that says, so now we're at now we're here,
Speaker 2: we're back to the States.
Speaker 3: So they're my favorite.
Speaker 1: My favorite was actually when he said he would defund
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood but also praise the group. He said, millions
Speaker 1: of millions of women cervical cancer, breast cancer are helped
Speaker 1: by Planned parenthood. I would defund it because I'm pro life,
Speaker 1: but millions of women are helped by Planned parent.
Speaker 4: It's like, dude.
Speaker 1: The most revealing though, was that moment when Okay, he's
Speaker 1: decided I got to be fully pro life in order
Speaker 1: to win the Republican nomination.
Speaker 4: I got to be fully in with pro life.
Speaker 1: But he clearly doesn't know the contours of the political debate.
Speaker 1: So when he gets asked this question about Okay, well,
Speaker 1: should there be punishment for the women, he's thinking, honestly,
Speaker 1: a very logical train of thought, which is, all right,
Speaker 1: these people think this is murder ergo if you murder
Speaker 1: your baby, Yeah, there.
Speaker 4: Should be some kind of punishment.
Speaker 1: Not knowing that there's a whole, you know, philosophical way
Speaker 1: to sort of wiggle out of that very obvious implication
Speaker 1: of what the rest of the philosophy would you know,
Speaker 1: would dictate, and so he kind of stumbles into that
Speaker 1: and listen, like I said, it's clear he's not a
Speaker 1: true believer on the issue, but it almost doesn't matter
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, he has done
Speaker 1: more for the pro life community. And you know he
Speaker 1: said this during his nomination process, he has done more
Speaker 1: for the pro life position than any other Republican candidate president. Ever,
Speaker 1: you can't wiggle your way out of that. That just
Speaker 1: is the reality. The Biden team is gonna hang that
Speaker 1: around your neck as much as they possibly can. And
Speaker 1: it is potent. There's just no denying it. I mean,
Speaker 1: we just saw what was it in Alabama. Democrats massively
Speaker 1: flipped a state house seat running just on IVF in Alabama. Okay,
Speaker 1: as I was just mentioned, Kentucky, they hold onto the
Speaker 1: governor's mansion because of abortion. This is playing out in
Speaker 1: place after place after place. So there's no doubt that
Speaker 1: it is potent, that it is motivating, that is very evocative,
Speaker 1: that is very emotional, and I think the more Trump
Speaker 1: is talking about it, the worst it is for him
Speaker 1: no matter what he says, because the record is what
Speaker 1: it is. He's the guy that got Roe versus Way
Speaker 1: to overturned and created this reality that now a very
Speaker 1: clear majority of Americans finds to be frankly horrible.
Speaker 2: It's the irony because the pro life is almost certainly
Speaker 2: what handed him his election in twenty sixteen, because all
Speaker 2: the Republican coalition was united behind him against Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 2: and it might be what sinks him in twenty and
Speaker 2: twenty four. Let's go and put this final pulling up
Speaker 2: on the screen just to underscore a lot of what
Speaker 2: we're talking about here, and it shows you the shift
Speaker 2: from April of twenty twenty two when Dobbs happen. These
Speaker 2: are views on abortion, and then keep in mind this is
Speaker 2: from Fox News. They say, which of the best describes
Speaker 2: your view on abortion? Always legal? Twenty seven percent legal
Speaker 2: most of the time, seventeen percent illegal except for rape, incestins,
Speaker 2: saving the life of the mother forty three percent, eleven
Speaker 2: percent always illegal. A year later, April twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: now it's thirty two percent say always legal, twenty four
Speaker 2: percent say illegal most of the time. March of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four. Most recently we shift even more. Thirty five
Speaker 2: percent are now saying always legal. That's actually the Republican nightmare.
Speaker 2: The nine months of abortion combined with twenty four percent,
Speaker 2: you got a clear majority. Almost sixty percent of the
Speaker 2: public either saying always legal or illegal most of the time,
Speaker 2: and a slim forty percent saying illegal except for a
Speaker 2: rape incest case of the life of the mother, and
Speaker 2: always illegal. Keep in mind, too, even that's just raw
Speaker 2: population figures. If you if you consider where that is
Speaker 2: disproportionately going to be concentrated and where they are, and
Speaker 2: you can transpose that on top of the electoral college
Speaker 2: and swing voters, it becomes even more devastating because you
Speaker 2: have independent voters in each of these states which are
Speaker 2: far more aligned in the always legal or illegal most
Speaker 2: of the time case than anybody who's going to be
Speaker 2: on the other side of the issue. So I've seen
Speaker 2: Republican gymnastics on this now for many months, Democratic extreamists
Speaker 2: and all that. It doesn't it simply doesn't land because
Speaker 2: the ads and the stories that we continue to play
Speaker 2: here that the Democrats continue to bring up are just
Speaker 2: emotionally more resonant than the yeah, but partial birth, abortion
Speaker 2: or any of that. Those are either conceptual or frankly,
Speaker 2: people just don't care as much as the idea of
Speaker 2: people like we played in that ad, a woman who
Speaker 2: wanted to have wanted to have a baby denied a
Speaker 2: medical procedure and now has a life changing infection and
Speaker 2: is weeping on your screen.
Speaker 3: You're just not going to beat it. It's impossible.
Speaker 1: Well, not only that, but that's the landscape that's being fought.
Speaker 3: Yeah, over now right, you.
Speaker 1: Know those are the that's the legislation that's moving forward.
Speaker 1: The bands are going to affect IVF under assault in Alabama.
Speaker 1: Questions about whether that's going to be the case in
Speaker 1: other states. Is there going to be a nationwide band
Speaker 1: like That's where all of the actually relevant political questions
Speaker 1: lie at this point. So to try to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Democrats are the real extremists on the issue, Well, voters
Speaker 1: aren't seeing that because it's not Democrats who are aggressively
Speaker 1: pushing forward legislation that is so fringe and so outlier
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, what.
Speaker 4: People actually think on the issue.
Speaker 1: And you know, it is remarkable, and I honestly I
Speaker 1: didn't predict how important this would be. I certainly didn't
Speaker 1: think in twenty twenty four that this would be such
Speaker 1: a potent and central issue that so many elections, special
Speaker 1: elections around the country, which would you know, would swing
Speaker 1: on this, that there would be every single ballot initiative
Speaker 1: that is pro choice, the pro choice side would win,
Speaker 1: and frankly that it would really break down what has
Speaker 1: been a long standing basically fifty to fifty gridlock on
Speaker 1: the issue of choice. I mean, the pro choice side
Speaker 1: now has basically, according to Fox News, a super majority,
Speaker 1: a super majority. And it's not just the absolute numbers,
Speaker 1: it's also who's motivated to vote on the issue. Prior
Speaker 1: to Dobbs, it was always the pro life side that
Speaker 1: was more motivated, more organized on the issue. They were
Speaker 1: the ones who a, this is my single issue, this
Speaker 1: is you know what I'm making my political choices on.
Speaker 1: That dynamic too has flipped where you now have I
Speaker 1: think more people on the side where you know that
Speaker 1: are pro choice, where this is their top or potentially
Speaker 1: even single issue that they're voting on. So it truly
Speaker 1: has been an extraordinary landscape shift. Now let's we're going
Speaker 1: to move on to some problems that Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: having as well. Let's not pretend like this is the
Speaker 1: only thing that's going on, the only thing that the
Speaker 1: election is going to turn on. But I also don't
Speaker 1: want to under sell the record that we see at
Speaker 1: this point of how clearly voters have demonstrated in every
Speaker 1: single opportunity that they have that this is important to
Speaker 1: them and they're going to vote accordingly.
Speaker 2: There is some ground being lost here amongst the coveted
Speaker 2: bro demographic. The Rock Dwayne the Rock Johnson giving an
Speaker 2: interesting interview on Fox News. Now we have to listen
Speaker 2: carefully to what he has to say. He doesn't necessarily
Speaker 2: say he regrets endorsing Joe Biden. He does say he
Speaker 2: regrets endorsing a politician and entering the fray of politics,
Speaker 2: but it is very clear that he sees that as
Speaker 2: a mistake, his entrance into the political fray back in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty when he famously endorsed Joe Biden. Here's what
Speaker 2: he had to say.
Speaker 8: You made that endorsement twenty twenty. Are you happy with
Speaker 8: the state of America?
Speaker 9: Am I happy with the state of America right now? Well,
Speaker 9: that answer is no. Do I believe we're going to
Speaker 9: get better. I believe in that. I'm an optimistic guy,
Speaker 9: and I believe we can't get better. The endorsement that
Speaker 9: I made years ago with Biden was one I thought
Speaker 9: was the best decision for me at that time. And
Speaker 9: I thought back then when we talk about, Hey, you know,
Speaker 9: I'm in this position where I have some influence and
Speaker 9: it's my job. Then I felt like that, then it's
Speaker 9: my job now to exercise my influence and share with
Speaker 9: this This is who I'm going to endorse. Am I
Speaker 9: going to do that again this year? That answers No,
Speaker 9: I feel like and I mean, we could go down
Speaker 9: the well here, but there's in today's easy cancel culture
Speaker 9: world and cancel culture, woke culture, this culture, that culture,
Speaker 9: the vision, et cetera that really bugs me. And in
Speaker 9: the spirit of that, you either in the spirit of that,
Speaker 9: you either succumb and be what you think other people
Speaker 9: want you to be, or you go, no, that's not
Speaker 9: who I am. I'm going to be myself and I'm
Speaker 9: going to be real. Maybe ask me something, A real
Speaker 9: answer is important, all right.
Speaker 2: So that's where I had to say. People know, I've
Speaker 2: had a long and difficult journey with the Rock. I
Speaker 2: always like the Rock. I want him to run for president.
Speaker 2: But then he publicly embraced the so called will cancel
Speaker 2: culture that he is openly trashing. There he engaged in
Speaker 2: the Pylon on Joe Rogan. I guess Joe Rogan forgave him.
Speaker 2: He actually ended up having him on the show. So listen,
Speaker 2: it's up to Joe to litigate that. I will personally
Speaker 2: not forget it that he entered that. I understand that
Speaker 2: he's in the Hollywood sphere that he started posing for
Speaker 2: pictures with Jeff Bezos. But now he says he won't.
Speaker 2: Now he says he won't endorse Joe Biden. So I
Speaker 2: don't really know what to take of it. I guess
Speaker 2: what we could say is this, this man is he
Speaker 2: cares monst about his image, about selling his Teremana tequila
Speaker 2: and all that other stuff that he was promoting there
Speaker 2: on the table, and his energy drink. And clearly the
Speaker 2: Biden brand is bad for business, according to the Rock,
Speaker 2: who I think ultimately just wants to sell as many
Speaker 2: products as possible and keep his very very high Q
Speaker 2: score approval rating with people, and so for that reason
Speaker 2: appears to regret endorsing Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: Crystal.
Speaker 1: I think that is very accurate and suit analysis. I
Speaker 1: also think perhaps this is yet another lesson and don't
Speaker 1: base your vote on celebrity endorsers, and I don't think
Speaker 1: that most people do, because if they did, Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: would have been president of the United States. So I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that this is a warning that the American
Speaker 1: people really need. But you know, I mean, listen, he's
Speaker 1: not paid to be a political analyst. Uses a lot
Speaker 1: of words there to say basically nothing like I don't
Speaker 1: even know what his real point. I don't know why
Speaker 1: he endorsed Biden in the first place, and I don't
Speaker 1: know why he's not endorsing him this time.
Speaker 4: I don't know what the relevant.
Speaker 1: Issues are outside of like you said, he now has
Speaker 1: assessed that whereas previously he thought that was good for
Speaker 1: his brand, now he no longer feels it is positive
Speaker 1: for The Rock's personal brand. So I don't know that
Speaker 1: you could read too much into it other than that,
Speaker 1: Other than I guess it's not quite as safe in
Speaker 1: Hollywood to be affirmatively pro Joe Biden as it was
Speaker 1: the last time around. I guess that's all you could
Speaker 1: really read into it.
Speaker 2: There was also an interesting moment when Rogan interviewed him
Speaker 2: and he was talking about Biden, and I forget exactly
Speaker 2: what Rogan said, but it was something about, like the
Speaker 2: people behind Biden and The Rock seem to like laugh
Speaker 2: and giggle at that like, very clearly he doesn't think
Speaker 2: that Biden is a strong leader. That was basically all
Speaker 2: that he had to say. It's not exactly true that
Speaker 2: he hasn't entered politics before. I mean, I've even said this,
Speaker 2: he spoke at the two thousand Republican National Convention. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is somebody anyway I could go down the rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: I think the only thing we can truly assess is
Speaker 2: that for probably one of America's most popular celebrities not
Speaker 2: wanting to endorse Biden again.
Speaker 3: You can frame it however you want.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm not endorsing anybody, Okay, but you endorse somebody
Speaker 2: last time, you're not doing it this time around. Well,
Speaker 2: that is an indicator of where he thinks his brand
Speaker 2: is going to be importantly positioned, whereas last time around
Speaker 2: he didn't think that he would suffer as a result
Speaker 2: of it, and I've seen some organic pushback against him.
