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 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: 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 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an
Speaker 1: amazing show for everybody today. What do we have Crystal?
Speaker 1: Its great to have you back.
Speaker 3: Nice to be back in the studio here.
Speaker 4: Lots of talk about of course, Wednesday is Liberation Day,
Speaker 4: elderbas I'm personally calling it, but well.
Speaker 1: It will be for a lot of hedge funds, yes.
Speaker 2: At anyone who has anything in the stock market most likely.
Speaker 2: So we're taking a look at what the plan is
Speaker 2: even likely to be with regard to additional tariffs and
Speaker 2: how the markets are reacting and all of that good stuff.
Speaker 2: Also some new poll numbers with regards to how people
Speaker 2: feel about Trump and Trump's handling of the economy. We're
Speaker 2: looking at the very latest, of course, from the signal
Speaker 2: Gate fallout, which just continues.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: Waltz is apparently on thinner ice, so we'll see what's
Speaker 2: going on there. Trump says that he's going to run
Speaker 2: for another term that is blatantly unconstitutional, but he says
Speaker 2: he's going to figure it out and he's going to try,
Speaker 2: so we'll see how that's going to work out. I'm
Speaker 2: taking a look at how Zionism has been used to
Speaker 2: usher in an authoritarian crackdown. Jonathan Allen and Amy Parns
Speaker 2: are joining us to talk about their new book. I'm
Speaker 2: very excited about this. So they've got all the inside
Speaker 2: scoop about Biden dropping out, about Kamala switching in, about
Speaker 2: Obama's role, about Trump's campaign, all of the things. So
Speaker 2: they're going to be spilling the tea from their new book.
Speaker 2: We also have Ben Wickler, who is the chair of
Speaker 2: the Wisconsin Democratic Party, big Supreme Court race in that state.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk was there last night trying to gen up
Speaker 2: support for his preferred candidates. So we're going to get
Speaker 2: a look from Ben Wickler there in the state and
Speaker 2: what that all means.
Speaker 3: So lots to get to this mark.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's exciting, and Emily's actually down in Wisconsin right now.
Speaker 1: You'll have some on the ground reporting for that on
Speaker 1: Wednesday show, which we're excited.
Speaker 3: Wisconsin native, Yeah, Wisconsin native.
Speaker 1: I've never I still am wrapping my head around the
Speaker 1: like almost one hundred million dollars or so that I
Speaker 1: can spend on a Wisconsin Supreme Court race. It's completely
Speaker 1: outwright Elon.
Speaker 3: Put in twenty million dollars.
Speaker 1: To this Supreme He personally put in twenty million, and
Speaker 1: then on the Democratic site it's like twenty six million.
Speaker 1: I'm like, this is insane. Is there really that much
Speaker 1: at risk? Apparently yes, So we'll get to it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a.
Speaker 2: Real sort of referendum moment, bell Weather of where things
Speaker 2: stand politically, So a lot of eyes on Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: R Let's start with the tariffs, as Crystal said, Liberation
Speaker 1: Day it's coming, and let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. Trump is, in his masterful
Speaker 1: communication strategy, says this, I couldn't care less if foreign
Speaker 1: autoworkers raise price is due to tariffs. So this is
Speaker 1: a phone interview yesterday with NBC News. He was asked
Speaker 1: specifically about potential price increases the present and said he
Speaker 1: could not care less if automakers raised prices after he
Speaker 1: announced twenty five percent tariff on foreign made automobiles. Asked
Speaker 1: what his recent message was to motor industry CEOs and
Speaker 1: whether he had warned them against raising prices, Trump said
Speaker 1: the messages congratulations. If you make your car in the
Speaker 1: United States, you're going to make a lot of money.
