Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. I have an amazing show
Speaker 1: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 2: It is election day in Michigan, Missouri, and a few
Speaker 2: other spots around the country. Abdul ahsayad Versus Hailey Stevens
Speaker 2: being the main draw Logan Phillips is going to join
Speaker 2: us with a full breakdown of the polls and what
Speaker 2: we can expect tonight. We've got some bombshell new reporting
Speaker 2: just out this morning that says the US is nearly
Speaker 2: out of all long range precision missiles. This comes amidst
Speaker 2: a very precarious moment, obviously for the conflict, so we'll
Speaker 2: break that down. An Israeli settler has said that one
Speaker 2: Jewish life is worth millions of Palestinians in Israel is
Speaker 2: certainly acting like it as we speak. The Flock CEO
Speaker 2: is saying that the activist organization dflock, which exposes where
Speaker 2: their cameras are located, is a terrorist organization. We are
Speaker 2: currently intervening in the Japanese currency market. It's a real
Speaker 2: sign of the global economic fragility that the Iran war
Speaker 2: has caused. And a foreign policy expert is going to
Speaker 2: join us to explain his view of the emerging new
Speaker 2: world order. It's a very interesting one. I'm looking forward
Speaker 2: to speaking with him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Daniel Bestner, shout out to him. He sent me
Speaker 1: his book.
Speaker 3: We've been corresponding Twitter friends for some time, so I'm
Speaker 3: excited to get him here.
Speaker 4: On Quincy Institute.
Speaker 1: Guy too. By the way, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3: Thank you to everybody who has been supporting the show,
Speaker 3: and we have, as we promised yesterday a big announcement.
Speaker 3: Our free month trial is back. So let's put the
Speaker 3: graphic up there on the screen. This time, it's actually
Speaker 3: even easier. Don't even need a promo code. You just
Speaker 3: go to breakingpoints dot com. You can sign up either
Speaker 3: for a monthly or a yearly subscription thirty days completely free.
Speaker 3: You can cancel literally at any time, so check it out.
Speaker 3: You get access, off course to our full newsletter and
Speaker 3: be able to support our show. We've had so many
Speaker 3: new people who've joined the show since we last ran
Speaker 3: this promotion, and so we're excited for everybody able to
Speaker 3: take advantage. Millions of millions of people been joining us,
Speaker 3: and we're very very happy to have you. So please
Speaker 3: go ahead and sign up again completely for free thirty days,
Speaker 3: either monthly or yearly. It literally all you do is
Speaker 3: hit subscribe now and it's already included there in your checkout,
Speaker 3: So it couldn't be easier for you to be able
Speaker 3: to take advantage breakingpoints dot Com again. If you're watching
Speaker 3: this on YouTube, please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Speaker 3: Listening to the podcast, please share an episode with a
Speaker 3: friend really helps other people find the show. But logan
Speaker 3: it is going to join us now in the studio
Speaker 3: to break all of this down. Let's get to it
Speaker 3: turning now to our elections. Before we get to our
Speaker 3: great analyst, Logan, we are going to, of course have
Speaker 3: a livestream here on our channel.
Speaker 1: Let's put it up here on the screen.
Speaker 3: Both Crystal and Ryan will be live seven thirty pm
Speaker 3: Eastern Time on our channel to look at all of
Speaker 3: the election results coming in from across the country. But,
Speaker 3: as I said, Logan Phillips, race to the White House,
Speaker 3: our great friend here of the show joined us now
Speaker 3: in the studio.
Speaker 1: Logan, it's good to see you.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for joining us to break all
Speaker 3: of this craziness down. I can't believe it's been so
Speaker 3: long since we last saw each other. But we're very
Speaker 3: glad to have you here in the studio.
Speaker 5: Hey, so great to be back on with you guys.
Speaker 1: Very welcome. All right, so let's go ahead and kick off, Christal,
Speaker 1: what do you think so.
Speaker 2: Of course, Logan, the marquee race tonight is Abdullah said
Speaker 2: versus Hailey Stevens that Michigan Democratic Senate primary. A flood
Speaker 2: of money has come in on Hailey Stephens side. Let's
Speaker 2: put a three up on the screen. It's not that
Speaker 2: Abdul hasn't had money. It's just that it pales in
Speaker 2: comparison to the eighty million dollars that have come in
Speaker 2: overall here the vast majority of it for Hailey Stevens.
Speaker 4: Is it working?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 2: What are the polls saying about who is likely to
Speaker 2: prevail in that particular race tonight?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't think it's working at all. I mean
Speaker 5: maybe to some degree, and it has helped make the
Speaker 5: race somewhat competitive, But we've seen voters break strongly in
Speaker 5: the last few weeks from the point where Stevens was
Speaker 5: down by three percent to l said He's game twenty
Speaker 5: percent in the last few weeks, and Stevens is only
Speaker 5: gain ten. So at this point he's coming in as
Speaker 5: the clear favorite in my personal primary model, a ninety
Speaker 5: percent chance to win. Wow, and betting markets have it
Speaker 5: even higher. So it would require we were talking about
Speaker 5: this earlier, a twenty sixteen style upset like Bernie Sanders
Speaker 5: had against Hillary Clinton. But this time around, we have
Speaker 5: lots of polling instead of one pole that have to
Speaker 5: be wrong. So he's in great shape.
Speaker 1: Look, yeah, you just.
Speaker 3: Talked generally about some of the reason why these establishment
Speaker 3: politicians endorsing these figures doesn't seem to be having the
Speaker 3: impact that it previously had. Like for example, you had
Speaker 3: Governor or Whitmer, you had you know, the outgoing Senator
Speaker 3: Gary Peters endorsed in this race. It seems to have
Speaker 3: basically had a non existent impact on the race. That's
Speaker 3: very uncommon. Previously, endorsements actually used to be at least
Speaker 3: somewhat of a sign of strength and of ability to
Speaker 3: confer you know, legitimacy on that person, But this time
Speaker 3: around doesn't seem to be do in that at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you think that is?
Speaker 5: It's just a fundamental change of what primary voters are
Speaker 5: looking for, and that's why we're seeing a lot more
Speaker 5: candidates like Elsay do so well. Voters on the Democratic primaries.
Speaker 5: They're upset at two things. Obviously, they're upset at Donald Trump,
Speaker 5: and they want change, but you can't ran like you
Speaker 5: did last term. More it's about finding Donald Trump because
Speaker 5: the group they're second most unhappy with is Democrats. And
Speaker 5: maybe in twenty twenty five that was about not fighting
Speaker 5: Trump effectively. But now people have come to the conclusion,
Speaker 5: or at least a lot of these voters that the
Speaker 5: way Democrats have been governing hasn't been enough to change
Speaker 5: the fundamental problems they have of society. So it's not
Speaker 5: just they want society change, they want the political system change.
Speaker 5: And I don't necessarily think out set of young voters
Speaker 5: that they're inherently that much pro progressive socialist candidates. I
Speaker 5: think it's that they want candidates that are going to
Speaker 5: say they're going to make changes, and the socialists and
Speaker 5: progressive candidates have the best ready made playbook from that
Speaker 5: from day one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a good point.
Speaker 2: Also, obviously, logan Israel has become a central dividing line
Speaker 2: in among Democratic Party elites. It's not so much a
Speaker 2: dividing line among the base who want to see a
Speaker 2: different relationship. Abdul's views on Israel have been a major
Speaker 2: focus during this race. Let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 2: listen to some questioning of him on MSNBC and how
Speaker 2: he responded.
Speaker 7: Your campaign has been largely and loudly populist but also
Speaker 7: anti Zionist, and you've sort of married those two things,
Speaker 7: equating funding for Israel with underfunding healthcare, for example. Are
Speaker 7: you worried that that framing juxtaposing the Jewish funding for
Speaker 7: the Jewish state against the needs of in your own words,
Speaker 7: our own people echoes. An old anti Semitic trope.
Speaker 8: May just be very very clear. You know who benefits
Speaker 8: from guaranteed healthcare in this country, Jewish Americans. The idea
Speaker 8: that somehow we are going to use the specter of
Speaker 8: anti Semitism to defend what a foreign government is doing,
Speaker 8: actually has does a deep disservice to the well being
Speaker 8: of Jewish Americans in this country. Judaism and the Jewish
Speaker 8: people are a light onto the world, beautiful faith, beautiful people.
Speaker 8: Contributions that they've made to this country alone are staggering,
Speaker 8: and I'm looking forward to standing with the Jewish community
Speaker 8: against anti Semitism. After all, anti Semitism and Islamophobia are
Speaker 8: one in the same and we need to take them on.
Speaker 8: But we cannot sit idly by and ask why is
Speaker 8: it that our three point three billion dollars a year
Speaker 8: at baseline is used to fund apartheid at baseline genocide
Speaker 8: over the last several years a war. We have no
Speaker 8: business fighting with the attempt to annex the southern part
Speaker 8: of a neighboring country. And then wonder why our kids'
Speaker 8: schools look like they did fifty years ago.