Speaker 2: So I don't think we could take away from it
Speaker 2: more than that, only that people who are very astute
Speaker 2: at seeing where the popular wind is blowing consumer sentiment,
Speaker 2: People who have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line,
Speaker 2: they don't think quote unquote supporting Biden is good for
Speaker 2: business this time around, at least from a popularity perspective,
Speaker 2: and I would pay attention to that. I think that
Speaker 2: is probably an important takeaway for what the overall trends
Speaker 2: is now. I would also say this, right, which is
Speaker 2: important in something we tied back to yesterday, is that
Speaker 2: Biden appears to be consolidating a lot of support crystal
Speaker 2: amongst older voters. So it could be that you and
Speaker 2: I are having a conversation here about national trends, about
Speaker 2: young voters, about how the overall actual American population feels,
Speaker 2: but that doesn't translate to the American electorate.
Speaker 3: Not everybody votes. In fact, most people don't vote.
Speaker 2: A huge proportion of the voting of the voting eligible
Speaker 2: public simply stays home. So it could be that there's
Speaker 2: two kind of separate conversations.
Speaker 3: That are happening right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, well, you know, Hollywood famously has their
Speaker 1: finger on the pulls, so we should really pay attention
Speaker 1: to which way the breath is blowing there. I think
Speaker 1: Republicans are so funny when it comes to Hollywood also,
Speaker 1: because the minute that the Rock or any other Hollywood
Speaker 1: celebrity is behind affirmatively behind a Democrat. You know, all
Speaker 1: these Hollywood liberals who cares about they're out at touch,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. The minute one of them even shows
Speaker 1: like a sliver of interest in their party or their positions.
Speaker 1: They're falling all over themselves in Oh the Rock.
Speaker 4: He really knows what he's talking about here.
Speaker 1: He's got his finger on the pul It is kind
Speaker 1: of funny to me, but ultimately, I think the whole
Speaker 1: situation is relatively inconsequential outside of the vibes of It's
Speaker 1: just not cool in any respect to be a Biden supporter.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's not like Biden really based his
Speaker 1: presidential campaign last time around on any sort of cool factory.
Speaker 1: Didn't have that like Obama rock star vibe. It was
Speaker 1: just like, all right, well, I guess you know, Trump sucks,
Speaker 1: so this is the guy we got. What are we
Speaker 1: going to do? That's what he's betting on again. He's
Speaker 1: got more baggage this time around. People unhappy about the economy,
Speaker 1: people you know, young people obviously tortured and horrified by
Speaker 1: his Israel power policy. Progressives as well. He's got a
Speaker 1: lot of issues here. I don't think the Rock is
Speaker 1: probably chief among them.
Speaker 2: Yep, fair enough, All right, let's go on to RFK.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of consternation yesterday. RFK Junior, a
Speaker 2: New York state staffer for the RFK Junior campaign, was
Speaker 2: caught on video appearing to say that the RFK Junior
Speaker 2: campaign really was a front to trying to hurt Joe
Speaker 2: Biden and to help Donald Trump get elected. And ensuing
Speaker 2: drama happened with Democrats saying see, we told you so
Speaker 2: about RFK Junior, and then RFK Junior's own campaign then
Speaker 2: disavowing her.
Speaker 3: But here's what she initially had to say.
Speaker 10: So there's no Biden voters in the house, right No, okay?
Speaker 10: Good things I guess will change over time because you
Speaker 10: do have to only pick one candidate at the end
Speaker 10: of the day. But the Kennedy voter and the Trump
Speaker 10: voter the enemy mutual enemy is Biden. Since Biden is
Speaker 10: counting on us with Bobby in the mix, my thought
Speaker 10: is for the Republicans, see Bobby right now. Now, he's
Speaker 10: pulling from both sides. Right now, he's actually pulling a
Speaker 10: little bit more from Biden, which explains why the DNC
Speaker 10: is kind of ganging up on him. Most of the
Speaker 10: Northeast is going to go blue. Why wouldn't we put
Speaker 10: our vote to Bobby and at least get rid of
Speaker 10: Biden and get those twenty eight electoral votes in New York.
Speaker 10: The card's a little wrong. It says twenty six electoral votes.
Speaker 10: Give those twenty eight electoral votes to Bobby rather than
Speaker 10: to Biden. Who are they going to pick? If it's
Speaker 10: a Republican Congress, they'll pitch Trump. So we're we're rid
Speaker 10: of Biden either way. Does everybody follow that?
Speaker 7: Okay?
Speaker 2: Okay, So this got a lot of attention because it
Speaker 2: was immediately picked up and it was clipped and it
Speaker 2: was put out there by Democrats. They're like, this is evidence,
Speaker 2: you know, one hundred percent that the entire RFK Junior
Speaker 2: campaign is a plant to try and to elect Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: He's a spoiler. That's what everybody had to say.
Speaker 2: But you and I were discussing this afterwards, before we
Speaker 2: even get to the polling, and I was like, you know,
Speaker 2: it just seems like RFK Junior has a lot of
Speaker 2: hanger honors onto his campaign. I mean, it's not exactly
Speaker 2: the most well oiled machine. At least what we've been
Speaker 2: able to see so far, and it is clear. I
Speaker 2: mean it's true too from some of his donors. Some
Speaker 2: people who support him are trying to do it as
Speaker 2: a supporter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that is
Speaker 2: what he is trying to do, and in fact, there's
Speaker 2: not actually a lot of evidence to support that.
Speaker 1: So what do you think, Crystal, So, first of all,
Speaker 1: the comments are very unfortunate for they fuel be good good.
Speaker 1: She's so clear, you know, when you listen to it,
Speaker 1: she's like, all right, none of us are Biden supporters.
Speaker 1: Can She even suggests that if you want to help Trump,
Speaker 1: go volunteer and canvas in Pennsylvania. But if you're in
Speaker 1: New York, you know Trump can't win in New York.
Speaker 1: So the way to help Trump is to vote for
Speaker 1: RFK Junior. This lady had a PowerPoint made up, she
Speaker 1: had literature she was distributing. She's been posting the same
Speaker 1: stuff on our social media too, by the way, And
Speaker 1: it's not like this is an inconsequential person. She's the
Speaker 1: director for the RFK Junior campaign in the state of
Speaker 1: New York. She's apparently been brought on in particular to
Speaker 1: try to obtain ballot access in the state of New York.
Speaker 1: So she's busy trying to collect signatures to get him
Speaker 1: on the ballot. So that's what she's you know. In
Speaker 1: addition to this little spiel that she was giving, she
Speaker 1: even sent out a hashtag that was like hashtag block Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just as overt as you could possibly be.
Speaker 1: So it's a problem for the RFK Junior people because
Speaker 1: of course the Democrats are going to seize on this.
Speaker 1: They've been trying to make the case that RFK Junior
Speaker 1: is just a spoiler trying to get Trump elected. That's
Speaker 1: really what he's in the game, that's what it's all about.
Speaker 1: And so you know, I can't blame them for seizing
Speaker 1: on this and saying, see, look, I told you so
Speaker 1: here she is out, you know, saying the quiet part
Speaker 1: out loud in the open, and then they can point
Speaker 1: to whatever previous Trump donors who are now giving to
Speaker 1: RFK Junior and say case closed, this guy really is
Speaker 1: just a trojan horse to try to get Trump reelected. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why I don't actually think that that is
Speaker 1: the case. I think she's you know, as I said
Speaker 1: last time we discussed this issue, I don't doubt that
Speaker 1: there are people affiliated with RFK Junior donors potentially backing
Speaker 1: RFK Junior who have that logic in mind. But I
Speaker 1: don't actually think that that's what he personally is up to,
Speaker 1: because if you were running to try to take votes
Speaker 1: away from Joe Biden, you would position yourself a lot
Speaker 1: differently than how he is. Most of the issues he's
Speaker 1: led with code as right wing. That's why he has
Speaker 1: a much higher approval rating with Republicans than he does
Speaker 1: for Democrats. When I look through his Twitter timeline, more
Speaker 1: of his criticism was lobbed against Joe Biden. Now you
Speaker 1: might think, oh, see, that proves that he really is
Speaker 1: against Joe Biden. But actually, if you're trying to win
Speaker 1: over Joe Biden voters, he'd be a little more friendly
Speaker 1: towards Joe Biden. You would position yourself more in the
Speaker 1: anti Trump lane. That would be the way to get
Speaker 1: more anti Trump people who are disaffected with Joe Biden
Speaker 1: into your camp. So, if the goal is to be
Speaker 1: a spoiler to try to get Trump elected, I think
Speaker 1: he's doing a very poor job of that. Frankly, I
Speaker 1: still think it's very likely at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: and there are multiple poles by the way that you
Speaker 1: know that, even at this early stage, bear this out.
Speaker 1: In spite of his name being Kennedy, the fact that
Speaker 1: his approval rating is so much higher for Republicans leads
Speaker 1: me to believe that at best it's a jump ball.
Speaker 1: And it is also possible that he at the end
Speaker 1: of the day does take more votes away from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So that's why, even though these comments are very clear
Speaker 1: and very hard to dispute, I actually do think that
Speaker 1: this is kind of a one off, you know person.
Speaker 1: I think she's hired as a consultant, freelancing saying her
Speaker 1: own thing. Maybe she got approval from the RFK Junior
Speaker 1: campaign to say, to advocate for him, however she feels fit.
Speaker 1: I don't doubt that there was that level of like
Speaker 1: coordination and connectivity here. But I'm not convinced that this
Speaker 1: is the central goal and mission of the RFK Junior
Speaker 1: camp because if it was, I believe they would be
Speaker 1: positioning themselves in a much different way than they actually are.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he would be attacking Trump and to try and
Speaker 2: be friendly to buy I mean, and let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen too, just to highlight this,
Speaker 2: if you take a look at what it looks like
Speaker 2: for polling whenever you include RFK Junior, it is Trump
Speaker 2: and Biden who are tied at thirty eight percent with
Speaker 2: third parties that are mentioned. But I should also note
Speaker 2: that while Yes, Kennedy may be pulling away some votes
Speaker 2: from Joe Biden, we are still seeing that Biden has
Speaker 2: a major problem with people like Jill Stein, other not
Speaker 2: Sure Cornell West. The third party challengers go far, far
Speaker 2: beyond just the RFK junior question. And we have seen
Speaker 2: also some polling where we've seen a reduction from RFKJ
Speaker 2: or voters that pull away from Trump and can actually
Speaker 2: limit Trump's cap of vote and make it easier for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Let's say, if other more left wing challengers
Speaker 2: are not there on the ballot, so does it inject
Speaker 2: some chaos in there, absolutely, but that does not necessarily
Speaker 2: prove what a lot of what she is saying. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there too on the screen though, As
Speaker 2: we said, Democrats, and this is a former Pete buddhaj
Speaker 2: Edge campaign manager, Liz Smith, Democratic Operative. Her job these
Speaker 2: days is appeared to go after RFK Junior. She's saying
Speaker 2: RFK Junior is a spoiler for Trump. He was urged
Speaker 2: by to run by Trump balies like Steve Biden. He's
Speaker 2: being propped up by Trump's largest donor. His campaign now
Speaker 2: caught on tape saying that their top goal is to
Speaker 2: stop Joe Biden. RFK Junior's campaign had a response to
Speaker 2: this that we can go and put there up on
Speaker 2: the screen.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and read Amaryllis Fox. She says.
Speaker 2: As an independent movement, our supporters, volunteers, and field organizers
Speaker 2: come from all sides of the political spectrum. Rita Palma
Speaker 2: was hired a couple of weeks ago as a ballot
Speaker 2: access consultant responsible for scheduling volunteer shifts during our upcoming
Speaker 2: signature drive in the Empire State. She has no involvement
Speaker 2: in or access to electoral strategy nationally or in New York.
Speaker 2: The video circulating was not taken at a campaign event.
Speaker 2: She was speaking as a private citizens, and her statements
Speaker 2: in no way reflect the campaign strategy, the sole aim
Speaker 2: of which is to win the White House with votes
Speaker 2: from former Trump and Biden's supporters alike. We're looking into
Speaker 2: whether any misrepresentations were made and our campaign champion's freedom
Speaker 2: of speech for all of our supporters. So it really
Speaker 2: does kind of hit home exactly what you were saying.
Speaker 2: This is somebody who was hired for ballid Access. Maybe
Speaker 2: she has a you know, a private, you know, reason
Speaker 2: for signing on to the ballid access. Good drive for
Speaker 2: RFK Junior. But you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: so what like, you got to get people to actually
Speaker 2: come and vote for you. And that's something that these
Speaker 2: Democratic operatives and even the Trump people who attack RFK Junior,
Speaker 2: they never quite seem to get there.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day. You should just convince
Speaker 3: people to vote for you. It's that simple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that is really the most important point is
Speaker 1: you know, instead of having this oh who's thet spoiler
Speaker 1: for et cetera, et cetera, it's like, all right, well,
Speaker 1: just you know, if you're a candidate for president, do
Speaker 1: better win offer an agenda for the American people that
Speaker 1: actually resonates with them, and you won't have to worry
Speaker 1: about Bobby Kennedy or Cornell West or Jill Stein or
Speaker 1: you know whoever the libertarian candidate ends up, which might
Speaker 1: also be RFK Junior.
Speaker 4: I don't know, and you'll be fine.