Speaker 1: If you don't, you're probably going to have to come
Speaker 1: to the United States, because if you don't make your
Speaker 1: car in the US, there is no tariffs. When pressed
Speaker 1: to see if he told the CEOs not to raise prices,
Speaker 1: he said no, I never said that. I couldn't care
Speaker 1: less if they raise prices, because people are going to
Speaker 1: start buying American cars. I couldn't care less. I hope
Speaker 1: they raise their prices because if they do, people are
Speaker 1: going to buy American made cars. We have plenty. Asked
Speaker 1: if he was then concerned about overall prices growing up,
Speaker 1: Trump said no, again, I couldn't care less because if
Speaker 1: prices go up, they're going to buy American cars. So
Speaker 1: he said it like four times. Not necessarily the strategy
Speaker 1: I would use whenever we're talking about car tariffs and
Speaker 1: all of that. I mean, a guess, to be fair,
Speaker 1: we are talking about foreign vehicles. But the problem is,
Speaker 1: of course, that we've talked here about is that many
Speaker 1: of the inputs, even to our so called American cars
Speaker 1: are either from Mexico and or Canada. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the modern car industry, and this is something even the
Speaker 1: UAW and all of them will admit is completely globalized,
Speaker 1: I think, to our detriment. But that's a you know,
Speaker 1: much longer discussion. I think at this point, the problem
Speaker 1: is is that if you are going to have such
Speaker 1: a massive shock to the overall to the overall supply
Speaker 1: chain and tariffs do increase you, if you don't see
Speaker 1: some commensurate policy on the other side of that, well
Speaker 1: I think people are going to get very upset. Don't forget,
Speaker 1: you know, a huge part of inflation and the way
Speaker 1: that people experience inflation over the last four years, it
Speaker 1: was eggs and it was gas. But we also don't
Speaker 1: seem to remember that twenty twenty two spike of overall
Speaker 1: used car market. And so if we think about it,
Speaker 1: you know, if we do have a situation where the
Speaker 1: overall aggregate price of cars does tend to increase, we
Speaker 1: will see a similar ride in the value of the
Speaker 1: used car, which is actually very difficult. That's almost seventy
Speaker 1: percent of the entire use of the entire car industry
Speaker 1: in the United States, and of course it just makes
Speaker 1: it even more inaccessible parts and all of that could
Speaker 1: become more expensive, So bad for manufacturing possibly if we
Speaker 1: do see overall price increase, of course, very important for
Speaker 1: our manufacturing supply chain, and then huge consumer problem as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to unpack here. I mean,
Speaker 2: first of all, obviously this is not how the teriff
Speaker 2: program was sold. On the campaign trail. Trump was definitely
Speaker 2: not running around going like, your prices are going to increase. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, he was pledging inflation. We all know it
Speaker 2: was a big political problem, big reality problem for the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. So he was promising to lower prices. Now
Speaker 2: that he's one office, he's like, I don't care if
Speaker 2: prices go up. I don't care if they go up
Speaker 2: on cars or go up on anything else. So obviously
Speaker 2: directly contradictory to what they were selling on the campaign trial,
Speaker 2: which was always preposterous. I mean, you know, Soccer was
Speaker 2: always honest even as he was supporting some of the
Speaker 2: terraff regime that like, yeah, prices are going to go up,
Speaker 2: but they tried to pretend like, oh no, that's not
Speaker 2: really going to happen, and that's not how.
Speaker 3: It works, blah blah blah. Obviously that was a lie.
Speaker 2: And now we're getting the truth from Trump here with
Speaker 2: regard to how this is going to be put into place.
Speaker 2: The auto tariffs are the sort of thing, if you're
Speaker 2: just focused in on that that I could theoretically support
Speaker 2: if it was focused on the auto industry, if it
Speaker 2: was done in an intelligent way, if it was paired
Speaker 2: with industrial policy that would actually be targeted and aimed
Speaker 2: at building up our domestic auto manufacturing industry. That is
Speaker 2: not what's happening here. That's not happening with cars. At
Speaker 2: the same time that they're instituting these tariffs, they're of
Speaker 2: course taking hatchet to the federal government. They're going the
Speaker 2: opposite direction of having any sort of industrial policy. They're
Speaker 2: going back to austerity to deregulation, all those sorts of things.
Speaker 2: And then of course we're not just talking about auto tariffs.
Speaker 2: Actually we don't really even know what the tariff regime,
Speaker 2: nor does anyone else in the administration. Apparently that's going
Speaker 2: to be instituted this week. But the indications are from
Speaker 2: Jeff Stein and other reporters and from what Peter Davarro
Speaker 2: and other White House aids are saying that Trump wants
Speaker 2: to go really big, and he wants to go basically
Speaker 2: across the board.