Speaker 7: The reality, respectfully, you haven't made that same trade off
Speaker 7: argument with regards to other items in the US is
Speaker 7: eight hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I have you just don't cover it.
Speaker 8: I'll say the same thing about the money we send
Speaker 8: to Egypt, which is where my family comes from. So
Speaker 8: if you want to go ahead and call me anti Egyptian,
Speaker 8: go ahead and do that. But the reality is that
Speaker 8: on principle, I don't think we should be sending unconditional
Speaker 8: foreign military aid to any government because none of.
Speaker 1: Us actually.
Speaker 7: Orn's no religious states writ large on.
Speaker 8: Principle, I absolutely am.
Speaker 9: So.
Speaker 2: I think you see a couple of things in that club.
Speaker 2: I mean number one, I think you see his very
Speaker 2: talented political athletes there handles those questions.
Speaker 10: Well.
Speaker 2: I think that sort of framing has really only helped
Speaker 2: him in the race because of how strongly the Democratic
Speaker 2: base feels about these issues at this point.
Speaker 4: And it's not just him. You look just at the
Speaker 4: state of Michigan.
Speaker 2: You've got Will Lawrence, who looks like effectively issue and
Speaker 2: in his primary also left a candidate. You've got Donovan
Speaker 2: Kinney who is against an incumbent Democrat, and again, looks
Speaker 2: very much like he's going to be able to prevail there.
Speaker 2: You've got Corey Bush who has a shot at a
Speaker 2: comeback in Missouri against Wesley Bell. And of course this
Speaker 2: comes on the heels of other victories for candidates who
Speaker 2: have been, you know, a validly anti Zionist or at
Speaker 2: least want a significant change in the relationship with regard
Speaker 2: to Israel. So how central has this become for the
Speaker 2: Democratic base? How are they viewing this?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it's I think it's been huge. And
Speaker 5: you said that the establishment's pre united on this. I
Speaker 5: honestly think most Democratic primary voters are as well, but
Speaker 5: just in the other direction. And I think that there's
Speaker 5: something to be said. It's not an easy thing to
Speaker 5: do that l side, and we've seen this with Mayor
Speaker 5: Mom Donn in New York City, to reframe the way
Speaker 5: that we talk about this, right, because there are a
Speaker 5: lot of people in the establish, from whever their senators
Speaker 5: or the reporters, who will frame the context of Israel
Speaker 5: and Gaza in a way that just feels completely unrelated
Speaker 5: to the reality on the ground, where you know, our
Speaker 5: bombs have been used to kill tens of thousands of civilians,
Speaker 5: and we saw this when you guys were interviewing Senator
Speaker 5: Slotkin a year ago. There's a massive discomfort for these
Speaker 5: for a lot of these folks who care about genocides
Speaker 5: and massatrocities everywhere else in the world, but have just
Speaker 5: this cognitive dissonance on this issue. When you state the
Speaker 5: facts cleanly, I think it just makes basic sense to
Speaker 5: voters that it's unacceptable for us to be responsible for
Speaker 5: this type of carnage.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The other thing is that Haley Stevens has run a
Speaker 3: very bizarre campaign. She recently attacked Abdul Sayed, saying that
Speaker 3: he hates Jewish Americans. She's been attacking him as doing,
Speaker 3: you know, things with cool kids on the internet, which
Speaker 3: is clearly like a swipe. I guess, you know, shows
Speaker 3: like ours or other influencers, democratic influences, people like Hassan Piker.
Speaker 3: Here's her recently attacking Alsaia on these grounds. Take a listen,
Speaker 3: we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 11: Okay, some of you have seen, you know, there's those
Speaker 11: cool kids on the internet. They're doing the kid chatter.
Speaker 11: Some of them might be the coastal elites making fun
Speaker 11: of how I talk. Not okay, says my governor.
Speaker 4: But let's be real.
Speaker 11: They're making fun of Michigan. They're thinking they're better than us.
Speaker 11: And what they don't know is I am your voice,
Speaker 11: and their jokes and their criticism only makes me fight harder.
Speaker 1: There's a lot going on there.
Speaker 3: They're beyond the statements.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be serious.
Speaker 3: But you know, to my earlier point, you got Jim
Speaker 3: Cliburn standing right behind her right, one of the most
Speaker 3: powerful Democratic you know, establishment figures in the nation, probably
Speaker 3: single handed more responsible for Biden becoming president than any
Speaker 3: other figure. They're currently trying to move the Democratic primary
Speaker 3: South Carolina, his home state, to be the number one
Speaker 3: first state to give them momentum to a more established
Speaker 3: from Canada. You had grins and whitmer off camera the
Speaker 3: city governor, as I just said, she has leaned heavily
Speaker 3: with a lot of support from these super packs and others.
Speaker 3: Why do you think ultimately that this kind of home
Speaker 3: core Michigan.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like outsiders.
Speaker 3: I guess people like us in Washington or wherever ASSMB lives, California.
Speaker 1: We're coming in, you know, into our state. Why is
Speaker 1: this not working?
Speaker 3: It's very traditional, We're work in a you know, white
Speaker 3: working class state like Michigan battleground state as well.
Speaker 1: What do you think.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that voters may appreciate some of these people.
Speaker 5: In Clevernes's case, this guy has extreme power in certain areas,
Speaker 5: very powerful in South Carolina where voters really trust his
Speaker 5: opinion right, very powerful for other establishment members, and in
Speaker 5: Congress not so powerful regular primary.
Speaker 1: Voters outside the state.
Speaker 5: So it's more of a signal to other members to
Speaker 5: back her than I think he's going to be a
Speaker 5: heavyweight to influence things case. Look, yeah, she's still popular.
Speaker 5: She is popular a little less so after this endorse,
Speaker 5: especially at least in one poll. But I think voters
Speaker 5: a lot of them are saying, hey, we appreciate you,
Speaker 5: but we're also looking for some changes. It's not that
Speaker 5: it's a full sale rejection of every member of the establishment.
Speaker 5: It's sort of sometimes for some folks, it absolutely is.
Speaker 5: For some other people, it's sort of a yes and
Speaker 5: that in the same way that there were plenty of
Speaker 5: Barack Obama supporters that wanted Bernie Sanders to be president,
Speaker 5: and wasn't a rejection to him. They just wanted some
Speaker 5: things that aren't getting taken care of to be addressed.
Speaker 2: Good point to that point, let's put a eight up
Speaker 2: on the screen here. We've got some more details about
Speaker 2: why respondents in this poll backed Abdul And you can
Speaker 2: see the few things that jump down at you our money,
Speaker 2: medicare and support and people should know his tagline is
Speaker 2: money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare
Speaker 2: for all. So clearly his message landed with people because
Speaker 2: they are citing exactly the line that he was pushing,
Speaker 2: you know, for his tagline for the campaign. And the
Speaker 2: most common themes mentioned behind these individual words that were
Speaker 2: pulled out is under money, getting money out of politics,
Speaker 2: putting money in your pocket. Again, that is his tagline,
Speaker 2: not taking money from corporate packs, keeping tax dollars in
Speaker 2: America rather than overseas, grassroots small dollar fundraising from medicare
Speaker 2: obviously Medicare for All in his medical background, and then
Speaker 2: support the fact he had endorsements from Bernie Sanders, AOC,
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren, the UAW and grassroots support that made a
Speaker 2: difference to people. So the more national endorsements, it seems,
Speaker 2: actually hit harder than those local endorsements. But I think
Speaker 2: this gives a good window into one of the other
Speaker 2: problems that centrists have struggled with is there was a
Speaker 2: very clear agenda and platform from Abdul, not just with
Speaker 2: regard to Israel, but to these central themes of his
Speaker 2: campaign of what he cares about and what he's going
Speaker 2: to do. And meanwhile, you've got Haley Stevens talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, cool kids on the internet and just talking
Speaker 2: exclusively about the these powerful figures that are backing her.
Speaker 2: It also seems like to me logan in these responses
Speaker 2: from actual supporters that I think some of the money
Speaker 2: that came in for her really backfired. You know, as
Speaker 2: people were getting flooded with these ads. Abdil had a
Speaker 2: very smart strategy in their debates, saying, Hey, in the
Speaker 2: next commercial break, you're gonna see probably two three ads
Speaker 2: from my opponent. And I think he very cleverly turned
Speaker 2: that and weaponized it against her and made it a
Speaker 2: problem for her that she was getting all of this money.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't think it's gonna be the last one
Speaker 5: to use this. It's sort of like a Jedi mind trick.
Speaker 5: Even though I think it's true that he's conditioning and
Speaker 5: preparing people for these attack ads. Now they have to
Speaker 5: be paying enough attention to hear him. But he has
Speaker 5: done that. He's done some counter ads, even if they're
Speaker 5: not as well funded, where he highlights where some of
Speaker 5: the money is coming from. And I think this stuff
Speaker 5: helps narrow how much damage it does. Maybe he doesn't
Speaker 5: get rid of it entirely, because eighty million is a lot.