Speaker 1: Just go out and like actually win voters over and
Speaker 1: you'll be good to go. But yeah, Liz Smiths, actually
Speaker 1: they've they've realized at the White House they've got a
Speaker 1: problem with the third party vote. And I think they
Speaker 1: have an even bigger problem with the third party vote
Speaker 1: now that Joe Biden is enabling a genocide in the
Speaker 1: Gaza strip because young voters are typically more open to
Speaker 1: voting third party to begin with, and now he's got
Speaker 1: a massive issue with young voters, voters who are just
Speaker 1: absolutely disgusted with him. Now RFK Junior is just as
Speaker 1: aggressive on Israel, if not more than Joe Biden. But
Speaker 1: you know, Cornell West Jill Stein is very likely to
Speaker 1: have ballot access in many states as Green Party nominee.
Speaker 1: You know, they've got their act together in that regard.
Speaker 1: In fact, out of the three candidates, she's the one
Speaker 1: with the clearest path to being on the most ballots
Speaker 1: in the most states. So they've affirmatively hired Liz Smith
Speaker 1: to run their operation of trying to undercut anyone who
Speaker 1: is running third party and try to shame and cajole
Speaker 1: any voter who's considering voting third party because they realize
Speaker 1: they do have this issue and that pole that we
Speaker 1: put up earlier.
Speaker 4: It actually was kind of a good poll for Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: The top line without the third party candidates had him
Speaker 1: leading Trump by three. I believe that's either inside the
Speaker 1: margin of error or just outside of it. But it
Speaker 1: was actually the best result for Joe Biden in that
Speaker 1: poll in quite a while. So it was a good
Speaker 1: poll for him. But then when you add in all
Speaker 1: of the third party candidates, then you know Trump then
Speaker 1: is basically tied with him or has the narrow edge.
Speaker 1: So it is a big problem for Joe Biden. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that RFK Junior himself is going to be
Speaker 1: a negative factor for Biden, but there there's a lot
Speaker 1: of jockeying with the Biden campaign and with the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign to try to persuade voters like, no, he's really
Speaker 1: a liberal, No, he's really a right wing and I
Speaker 1: think some of the supporters of RFK Junior ranging the
Speaker 1: political spectrum reflects the confusion around what his true political identity.
Speaker 2: Let's move on now to the sclerotic US economy, and
Speaker 2: there is a major flashing red sign as to how
Speaker 2: and what people are doing to make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: It's actually a pretty good indicator of what our society rewards.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: and it turns out that none of the Forbes billionaires
Speaker 2: who are under the age of thirty are self made
Speaker 2: for the very first time in fifteen years. So since
Speaker 2: two thousand and nine, there has always been a member
Speaker 2: of the under thirty Forbes billionaires who actually generated their
Speaker 2: massive wealth on their own by starting their own company.
Speaker 2: The statistic is due to many of the past self
Speaker 2: made billionaires aging into their thirties, but they are not
Speaker 2: being replaced by others in a similar financial situation, and
Speaker 2: in fact, hefty inheritances are now starting what is the
Speaker 2: Outlet is calling the long anticipated generational wealth transfer. The
Speaker 2: world's youngest billionaire is in nineteen year old in Brazil
Speaker 2: college student with a net worth of one point one billion,
Speaker 2: who has a minority steak in her late grandfather's electrical
Speaker 2: equipment company, accompanied by her older sister who also holds
Speaker 2: a minority steak, accompanied by a pair of twenty somethings
Speaker 2: from Ireland who have a networth of about five billion
Speaker 2: each same thing family money. You've got the sons of
Speaker 2: former Tata Group founders as well, same thing, inheriting their
Speaker 2: I think their grandfather maybe great grandfathers minority steak in
Speaker 2: their company.
Speaker 3: I think the list can go on and on.
Speaker 2: In every single case, every billionaire who is under the
Speaker 2: age of thirty has inherited wealth. On top of that,
Speaker 2: if you actually take a look at the overall list,
Speaker 2: it is striking to me that the world's richest man
Speaker 2: is no longer a Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, who
Speaker 2: say what you want, they actually started their own companies.
Speaker 2: It is LVMH, the head of LVMH, the guy who
Speaker 2: sells luxury goods like Louis Vuitton and others, basically selling
Speaker 2: it to middle class folks in order to flash wealth around.
Speaker 2: That is now the most valuable and richest person on earth.
Speaker 2: So the reason we wanted to spend some time on this,
Speaker 2: I think crystal is this is the sign of a
Speaker 2: sclerotic economy. Many of the previous self made billionaires in
Speaker 2: their twenties and others in the twenty tens, where people
Speaker 2: like Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey or the other tech founders.
Speaker 2: You may criticize those companies and the creation now, but
Speaker 2: at that time it was genuinely entrepreneurial and it was
Speaker 2: adding a lot, at least in GDP wise to the
Speaker 2: US economy. But we don't even have that anymore for
Speaker 2: the very first time now. And it's not just here,
Speaker 2: it's all across the globe because America is the leader now.
Speaker 2: It's even if you look at the new entrance to
Speaker 2: the Forbes list, it's all private equity guys, financialization and
Speaker 2: hedge fund traders. Those people would disappear tomorrow and not
Speaker 2: a single one of us would know in terms of
Speaker 2: the economy. Not the same with Amazon, not the same
Speaker 2: with Tesla. But that's what's actually being rewarded right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's so true.
Speaker 1: And I do think it's noteworthy that most of these
Speaker 1: young billionaires they're not even inheriting the money from their parents,
Speaker 1: they're inheriting from their grandparents. Like so it shows you
Speaker 1: that this trend has been we've been headed in this
Speaker 1: direction for quite a while.
Speaker 4: And you know, it ties in.
Speaker 1: With also some of the corporate failures that we see,
Speaker 1: like it Boeing, where even within a large established corporation,
Speaker 1: it's not innovation that's rewarded by the market. It is financialization,
Speaker 1: it's cutting costs, it's union busting, it's you know, pretending
Speaker 1: like you're a Wall Street stock trader instead of a
Speaker 1: company making planes. It's putting Nikki Haley on your corporate
Speaker 1: board and all of the you know, the direction that
Speaker 1: that entails. That's the reality of our economy now. And
Speaker 1: so many of the quote unquote best and bright is
Speaker 1: you know, the people who have abnormal skills in terms
Speaker 1: of science and math, et cetera. So many of them
Speaker 1: decided that the way that they could make it big
Speaker 1: was go to Wall Street and become you know, glorified gamblers.
Speaker 1: And even at the corporate level, it's not like corporations
Speaker 1: have really been competing to.
Speaker 4: Offer the best product.
Speaker 1: They've been competing to gain the system and generate anti
Speaker 1: competitive advantages. You know, that is one thing the Bide
Speaker 1: administration is doing that I support, is trying to roll
Speaker 1: some of that back and force a more actually competitive
Speaker 1: marketplace versus what CEOs now are rewarded for is how
Speaker 1: can I rig the market? How can it create a
Speaker 1: monopoly so that workers and consumers have no choice? You know,
Speaker 1: that's reflected in the fact that you have very little
Speaker 1: innovation across the economy.
Speaker 4: That's just not the thing that's rewarded.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing that is very reflective here,
Speaker 1: especially in American context, But as you said, Sager, and
Speaker 1: you know, for better or worse, America really sets the
Speaker 1: stage for the rules of the game economically around the world.
Speaker 1: You've had now years of very low taxation rates and
Speaker 1: especially these gigantic loopholes where you can pass these large
Speaker 1: fortunes from generation to generation with very little in the
Speaker 1: way of taxes being paid back into the societies that
Speaker 1: you come from, especially in an American context, and so
Speaker 1: you build these massive pots of generational wealth that get
Speaker 1: hoarded and you know, very little shared with the rest
Speaker 1: of society. So we've got this massive, almost unparalleled, historically
Speaker 1: historically inequality, levels of inequality, and you know, this is
Speaker 1: some of the sclerotic, ossified results that you end up
Speaker 1: getting at the end of the day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's very it's very bad.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where if we are having
Speaker 2: i mean, look it's a lead again, it's who is
Speaker 2: getting rewarded. Like if you're a very ambitious person and
Speaker 2: you're going to college and you're looking out there. Uh
Speaker 2: pre A lot of people were inspired in the twenty tens.
Speaker 2: They're like, I'm going to go start my own company. Well,
Speaker 2: if you're looking at this and nobody's even getting rich
Speaker 2: starting their own companies.
Speaker 3: You're like, well, should I do that?
Speaker 2: Or should just go work at a safe job where
Speaker 2: I can work from home make a relatively upper middle
Speaker 2: class salary.
Speaker 3: That's not really something that you want to reward.
Speaker 2: Or worse, you're like, well, if the only way to
Speaker 2: become a billionaire is to go work on Wall Street,
Speaker 2: so be it. That's just the way things are right now,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: similar to the conversation here. Business Insider writing quote millennials
Speaker 2: in gen Z's trendy new splurge is groceries. They say
Speaker 2: that younger generations are now spending more on groceries than
Speaker 2: other categories, according to a McKinsey report, and according I mean, look,
Speaker 2: I would take what McKenzie says with a grain of salt,
Speaker 2: but here, at the very least, what they are saying
Speaker 2: is that the increase in grocery prices that are we've
Speaker 2: seen with inflation are being disproportionately felt then by people
Speaker 2: who are in the lower end of the income spectrum
Speaker 2: and not at the height of their earning potential, and
Speaker 2: that they are having to spend more on groceries simply
Speaker 2: in order to maintain like a medium.
Speaker 3: Quality of life.
Speaker 2: You can take it the other way I've seen previously.
Speaker 2: People will be like, oh, well, this is like the
Speaker 2: new avocado toast. Criticism of the millennials are like, oh,
Speaker 2: there's spending fourteen dollars. It's like, oh, they're spending too
Speaker 2: much money on groceries. But if you think about it,
Speaker 2: you know this is something. Spending more on groceries actually
Speaker 2: indicates that you're eating out much less, which is already
Speaker 2: a significant behavioral change from where things were previously. So
Speaker 2: it's like, if you spend money on going to brunch
Speaker 2: here to being criticized. Now, if you spend money buying food,
Speaker 2: maybe even marginally better food than you previously would have done,
Speaker 2: to still try and save money from eating out and
Speaker 2: to have some enjoyment in your life, you're also being
Speaker 2: criticized here.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I love the way that they are framing this as
Speaker 1: some sort of like decadence that you're eating how dare
Speaker 1: you spend money on groceries? It's to your point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the advice anytime there's like a financial call, how
Speaker 1: do I save money?
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: So one of the first things they say is stop
Speaker 1: eating out, eat at home, and then they do that,
Speaker 1: and then they're.
Speaker 4: Criticized for that as well.
Speaker 1: Not to mention, you know, the bottom line here is
Speaker 1: that millennials and Gen Z have been able to build
Speaker 1: much less wealth than the boomers, so they've been hit
Speaker 1: much harder by inflation. You know, it's still the case
Speaker 1: that your groceries, the same basket of groceries cost four
Speaker 1: hundred and forty five dollars more a month to purchase
Speaker 1: versus a year ago. So even as we have this conversation, oh,
Speaker 1: inflation is coming down, it's not as bad as usual. Well,
Speaker 1: the prices are still really high, and none of these
Speaker 1: corporations are going to bring them down on their own,
Speaker 1: because why would they. They're making record break and profits.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I just think it's it's amazing the ways
Speaker 1: that news organizations find to smear people or you know,
Speaker 1: even indulging in like the most basic of luxuries, oh,
Speaker 1: an extra snack item at Trader Joe's is one of
Speaker 1: the things that they mentioned in this article, and now
Speaker 1: you're being basically smared for that. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: you can trast that with these billionaire millennials and zoomers
Speaker 1: who inherited it all from mommy and daddy, and you
Speaker 1: see the massive gulf that has emerged between you know,
Speaker 1: people who did absolutely nothing to quote unquote earn their
Speaker 1: station in life, will never have to worry about money,
Speaker 1: will pass their billions down to their kids and their grandkids.
Speaker 1: And the zoomers and millennials who didn't have mommy and
Speaker 1: Daddy's bank account backing them, and the way that they
Speaker 1: have really struggled to be able to get a foothold
Speaker 1: and just to be able to make it on a
Speaker 1: basic level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we can also see how the grocery thing
Speaker 2: is actually fitting into an overall trend of reduction in lifestyle.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from a new report from redfin showing what
Speaker 2: renters and homeowners are skipping essentials like meals in medicata
Speaker 2: care to try and keep a roof over their head.
Speaker 2: So they say, the top sacrifices that people have made
Speaker 2: recently in order to afford housing. Keep in mind this
Speaker 2: is not just people who are homeowners, but this also
Speaker 2: includes renters where we've seen a major spike in rental prices.
Speaker 2: They say took no or fewer vacations. You've got thirty
Speaker 2: four percent of people who are saying that skipped meals
Speaker 2: is twenty two percent worked, additional hours, shifts at my
Speaker 2: job is twenty percent, sold, My belongings is twenty Borrowed
Speaker 2: money from friends or family that I will pay back
Speaker 2: eighteen percent, dipped into retirement savings eighteen percent, delayed or
Speaker 2: skipped healthcare and medical treatments fifteen percent worked. An extra
Speaker 2: job is fifteen worked a side hustle like food delivery
Speaker 2: fourteen percent, and receive money from friends or family that
Speaker 2: is not expected to be paid back is fourteen percent.