Speaker 3: So this is going to be if.
Speaker 2: He moves forward and actually implements these tariffs and actually
Speaker 2: sticks with them, it is going to be a massive,
Speaker 2: massive disruption. There's just no doubt about that whatsoever. And
Speaker 2: Jeff made a good point about how you know, this
Speaker 2: sort of conversation about tariffs and what purpose they even
Speaker 2: actually serve for Trump in this administration. It's kind of
Speaker 2: coming to a head this week because one theory from
Speaker 2: the business community and from Republicans who are more uncomfortable
Speaker 2: with arriffs is, oh, he's just using these as a
Speaker 2: negotiating tactic. Okay, So oh, he threatened Mexico with tariffs
Speaker 2: and then he got some concession from them. And he's
Speaker 2: just using them as a negotiating tactic. Okay, that's one theory.
Speaker 2: Another theory is, no, he's using these to totally upend
Speaker 2: the current economic system. They're going to be put in place,
Speaker 2: they're going to be permanent, and it is going to
Speaker 2: cause a massive reorientation. And you know, also, look when
Speaker 2: you're t talking about putting tariffs on goods that are
Speaker 2: food and all sorts of things that working class people
Speaker 2: need to make ends meet, it's effectively attacked on working
Speaker 2: class people. So the other theory of the case is
Speaker 2: this is short term pain for long term gain in
Speaker 2: terms of theoretical increased industrialization within the US. Sure, there
Speaker 2: are some other theories down there as to what's going on,
Speaker 2: but those are sort of the two competing possibilities of
Speaker 2: what Trump is doing here. And this week we will
Speaker 2: get a sense of which one is actually correct. And
Speaker 2: this morning, you know, if you look at about eight
Speaker 2: am right now, the futures are down in the stock market.
Speaker 2: The stock mark was down last week. I'm sure there's
Speaker 2: going to be a lot of fallout from whatever happens
Speaker 2: to be annouced on line.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no question about it. On the strategy front.
Speaker 1: I still don't think we can really read anything into it,
Speaker 1: because originally we were doing Canada tariffs with Mexico, then
Speaker 1: we weren't, and then we were, and then we weren't again.
Speaker 1: And then even on the reciprocal tariffs, the way that
Speaker 1: he sold it at the State of the Union is
Speaker 1: we're going to do a reciprocal tariff with every other country. Again.
Speaker 1: I actually think reciprocal tariffs is not a terrible idea.
Speaker 1: Reciprocal tariff is the idea that if if you have
Speaker 1: a country has a tariff on our goods, then we
Speaker 1: are just going to simply have the same one. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it doesn't seem so unreasonable. But
Speaker 1: then he was like, well, actually, what we're gonna do
Speaker 1: is narrow the tariffs to ten or fifteen countries. They're like, okay,
Speaker 1: so now we're moving away from that. And now the
Speaker 1: latest is actually we're going back to a twenty percent
Speaker 1: ring around the United States triff. And you're like, huh,
Speaker 1: all right. So my point is not only can I
Speaker 1: not keep track, I don't even think anybody in the
Speaker 1: White House knows, which is obvious right here is Pete
Speaker 1: Ert Navarro he is the advisor to President Trump on trade.
Speaker 1: He's been kind of a longtime trade guru. Fought a
Speaker 1: lot with the more anti tariff people in the first term.
Speaker 1: Here he was on television immediately after that Couldn't care
Speaker 1: Less interview came out. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 4: You heard Lucas's reporting there where the President says he
Speaker 4: doesn't care if the prices go up on US cars.
Speaker 1: So what's the message to the US.
Speaker 5: Consumer Messages that tariffs are axe cuts, Tariffs are jobs,
Speaker 5: tariffs are national security, tariffs are great for America, Tariffs
Speaker 5: who will make America great again?
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean, you know, it's not a lot going
Speaker 1: on there. Let's go ahead and see how this is
Speaker 1: working out at a polling level, and it doesn't. This
Speaker 1: does not shock me at all. I don't.