Speaker 5: And I do think it's had effect on the general
Speaker 5: electorate because you don't normally have eighty five million in
Speaker 5: the Democratic primary dumped in you to attack you in
Speaker 5: the middle of July. But it's something that I wouldn't
Speaker 5: be surprised if we see a presidential primary candidate do too.
Speaker 5: When you're going to see ads from healthcare companies trying
Speaker 5: to sell you on an alternative to what some of
Speaker 5: the candidates are talking about, whether they're talking about Medicare
Speaker 5: for all, wants it or Medicare for all, and you know,
Speaker 5: just a little wink to the camera and say, hey,
Speaker 5: maybe we'll get a little text from one of their
Speaker 5: campaign staffers and say you just saw this text. Just
Speaker 5: a signal of what they're already willing to do against us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a good point.
Speaker 3: Let's put a nine up here on the screen can
Speaker 3: tell us a little bit about some of these other
Speaker 3: Michigan races where things stand. You got Michigan one, Michigan seven,
Speaker 3: Michigan eleven, Michigan thirteen. These are some of the other
Speaker 3: progressive kind of upstart candidates, any of that. You can
Speaker 3: pick and choose any of these and where you see
Speaker 3: things because they are contested Democratic primaries.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think Michigan seventh is the most interesting. You
Speaker 5: have three like pretty impressive candidates. You have Will Lawrence,
Speaker 5: who has helped create the Sunrise movement. You have the
Speaker 5: former ambassador to Ukraine and running Bridget Brink, and then
Speaker 5: you have Matt Massadam who carried the nuclear football while
Speaker 5: advising I remember if it was President Biden or Trump
Speaker 5: or Obama right, And I think what we're seeing in
Speaker 5: some of these races, especially for candidates on the left,
Speaker 5: is endorsements matter to some degree for candidates right for voters.
Speaker 5: And I think it's also like the people endorse the
Speaker 5: candidate they think it's going to win, so it's a
Speaker 5: signal of who's going to win. But I think that
Speaker 5: like young voters who are more on the left, tend
Speaker 5: to be looking at these endorsements a lot more seriously,
Speaker 5: partly because they're newer to this, partly because it's a
Speaker 5: real signal about who they can trust. And so I've
Speaker 5: been noticing that, like AOC, Bernie Sanders' endorsement seems to
Speaker 5: matter in some of these races more than lots of
Speaker 5: local heavyweight endorsements with similar big names.
Speaker 1: We've noticed the same thing very true.
Speaker 4: It's not just Michigan with elections tonight.
Speaker 2: We're also keeping eye on Missouri, where there's a rematch
Speaker 2: between former Congressman Corey Bush, who was unseated by Wesley Bell,
Speaker 2: so they are going up against each other now. Ryan
Speaker 2: interviewed Corey Bush last week and asked her if she
Speaker 2: felt like it was a different day in the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party now because at the time of that primary, her opponent,
Speaker 2: Wesley Bell was funded by millions of dollars from APAC.
Speaker 2: He is again this time as well. It became one
Speaker 2: of the most expensive primary fights in American history, and
Speaker 2: it was successful, And so he asked her if you know,
Speaker 2: she felt like now the Democratic electorate was more attuned
Speaker 2: to the money, this money from APAC in particular in
Speaker 2: their allied groups, and whether that was going to make
Speaker 2: a difference in her race. Let's go ahead and take
Speaker 2: a listen to a little.
Speaker 1: Bit of that.
Speaker 12: That was the case in twenty twenty four. People did
Speaker 12: not know who APAK was. Some have you know, I've
Speaker 12: heard about him, but I really didn't know, you know,
Speaker 12: that they would get involved in your, you know, in
Speaker 12: someone's election. And now that people know. So it took
Speaker 12: what happened to Jamal Bowman and I for people to
Speaker 12: really see what happened. Because after Jamal and I lost
Speaker 12: our races, even though years before you had the same
Speaker 12: thing happened to Nina Turner, and then there were you know,
Speaker 12: other people who you know in between that time that
Speaker 12: where APAC you know, got involved in those races. But
Speaker 12: because of the amount of money spent and because it
Speaker 12: was back to back here, especially with you know, the
Speaker 12: genocide happening in Gaza, people were so angry when they
Speaker 12: found out where the money came from. When I say
Speaker 12: this community was angry to the point to where in
Speaker 12: a town hall that Wesley Bell was holding the community,
Speaker 12: the majority of those questions were about about his affiliation
Speaker 12: with APAC and about funding.
Speaker 2: So she feels like it's a night and day difference.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's been a lot of polling in
Speaker 2: this race. I've been looking for it. The last poll
Speaker 2: that came out had Wesley Bell maintaining a narrow lead
Speaker 2: over her. How do you see the dynamics.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that also was by Corey Bush's team, so
Speaker 5: it's hard to know if it was reliable or not.
Speaker 5: I think Corey Bush would win if we had the
Speaker 5: same situation and in this year that when she was
Speaker 5: the incumbent. It's gonna be a little tougher now, but
Speaker 5: it definitely has a shot. It's like, how powerful are
Speaker 5: these dynamics that she could win? I mean, the way
Speaker 5: APAC does right like these days anyway, is they're very
Speaker 5: smart about what they about how they run their ads.
Speaker 5: They focus on a weakness of the candidate they can exploit.
Speaker 5: For Abdul Seed, even though it's not really based in truth,
Speaker 5: a lot of it has been trying to make him
Speaker 5: look like he's anti woman or anti Barack Obama and
Speaker 5: anti Michelle Obama, which I think, by the way, if
Speaker 5: they end up endorsing him and campaigning with him, which
Speaker 5: I'm sure they will in the general, that could help
Speaker 5: get some of those voters back. But separate on specifically
Speaker 5: on this race, they attacked her for not voting for
Speaker 5: the infrastructure bill with Biden and that it might still
Speaker 5: loomin voter's minds because for Abdul Seed, hey he's a
Speaker 5: fantastic candidate, but be he's raised a ton of money himself.
Speaker 5: When you're getting out guns with the amount of money
Speaker 5: being spent, if you've raised enough money and you have
Speaker 5: a winning message that can break through, the gap doesn't
Speaker 5: mean nearly as much, right, So it's not always like
Speaker 5: a degree of ratio. It's like are you both on
Speaker 5: the playing field, and like, unquestionably i'll do all see
Speaker 5: it has been on the playing field in Michigan. I
Speaker 5: think the advantage is a little stronger here in this
Speaker 5: congressional race. Corey Brooker hasn't quite not Cordybrooker, I'm sorry,
Speaker 5: Corny Busch hasn't quite caught the level of strength and
Speaker 5: momentum that he has to have this huge base of
Speaker 5: money to spend to counter it. So it's still going
Speaker 5: to be a tough race for her. I think she's
Speaker 5: an underdog but definitely has a shot.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, very interesting, just britt big picture, because
Speaker 3: you're always looking at trends and things.
Speaker 1: What are we looking for?
Speaker 3: So in terms of what's a good night? You know,
Speaker 3: for LSI, is it just winning? Is it winning per
Speaker 3: his polls? Is winning by twenty? What are the maybe
Speaker 3: other trends and other things that we're looking for. What
Speaker 3: demographic groups we're looking at black voters? Are we looking
Speaker 3: at older voters? Where should we be looking for? What's
Speaker 3: going to shock you? Not just in terms of wins
Speaker 3: because it all just seem is kind of going in
Speaker 3: one direction, but what's actually going to shock you in
Speaker 3: terms of a change in the electorate.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think what'll be interesting to see is does
Speaker 5: a Dolcyed's momentum carry through because he's coming into this
Speaker 5: primary having gained twenty points while Steven's Justice Game ten right,
Speaker 5: and there was a lot of undecided voters. So even
Speaker 5: though the polls have shown this directionally him taking a
Speaker 5: big lead, often what happens is the polls don't just
Speaker 5: stop there, right, They're always going to be a little behind.
Speaker 5: So he could end up getting a much bigger lead
Speaker 5: in this race, and so to some degree they'll be
Speaker 5: reflected in Charna.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: If this race was really close, I'd really be looking
Speaker 5: at black turnout specifically, because that's where Stevens has really
Speaker 5: targeted her electoral strategy and campaigns Adds. However, I want
Speaker 5: to be surprised if we see some persuasion with some
Speaker 5: of these voters by Abdulcie.
Speaker 1: And he ends up doing better.
Speaker 5: Now, my personal model has been winning by eleven, but
Speaker 5: it wouldn't surprise me if he does a little bit better.