Speaker 2: So overall, across the board, you're seeing a reduction in lifestyle,
Speaker 2: skipping meals, having to work additional hours. Now, I have
Speaker 2: no problem with some of these things if it is
Speaker 2: to save up for something which is a luxury, or
Speaker 2: to upgrade your lifestyle. But them here is that this
Speaker 2: is just retention of lifestyle. It's to live exactly the
Speaker 2: same life, So you have to live the exact same
Speaker 2: life that you were living four or five years ago,
Speaker 2: but you actually have to give up a lot of
Speaker 2: things to just maintain that. That's not the way that
Speaker 2: things were supposed to go on an upward trajectory. You're
Speaker 2: working a side hustle so that you can move into
Speaker 2: a bigger house. Cool, I think that's awesome. But having
Speaker 2: to work a side hustle or something like that so
Speaker 2: you continue to make rent in the same place that
Speaker 2: you've been living for five to ten years with no
Speaker 2: hope of being able to buy a house. That's a
Speaker 2: very very different story. And that's actually what comes across
Speaker 2: to me in some of this data.
Speaker 1: Yeah, housing is so key is such a central part
Speaker 1: of this story too, because really the top line from
Speaker 1: this piece is that they found that half of renters
Speaker 1: and homeowners are struggling to afford their monthly housing payments.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just it's.
Speaker 1: Insane just to have a roof over your head, and
Speaker 1: not like any sort of luxurious fashion, but just a
Speaker 1: roof over your head. People are having to skip meals.
Speaker 1: People who are working full time on all the things right,
Speaker 1: and by the way, you know, if they went to
Speaker 1: college and did that thing that they were told to do.
Speaker 1: They've also got these giant debt payments hanging over them
Speaker 1: from the jump when they start their careers. And then,
Speaker 1: to add insult to injury, they got to be smeared
Speaker 1: when they quote unquote splurge on the trendy new thing
Speaker 1: buying groceries. So, you know, we've said this a lot
Speaker 1: of time. We've got another story here about housing that
Speaker 1: is really important. But this is such a central determinant
Speaker 1: over whether or not people have sort of a basic, stable,
Speaker 1: not even luxury, but just stable lifestyle, able to eat
Speaker 1: meals on a regular basis, able to, oh my god,
Speaker 1: actually maybe go on a vacation once a year.
Speaker 4: Imagine that.
Speaker 1: And the fact that housing is so extraordinarily high in
Speaker 1: so many places with no signs of abating, has really
Speaker 1: stolen those sorts of you know, simple splourage is simple luxuries,
Speaker 1: basic living standards from entire generations.
Speaker 4: At this point, there.
Speaker 2: Has been some significant change in the investors moving into
Speaker 2: the real estate market. We'll go ahead and skip ahead,
Speaker 2: guys to the second part here. We'll put the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: tear sheet up, please, which is C five. We are
Speaker 2: seeing Blackstone. This is a deal just announced yesterday, which
Speaker 2: is part of the reason I really wanted to make
Speaker 2: sure that we got this is at Blackstone, the major
Speaker 2: investment group is now signing a ten billion dollars deal.
Speaker 2: Quote is the latest bet that property is near lows.
Speaker 2: The firm will acquire the real estate owner apartment income rate.
Speaker 2: They're planning now to invest four hundred million dollars into
Speaker 2: the portfolio. So the reason that it matters is that
Speaker 2: we're seeing continually gobbling up more and more shares by
Speaker 2: institutional capital into apartment into real estate and basically into
Speaker 2: the housing market. This is increasing now to a point
Speaker 2: where what we are seeing is that this bet that
Speaker 2: single family landlords and others can be rolled up to
Speaker 2: create consistent rental income that is coming to you. They
Speaker 2: can try and reduce the services. It's a basic economy
Speaker 2: of scale argument. But the reason it matters is that
Speaker 2: this is one of the largest real estate managers in
Speaker 2: the entire US that wants to continue to invest in
Speaker 2: property and to roll up said income. And it actually
Speaker 2: comes at the exact same time that we have seen
Speaker 2: the apartment landlord air that they now acquired, that there's
Speaker 2: been more investors than ever that are moving into the market.
Speaker 2: So we actually have some interesting Redfin data that came
Speaker 2: out just last month. It shows that investors bought some
Speaker 2: twenty six percent of the country's most affordable homes in
Speaker 2: the fourth quarter. That is the highest share on record.
Speaker 2: They say that elevated home prices and mortgage rates, which
Speaker 2: sluggish rents have made low price is increasingly attractive now
Speaker 2: to investors. Investors bought eighteen percent of all homes that's
Speaker 2: sold in the fourth quarter, slightly up from a year before.
Speaker 2: Overall investor home purchase had dropped a bit from the
Speaker 2: year earlier, but still maintain the highest share than ever
Speaker 2: before on record. And especially it is in Florida in
Speaker 2: California that investors are hungry from homes and are still
Speaker 2: just not able to find properties to purchase from an
Speaker 2: increase housing shortage. So you've got the shortage, you've got
Speaker 2: the highest number of shares on record. Some of these
Speaker 2: may be small time investors. I don't necessarily think is
Speaker 2: a problem with that, but whenever you reach the ten
Speaker 2: billion dollar level, then I think we're looking at a
Speaker 2: very significant problem. And now we're looking at a point
Speaker 2: where if you're renting in this country in the future,
Speaker 2: especially in a big city, there's a good chance that
Speaker 2: your landlord is a large.
Speaker 3: Private equity organization and you may not even know it.
Speaker 1: That's right, and they're making it more difficult for people
Speaker 1: to get their first foot on that ladder of home ownership,
Speaker 1: which is really a central dividing line in American society
Speaker 1: between haves and have nots. Are you a homeowner, are
Speaker 1: you able to build that basic wealth for yourself and
Speaker 1: for your family moving forward or not? And so buying
Speaker 1: somewhat fewer homes because there are less homes to buy,
Speaker 1: but as you pointed out, as a share of all
Speaker 1: of the homes that are being purchased, their share continues
Speaker 1: to go up, and it makes sense from a capitalist perspective.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason why people are struggling to be
Speaker 1: able to afford a home right now, in addition to
Speaker 1: the astronomical prices themselves, is, of course mortgage rates are
Speaker 1: up from where they were previously. That doesn't impact these
Speaker 1: large institutional investors as much because they're buying large not
Speaker 1: getting mortgages. They're coming in with all cash now. The
Speaker 1: interest rates still affect them.
Speaker 4: In other ways.
Speaker 1: They take out loans for other things, potentially the costs
Speaker 1: of flip in the house, et cetera. So it impacts
Speaker 1: them some, but they're at a massive advantage because they
Speaker 1: can pay all cash and not have to worry about
Speaker 1: the cost of those high mortgage interest rates. So it's
Speaker 1: a huge disadvantage for just regular people who are trying
Speaker 1: to buy a house, and really will will be one
Speaker 1: of the most consequential developments you can imagine in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, the how the economy shapes up moving forward.
Speaker 1: We've also covered here the way that these companies increasingly
Speaker 1: use algorithms to basically rig the market and the facto
Speaker 1: and this is, you know, the legal allegation actually is
Speaker 1: that they're de facto colluding with each other to artificially
Speaker 1: lift rent prices in a lot of markets across the country.
Speaker 1: And there's also a lot of documentation about how these
Speaker 1: large landlords, I mean, they're impersonal, they're anonymous, they never
Speaker 1: have to look you in the face. They have to
Speaker 1: look you in the eye when they're kicking you and
Speaker 1: your kids out your apartment, or when they're jacking up
Speaker 1: the rent to make it so that you're having to
Speaker 1: skip meals and you know, can never even imagine going
Speaker 1: out to eat or going on a vacation. They don't
Speaker 1: have to look you in the eye when they're doing that,
Speaker 1: so they're perfectly happy to squeeze you for absolutely everything
Speaker 1: you're worth, to delay maintenance to basically you know, in
Speaker 1: some instances, as documented, actually have your living conditions be
Speaker 1: unsafe if they can possibly get away with it. So
Speaker 1: it really is a nightmare scenario in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we were talking about yesterday
Speaker 1: is how this divide between the housing halves, the how
Speaker 1: ownership in terms of ownership the haves versus the have nots,
Speaker 1: may also be driving some of the political voting behavior
Speaker 1: that we're seeing that's otherwise head scratching. So why is
Speaker 1: it that older voters, at least according to some polls,
Speaker 1: and let's take it all with a grain of salt,
Speaker 1: but some older voters seem to be more favorable towards
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, whereas younger voters, who have been moving left
Speaker 1: and voting more and more democratic in the modern era,
Speaker 1: have been moving away from him. You'd be hard pressed
Speaker 1: to find a story that doesn't fit better than this
Speaker 1: story of housing haves and have nots. Younger voters by
Speaker 1: and large haven't been able to purchase homes. They're struggling,
Speaker 1: and the economy has made it very difficult for them.
Speaker 1: If you're a boomer and you have your home or
Speaker 1: your silent gen and you have your home and you're
Speaker 1: building all this wealth, and you've seen your housing price,
Speaker 1: do nothing, go up and up and up and increase
Speaker 1: your wealth. You don't care that market interest rates are high.
Speaker 1: You're doing just fine. This economy is actually working pretty
Speaker 1: well for you. So that could actually be a really
Speaker 1: key political dynamic that's largely ignored that's playing out right
Speaker 1: now in this election before our eyes.
Speaker 3: I definitely think you're right. And it's interesting too.
Speaker 2: I was just noting from one of my notes I
Speaker 2: forgot to mention, is that this Blackstone deal is just
Speaker 2: a continued acceleration. They had just done a three point
Speaker 2: five billion dollar deal to take a company called Tricon private,
Speaker 2: which has some thirty one thousand single family residents across
Speaker 2: the US and Canada. Now this adds thousands of more apartments.
Speaker 2: So when we consider the have nots and others, the
Speaker 2: entrance of all of this in we've got to find
Speaker 2: some sort of regulatory solution we've highlighted here previously. There
Speaker 2: are some state local efforts actually to try and to
Speaker 2: keep large institutional capital outside of the real estate market
Speaker 2: and not allow them either to own large segments of
Speaker 2: single family house or to not allow them to at
Speaker 2: least be the first bidder. But we haven't seen anything
Speaker 2: be taken up like that on the national level. I
Speaker 2: think whoever is willing to do it, if you can
Speaker 2: get housing prices in this country or at very least
Speaker 2: rental income and all that down in this country, or
Speaker 2: even stable, I think some people would be happy with that.
Speaker 2: That person would have a political winner on their hands.
Speaker 2: But it's just not in our lexicon right now. Luckily,
Speaker 2: some states are doing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is a little bit of a conversation happening
Speaker 1: in Congress, but it doesn't seem to have nearly the
Speaker 1: national momentum that it does because, let's be honest, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of powerful, wealthy interests that are rayed
Speaker 1: against it, and that's always going to make it difficult
Speaker 1: to be able to get something through the Congress. Let's
Speaker 1: go on move to another business story that is kind
Speaker 1: of funny, to be honest with you pit this up
Speaker 1: on the screen.
Speaker 4: So you may.
Speaker 1: Recall that Amazon rolled down with great fanfare these quote
Speaker 1: unquote just walk out grocery stores where you go in
Speaker 1: you just put the stuff in your car. They allegedly
Speaker 1: had this high tech that was scanning things as you're
Speaker 1: replacing them in your car. You walk out, it charges
Speaker 1: your card, you get your receipt, you're done.
Speaker 4: You don't even have to go through a checkout line.
Speaker 1: Well, they just announced that they're killing this just walkout tech,
Speaker 1: and the reason is because it never actually really worked
Speaker 1: in reality, This you know, sophisticated AI et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: was really powered by somewhere around one thousand human beings
Speaker 1: who were watching and checking what you were putting in
Speaker 1: your basket and making sure that you were getting charged
Speaker 1: for the right things, who were based in India. So
Speaker 1: shoppers were reporting, you can come back up on me.
Speaker 1: At this point, shoppers were reporting that they weren't getting
Speaker 1: their receipts for hours and hours, and like, what is
Speaker 1: going on here? Now? Listen, it's always in any sort
Speaker 1: of AI model you have to use human beings at
Speaker 1: the beginning to help the system learn. But apparently the
Speaker 1: tech was so clunky. It really wasn't learning. They were
Speaker 1: continuing to have to rely on human beings surveilling you
Speaker 1: as you shop and having all sorts of problems with
Speaker 1: the design of the store and having to make sure
Speaker 1: everything is precisely in place or else it didn't really
Speaker 1: work out. I bet there was a high mistake rate
Speaker 1: as well, if you're having to rely on these sort
Speaker 1: of like you know, tech cluges and human being reviewers
Speaker 1: in order to make this work. So ultimately, the idea
Speaker 1: of this just walkout technology was basically a fantasy and
Speaker 1: a fairy tale. And I think it kind of tied
Speaker 1: in with what we were talking about earlier how all
Speaker 1: of these companies have moved more towards you know, financialization
Speaker 1: than actual innovation because apparently they didn't have the chops
Speaker 1: to get this thing to work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is actually hilarious because there was one here
Speaker 2: in d C. And I actually went to one, and
Speaker 2: the entire experience it was exactly as you said. I
Speaker 2: didn't get the receipt for a long time, and I
Speaker 2: just wanted to try it and I'll just see how
Speaker 2: it was. The whole thing actually felt very creepy, and
Speaker 2: I'm very glad that the technology was not nearly as
Speaker 2: dystopian as they made it out to be.