Speaker 2: I just have to say, coming on the heels of
Speaker 2: Trump being like I don't care if ices go up,
Speaker 2: for him to be like, oh, it's a tax cut,
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 3: It's just preposterous. Yeah, well, hotally preposterous.
Speaker 1: This is this is why messaging and all this stuff matters,
Speaker 1: because what people can really pick up. Most Americans do
Speaker 1: support tariffs in principle, as long as they are correct, targeted,
Speaker 1: made in a certain way. I support tariffs and principle,
Speaker 1: the UAW, let's be clear here is openly supportive of
Speaker 1: all of these auto tariffs. So just to be one
Speaker 1: hundred percent clear about what it means. The problem is
Speaker 1: always the back and the fourth, the chaos, the lack
Speaker 1: of the process. And it's not just me who is
Speaker 1: saying this, It's not really just nerds political nerds who
Speaker 1: read the news. What do people what are people the
Speaker 1: most sensitive about? Price? Now, let's put this up there
Speaker 1: on the screen. Here is from the CBS News you
Speaker 1: gov latest expectations versus now Trump's policies are making you
Speaker 1: financially okay, So in January they expected forty two percent
Speaker 1: set better off views now twenty three percent better off.
Speaker 1: In January worse off was only twenty eight percent. Views
Speaker 1: now is forty five or forty two, and then the
Speaker 1: same is thirty to thirty five. So there's been a
Speaker 1: massive drop off, basically a flip from the better off
Speaker 1: to the worse off, with the plurality there now saying
Speaker 1: that they believe that the policies are going to make
Speaker 1: them worse off. Let's go to the next part. And
Speaker 1: this is actually the single most dangerous thing right here.
Speaker 1: Who is more responsible for today's inflation? Thirty eight percent
Speaker 1: say Biden's policies, thirty four say Trump's policies both equally
Speaker 1: is nineteen and nine percent. You are some fifty so
Speaker 1: days are into your administration. You've been approximately in power
Speaker 1: for ten weeks. People are going to cut you a brake.
Speaker 1: People cut Biden a break for nine months. Please do
Speaker 1: not forget that. But the more that you have this
Speaker 1: and you can speed it up yourself. If you, let's say,
Speaker 1: have yo yo tariffs that are in place and not
Speaker 1: in place and constantly back and forth and oh, I
Speaker 1: don't know. The S and P is currently on track
Speaker 1: for its single worst quarter in the last three years
Speaker 1: since COVID adds some more on top of that, and
Speaker 1: you see an overall drop and your four to oh
Speaker 1: one K. Let's say that you begin to see stagflation.
Speaker 1: You have high inflation, unemployment begin to tick up. You
Speaker 1: have consumer demand that begins to drop. You have a
Speaker 1: home price which is in budging. You have the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: let's say, which has already said they're like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to keep things kind of where they are
Speaker 1: right now. You're in a bad situation. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: high interest rates, you're gonna have very sticky inflation with tariffs,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna have chaos and the government people are
Speaker 1: not going to feel a lot of confidence. They will
Speaker 1: ditch you very very quickly. And I think that they
Speaker 1: are on track for that, right well.
Speaker 2: I mean think about it, like, he makes it impossible
Speaker 2: for people who even want to defend me.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm like, listen, I'm ready, I'm ready for a
Speaker 1: real terrifyah, ready to golop thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know made sense to you you would be
Speaker 2: here defending it. But how can you because you don't
Speaker 2: even know what you would be defending, right, you can't.
Speaker 2: And you know that goes for all of his White
Speaker 2: House officials too, who have to make up preposterous things like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is a tax cut, when it's the polar opposite
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is you know.
Speaker 2: Peter Navarro in that same interview, he claimed that Trump's
Speaker 2: terarifts are going to raise six hundred billion dollars per year,
Speaker 2: six trillion dollars over a ten year period. This is
Speaker 2: what Jeff Stein is saying seems to reflect our reporting
Speaker 2: that Trump wants to go absolutely enormous on the terifts,
Speaker 2: regardless of short term economic consequences. Hard to overstate how
Speaker 2: big six hundred billion dollars per year is. Would this
Speaker 2: be the biggest tax hike in US history? Jeff Steine
Speaker 2: is asking at the same time to your point about
Speaker 2: stagflation saga. Here is a headline from CNBC this morning.