Speaker 1: Got it? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Interesting, And I'll just say that I think, you know,
Speaker 2: this is going to be a very important race in
Speaker 2: terms of setting the battle lines between the Centrists and
Speaker 2: the progressive wings of the party. And so you know,
Speaker 2: one of the big narrative destroyers would be if Abdulla Asiad,
Speaker 2: if he was able to win black voters, that would
Speaker 2: be a major narrative violation. But even if he does
Speaker 2: really well, one of the knocks on that wing of
Speaker 2: the party has been, oh, they just it's just like,
Speaker 2: you know, educated white young people who like them. Clearly
Speaker 2: that is no longer the case, and obviously, with Michigan
Speaker 2: being a swing state, it also shows that the appeal
Speaker 2: goes far beyond liberal urban enclaves like New York City
Speaker 2: or Philadelphia or Denver, Colorado. So I think that's part
Speaker 2: of why tonight is so significant. Guys, Logan is going
Speaker 2: to be joining us on that live stream, so he'll
Speaker 2: have his eyes on the numbers all across the country.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of interesting races and ballot initiatives and
Speaker 2: primaries that are happening, so we'll be all over it.
Speaker 2: Make sure to join us tonight at seven thirty and Logan,
Speaker 2: thank you for.
Speaker 1: Your time this morning. There's one last piece I got.
Speaker 2: To Oh, I thought you were I thought you were
Speaker 2: going to give It's there out. So this is a
Speaker 2: Logan looking towards the general election. One of the questions
Speaker 2: for candidates who are on the left of the party
Speaker 2: is whether some of their woke one point zero views
Speaker 2: are going to be a problem for them in a
Speaker 2: general election. And this is of course a big case
Speaker 2: that centrist Democrats are making, Oh my god, you can't
Speaker 2: nominate these people because they're going to be unelectable. One
Speaker 2: of the I think primary test cases for this is
Speaker 2: Francesca hun who looks set to dominate the Democratic primary
Speaker 2: for Wisconsin governor. That race happens next week. She has
Speaker 2: some she has some old tweets that are really quite something.
Speaker 2: And unlike like Abdul took the strategy of I'm going
Speaker 2: to delete the tweets that I'm going to walk away
Speaker 2: from some of the things that I said, Zora, in
Speaker 2: a sense pulled a similar maneuver.
Speaker 4: She's going in the other direction.
Speaker 2: She's keeping the tweets up, she's standing by them, she's
Speaker 2: not backing down from them. So she got asked yesterday
Speaker 2: on CNN about this cancel Thanksgiving tweet in particular.
Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and take a look at how that went.
Speaker 13: You know, you've talked about your past position that he
Speaker 13: keeps highlighting, and you know obviously likely would continue to
Speaker 13: do so before November. Should you win. One thing that
Speaker 13: they brought up as well was a post from you
Speaker 13: in twenty twenty one where you said Americans should cancel Thanksgiving.
Speaker 13: Should have done this in sixteen twenty one. The post
Speaker 13: has been deleted, Republicans have been highlighting it. Do you
Speaker 13: still believe that Thanksgiving should be canceled.
Speaker 10: I'm a chef and one of the first meals that
Speaker 10: I made that was for the community when I was
Speaker 10: sixteen was a Thanksgiving meal. I always think my hospitality
Speaker 10: background in owning a restaurant for seven eight years, that
Speaker 10: bringing folks around the table to share conversation and build
Speaker 10: community is always a good thing. But Thanksgiving is also
Speaker 10: a time that's incredibly painful for many people in our communities,
Speaker 10: and so I think there I wanted to make sure
Speaker 10: that people understood that there are multiple views, views can
Speaker 10: evolve and the position that I'm running for right now,
Speaker 10: and I think my background as a chef will actually
Speaker 10: help me become a better governor that's able to bring
Speaker 10: more people to the table.
Speaker 13: Francesca Hang, thank you for joining us. We have to
Speaker 13: have you back on depending on how things go next
Speaker 13: week in your primary.
Speaker 10: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Kaitlyn, Come on, Caitlin, it's a yes or no question?
Speaker 1: Do you think it should be? Come on, Logan, what
Speaker 1: do we think of this here?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 5: I read this this morning. Is way worse when I
Speaker 5: saw the video. Oh my gosh, what is right?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 2: Thanksgiving is painful for a lot of people. When you
Speaker 2: have to sit down with your family about politics, it's or.
Speaker 3: On an answer that question. And I'm encribbing this from
Speaker 3: DSA leftists who are mad at her about this. He
Speaker 3: would have said, uh no, We're not going to Thanksgiving.
Speaker 3: We're not going to cancel Thanksgiving. We're going to make
Speaker 3: it cheaper and right now it's expensive because of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump's policy. So then we all sit down for the
Speaker 3: Lions game or whatever and the Cowboys, we're gonna sit
Speaker 3: down together and we're going to enjoy a cheaper and
Speaker 3: better conversation because I'm gonna heal politics and we're gonna
Speaker 3: make it more affordable.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the real war on Thanksgiving is from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, Like how hard is this?
Speaker 3: So look, we'll see betting odds do not have or
Speaker 3: they have her tide with a Republican which shouldn't be
Speaker 3: in a wave year for the Democrats. So yeah, that's
Speaker 3: my personal thing. I think she's the biggest red flag
Speaker 3: for all the Democrats that are out there.
Speaker 1: But it is good.
Speaker 3: It's gubernatorial so it might be a little bit different.
Speaker 3: It's always a little bit better even for a wave
Speaker 3: year because it's not nationwide stakes.
Speaker 1: But yeah, any.
Speaker 2: Reality, you know, Yeah, go ahead, Logan, and I have
Speaker 2: one one thing I'll add to this.
Speaker 5: I would say that Francisca Hunk should probably stay awa
Speaker 5: from these national reviews. I've seen a bunch of them
Speaker 5: now on Fox News, on CNN, on NBC, and like
Speaker 5: this is usually how it goes. She is way better
Speaker 5: when it comes to giving public speeches. She clearly gets
Speaker 5: nervous and gets stuck in these words out and you know,
Speaker 5: she has to have a little more control of her message,
Speaker 5: and I just think it's not the right platform for
Speaker 5: I actually thought.
Speaker 2: She did well in the Fox News interview, which was
Speaker 2: relatively hostile, but she still got praised from the Fox
Speaker 2: News host about how a lot of Trump voters like
Speaker 2: her message on data centers and you know, sort of
Speaker 2: the local issues. I will say, just in terms of
Speaker 2: the electoral impact, I keep coming back to and I
Speaker 2: always forget the guy's name, who's the age of Virginia
Speaker 2: now who literally there were text messages exposed where he
Speaker 2: was like I want to murder my political opponent.
Speaker 4: I think his child. She was like, they were just
Speaker 4: what's that?
Speaker 1: Is it justin something?
Speaker 4: It's justin just is that I don't know. I live
Speaker 4: in the state, I should know.
Speaker 2: But in any case, and Democratic voters were like, yeah,
Speaker 2: he's not a Republican though, So it may just be
Speaker 2: that kind of year where even with some you know,
Speaker 2: challenging tweets to overcome that there's just such anti Republican
Speaker 2: party sentiment that.
Speaker 3: There's no question I'm not saying that is going to
Speaker 3: make her lose. But yeah, anyway, I thought it was wild,
Speaker 3: And I do think this is a bit of a
Speaker 3: contrast between how some of the more successful politicians have
Speaker 3: been handling this, like Abdul who's basically just lying about
Speaker 3: how he never supported defund the police, and now Francesca Honks.
Speaker 2: So hey, well, I think the most successful leftist candidates
Speaker 2: have really positioned themselves as the most pro American because
Speaker 2: they're saying, yeah, going to we're going to spend them
Speaker 2: here at home, and continuing to return to that message.
Speaker 2: And it's something that you know, even Republicans like the
Speaker 2: couple very few characters who have a critique of Israel,
Speaker 2: can't really credibly say because they don't want to spend
Speaker 2: the money here on you know, Medicare for all or
Speaker 2: whatever for people at home. So I personally think that's
Speaker 2: the most successful lane for leftists has really positioned themselves
Speaker 2: as the true like America in terms of the American
Speaker 2: people first candidates And so in any case, Logan excited
Speaker 2: to see you tonight. We'll have all kinds of results
Speaker 2: to break down for you guys. It should be a
Speaker 2: lot of.
Speaker 3: Fun turning out to Iran. Major breaking news as of
Speaker 3: this morning, let's put it up here on the screen.
Speaker 3: The United States, per ruters, is now running out of
Speaker 3: virtually all long range precision missiles during the Iran war.
Speaker 1: Per Ruters.
Speaker 3: This is an internal US government assessment that has been
Speaker 3: passed around now for the last week, and reportedly was
Speaker 3: one of the main reasons that Donald Trump decided not
Speaker 3: to go through with that full scale attack on Iran,
Speaker 3: not some fake peace talks that were not actually happening.