Speaker 3: It wasn't AI.
Speaker 2: It was just a bunch of guys in India and
Speaker 2: Bangladesh reviewing footage then ringing it up, and like you said,
Speaker 2: there's a huge amount of human error that can then
Speaker 2: result in it. The funny thing is, too, now that
Speaker 2: they are closing, they have blockbuster deals if you have,
Speaker 2: by the way, been able to take advantage of this.
Speaker 3: For example, they're selling.
Speaker 2: Like olive oil, like a leader of olive oil right
Speaker 2: now in DC for like two dollars, So people are
Speaker 2: just going through and stocking up taking advantage.
Speaker 3: So if you have one in your area, I highly
Speaker 3: recommend they take it.
Speaker 4: Knowledge of that, guys, this is the place.
Speaker 3: It's an expensive place. It's expensive.
Speaker 2: I think people were getting roused sauce as well, but
Speaker 2: this does highlight I'm.
Speaker 4: Not really a fan of that.
Speaker 3: But anyway, godhead, I've never even had it. Apparently it's expensive. Okay,
Speaker 3: that's apparently what I've been told. This is when our
Speaker 3: producer found which is amazing.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen where you
Speaker 2: have a cashier at a I think it's a coffee
Speaker 2: shop there that is zooming into New York City to
Speaker 2: help you with your transaction from the Philippines.
Speaker 3: And apparently though, this is not.
Speaker 2: The first time that this type of technology has been debuted,
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of various self service type places
Speaker 2: where if you do need a little bit of a
Speaker 2: human help, you can have somebody zoom on the screen
Speaker 2: there that actually can help you ring them up. They
Speaker 2: have some security features and others where they can help
Speaker 2: open the door for you and all that. But you
Speaker 2: can pay them only five to six dollars per hour
Speaker 2: to operate like that. So why wouldn't you try and
Speaker 2: take advantage of your you know, in one of these
Speaker 2: types of businesses as opposed to paying a actual human
Speaker 2: being that is there. Now, look, I still think it's
Speaker 2: creepy and it won't necessarily take off, but if enough
Speaker 2: people do it, and if they could refine the tech
Speaker 2: into some sort of I don't know, like a hologram
Speaker 2: or a bigger screen or something. Maybe they need a
Speaker 2: screen as big as hours that's over here, they could
Speaker 2: make it work.
Speaker 3: It is just clear though.
Speaker 2: That things you know, we're promised AI and all this
Speaker 2: awesome future of the Jetsons.
Speaker 3: It's just a lot more dystopian than that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's being used to make life shittier, not better,
Speaker 1: by and large, you know, with exceptions. Soccer likes his
Speaker 1: Apple Vision pro thing, right, that's tease for future. We
Speaker 1: got a little update on that for you guys. But
Speaker 1: the company, according to the gentleman who tweeted this ount,
Speaker 1: who has a substack by the way, is called Happy Cashier.
Speaker 1: It's apparently operating in five different Asian fast food places
Speaker 1: in New York City. And so, yeah, when you're doing
Speaker 1: yourself checkout situation, which of course now has become totally
Speaker 1: commonplace in all sorts of different restaurants, CVS, gircure.
Speaker 4: Store, whatever.
Speaker 1: If you're doing that you have trouble, I guess that's
Speaker 1: when you get the call in, the zoom call in
Speaker 1: from the Philippines to assist you with your transaction. It's
Speaker 1: not only any different than we've all become very accustomed
Speaker 1: to the fact that call centers are so many of
Speaker 1: them are outsourced that when you're talking to someone trying
Speaker 1: to solve whatever problem you have on the phone, these
Speaker 1: people are likely dialing in from another location. But it
Speaker 1: does show you that, you know, the idea that service
Speaker 1: sector work would be immune from certainly from technology, we
Speaker 1: already know that is not the case, but from offshoring
Speaker 1: is obviously not true as well, because hey, why not
Speaker 1: why pay an American worker, you know, higher minimum wage
Speaker 1: and have to deal with labor standards when you can
Speaker 1: get someone who's less expensive overseas and you know, who
Speaker 1: really cares about labor standards From the company's perspective, who
Speaker 1: really cares about customer experience? If all of my competitors
Speaker 1: are going to do the same thing, you're not really
Speaker 1: going to have any choice anyway.
Speaker 4: So there you go.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, this ties in with something that is unfolding in California,
Speaker 1: which we covered previously. You guys might recall they have
Speaker 1: established a fast food industry Council in California that uses
Speaker 1: something called sectoral bargaining to basically set standards throughout that
Speaker 1: industry or workers in terms of safety, in terms of wages,
Speaker 1: in terms of hours, kind of every aspect of the
Speaker 1: working environment. This is similar to a model that's used
Speaker 1: more commonly in other countries, where it's almost in lieu
Speaker 1: of it's in lieu of shop by shop unions. You
Speaker 1: set one single standard for the entire industry. Then everybody's
Speaker 1: competing on the same level. You have representatives of business
Speaker 1: and workers who are on the council, and so they
Speaker 1: come to some support of agreement. Okay, so that's the backstory.
Speaker 1: So California, as part of this Workers Council, they establish
Speaker 1: a twenty dollars per hour minimum wage for fast food workers.
Speaker 1: And this is not your little mom and pop small businesses.
Speaker 1: These are large chains that have been doing quite well,
Speaker 1: that have record breaking profits in many instances where you
Speaker 1: know they can theoretically afford this level of labor cost.
Speaker 1: So this came up as a conversation on the PbD
Speaker 1: podcast with guest Jesse Waters making some interesting comments about
Speaker 1: what he thinks McDonald workers should earn.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 11: See if you can do this in your head, you
Speaker 11: probably can. If you're making twenty dollars an hour to
Speaker 11: work at a fast food restaurant, right, is that is
Speaker 11: that six figures?
Speaker 3: Are you making? Fifty is just to exit a few zeros? Okay?
Speaker 3: So forty k years?
Speaker 11: Okay, well forty k years so and then if your
Speaker 11: husband or wife is also there, you're making one hundred
Speaker 11: thousand dollars as a family. Sure, both working at McDonald's
Speaker 11: eighty g That is okay, that's crazy. That is crazy
Speaker 11: because that job really doesn't require much. So it's inflating
Speaker 11: the entire you know, uh, labor sector and the happy
Speaker 11: meal and the happy meal unhappy, which I'm very unhappy about.
Speaker 11: But I believe Gavin Newsom will be president one day.
Speaker 11: The man is smooth. He's already currying up to the
Speaker 11: Republican side. You saw him go on Hannity. He dive
Speaker 11: bombed a couple of Fox News events.
Speaker 4: He's savvy, so a lot there soccer.
Speaker 1: But first of all, the attempted math where he thinks,
Speaker 1: first of all, that twenty dollars hour is gonna night
Speaker 1: you six figures. That's his first initial reaction was like, dude, what?
Speaker 1: And then then you try living on forty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: in La Jesse waters and tell me how that goes?
Speaker 1: Even eight thousand dollars. You got kids, a whole family,
Speaker 1: You tell me how easy that is to do. And
Speaker 1: then for someone whose whole job is like us to
Speaker 1: sit on their asses in front of a microphone to
Speaker 1: be saying that McDonald's workers it doesn't require much for
Speaker 1: them to do this job. It's just complete nonsense. They're
Speaker 1: adding way more tangible value and doing a lot more
Speaker 1: difficult work in this economy than you are. So for
Speaker 1: him to sell, it's crazy for them to earn forty
Speaker 1: K a year for working full time and still at
Speaker 1: forty K a year, I guarantee you're gonna be rent burden.
Speaker 1: I guarantee you're gonna struggling to make ends meet. It's
Speaker 1: just what a bubble, What a bubble you are living in.
Speaker 3: So I've got some math here in front of me. Jesse,
Speaker 3: do this one.
Speaker 2: In my head, it was a little bit easier, So
Speaker 2: twenty dollars per hour. I'm going to assume this is
Speaker 2: a single filer in the state of California, forty one thousand,
Speaker 2: six hundred dollars working forty hours per week. After tax,
Speaker 2: you are netting thirty four thousand, three hundred and fifty dollars,
Speaker 2: which means that your monthly take home pay is two thousand,
Speaker 2: eight hundred and thirty three bucks. The average rent fair
Speaker 2: market rent for a residential rental property in California today
Speaker 2: as of twenty twenty four, is two thousand, three hundred and.
Speaker 3: Forty five dollars.
Speaker 2: So if we take twenty eight hundred and we minus
Speaker 2: it by twenty three forty five, you have approximately three
Speaker 2: to four hundred bucks that is left over to pay
Speaker 2: for health insurance presumably that's not included here, to pay
Speaker 2: for gas because you're living in the state of California,
Speaker 2: we're talking about five six dollars a gallon depending on that,
Speaker 2: and you're driving a lot, you have to pay for internet,
Speaker 2: phone bill.
Speaker 3: Do you have a single dollar left over at the
Speaker 3: end of the month.
Speaker 2: If you're living on thirty four k a year take home,
Speaker 2: you're a single guy who is and you're working here
Speaker 2: at McDonald's, you are barely able to survive, and most
Speaker 2: likely statistically you're going to be significantly in debt, credit
Speaker 2: card debt specifically. So what do we learn from that
Speaker 2: that's actually not a quote unquote livable wage. I completely
Speaker 2: understand here by the way, people who have concerns around
Speaker 2: minimum wage inflation and all of that, But what they
Speaker 2: ignore in the state of California is that we're talking
Speaker 2: here one about the sectoral bargaining that was put in
Speaker 2: place by the workers to achieve this, But two is
Speaker 2: that we already have an incredibly high rental market standard
Speaker 2: of living in others at a baseline level, which makes
Speaker 2: it where the past minimum wage was not even close
Speaker 2: to being able to get you there.
Speaker 3: So, if you put it in the context that I just.
Speaker 2: Gave you, you can't help but take away that if you
Speaker 2: were working in one of these jobs that it's almost,
Speaker 2: i would say, basically impossible to quote unquote survive thirty
Speaker 2: four thousand dollars a year. You'd have to work a
Speaker 2: shitload of overtime, or you're going to have to do
Speaker 2: uber uber eats or something like that in order to
Speaker 2: supplement your income, and you are still not making a
Speaker 2: lot of money. To keep this in mind, people are
Speaker 2: doing uber eats and all this other stuff, are taking
Speaker 2: a ton of depreciation on their cars. I think they
Speaker 2: have to pay extra fees. Could they have higher car
Speaker 2: insurance rates. There's a lot of phantom costs that come
Speaker 2: into any of these quote unquote side hustles too, So
Speaker 2: I would just again illustrate that it's not even close
Speaker 2: to six figures. Even as he is talking about if
Speaker 2: you have two people who work at McDonald's forty dollars
Speaker 2: an hour, that's going to be eighty three thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a year take home pay after tax. That is roughly
Speaker 2: the national average for a household here in the US,
Speaker 2: but national average in California.
Speaker 3: That's not going to cut it.
Speaker 2: You need to be making one hundred and twenty thousand
Speaker 2: dollars to be living a seventy thousand dollars life on
Speaker 2: a national average in the state of California. So you're
Speaker 2: mostly below actually where you need to be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and God forbid, you have kids, right, and are
Speaker 1: trying to, you know, afford that. I imagine on a
Speaker 1: single salary, trying to be a single mom and on
Speaker 1: twenty bucks an hour in California. Forget about it. I
Speaker 1: just can't take the classism of this. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: they don't they don't work hard. There's not much involved here.
Speaker 1: Have you ever worked a fast food job. This was
Speaker 1: not an easy job. It's actually a very demanding job.
Speaker 1: And so this condescending notion that you know, Jesse Waters
Speaker 1: is working so much hard, contributing so.
Speaker 4: Much more than I'm a McDonald's worker.
Speaker 1: I just find that whole worldview to be so grotesque.
Speaker 1: I you know, maybe I'm old fashioned. I think if
Speaker 1: you are an adult, work in full time. You should
Speaker 1: be able to afford to live, to have an apartment
Speaker 1: and eat three meals a day. That's just me. I
Speaker 1: think that's where we should be. So the reality is
Speaker 1: twenty dollars an hour and many places in California still
Speaker 1: doesn't get you there.
Speaker 4: But at least it's an improvement. We can put this
Speaker 4: up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Some more details from the LA Times about what was
Speaker 1: passed in California. I sort of already went through this,
Speaker 1: but it says you're to California is new twenty dollars
Speaker 1: now a minimum wage for fast food workers. The pay
Speaker 1: increase was established by Assembly Bill twelve twenty eight. It
Speaker 1: applies to California and fast food workers employed by any
Speaker 1: chain with more than sixty locations nationwide.
Speaker 4: Covers corporate owned and franchise location.
Speaker 1: The state has more than four five hundred and forty
Speaker 1: thousand fast food workers, about one hundred and ninety five
Speaker 1: thousand of them in LA and Orange County, according to
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two figures. By the way, the previous minimum
Speaker 1: wage was sixteen dollars an hour, so they're getting a
Speaker 1: four dollars increase, which you know, I'm sure is significant
Speaker 1: for a lot of people, but is probably not going
Speaker 1: to be life changing. Like I said, they probably need
Speaker 1: a significantly higher wage increase to actually be able to
Speaker 1: live in LA and in San Francisco and other parts
Speaker 1: of the state of California. And then the last thing
Speaker 1: that I pulled Sager is I looked up McDonald's annual
Speaker 1: grost profit to see, you know, whether or not they
Speaker 1: could weather this storm of the increased wage costs, which,
Speaker 1: again I want to remind you this wasn't set by
Speaker 1: the workers themselves. This was set through a council and
Speaker 1: through a negotiated process that included these businesses. By the way,
Speaker 1: but McDonald's annual gross profit for twenty twenty three was
Speaker 1: fourteen point five to six billion.