Speaker 2: First quarter GDP growth will be just zero point three
Speaker 2: percent as Tariff's stoke stagflation conditions. So stagflation is low
Speaker 2: or low economic growth and high inflation, and that very
Speaker 2: much seems to be the trend that we are headed in.
Speaker 2: You know, economists are increasingly saying that there are more
Speaker 2: and more warning signs of recession, not because any of
Speaker 2: it is inevitable, but as a direct consequence of the
Speaker 2: policies that are put being put in place from Trump.
Speaker 2: You know, when we looked at that jail partner's word
Speaker 2: cloud when they ask people and jail partners like right
Speaker 2: leaning firm, when they ask people, hey, what's.
Speaker 3: The biggest grew up from Trump?
Speaker 1: So far?
Speaker 2: Overwhelmingly the word that jumped down at you was terrifs.
Speaker 2: Because you're right if they are sold correctly and if
Speaker 2: they are applied like for example, people are pretty supportive
Speaker 2: of arras on China. Okay, China. You know, we lost
Speaker 2: a lot of our industrial base. There put some tarifts
Speaker 2: on China. If people see it as like a global competitor,
Speaker 2: try to reindustrialize, get some of those manufacturing jobs back.
Speaker 2: People can be brought on board with that, even though
Speaker 2: it's still not an overwhelming support, but it's you know,
Speaker 2: you can be sold on something like that. This How
Speaker 2: can you even sell people on some that is so
Speaker 2: chaotic and so nonsensical, and especially at a time when
Speaker 2: the landscape, the economic landscape is very different from twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: The number one concern now is inflation. That is very
Speaker 2: different from how things were at the beginning of the
Speaker 2: Biden administration or certainly at the beginning of the first
Speaker 2: Trump administration.
Speaker 3: And so it is remarkable, you know.
Speaker 2: Politically, to see the way that Trump is taking on
Speaker 2: so much water with regard to his economic handling, which
Speaker 2: again is very different from how people have felt about
Speaker 2: him this entire time.
Speaker 3: So it's going to be this is.
Speaker 2: Going to be a very interesting week on the economic front,
Speaker 2: as maybe we finally get some sense.
Speaker 3: Of is this just a threat?
Speaker 2: Is a negotiating tactic as many people on Wall Street
Speaker 2: are hoping in spite of what Trump has very consistently said,
Speaker 2: and his you know, consistent talk about how much he
Speaker 2: loves tarifs and how big he wants to go, and
Speaker 2: all of the leaks from internally about how he's pushing
Speaker 2: aims to go.
Speaker 3: Bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 2: Is this negotiating tactic or is he serious about implementing
Speaker 2: this massive tariff regime which will have immediate, very significant consequences.
Speaker 1: That's right, Well, let's let's put the counter up there,
Speaker 1: because this is the one where you know you always
Speaker 1: got to stick. Let's put it up there on the
Speaker 1: screen from CBS. Overall job approval fifty percent, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's high for Trump. For Trump, that's the highest it's
Speaker 1: ever been. Fifty percent approval, fifty percent disapprove. He was
Speaker 1: underwater for basically his entire first term. So you know,
Speaker 1: you really got to keep that in mind. And you know,
Speaker 1: Andy Kaczinski keeps flags this while he continues to not
Speaker 1: only have higher approval at any point, and even if
Speaker 1: Americans are souring their Americans continue to approve of his
Speaker 1: immigration policy. Immigration is probably the only thing that's really
Speaker 1: saving him right now. And if you think about it too,
Speaker 1: what you are watching is you are watching them try
Speaker 1: and do these wild experiments economically as things become more real.