Speaker 3: I'm going to read from some of this story because
Speaker 3: it's so vitally important. The United States Army has now
Speaker 3: used much of its stockpile of highly accurate long range
Speaker 3: missiles during its five month war with Iran. The missiles
Speaker 3: are principally the Army's surface to surface weapons known as
Speaker 3: the Army Tactical Missile System the at cans, and precision
Speaker 3: strike missiles the prisms. The US has quote used virtually
Speaker 3: all of these weapons. The degree to which the military
Speaker 3: is running out of these specific missiles has not yet
Speaker 3: been previously reported. The long range munitions were an important
Speaker 3: part of the military arsenal before the war, allowing accurate
Speaker 3: strikes from a safe distance. The US supplied weapons have
Speaker 3: now played a key role also in the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 3: where they currently are asking the United States for more
Speaker 3: of them. However, as we now know, virtually all of
Speaker 3: them have been used. According to this reporting, Crystal Reuter
Speaker 3: says that Sentcom actually used all of the missiles that
Speaker 3: they had in their domain and have had to draw down,
Speaker 3: as we saw previously with the Thads and others, from
Speaker 3: virtually all the other theaters around the world. The next
Speaker 3: time that the Prism missile, which is replacing the ACAM missile,
Speaker 3: will come online to the United States in production is
Speaker 3: twenty twenty seven, so we will have to wait a
Speaker 3: full year before new ones will begin to enter the arsenal.
Speaker 3: This is honestly, I mean, look, we knew it was bad,
Speaker 3: didn't know it was this bad. They also actually, I
Speaker 3: just want to say, it's not just these land missiles
Speaker 3: that are vitally important for the United States. It's the
Speaker 3: Tomahawk supplies as well, something that has not been covered
Speaker 3: nearly as much. Because we do have more of them,
Speaker 3: but approximately fifty percent have now been used in the
Speaker 3: war with Iran. Again, it takes years in order to
Speaker 3: just make even a few dozen or so of these
Speaker 3: things from a single factory here in Arizona. Just to
Speaker 3: demonstrate the billions of dollars that have now been expended
Speaker 3: in terms of the munitions in this war and the
Speaker 3: trade offs that will be needed. Last thing that I
Speaker 3: do think is so vitally important and also shows the
Speaker 3: strategic problem that we face, is that they note inside
Speaker 3: of this US government assessment that the reason why that
Speaker 3: we're running so low on these weapons and we've been
Speaker 3: so heavily reliant on them is we did not want
Speaker 3: to risk manned pilots dropping many of those other types
Speaker 3: of munitions over Iran out of fear that they would
Speaker 3: get shot down, Which means that the United States does
Speaker 3: not have the total air supremacy over Iran, and that
Speaker 3: they remain afraid that we would have more shootdowns as
Speaker 3: we saw in the final days of the war before
Speaker 3: the seas or the full scale war before the ceasefire
Speaker 3: broke out.
Speaker 1: So overall, a vitally vitally dire.
Speaker 3: Position for the United States to be and can't emphasize
Speaker 3: enough how important these missiles obviously were in the course
Speaker 3: of the war and in terms of the war plans
Speaker 3: for all of the other different theaters, including Russia and China.
Speaker 3: So the number one determining factor it appears, as to
Speaker 3: whether the United States even can resume a full scale
Speaker 3: all at war against Iran, even if it wanted to.
Speaker 3: Just five months is all it took to basically expend
Speaker 3: most of them.
Speaker 2: Absolutely insane And as people have been covering this for years,
Speaker 2: at this point, it is shocking just how bad the
Speaker 2: situation is.
Speaker 4: I mean, what can you even say about this? Where
Speaker 4: does all.
Speaker 2: The money go? What have you people spent all of
Speaker 2: our tax dollars on? I mean, we fund the Pentagon
Speaker 2: more and more and more every single year, whether it's
Speaker 2: a Democratic or Republican administration. The last time we had
Speaker 2: any sort of cuts was actually under Obama with that
Speaker 2: sequestration deal with the Republicans. Outside of that, the line
Speaker 2: just continues to go up. Pete Hegseth is demanding one
Speaker 2: point five trillion dollars. What is the money going to?
Speaker 2: Complete insanity? So to your point, look what we did
Speaker 2: in the initial round of the wars. We used a
Speaker 2: lot of these precision, long range weapons. Why because our
Speaker 2: planes kept mysteriously falling onto the sky. I remember those
Speaker 2: claims in the early days that there were like three
Speaker 2: fighter jets that were down by friendly fire.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm sure we all believe that one.
Speaker 2: In any case, we're having all kinds of problems being
Speaker 2: able to establish that air superiority. So we're using these
Speaker 2: long range missiles in order to hit target. That is
Speaker 2: no longer an option. So next time Trump goes out
Speaker 2: there and says, oh, we're gonna bomb their bridges, We're
Speaker 2: gonna commit all these war crimes, We're going to bomb
Speaker 2: their water infrastructure, et cetera. With what what are you
Speaker 2: going to use for that? So it just underscores once
Speaker 2: again there is no military solution to the problem of
Speaker 2: a run. The only solution is a negotiated diplomatic solution.
Speaker 2: The only solution is to surrender, is to admit defeat.
Speaker 2: That's where we're at. I mean, it's completely insane that
Speaker 2: the US military, which had all this projection of strength
Speaker 2: and all all of this money has been way more
Speaker 2: on it than any other country in the entire world,
Speaker 2: cannot even sustain this lung of a conflict and is
Speaker 2: thoroughly defeated. So you know, as things go on, we
Speaker 2: were lucky to get the terms of the original MoU.
Speaker 2: That MoU is no longer on the table. The Iranians
Speaker 2: are going to drive a hard bargain because they're reading
Speaker 2: this reporting, they know the situation, they know that we
Speaker 2: have no real options to turn this thing around. So
Speaker 2: it just underscores what are dire situation Donald Trump has
Speaker 2: gotten us into.
Speaker 3: I really just can't even like, look, we knew the
Speaker 3: situation was bad. CSIS has a good handle. Again, you
Speaker 3: can go and look at all their methodology. Ben Shapiro
Speaker 3: looking at you, Apparently he thinks he knows better than
Speaker 3: the people who are literally connected to the war industrial
Speaker 3: base funded by them in many respects. But okay, So
Speaker 3: where we are right now is that CSIS had previously
Speaker 3: pegged it around forty five percent of all of them expended.
Speaker 1: We now know that that's not even the case. It's
Speaker 1: even more.
Speaker 3: And it appears that because of their ability to estimate methodology,
Speaker 3: they can actually undercount the number of missiles used. The
Speaker 3: internal assessment really matters in terms of what they're pointing out,
Speaker 3: especially because with those prisms for example, I believe the
Speaker 3: number was fewer than one hundred that we even had
Speaker 3: before going into the war. Another one hundred and twenty
Speaker 3: will take about a year or so to come online.
Speaker 3: The Tomahawks as well. I've talked about this, you know,
Speaker 3: to many ends, especially about the factories and the initial
Speaker 3: process in the way that it's all there. You could
Speaker 3: spend all the money in the world and it still
Speaker 3: wouldn't work, but it does still show you we have
Speaker 3: been spending all the money in the world. We had
Speaker 3: years to plan for exactly a crisis moment like this
Speaker 3: from twenty twenty two onward. Biden squandered all of that.
Speaker 3: He basically gave, you know, the entire barn over to Ukraine,
Speaker 3: and now we've got nothing left, especially with Ukraine with
Speaker 3: their hands out today for all of these even more
Speaker 3: critical missile systems. And the bottom line remains, the United
Speaker 3: States is afraid of being able to take casualties in
Speaker 3: the air over Iran, so they heavily reliance on this.
Speaker 3: And now we're going to be in a situation where
Speaker 3: if the war does have to escalate it or not
Speaker 3: have to, but if they want to escalate it again,
Speaker 3: a lot of people's lives are going to be seriously
Speaker 3: at risks, both from the interceptor stockpiles being solo that
Speaker 3: they have to ration, and a lot of pilots you know,
Speaker 3: maybe at risk up in the air. And we already
Speaker 3: saw it the F thirty five, the so called friendly
Speaker 3: fire shut downs. There's two tankers that allegedly, you know,
Speaker 3: ran into each other. So they are all kinds of
Speaker 3: sketchy you know, situations that are all happening here. But
Speaker 3: it does explain all of Trump's bsing behavior because he
Speaker 3: remains totally committed to this idea that we are going
Speaker 3: to have, you know, some sort of talks, and in fact,
Speaker 3: we have here saying that talks are underway by Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: This is his claim yesterday in the Oval office. B two,
Speaker 3: let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: Are the talks with Iran now off and our air
Speaker 10: strikes they're.
Speaker 9: Going on right now.
Speaker 6: It's an amazing thing. We have a little problem with
Speaker 6: the run because we have many talks that we'll say
Speaker 6: we have or we don't have. You know, we're straight
Speaker 6: about it, but they deny it.
Speaker 9: But they're not denying it now.
Speaker 6: They just put out a statement not denying it, but
Speaker 6: for some reason they when they're talking, they don't like
Speaker 6: saying that they're talking their senses. So they called me
Speaker 6: and they said, please down attack.
Speaker 9: We'll make a deal.
Speaker 6: That's the real truth, and everyone knows it, and who wouldn't.