Speaker 4: That was a ten percent increase over the year before.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty two's profit was a five percent increase from
Speaker 1: the year before. Twenty twenty one's profit was a twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent increase from the year before. So if you
Speaker 1: look at the trend, McDonald's is doing okay. They're workers
Speaker 1: not so much so, God bless them. I hope that
Speaker 1: this helps make life a little bit easier for them
Speaker 1: as they're working hard in there.
Speaker 2: Well, and let's not forget about the Panera bread bread
Speaker 2: exception that we are previously, which.
Speaker 4: Is that's a real outrage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so to remind you, there was a specific carve ount.
Speaker 1: Turns out Newsom as buddies with the big Panera franchise
Speaker 1: holder in the state of California, and so they made
Speaker 1: this specific car ount in the legislation where if you
Speaker 1: have a bakery involved in your fast enterprise for some reason,
Speaker 1: undefined reason, this doesn't count for you. So Panera gets this,
Speaker 1: you know, just total corporate carve ound. That's the real
Speaker 1: outrage here, not that any of those workers aren't making
Speaker 1: more money. It's that the Panera workers are getting screwed.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, Crystal Pair, I just checked just to make
Speaker 2: sure it was. After the outrage, they then were like, okay,
Speaker 2: we will comply with the minimum wage law, but legally
Speaker 2: they still had no but only because that that story
Speaker 2: went viral, including on our channel and I think across
Speaker 2: the state of California, and people said this is complete
Speaker 2: bullshit that they said, okay, okay, we will raise.
Speaker 3: Our minimum wage two twenty dollars an hour.
Speaker 2: So in some ways it's a hopeful story where they
Speaker 2: can try and be corrupt, but if they get caught
Speaker 2: doing it, then guess what they're actually going to have
Speaker 2: to They're actually going to have to come into compliance.
Speaker 3: So I'm actually somewhat pleasantly surprised by that.
Speaker 1: So in spite of the fact that the IDF has
Speaker 1: actually withdrawn from southern Gaza at this point, BB making
Speaker 1: a clear yesterday the planned invasion will go forward. We
Speaker 1: could put this up on the screen. He was speaking
Speaker 1: in Hebrew here, which isn't all that useful for me
Speaker 1: at least, So I'll read you part of what he said.
Speaker 1: He said, today I received a detailed report on the
Speaker 1: talks in Cairo. We are working all the time to
Speaker 1: achieve our goals, primarily the release of all our hostages
Speaker 1: and achieving a complete victory over Hamas, whatever that means.
Speaker 1: This victory requires entry into Rafa and the elimination of
Speaker 1: the terrorist battalions there. He goes on to say, it
Speaker 1: will happen. There is a date. This noteworthy for a
Speaker 1: lot of reasons. Obviously, as we've covered before, you have
Speaker 1: over a million Palestinians who have been pushed into Rafa
Speaker 1: in dire humanitarian conditions, who have been displaced there Rafa
Speaker 1: up along the border with Egypt. Egypt has been very
Speaker 1: strongly asserting that they have a major problem with the
Speaker 1: idea that the IDF would directly invade Rafa. The US
Speaker 1: government also so pushing back on the possibility of a
Speaker 1: Rafa invasion, originally saying hey, this is a red line,
Speaker 1: then sort of shifting and saying, well, you got to
Speaker 1: figure out the humanitarian situation first, but still raising a
Speaker 1: lot of concerns about Rafa. There were further questions after
Speaker 1: the IDF, as I mentioned before, withdrew from southern Gaza
Speaker 1: about what this meant.
Speaker 4: But BB here.
Speaker 1: Sager making it clear there's a date he set on
Speaker 1: this Rafa invasion, and in a sense I mean for
Speaker 1: his own political posturing. That always seemed obvious to me
Speaker 1: that he wasn't going to back off of this because
Speaker 1: the moment the war ends, the moment there will be
Speaker 1: a reckoning with him in his political future, and so
Speaker 1: he can't allow that to happen. Also, the most psycho
Speaker 1: parts of its coalition are very determined to have this
Speaker 1: full on onslaught into Rafa.
Speaker 4: So that's where we are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have evidence of that, we can put that
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. You could see it clear
Speaker 2: as day. Here we have Ben Gavier. He says, if
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister decides to end the war without an
Speaker 2: extensive attack on Rafa, he will not have a mandate
Speaker 2: to continue serving as Prime Minister, making it as clear
Speaker 2: as it gets for what is at least what is
Speaker 2: going on inside of his coalition. But at the same time, Crystal,
Speaker 2: we have some developments with the ceasefire. We're getting conflicting
Speaker 2: news reports, so I'm not exactly sure where we stand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's put this up on the screen from CNN.
Speaker 1: There was a report yesterday. This is actually from Jerusalem
Speaker 1: Post based on a CNN report, but they said that
Speaker 1: Hamas rejected the latest hostage deal proposal. You know, they
Speaker 1: always frame this is like Hamas is the problem, but
Speaker 1: in reality, there are negotiations going on.
Speaker 4: There's a give and take here.
Speaker 1: Some of the issues that I've seen reported are you know,
Speaker 1: there's always this problem of Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire
Speaker 1: and BB obviously saying, listen, even if we get to
Speaker 1: some sort of a deal here, it's going to be
Speaker 1: temporary because we're still going into Rafa. So that's a
Speaker 1: sticking point. The number of hostages that would be released
Speaker 1: in the early phases of this potential ceasefire also so
Speaker 1: appears to be an issue. Israel has been asking for
Speaker 1: forty hostages. This is all based on reports in the
Speaker 1: humanitarian category, meaning not IDF soldiers, and effectively, some of
Speaker 1: the reports indicate that there aren't forty hostages in that
Speaker 1: category who remain alive, which is horrifying, you know, and
Speaker 1: we don't know the circumstances under which they may specifically
Speaker 1: have perished. But we're six months into a war that
Speaker 1: has been characterized by absolute annihilation, destruction, starvation, dehydration, cut
Speaker 1: off of medical facilities, etc. It's entirely predictable that alongside
Speaker 1: the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed,
Speaker 1: that some of the hostages would perish as well. So
Speaker 1: this really confirms what a lot of people who were,
Speaker 1: you know, including the hostage families who've been pushing from
Speaker 1: the beginning, and some of the hostages themselves after they
Speaker 1: were released in the early seasefire, saying listen, the way
Speaker 1: you're conducting this war, you have no idea where these
Speaker 1: hostages are. You're not keeping them safe. Every day this
Speaker 1: goes on is imperiling their lives. And so I think
Speaker 1: we have, through the number of hostages who have been
Speaker 1: killed at this point, sad confirmation that at least some
Speaker 1: of that was really true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really unfortunate that they're not being able to
Speaker 2: even account for a lot of them. As you said,
Speaker 2: it is predictable considering that many were killed outright, either
Speaker 2: on the ground or many of them said that they
Speaker 2: were being bombed. It's possible to and we don't know
Speaker 2: whether Hamas PIJ any of these other organizations what that
Speaker 2: level of treatment was like for these existing hostages. It's
Speaker 2: obviously a very chaotic situation. These are many of these
Speaker 2: people could have been malnourished and all this other anyway,
Speaker 2: it's very devastating. We did, however, see an interesting clip
Speaker 2: that came out of the US State Department where again
Speaker 2: the great journalist Matt Lee just presses the State departments
Speaker 2: person over and over again, where he's like, hey, so
Speaker 2: if you were able to get aid in this time,
Speaker 2: why weren't you ever able to do it before? What
Speaker 2: is the line? And he's completely exposed here. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen.
Speaker 8: I will tell you that the step that they are
Speaker 8: taking now is important, but it's overdue. It should have
Speaker 8: should have happened months ago. A lot of these steps
Speaker 8: should have been happened months ago. We're happy that they're
Speaker 8: happening now, but they need to be increased and they
Speaker 8: need to be sustained.
Speaker 7: So I'll stop after this.
Speaker 9: But in recognizing that, often hindsight is twenty twenty.
Speaker 7: Shouldn't you have done put the ultimatum?
Speaker 1: Or shouldn't the president have done that months ago?
Speaker 8: So we have made clear to them for months what
Speaker 8: we expect them to do, and we have seen and
Speaker 8: we have seen them take steps at our urging, and
Speaker 8: some of those steps have been important, but they haven't
Speaker 8: been sufficient. And all I can say is that we
Speaker 8: welcome the initials that the initial steps they have taken
Speaker 8: over the past few days, they represent a dematic improvement,
Speaker 8: if fully limited. But we're going to judge them ultimately
Speaker 8: by the results.
Speaker 3: So you could see it there right there, Chrysal, We're
Speaker 3: going to judge by the results. We'll see. But he's
Speaker 3: unable to answer the very basic question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Democrats have caught themselves in a complete trap here
Speaker 1: with their nut and Yahoo bear hug strategy. As led
Speaker 1: by the Biden White House, because their position has been oh, no,
Speaker 1: Israel's not blocking humanitarian aid, which they had to say
Speaker 1: because if they acknowledged that Israel was in fact instituting
Speaker 1: a siege, blocking humanitarian aid using starvation as a weapon
Speaker 1: of war, then under our laws we would not be
Speaker 1: able to continue transferring weapons to them. So they've had
Speaker 1: to deny that reality. Okay, well, now you've actually not
Speaker 1: even changed your policy, but just threatened up potentially, possibly
Speaker 1: in some undefined way, change your policy in the future.
Speaker 1: And lo and behold you get some still inadequate, but
Speaker 1: notable changes from Israel where it's very apparent, Oh all
Speaker 1: that they're not blocking humanitarian aid was a complete and
Speaker 1: total lie. It was a life from the Israelis. It
Speaker 1: was a lie from the Americans. So you're caught in
Speaker 1: this bind of what do we say about this now?
Speaker 1: How do we position ourselves? How do we acknowledge? Also
Speaker 1: the reality that we could have done this long before
Speaker 1: but just chose not to wasn't a problem for us,
Speaker 1: a sufficient problem for us when we were watching a
Speaker 1: dozen Palestinian babies die a day from starvation, But when
Speaker 1: our buddies aid workers whose lives deserve to be honored
Speaker 1: and cherished as well.
Speaker 4: But that that was the line for us.
Speaker 1: I mean, it speaks, it speaks volumes, and there's really
Speaker 1: no way you can get out of the implications of
Speaker 1: what we've all seen unfold. And I think actually to
Speaker 1: transition to some notable comments that Elizabeth Warren apparently made
Speaker 1: last week, and she's in a similar bind here because
Speaker 1: it's become so undeniable the amount of atrocities that have
Speaker 1: been committed in front of us, that, especially for democ
Speaker 1: it's anyone who wants to preserve an image as any
Speaker 1: sort of humanitarian they have to acknowledge that. And yet
Speaker 1: they still haven't shifted from all out both arded policy
Speaker 1: support of Israel. So let me play these comments from her.
Speaker 1: She was answering a constituent question I believe this was
Speaker 1: in Boston about whether or not Israel is committing genocide,
Speaker 1: and she says, actually, yes, they are, that there is
Speaker 1: sufficient evidence, ample evidence, I think is the word that
Speaker 1: she used, that they will be found to be committing
Speaker 1: genocide by the International Court of Justice. Let's listen to
Speaker 1: her specific comments and responses.
Speaker 4: Constituent, do you think that Israel is committing a genocide.
Speaker 12: So I think that what's happening now is there's going
Speaker 12: to be alarmed and involved debate over what constitutes genocide.
Speaker 12: When you ask a legal question, for me, it is
Speaker 12: far more important to say what Israel.
Speaker 7: Is doing is wrong and it isra It is.
Speaker 12: Wrong to starve children with a civilian population in order
Speaker 12: to try them them to your will. It is wrong
Speaker 12: to drop two thousand pound bombs in densely populated civilian areas.
Speaker 7: I think I can.
Speaker 12: Make a more effective argument by describing the behavior that
Speaker 12: is happening and whether I believe it is right or wrong,
Speaker 12: and look people in the eye and say, do you
Speaker 12: want to tell me if you think it is right
Speaker 12: and that it should be the policy of the United
Speaker 12: States of Americas support those actions. So that's how I
Speaker 12: analyze this.
Speaker 10: Now. I did analyto question, said it was the answer,
Speaker 10: another facult question was the answer, no question to clarify.
Speaker 12: So if you want, if you want to do it
Speaker 12: as an application of law, I believe they would find
Speaker 12: that it is genocide, and they have ample evidence to do. So.
Speaker 12: What I'm also trying to tell you is I'm trying
Speaker 12: to get people past a label's argument which seems to
Speaker 12: throw out the screen and to get them to look
Speaker 12: at the behavior on the ground, to get them to
Speaker 12: look at the children, to get them to look at
Speaker 12: the mons, the old people and the people have been displaced,
Speaker 12: at the people who are living outside of the people
Speaker 12: who are drinking during the water and talk about what
Speaker 12: the role of the United States is in connection with supporting.