Speaker 1: Call, So that's the real truth.
Speaker 3: Meanwhile, the actual truth, let's put B three up here
Speaker 3: on the screen.
Speaker 1: Per Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 3: In the Iranian Foreign Ministry, here's what they say Iran's
Speaker 3: fourn Ministry. There are no discussions underway with the United States.
Speaker 3: There are no plans to have any discussions. The only
Speaker 3: discussions are currently with Oman, which continue on managing traffic
Speaker 3: through the passage. Trump calls Tehran unbelievably duplicitous, and in fact,
Speaker 3: what we already see is that even these talks with
Speaker 3: Oman about some sort of managed route for the future
Speaker 3: through the Strait of horn Moves is not a guarantee.
Speaker 3: We have had multiple vessels, including again maybe an hour
Speaker 3: or so before we even began this show, of another
Speaker 3: one that was just hit by an Iranian projectile in
Speaker 3: the Strait of horm Moves, trying to transit in a
Speaker 3: different manner. The current estimate is that there's a lot
Speaker 3: of black market traffic that is moving through the Strait
Speaker 3: approximately five million barrels a day or so. They're called
Speaker 3: ship to ship transfers, where it comes on one ship
Speaker 3: and a blockade runner takes it and takes it to
Speaker 3: another ship.
Speaker 1: Hyper inefficient, very very expensive.
Speaker 3: Obviously, with the current price of oil, some people are
Speaker 3: willing to risk it, but it pales in the twenty
Speaker 3: million barrels a day that we're originally moving through. The
Speaker 3: Straight of Horm moves and explains why even with oil
Speaker 3: prices quote down around eighty eighty five dollars per barrel,
Speaker 3: it is still going to be punishingly high at the
Speaker 3: gas station for all of us. And to that point,
Speaker 3: by the way, Trump now basically abandoning even trying to
Speaker 3: get oil prices down by increasing the supply, is now
Speaker 3: saying that the oil companies are making too much money.
Speaker 1: B one, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 14: Excellent and Shobron Integrated all in US just announced Record
Speaker 14: Club second. Yeah, unbelievable for Excellon for instance, fourteen man House.
Speaker 14: They've got an OVERDECA for Chevron for the Cotory.
Speaker 6: By twelve times.
Speaker 9: You saw that.
Speaker 14: Yes, I.
Speaker 9: Don't like it.
Speaker 6: They're making too much money, Okay, based on a shortage.
Speaker 6: They're making too much money. I don't like it, and
Speaker 6: I should be the last one to say because I'm
Speaker 6: a big free enterprise guy. Nobody bigger and you know,
Speaker 6: with even to see oil. When we're finished with the rand,
Speaker 6: you're going to see the prices drop through the floor.
Speaker 6: But they made too much money, too much money, Chevron,
Speaker 6: too much money, uh Exceon Mobile, too much, too much money.
Speaker 9: When you look at.
Speaker 15: One company where they made twelve times what they made
Speaker 15: the year before. They're going to give some of that
Speaker 15: back to the public, and they better cut the retail price,
Speaker 15: the consumer price.
Speaker 6: Too much money. You surprised.
Speaker 9: I'm saying it.
Speaker 6: I'll say it loud and clear. I'm not happy about it.
Speaker 1: He's not happy about it.
Speaker 3: You know, he's going to tell them, send them a
Speaker 3: very strongly worded truth, to tell them to drop their price. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, first of all, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 3: of funny things you could say about free enterprise and
Speaker 3: all of that, but you know, look, is he actually
Speaker 3: going to do anything to tell them not to do that?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 3: He can't. Actually, because of where things are today. He
Speaker 3: could try the export ban. It would be a disaster.
Speaker 3: In the long run and probably lead to outright shortages,
Speaker 3: probably destroy the global oil market as we know it,
Speaker 3: and in the long run, would actually make oil prices
Speaker 3: much higher for everyone. There's only one thing you can do,
Speaker 3: which is end the war. He end the war, then, yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: we can have some oil that's going to go through,
Speaker 3: but still not accepting it. As of this morning, retail
Speaker 3: gasoline average four dollars eight cents a gallon around the nation,
Speaker 3: still well over five dollars in California, So that's where
Speaker 3: things are.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: One other breaking news, we've got Scott Bessett on Fox
Speaker 2: News saying that we may have a deal within the
Speaker 2: next day or two.
Speaker 4: Just read you what he says.
Speaker 2: We've seen President Trump last week threatened what would have
Speaker 2: been the largest military campaign since World War Two against
Speaker 2: the Iranians. Now because of that, we are in talks
Speaker 2: with the Iranians. I think there's a chance we may
Speaker 2: have a deal today or tomorrow to open the straight Sager.
Speaker 2: So this is you know, we have no long range
Speaker 2: precision missiles. All we have left is like job boning,
Speaker 2: market manipulation, lies in propaganda. That is effectively the only
Speaker 2: tool that's left in our arsenal. So that's what Trump
Speaker 2: has deployed. To his credit, I think he deploys it
Speaker 2: very effectively. The markets are loving this new Scott Bessant comments,
Speaker 2: we'll see if today or tomorrow we have a deal
Speaker 2: to open the straight if you guys think that's really
Speaker 2: going to happen. The Iranians and the Sagers told you before,
Speaker 2: have said we're not negotiating.
Speaker 4: No, why would we do that?
Speaker 2: And the sentiment within Iran, as you know Professor Randi
Speaker 2: when we had him on discuss with this is no negotiations.
Speaker 4: Why would we do that? Right now?
Speaker 2: We have the upper hand and there's a report that
Speaker 2: they may have attacked our base in Kuwait. They still
Speaker 2: have plenty of weapons that they can deploy. They feel
Speaker 2: they're in a very strong position. And so unless Trump
Speaker 2: is truly ready to accept the defeat that has been
Speaker 2: rendered on the battlefield, then we're going to continue, you know,
Speaker 2: in this kind of limbo state.
Speaker 3: Yep, exactly, And you know, look last thing before to
Speaker 3: that point.
Speaker 1: So there may be a deal.
Speaker 3: There might, but that deal is not between the United States,
Speaker 3: that deals between Oman Qatar and Iran. So there was
Speaker 3: allegedly some final draft which is being you know, coming through.
Speaker 3: It will actually institute some kind of the surrender of
Speaker 3: what we're talking about, which is we will say, okay,
Speaker 3: chips go through the Iranian side, exit the Omani side.
Speaker 3: Some payment or something like that is going to have
Speaker 3: to go through, and that will be an alleged framework
Speaker 3: to get to the point where we can have talks
Speaker 3: so we can get back to the memorama understanding, so
Speaker 3: we can get back to a potential nuclear deal, just
Speaker 3: to show how far we are away from all of it. So,
Speaker 3: whether there's a quote deal or not to open the strait,
Speaker 3: we already literally had one. This will still be an
Speaker 3: Iranian and an Omani understanding, which we then assent to
Speaker 3: and accept. Last point here from Donald Trump before let's
Speaker 3: put it up here on the screen. He had said
Speaker 3: previously Iran's leadership is unbelievably duplicitous. They'd asked for a meeting,
Speaker 3: some would say, beg that talks began, with more scheduled
Speaker 3: in the immediate future. They're saying openly and proudly they're
Speaker 3: not having any discussions. They can then go to give
Speaker 3: their usual blather in saying the straight upform moves to
Speaker 3: be operated by them when is already completely controlled by
Speaker 3: the United States, the US Wall of Steel, blockade, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Nothing gets through to Iran unless we wanted to, and
Speaker 3: nothing will get through unless a deal or total surrender
Speaker 3: is accomplished. So he had said previously a couple of times,
Speaker 3: this is the last chance. I mean, he's also said
Speaker 3: that many times before. So take the Scott Bessett News,
Speaker 3: this truth, all of that. With a great assault. The
Speaker 3: one thing you can count on, the hard fact is
Speaker 3: that we're would basically completely run out of some of
Speaker 3: these missiles. We have very few of the other types
Speaker 3: left before we have to full blown start rationing and
Speaker 3: enter a bad situation. So maybe you know bestint is
Speaker 3: right that a quote deal is on the horizon, but
Speaker 3: it is not going to be one even remotely floated
Speaker 3: or any of that by the United States. We'll remain
Speaker 3: and scene obviously will remain and keep everybody updated. But
Speaker 3: let's get to Gaza.
Speaker 2: I wanted to turn now to Israel, the West Bank Gaza,
Speaker 2: some wild things that are unfolding there. In particular, to
Speaker 2: start with this clip, BBC journalists asked, and is really
Speaker 2: Settler about the lives of Palestinians versus Jewish life. And
Speaker 2: the answer is actually not shocking, but it should be.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: I think now after they killed one is where the
Speaker 9: people we need to kill all the people in Tel
Speaker 9: and Sarah, even Jiten Ferreta. Why because we don't want
Speaker 9: it's happened again.
Speaker 16: It sounds like you're saying one Jewish life is worth
Speaker 16: hundreds or thousands of Palestinian lives.
Speaker 9: Not million. One Jewish life, it's ten million.
Speaker 17: Okay, that just sounds racist.
Speaker 9: Yes, I know, I know, but this is the true
Speaker 9: because God choose us. Because of this, you are jealous.
Speaker 17: These inflammatory views, rejected by many Israelis, are crucial to
Speaker 17: understanding the growing violence in the West Bank, which many
Speaker 17: extremist Israeli settlers see as land given to them by God.
Speaker 9: The Bible is the authorizing that this land belonged to us.
Speaker 16: Okay, Israel occupied it militarily and under international law that
Speaker 16: means that no civilian settlements can be noted.
Speaker 9: But the God not right in the Bible, the international law.
Speaker 16: So you're a lawyer and you're saying the only law
Speaker 16: that really counts for you is the Bible.
Speaker 4: Of course, Wow, And Sagar.
Speaker 2: This is the logical endpoint, honest endpoint of an ethno
Speaker 2: supremacist ideology and religious extremism. And you know in the
Speaker 2: BBC report they make clear say, oh, many Israelis disagree
Speaker 2: with this, do they? I'm sure many Israelis wouldn't say
Speaker 2: it quite this overtly. But we've seen the polling on
Speaker 2: how comfortable they were with mass slaughter in Gaza. We've
Speaker 2: seen the polling on how many want to expel all
Speaker 2: Palestinians who are currently citizens within Israel who are in
Speaker 2: support of mass ethnic cleansing. So you know, this is
Speaker 2: the unvarnished face, the true face of the ethno supremacist
Speaker 2: ideology that undergirds the state of Israel currently.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and what we actually see inside of the settlements
Speaker 3: is the normalization quasi legalism. I mean this used to
Speaker 3: be a fringe part of Israeli society. Most secular Israelis
Speaker 3: looked down on this type of not even just this
Speaker 3: type of rhetoric, they actively were opposed to. I mean,
Speaker 3: there were major fractures in their own society over settlements
Speaker 3: et cetera. However, what has effectively been normalized now I
Speaker 3: would say over the last like ten to fifteen years especially,
Speaker 3: is not just an overt embrace, but really like elevation
Speaker 3: of a lot of the stuff we've seen right in
Speaker 3: front of you. And you could say this is just
Speaker 3: one person, but it is quasi representative itself now of
Speaker 3: government policy because their own Minister of whatever national security,
Speaker 3: Ben Giverer, he speaks like this every day. I mean, currently,
Speaker 3: what is it they're currently? He wanted to put crocodiles
Speaker 3: in a prison for Palestinians, and the only reason that
Speaker 3: the plan was struck down was animal welfare organization in
Speaker 3: Israel was like, this would be bad for the crocodiles
Speaker 3: exactly right, an you think, look, I know this sounds crazy.
Speaker 1: That actually happened. That literally just happened this week.
Speaker 3: And it's like if PETA was looking up for the
Speaker 3: crocodiles and not for the actual prisoners. That are so
Speaker 3: not some bleeding heart liberal who's on you know prisoners.
Speaker 3: But I'm like, uh, okay, well we know what we
Speaker 3: know who like medieval.
Speaker 2: It's not even fair to call them prisoners. I mean
Speaker 2: these are truly hostages. They get picked up for the
Speaker 2: smallest even theoretical uh uh fraction. Oftentimes you're talking about children,
Speaker 2: you know, documented systematic torture, abuse, sexual abuse, et cetera.
Speaker 2: That's what we're talking about here. So even to describe
Speaker 2: it as a prison is really to water down what
Speaker 2: the reality is within these you know, within these camps.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, last thing on this, and then
Speaker 2: we'll talk some about what's going on with the Gossip
Speaker 2: Board of Peace, which I think is also very important,
Speaker 2: very illustrative.
Speaker 4: I remember early.
Speaker 2: On after October seventh saga, you and I covering things
Speaker 2: that Daniella Weiss, who is one of these settler leaders,
Speaker 2: was saying, and this was treated as a fringe view,
Speaker 2: but she was talking about Greater Israel and how Israel
Speaker 2: how to write to not just you know, historic Palace die,
Speaker 2: not just Gaza and you know what they called ju
Speaker 2: Day in Samaria the West Bank, but other countries Land
Speaker 2: as well, and well and behold here we are. Now
Speaker 2: they're occupying part of Syria, they're occupied occupying part of
Speaker 2: Lebanon with no intention of leaving their you know, helping
Speaker 2: to foment the war in Iran. Like it's very clear
Speaker 2: that the Greater Israel project is a real commitment, not
Speaker 2: just from some fringe figure who by the way, Daniel
Speaker 2: Lewis is very influential, but from the government itself, And
Speaker 2: how can you say this government isn't reflective of the people.
Speaker 4: How many times has net Nyahuo been re elected?
Speaker 2: How many decades has he served as prime minister of
Speaker 2: this rogue state? So you know these I've long said
Speaker 2: that the if you wanted an understanding of what was
Speaker 2: going to unfold after October seventh, in response to October seventh,
Speaker 2: the best people to listen to were the most hyperbolic lefties.
Speaker 2: I think I even understated the case, and the settler
Speaker 2: terrorist who will tell you flat out the way they
Speaker 2: think about Palestinians, the way they feel about it, their
Speaker 2: own twisted and perverted moral calculus, and what they think
Speaker 2: the State of Israel should ultimately do. So with that framing,
Speaker 2: let's talk a little bit about what's going on with
Speaker 2: the quote unquote Board of Peace. Trump made a big
Speaker 2: announcement saying, oh, we've got this, We've got this deal,
Speaker 2: and Hamas has agreed to disarm, et cetera, et cetera. Well,
Speaker 2: there is an agreement in place, but it is much
Speaker 2: different from what Trump represented, and Israel is already undermining
Speaker 2: the pieces that they are supposed to abide to as
Speaker 2: they transition to new governmance within the Gaza strip. Let's
Speaker 2: put C three up on the screen here. This is
Speaker 2: from the AP Their headline is hamasa as they'll disarm
Speaker 2: if Israel halt strikes and withdraws from Gaza. But and
Speaker 2: I love this framing, but obstacles remain. What are those obstacles? Well,
Speaker 2: the obstacles are the fault that are the fact that
Speaker 2: Israel has no intention of withdrawing from Gaza. In fact,
Speaker 2: what they've said they want to claim more of Gaza.
Speaker 2: They're already at fifty percent. They want to go to
Speaker 2: sixty or seventy percent of Gaza that they claim and occupy.
Speaker 2: And they continue to bomb and to attack and murder
Speaker 2: within the Gaza strip. So there is not going to
Speaker 2: be any deal moving forward so long as Israel continues
Speaker 2: to occupy Gaza and kill Palestinians. Was put C five
Speaker 2: up on the screen. This is the latest from drop site.
Speaker 2: They have killed thirty four Palestinians and wounded one hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty four just since that Gaza deal announcement. Since
Speaker 2: Trump's Friday announcement of a historic agreement and Hamasa's acceptance
Speaker 2: of Phase two of the Gaza seasefire deal conditioned on
Speaker 2: Israeli compliance. Israelis have attacked and killed at least thirty
Speaker 2: four Palestinians wounded one hundred and thirty four others across
Speaker 2: the strip. This is, you know, some number of children
Speaker 2: among them. They have another tweet where they lay out
Speaker 2: that since the ceasefire was announced in Gaza last October,
Speaker 2: they've killed two hundred and fifty palest Indians. Just to
Speaker 2: be clear, this is since the ceasefire, they have killed
Speaker 2: more Palestindians than we're as vene Israelis who were killed
Speaker 2: on October seventh, That is to include two hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy children, one hundred and thirty four women, thirty eight
Speaker 2: elderly people wounded foury one hundred and ten including one
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty seven children, seven hundred women, and
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy five elderly people. So while the
Speaker 2: pace of slaughter has slowed, it has not come even
Speaker 2: close to stopping.
Speaker 1: Soger.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know the other reason why I think
Speaker 3: this is all very important is Iran is watching this.
Speaker 3: We talked a lot about what happened with the Board
Speaker 3: of Peace or sorry, with the Saudi Nuclear deal. How
Speaker 3: Trump signs this deal renegs literally almost immediately changes the conditions.
Speaker 1: Well, what about with Gaza and with Hamas.
Speaker 3: So let's even take in this case, you got Hamas
Speaker 3: who basically held their hands up and apparently we're told
Speaker 3: by the Iranians not to do this. When Hamas representatives
Speaker 3: were in Tehran, I think for the funeral of the Ayatola,
Speaker 3: there was an allegend meeting between them and the Iranian leadership,
Speaker 3: and Iranian leadership said you shouldn't do this, they're going
Speaker 3: to bomb you anyways, you really shouldn't have any sort
Speaker 3: of negotiation. Hamas said, Okay, no, we're still going to
Speaker 3: do it. They disagreed for of course their own internal reasons.