Speaker 7: The meeting the governments. But the people of.
Speaker 1: Goes in that physician, so you can hear very clearly
Speaker 1: there she says, as a matter effectively of international law,
Speaker 1: I believe they will be found guilty of genocide and
Speaker 1: believe there is quote ample evidence to support that conclusion.
Speaker 1: But this raises a lot of uncomfortable questions for Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren because she has supported the Biden policy in terms
Speaker 1: of how she's voted.
Speaker 4: She voted to.
Speaker 1: Defund the number one aid organization on the ground in
Speaker 1: Gaza Unra, which has been essential in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: at this present moment and previously as well, getting aid
Speaker 1: to Gaza's who are now starving to death. So if
Speaker 1: it's a genocide, you have aided in that genocidal policy.
Speaker 1: And she has continued to vote in terms of military
Speaker 1: aid to Israel. So you can see the discomfort in
Speaker 1: the way that we can put this next piece up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Her spokesperson is trying to walk this
Speaker 1: back a bit, these comments, and I guess sort of
Speaker 1: nuanced troll on them, she says. In a Q and
Speaker 1: A Center, Warren commented on the ongoing legal process at
Speaker 1: the International Court of Justice, not sharing her views on
Speaker 1: whether genocide is occurring in Gaza. In January, the ICJ
Speaker 1: found that it is plausible Israel's committed acts that violate.
Speaker 4: The Genocide Convention.
Speaker 1: As the senator said the mosque, what is far more
Speaker 1: important than any label that comes out of this legal
Speaker 1: process is the question of whether it should be the
Speaker 1: policy of the US to support Israel's actions in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Center Warren believes from Minister nat Nan and his right
Speaker 1: wing war cabinet have created a massive humanitarian disaster in Gaza,
Speaker 1: have not taken reasonable steps to protect civilians. As she
Speaker 1: said at the mosque, it is wrong to starve children
Speaker 1: within a civilian population in order to try to bend
Speaker 1: to your will. It is wrong to drop two thousand
Speaker 1: pound bombs in densely populated civilian areas. The Center has
Speaker 1: worked with her colleagues in Congress to push for a
Speaker 1: sea spot, the return of hostages, for conditioning aid to Israel,
Speaker 1: for free flow of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and for movement.
Speaker 4: Toward a two state solution.
Speaker 1: So you know, even in the interaction, you could tell
Speaker 1: that she was uncomfortable with having to actually say the
Speaker 1: word genocide, but also couldn't really get out of it.
Speaker 1: So now they're trying to walk it back a bit
Speaker 1: by saying, oh, this isn't really.
Speaker 4: Her personal view.
Speaker 1: She's just sort of evaluating this process that is unfolding
Speaker 1: at the International Court of Justice. But I mean they're
Speaker 1: the one that, from a legal perspective, make the determination.
Speaker 1: So if you think they have ample evidence that this
Speaker 1: is the genocide, why are you still supporting a Biden
Speaker 1: administration policy of aiding and abetting this genocide.
Speaker 2: The whole thing is very silly in the way that
Speaker 2: she handles the question. It's like, lady, either say it
Speaker 2: or don't. Just put your opinion on the table. Stop
Speaker 2: trying to tap dance around this. Either you know you
Speaker 2: voted for it, defend the vote, say you change your
Speaker 2: mind that you don't believe it, or that you do
Speaker 2: this is I'll be honest again, I don't use this
Speaker 2: type of language specifically for this reason. I think international
Speaker 2: law is fake. I don't think anything it can be
Speaker 2: proved or disproven. She's actually returning to her almost like
Speaker 2: did you notice that her law school route of like, well,
Speaker 2: if you want to look at the legal question, I'm like, well,
Speaker 2: this isn't all a question. I mean, I guess it
Speaker 2: is technically, but it's one of those with no enforcement.
Speaker 3: You either support the policy or you don't.
Speaker 2: And it's clear too that she is one where she's
Speaker 2: trying to square it with I think trying to keep
Speaker 2: progressive credentials or any of that and all that together,
Speaker 2: and she's just not giving her straight up opinion, which
Speaker 2: is actually my biggest takeaway, especially two in terms of
Speaker 2: clear up. If you believe it, then say it, you know,
Speaker 2: but have the courage to say it.
Speaker 3: That's my all I would say.
Speaker 1: I actually think that the fact that an Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: feels pressure to acknowledge that there is ample evidence this
Speaker 1: is a genocide is proof that the ICJ process has
Speaker 1: actually mattered, because you know, that sort of language, you know,
Speaker 1: was considered totally outside of the Overton window of mainstream
Speaker 1: acceptability early on in this conflict. And I do think
Speaker 1: that South Africa's case, the fact that the ICJ, overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: including the American judge by the way, which was kind
Speaker 1: of shocking, found that there was sufficient evidence here to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's plausible, this case can move forward.
Speaker 4: And of course we've.
Speaker 1: Continued to see the evidence of not only what was
Speaker 1: done in terms of the annihilation, but the way that
Speaker 1: starvation continues to be used as a weapon of war
Speaker 1: here has made it very difficult for people like AOC,
Speaker 1: people like Elizabeth Warren, anyone who sees themselves as being
Speaker 1: a progressive, as being on the left, as being a humanitarian,
Speaker 1: to avoid the implications of that. So I actually see
Speaker 1: it as consequential. The fact that you have a mainstream
Speaker 1: United States senator who's you know, actually now gotten to
Speaker 1: the left of Bernie Sanders in terms of what he's
Speaker 1: been willing to say it is pretty extraordinary. Now, again
Speaker 1: it's a little empty given her voting record, but this
Speaker 1: is toothpaste that Israel can't really put back in the tube.
Speaker 1: You've now had a United States senator say that you
Speaker 1: are committing a genocide, I mean a state that was
Speaker 1: founded out of the horrors of the Holocaust, obviously a
Speaker 1: horrifying genocide, and now you're being accused by a senator
Speaker 1: from your top ally and benefactor of committing a genocide.
Speaker 4: It is extraordinary.
Speaker 1: It is It's something I could have just like Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's signing on to the letter saying, hey, maybe we
Speaker 1: should condition aid to These are things that would have
Speaker 1: been unthinkable.
Speaker 4: A year ago.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't know how to put a
Speaker 1: how to conclude this because on the one hand, you think, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: in the future this is really going to matter in
Speaker 1: terms of how things have shifted in US public opinion,
Speaker 1: et cetera. In the short term, I can't say that
Speaker 1: it's really going to make a difference viz a vi
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and how he conducts himself, because I think
Speaker 1: he's such a locked in ideologue. But you know, the
Speaker 1: language that we've heard throughout this conflict about the way
Speaker 1: that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage,
Speaker 1: about how they're becoming increasingly estranged from one of the
Speaker 1: two major parties in the United States, not necessarily the politicians,
Speaker 1: but the base.
Speaker 4: This is all true and you can.
Speaker 1: Ask South Africa, the white apartheid regime of South Africa,
Speaker 1: how it went for them once they faced a high
Speaker 1: level of global estrangement for their apartheid regime and crimes.
Speaker 1: All Right, guys, we've been tracking closely how Iran might
Speaker 1: respond to that Israeli strike on their consular building in Damascus.
Speaker 1: Let's put this element up on the screen. There's been
Speaker 1: a very interesting report that Iran may have actually offered
Speaker 1: the US a sort of an ultimatum, or I guess
Speaker 1: issued an ultimatum saying basically, listen, we won't directly attack
Speaker 1: Israel in response if you're able to secure a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: Doctor Treeta Parsi, who's standing by for further analysis, put
Speaker 1: out this tweet taking a look at this report and
Speaker 1: what it could mean. He said in part First, it's
Speaker 1: clear that Iran wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Israel,
Speaker 1: but it cannot evade it unless it secures a big
Speaker 1: win in the region. Tehran may suspect a ceasefire is
Speaker 1: already in the making, and as a result use that
Speaker 1: as a pretext to both take credit for it and
Speaker 1: to avoid getting into a shooting fight with Israel. He continues, second,
Speaker 1: this is very risky, but also rather c If the
Speaker 1: threat compels Biden to finally put material pressure on Israel
Speaker 1: in order to avoid a regional war, Iran can take
Speaker 1: some credit for having saved the people of Gaza. He
Speaker 1: goes on to indicate that this may suggest Iran might
Speaker 1: have figured out how to target Israel in a way
Speaker 1: that is proportionate. It does not provide Israel with grounds
Speaker 1: for further escalation. Striking Israeli consulates or embassies in the
Speaker 1: region Harry's tremendous political risks, and he continues to outline
Speaker 1: how it actually is more difficult than you may think
Speaker 1: to identify an Israeli embassy to target without causing other
Speaker 1: regional habit, contrary to what the Iranians perceived to be
Speaker 1: their interest. And as I mentioned before, Executive vice President
Speaker 1: at the Quincy Institute, doctor Trita Parsi joins us.
Speaker 4: Now, always great to see you, doctor.
Speaker 7: Good sessir, thank you so much for having me so.
Speaker 1: First, tell us a little bit about this report of
Speaker 1: this ultimatum and how credible you find it to be.
Speaker 13: So the report has been in the Arab media and
Speaker 13: it essentially says that in this secret talks that are
Speaker 13: not that secret any law between the United States and Iran,
Speaker 13: and some of it has been taking place in Oman,
Speaker 13: and the Iranian four ministers on his way to New
Speaker 13: York now and have apparently gotten a visa from the
Speaker 13: United States. That's been a tricky part in the past,
Speaker 13: oftentimes getting it at the last minute, if at all.
Speaker 13: But the report essentially says that as part of the
Speaker 13: communications between the United States and Iran, and we do
Speaker 13: know that the Iranians sent a message to the US
Speaker 13: immediately after the Israeli attack on the Yronian consult in Damascus,
Speaker 13: that they have essentially offered an off round for both sides,
Speaker 13: which is that if the United States secures a cease fire,
Speaker 13: then Iran will refrain from retaliating, and that retaliation could
Speaker 13: be against embassies of Israel and the region, or it
Speaker 13: could potentially be against Israel proper, and on top of
Speaker 13: that a vague formulation that it could also lead to
Speaker 13: a path towards greater understanding between the United States and Iran. Now,
Speaker 13: the White House has denied that this report is true.
Speaker 13: I don't know how much stock I take in that,
Speaker 13: given what John Kirby says on a daily basis at
Speaker 13: the White House Press of these days, and the Ranians
Speaker 13: have given mixed messages on this, so it's not clear
Speaker 13: whether it is true or not. But what it does signify, however,
Speaker 13: is that there is a very interesting diplomacy taking place
Speaker 13: between the US yon in the background, and they're both
Speaker 13: in a situation in which they don't want a further escalation,
Speaker 13: and they're trying to calibrate to what extent can they
Speaker 13: continue to have some lower level confrontation, and to what
Speaker 13: extent can they afford to put pressure on their partners
Speaker 13: or allies or proxies, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 13: without causing too much strain between themselves and those partners.
Speaker 13: So we see from the Bider administration there's almost zero
Speaker 13: pressure that he's willing to put on Israel, fearing that
Speaker 13: any real pressure would actually cast him therely politically at home,
Speaker 13: a calculation that I personally think is a miscalculation.
Speaker 7: A similar condition exists on the Ivanian side.
Speaker 13: They have ringed in the Iraqi and civil and malicious,
Speaker 13: but it has also cost them because of tensions that
Speaker 13: that tends to create between them on this ground. So
Speaker 13: again It's not entirely clear whether it's true or not,
Speaker 13: but it does indicate some very interesting developments behind the scene.
Speaker 13: And if it is true, then the question is how
Speaker 13: we'll buy it and react to it. And one of
Speaker 13: the things I've porned out is that I find it
Speaker 13: very difficult for him politically to agree to this if
Speaker 13: the perception is that he is acting on their duress
Speaker 13: because of pressure from Iran. But he may still go
Speaker 13: in that direction while denying that the Yvanian ultimatum either
Speaker 13: as true or had anything to do with his decision.
Speaker 2: Just in contact, could you frame it for how extraordinary
Speaker 2: it was to strike an embassy And is it even
Speaker 2: within Iran's option matrix to do nothing in the way
Speaker 2: that they have not yet responded to the US retalitatory
Speaker 2: strike in response to the killing of three US service members.
Speaker 2: Whenever it comes to Israel, is that even an option
Speaker 2: that's on the table?
Speaker 3: What's your analysis there?
Speaker 7: Excellent question, So let me start off with the first one.
Speaker 13: This is an extremely unusual attack by the Israelis and
Speaker 13: a very very flavorant violation of international law. Striking embassies,
Speaker 13: according to the Vienna Convention, is completely off limits. It
Speaker 13: is as bad as when the Iranian students took the
Speaker 13: Ivanian the US embassy in Iran back in nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 13: It ended up taking fifty two American diplomats hostage for
Speaker 13: four hundred and forty four days. Now, what is so
Speaker 13: sad about all of this is that we've seen now
Speaker 13: a pattern in which just the last couple of months
Speaker 13: in which the Israelis have violated almost every international law
Speaker 13: and almost seemed to be doing so deliberately to just
Speaker 13: a further weekend these international lawms. And it is quite
Speaker 13: noteworthy that it is only a couple of days after
Speaker 13: the Israeli attack, which was not condemned by the United States,
Speaker 13: that we also saw the Ecuadorian government take over the
Speaker 13: Mexican embassy in Ecuador to take a person who had
Speaker 13: fought as political asylum there. So we're seeing an erosion
Speaker 13: of these international norms. But we should not forget that
Speaker 13: these are norms that have been very strong and extremely
Speaker 13: uncommon or countries to engage in attacks of this kind,
Speaker 13: and even in the many attacks that the Vanyas have
Speaker 13: been involved in against Israel, it has not led to
Speaker 13: those type of attacks. Now, these Raelis knew very well
Speaker 13: what they were doing, because they knew that the Iranian
Speaker 13: red line was an attack on their territory and their
Speaker 13: embassy and Concert is technically their territory.
Speaker 7: And it goes to what you mentioned earlier on. The
Speaker 7: Iranians have taken.
Speaker 13: A lot of hits from these Raelis in the last
Speaker 13: couple of years, particularly in Syria, without retaliating, and part
Speaker 13: of what they've said is that those attacks were on
Speaker 13: attacks against Syria, attacks against living On, they were not
Speaker 13: attacks against Yvan.
Speaker 7: Even though Ivanyas died this.
Speaker 13: Time around, they can't really say that because this is
Speaker 13: an attack on their soul. Now, whether they will respond
Speaker 13: or not is a very complicated calculation. But what is
Speaker 13: fascinating in all of this is that fifteen years ago
Speaker 13: the Yvani has had a very explicit policy in which
Speaker 13: they actually simulated ivrationiz it was called simulated irrationale.
Speaker 7: They wanted to.
Speaker 13: Behave in an extremely unpredictable and uncalculable way because they
Speaker 13: believe that that gave them a margin of security. If
Speaker 13: the other side doesn't know how you're going to react
Speaker 13: to one of your actions, you're going to be more
Speaker 13: careful because you cannot calculate what their next step is.
Speaker 7: This is very similar to Nixon's mad Man theory. Today.
Speaker 13: If you listen to what the Yvanian officials are saying,
Speaker 13: it's quite the opposite. They're saying that they're going to
Speaker 13: take their time, the response is going to be irrational
Speaker 13: and proportionate. It's a complete shift, and it is a
Speaker 13: lot of people inside the Vanian regime hardliners that are
Speaker 13: very unhappy about this because they believe that this has
Speaker 13: weakened Van's deterrence visa the United States and ITEL and
Speaker 13: then pointing to this growing level of attacks by it
Speaker 13: as evidence that yvon is losing as the turns, and
Speaker 13: if that argument wins out, we may end up seeing
Speaker 13: an unpredictable reaction by the Irani is something that has
Speaker 13: not been considered by most analysts on the Western side,
Speaker 13: and it can.
Speaker 7: Lead to a very very dangerous estination in the region.
Speaker 1: So I think it's important to remind people that both
Speaker 1: the Israelis and the Americans have assessed that Iran was
Speaker 1: not directly involved in planning the October seventh attacks. I
Speaker 1: think that's important to keep in mind that there are
Speaker 1: many voices here in the US that are constantly pushing
Speaker 1: for a direct war with Iran. But you have assessed here,
Speaker 1: doctor Parci, that neither the Iranians nor the Americans want
Speaker 1: this direct, larger confrontation. So what do you believe is
Speaker 1: Netanyahu's goal here?
Speaker 4: What would he like to see play out?
Speaker 1: Why did he choose this moment to launch such a
Speaker 1: provocative and escalatory attack.
Speaker 13: Nathania who is the odd man out in this equation
Speaker 13: because he does have an interest in expanding the war,
Speaker 13: prolonging the war. The minute this war ends, he will
Speaker 13: likely go to jail. He's an extremely unpopular Israeli Prime minister,
Speaker 13: there will be re elections, and there's already criminal charges
Speaker 13: filed against him for corruption. So he has an interest
Speaker 13: in prolonging and enlarging the war, which completely contradicts what
Speaker 13: Biden says is his interest. And this is part of
Speaker 13: the problem with Biden essentially deferring US foreign policy to Nithaniah.
Speaker 13: It is these Raelings that call the shots and the
Speaker 13: parameters of the negotiations that are currently taking place about
Speaker 13: the release of the hostages and increasing voices in Israel.
Speaker 7: Point Nathaniah, who does not want to win.
Speaker 13: The release of the hostages because if all the hostages
Speaker 13: are released, it will be more difficult for him to
Speaker 13: continue the war, and he does not want to end
Speaker 13: the war. And the United States and Biden has the
Speaker 13: same actually linked its policy to Nataniahu's preferences, and those
Speaker 13: preferences are in complete contrast to what Biden himself says
Speaker 13: that he wants. Another mistake I think the Bide administration
Speaker 13: is doing in its approach to these negotiations is that
Speaker 13: there has been a linkage created between the hostage release
Speaker 13: and a ceasefire.
Speaker 7: Now, on a surface level, that seems to make sense.
Speaker 13: Of course, Hamas has to give up these hostages and
Speaker 13: in return get a complete ceasefire, but in reality that
Speaker 13: means that as long and the hostages are not released
Speaker 13: and NATANIAO is not trying to win their release, there's
Speaker 13: then a justification for Israel to continue. It's indiscriminate slaughter
Speaker 13: in God. This is part of the reason why the
Speaker 13: American UN draft was rejected. It linked the two things,
Speaker 13: essentially saying there would be a hostage release when there
Speaker 13: is a seasfier, would be a seatspire when there's a
Speaker 13: hostage release. The UN resolution that was passed delay it
Speaker 13: and essentially said it is an independent and imperative to
Speaker 13: solve the slaughter in Gaza. Holding the hostages is not
Speaker 13: a justification for Israel to kill thousands of children and
Speaker 13: other innocence in Gaza. And there's also an imperative for
Speaker 13: these hostages to be released, but they are not linked.
Speaker 13: Both of them have to happen, but they shouldn't be
Speaker 13: dependent upon each other.
Speaker 7: Otherwise, as long as one hundred and thirty or.
Speaker 13: So hostages are held in Gaza, there is a justification
Speaker 13: that for the killing of thousands of thousands of civilians
Speaker 13: and know what the country about the United States has
Speaker 13: signed on to that forma.
Speaker 1: Well, doctor Parsi, thank you so much as always for
Speaker 1: your analysis today. It's been invaluable and I really recommend
Speaker 1: to everyone that they read what you're writing of our
Speaker 1: responsible state craft, and also make sure to follow you
Speaker 1: on Twitter because your reaction to these events has been
Speaker 1: essential in understanding some of the things that are unfolding.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for your time today.
Speaker 7: Great to say, thank you so much for having me appreciation.
Speaker 4: It's our pleasure, Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: Last week we could not let the show end without
Speaker 1: revealing Sager's activities yesterday during the solar eclipses.
Speaker 4: With someone on the screen.
Speaker 3: I didn't ask for this.
Speaker 1: This smar cringe posting no better way to see the eclipse.
Speaker 1: He's got his Apple Vision pro on there, so I
Speaker 1: guess I'll ask the series score, what does it actually
Speaker 1: look like through the Apple Vision Pro.
Speaker 2: Well, it was great, Crystal, because I could. Here's the thing,
Speaker 2: It's a digital representation of the real world, so my
Speaker 2: eyes were completely shielded. Some people said that my cameras
Speaker 2: would get blinded and all that. I had no issues.
Speaker 2: I was able to actually put a nice dark filter
Speaker 2: using the environment's feature. Here's the thing. I'm being roasted
Speaker 2: into covering this. I didn't ask to cover this. If
Speaker 2: I knew that we would, I would have filmed it.
Speaker 2: I would have filmed it for everybody. And this is
Speaker 2: just simply I was enjoying in the privacy of my home.
Speaker 3: I decided to tweet it out as a joke.
Speaker 2: I tweeted out as a joke because I actually shared
Speaker 2: the picture with friends. It was Marshall who said, DUJEI
Speaker 2: got to tweet that out and I said, okay, fine,
Speaker 2: So I did, and now here I am. But I
Speaker 2: will say the vision pro is completely fine, the cameras
Speaker 2: are fine, my eyes are fine. I am not one
Speaker 2: of the Yeah, I mean, I I believe so, I
Speaker 2: mean my eyesight is still very bad, I guess, but.
Speaker 1: It continues to be bad, continues to improvement.
Speaker 4: Not one of the You're not one of the people
Speaker 4: could put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Apparently there was this massive surge in people googling why
Speaker 1: do my eyes hurt? And my eyes hurt?
Speaker 3: My eyes hurt? Yeah, staring at the sun will do
Speaker 3: that to you. Absolutely a shocker.
Speaker 1: So Donald Trump, I guess there's a throwback comment. That
Speaker 1: picture of him and Milania is still iconic, where she's
Speaker 1: got her glasses on and he's like looking up at
Speaker 1: the thing with no glasses on, doing the exact opposite
Speaker 1: of what literally everyone says you should do.
Speaker 4: Classic Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, uh, maybe they're lying though about how dangerous
Speaker 2: it actually is.
Speaker 3: I'd be curious.
Speaker 2: I want to know what the actual stats are because
Speaker 2: they always say that, they're like, don't look at the eclipse.
Speaker 2: Don't look at the eclipse. Is it because you're just
Speaker 2: not supposed to look at the sun?
Speaker 3: Period? Like what?
Speaker 2: Like something about the harm radiation, and so every time
Speaker 2: that it comes around, everyone says that, But I've never
Speaker 2: seen a case somebody go blind from looking at the clips.
Speaker 1: I think the thing is, I'm just like kind of
Speaker 1: making this up at this point, but everyone knows you
Speaker 1: can tell right away when you're actually looking at the sun,
Speaker 1: like it hurts your eyes in real time you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: I should I'm going to stop because this is not pleasant.
Speaker 1: But if you're in a totality or new totality, you
Speaker 1: could be looking at it and it wouldn't actually be
Speaker 1: having that same impact on you, Like I got to
Speaker 1: look away, but it's still having.
Speaker 4: A negative impact.
Speaker 8: I think.
Speaker 1: I think that's the deal I we here in the
Speaker 1: DC area. I think we got with like eighty seven percent.
Speaker 1: You could kind of I mean you could definitely if
Speaker 1: you have the glasses on, you could see the sun.
Speaker 1: You could see it happening. But if you didn't, you
Speaker 1: could tell it was a weird. There was like a
Speaker 1: weird dimness. It's like a strange Kyle said the lightest
Speaker 1: having an identity crisis. That was like kind of what
Speaker 1: it felt like. I went in twenty seventeen to that one.
Speaker 1: I went to Tennessee to see the totality, and I
Speaker 1: would like to do it again because it is a
Speaker 1: cool experience. I mean, it's crazy when it almost looks
Speaker 1: like a sunset and then things get so dark in
Speaker 1: the middle of the day. It is a weird, eerie,
Speaker 1: surreal experience that, you know. I guess I'll have to
Speaker 1: wait till twenty forty five, till the next one comes
Speaker 1: around in the US. But yeah, to me, it was
Speaker 1: worth it making the trip. We went with the whole family.
Speaker 1: We actually like, we'reround on a lake and it was
Speaker 1: it was neat.
Speaker 4: I enjoyed it.
Speaker 13: Well.
Speaker 2: The next map twenty forty four is actually going to
Speaker 2: be in Montana and you can go to Yeah, you
Speaker 2: can go to the National Park Glacier Now, I believe.
Speaker 2: I think it's great. Glacier National I think falls within
Speaker 2: the totality. I mean, I'm telling you that place is
Speaker 2: beautiful enough as is, so the idea of doing that
Speaker 2: with the eclipse that sounds pretty cool. Twenty years from now,
Speaker 2: I guess I'm going to be there. I'm convinced because
Speaker 2: of the videos that came out of Austin that people
Speaker 2: were sending me of the actual totality the blackness, and.
Speaker 3: I was like, oh damn, that actually sounds pretty cool.
Speaker 1: So there's no comparison between being in actual totality and
Speaker 1: getting even a hybrid, you know, a ninety percent or
Speaker 1: whatever we got here eighty seven percent. It really is
Speaker 1: a completely different experience. So I don't you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's cringy that people who made the trek
Speaker 1: to Cleveland or Buffalo or Austin or wherever they were
Speaker 1: able to see it, weren't they But in Austin didn't
Speaker 1: they have cloud cover?
Speaker 2: They did, but it didn't stop the darkness. So I
Speaker 2: mean they weren't able to see the actual like event.
Speaker 2: I think they were able to sum it depends on
Speaker 2: where you were. But the darkness itself, I mean you
Speaker 2: couldn't stop that. Apparently even night animals were howling or whatever,
Speaker 2: like coyotes and things like that because they thought it
Speaker 2: was So that's pretty cool.
Speaker 3: I think that's cool.
Speaker 2: So I see why people in the old times thought
Speaker 2: it was dark magic.
Speaker 4: I get it now, Yeah, totally, maybe they were right.
Speaker 2: All right, we're headed out, guys, Thank you very very much.
Speaker 2: This week Counterpoints, we'll be doing the AMA so please
Speaker 2: send in your special counterpoints, AMA questions for Ryan and Emily,
Speaker 2: and they will send that to you on Sunday.
Speaker 3: Otherwise we will see you all later.
Speaker 11: The keep
Speaker 6: And keep it