Speaker 3: They've been crushed and you know, basically defeated at least
Speaker 3: in terms of their political leadership. And so what they
Speaker 3: did is they still acquiesced. They thought there was still
Speaker 3: some legitimacy in the Board of Peace deal. And then
Speaker 3: immediately Israel renags on the US announced Deeal continues to
Speaker 3: bomb and to kill civilians. So if you're Iran, you
Speaker 3: told Hamas not to do it, and you're still watching
Speaker 3: very closely. You're like, okay, we've got this US backed
Speaker 3: board of peace steel. Trump has some relative interest in
Speaker 3: saying I'm the person who ended the war in Gaza,
Speaker 3: Hamas literally putting their hands up saying we will disarm completely.
Speaker 1: If you continue to.
Speaker 3: Abide by this steal, all you have to do is
Speaker 3: withdraw from this. Israel says we'll do it, and then
Speaker 3: they don't do it, and they change the terms on
Speaker 3: a dime. So if you are Iran watching this, this
Speaker 3: only further affirms, you know, what you've seen. How with
Speaker 3: the United States it's backing its ability to restrain in Israel.
Speaker 3: How real is that whenever the deal that you just
Speaker 3: signed in front of you is one which effectively they negot,
Speaker 3: you know, they renag on on day one, you know,
Speaker 3: literally the day after this announcement even comes. So I
Speaker 3: do think in the bigger picture it's really important, especially
Speaker 3: as as we're talking, there's some more leaks that are
Speaker 3: coming out about this Iran and Oman deal. It's exactly
Speaker 3: as I suspected. It's not a deal with the United
Speaker 3: States signatory at all. It's Iran and it's Oman. That's it.
Speaker 3: America can say yes or no in terms of whether
Speaker 3: we choose to let it go into place or not,
Speaker 3: but we are not a party to this whatsoever. That
Speaker 3: is what the future is going to look like. They're
Speaker 3: going to say, we've worked out a framework, this is
Speaker 3: how it's going to work. And at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, we could choose to do the blockade or not.
Speaker 3: And you know, I guess choose to be in a
Speaker 3: war with Oman as well. But our word is nothing
Speaker 3: at this point. You know, I was listening Tucker and
Speaker 3: Darryl Cooper having a podcast this morning.
Speaker 1: They put it in they put it in really terms.
Speaker 3: I had and cons We don't ever talk about how
Speaker 3: dastardly the initial attack on Iran was in the first place.
Speaker 3: And maybe that sounds really dramatic. It was Pearl Harbor,
Speaker 3: like it was. There was no declaration of war, It
Speaker 3: came out of nowhere. There was a completely false pretext,
Speaker 3: and it also didn't even work, just like you know,
Speaker 3: Pearl Harbor in the initial attack, which we look back
Speaker 3: upon as a great betrayal. And yet the United States
Speaker 3: launched this war, you know, basically the same way the
Speaker 3: Japanese under an initial flag of peace, and we're sort
Speaker 3: of allegend negotiations that were happening, like with Steve Wikoff
Speaker 3: and Midnight Hammer and the second time around, and we
Speaker 3: murdered one hundred and sixty eight school girls on the
Speaker 3: first day of the war, Like, let's say the truth
Speaker 3: for what it is. And so, you know, not just
Speaker 3: in terms of the stain of honor, but how to
Speaker 3: come back from that and to actually have some sort
Speaker 3: of negotiation. And that was just from day one to
Speaker 3: today in terms of our conduct, not even to mention
Speaker 3: what's been happening with Kasa.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, imagine if the show was on the
Speaker 2: other phone. Oh my god, your audience came to us, Oh,
Speaker 2: let's work on a deal, and we're so close to
Speaker 2: a deal, and then you know, out of nowhere, they
Speaker 2: murder a bunch of American school girls, attack a bunch
Speaker 2: of civilian infrastructure, remember the black clouds and the oil
Speaker 2: rain over Tehran, and they you know, kill our entire
Speaker 2: top leadership, everybody that they possibly can, and in the
Speaker 2: most dishonorable way possible. You know, Supreme Leader was taken
Speaker 2: out at his home with many of his family members,
Speaker 2: including his young grandchild. So yeah, I mean, it's it's
Speaker 2: the most disgraceful and dishonorable thing that you can possibly imagine.
Speaker 2: Just real quick to go back to the Board of Piece,
Speaker 2: because I think it's important to validate. This isn't just
Speaker 2: like us saying that Israel's attacking, etc. A Board of
Speaker 2: Piece envoy. And remember all these people are like handpicked
Speaker 2: by Trump, right like this is his hole, this is
Speaker 2: his this is his rodeo. They are complaining about him undercutting,
Speaker 2: about the israelis undercutting the deal. This is C four.
Speaker 2: So this is in an envoy to the Board of Peace.
Speaker 2: He said on x two days of strikes across Gaza
Speaker 2: have killed civilians and destroyed medical supplies that people depend on.
Speaker 2: This comes after intense efforts by the Border Piece, the
Speaker 2: mediators Egypt, turkeyer Qatar, and the US to bring the
Speaker 2: Palestinian factions in Gaza to agree to a roadmap on
Speaker 2: the full implementation of President Trump's plan to hand over
Speaker 2: civilian governance and decommission their weapons. Both parties carry obligations
Speaker 2: under the comprehensive plan. My team and I are working
Speaker 2: around the clock with the parties and mediators and regional
Speaker 2: partners to de escalate and create the space for the
Speaker 2: full implementation of the President's plan. Achieving a lasting piece
Speaker 2: is hard, but achievable if everyone makes their efforts.
Speaker 4: And the only.
Speaker 2: Way that this thing has a prayer of moving forward
Speaker 2: is if Trump were to go to the Israelis and say,
Speaker 2: you're withdrawing now, you are not attacking any more. There
Speaker 2: are going to be consequences if you do. There is
Speaker 2: zero indication that he has the willingness to take that
Speaker 2: hard of a line, even though this is his own,
Speaker 2: like you know, this is his own deal, This is
Speaker 2: his own sort of like legacy, credibility, blolah blah blah.
Speaker 4: On the line.
Speaker 2: But even when it comes to that, there's just zero
Speaker 2: sign of him engaging enough to care and to force
Speaker 2: the Israelis to do what they are supposed to do
Speaker 2: under the terms of this agreement.
Speaker 1: I feel very very important.
Speaker 3: Like I said so, in terms of the Israel Goaza situation,
Speaker 3: the ideology ut front, and also how literally the world
Speaker 3: is watching in terms of how this is going to
Speaker 3: impact with Iran. This remains it sounds crazy. You know,
Speaker 3: we started covering October seventh. It was just the day
Speaker 3: in and day out. I don't think anybody could have
Speaker 3: predicted how much it would snowball out, not only into
Speaker 3: this war with Iran, Israel's bomb seven countries, It's expanded
Speaker 3: its own borders. It has now gotten us into a
Speaker 3: situation we're expended all of our precision guided me you know,
Speaker 3: our precision stockpiles and all of these other things. And
Speaker 3: it's only been three years to even think about how
Speaker 3: monumental that is. It really is just completely insane. And
Speaker 3: also how much we've adopted so much of their own behavior.
Speaker 3: I talked yesterday in our show, we dropped two thousand
Speaker 3: pound bomb on a Fanaily, nobody even thinks about it.
Speaker 3: Nobody says a word. You know, you just do a
Speaker 3: story time. You know, years ago, that would have been
Speaker 3: a national scandal. There would have been an actual investigation,
Speaker 3: the commander who fired that would have been called before Congress,
Speaker 3: or would have been a Pentagon inspector general report. Really,
Speaker 3: you know, the media, not even just the media, but
Speaker 3: the average person.
Speaker 1: Like you know, Crystal, you and I were around for
Speaker 1: Abu Grab. Everybody knew about that.
Speaker 3: People actually knew about and they weren't horrified by it.
Speaker 3: I'm saying, you know, I grew up in Bush Country.
Speaker 3: Even these people were like, oh man, this is horrible. Now,
Speaker 3: you know, it just rolls off of our back. And
Speaker 3: that's the type of Israeli behavior we got to reject
Speaker 3: at the very beginning.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: And even if you you know, don't consider Iranian lives
Speaker 2: as precious as American lives.
Speaker 4: Which you should.
Speaker 2: Think of the backlash from Abu grab, think about how
Speaker 2: radicalizing that was. You don't think that the genocide in
Speaker 2: Gaza is going to be radicalizing for plenty of people
Speaker 2: against not just Israel, but against the US. You don't
Speaker 2: think bombing a school full of little girls triple tap strike,
Speaker 2: by the way, you don't think that's going to be radicalizing.
Speaker 2: Dropping two thousand pound bombs on a family's home and
Speaker 2: killing parents and a two year old, you don't think
Speaker 2: that's going to be radicalizing. We're just sewing more danger
Speaker 2: and terror and chaos and war in the world, and
Speaker 2: it is unacceptable.