Speaker 1: Let's say that they do continue this strategy, and let's
Speaker 1: say the S and P is down. Let's say I
Speaker 1: don't know twenty percent on the year, and then you
Speaker 1: start to do a tax cut, which we'll talk about
Speaker 1: it probably tomorrow at some point, but there is beginning
Speaker 1: to be an internal realization in the White House. They're like, hey,
Speaker 1: we got to do something over here, because if we
Speaker 1: not only hurt the economy but then extend massive tax
Speaker 1: cuts for corporations and for the rich at all while
Speaker 1: we don't let's say, or all while perhaps like making
Speaker 1: more stringent work requirements or something for medicare good luck.
Speaker 1: Now that's in a nine month situation, you could easily
Speaker 1: be in your thirtieth percentile of approval because you would
Speaker 1: not only have a tax bill, you would have a
Speaker 1: lower econ, so you would have people who would have
Speaker 1: higher prices and a tax extension of lower tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Now they're possibly floating something about higher taxes on the
Speaker 1: highest income Americans. We'll see. I'm not going to hold
Speaker 1: my breath, but it is interesting at least that they're
Speaker 1: considering something like that. The point is is that the
Speaker 1: landscape for them in the future it's not good, especially
Speaker 1: if there is a low, if there is a major
Speaker 1: drop in the overall stock market. Because we already know
Speaker 1: that they have a nine month to one year deadline.
Speaker 1: The tax bill has to be extended by the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five calendar year. There's no option that tax bill
Speaker 1: is going to be unpopular, no ifens or butts around it.
Speaker 1: And so with this, what I would want, if I'm
Speaker 1: going to extend a massive tax cut, would be what
Speaker 1: I'd be like. I need boom in stock markets. I
Speaker 1: need twenty five percent. I need low employment, I need
Speaker 1: low inflation. Don't worry, people are not going to care
Speaker 1: as much, right if things are all good, but when
Speaker 1: things are bad. And now people are starting to tune
Speaker 1: in more to the economic news, which they do. They
Speaker 1: certainly are maybe not in the ways that everybody may want,
Speaker 1: but people are paying attention, I think, especially to this,
Speaker 1: and that is where I could see. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: it's not only blowout midterm territory. That's where you start
Speaker 1: to deal with like real threats to our overall agenda
Speaker 1: and presidency just for the next three years after that.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're going to get a lot of political
Speaker 2: intel this week because you have not only this Wisconsin
Speaker 2: Supreme Court race that we're going to talk to Ben
Speaker 2: Wickler about, which right now polymarket has what the liberal
Speaker 2: had like an eighty six percent chance of when it's
Speaker 2: not that big of market.
Speaker 1: Let's let's be clear, it's only like four hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars or something. I mean that the presidential
Speaker 1: markets was like hundreds of millions, so it was much
Speaker 1: more efficient. Yeah, so it could be wrong.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, right, yeah, yeah, sure, fair absolutely fair enough,
Speaker 2: but not looking great for Republicans in the state of Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: Swie Elan went there yesterday to try to do this
Speaker 2: rescue effort and giving out his million dollar checks whatever.
Speaker 2: You also have this these two special elections in Florida,
Speaker 2: one of which is apparently uncomfortably close in the seat
Speaker 2: that Mike Walls, who's now you know, obviously no.
Speaker 3: Security advisor he is. He vacated that seat.
Speaker 2: He had won that seat by thirty eight points, Yes,
Speaker 2: thirty eight points, and they are worried about that seat.
Speaker 2: Like that alone tells you everything. Now, expectations. Listen, this
Speaker 2: is a very red part of Florida that the Republican
Speaker 2: is going to be able to pull it out. He's
Speaker 2: also himself this very like bombastic and controversial character and
Speaker 2: so doing himself no favors apparently in this campaign. The
Speaker 2: you know, people are not happy, they're on the Republican
Speaker 2: side with the way that he has conducted himself. But
Speaker 2: the fact that that seat is in question at all
Speaker 2: is crazy, at least defonic having to be pulled. How
Speaker 2: much did she win her that's like a plus twenty
Speaker 2: Republican district again, should be a layup, should be no
Speaker 2: problem for Republicans, And they had to pull her un
Speaker 2: ambassador nomination because they were worried that they could lose
Speaker 2: that seat. So we already know now listen, caveat. These
Speaker 2: are low turn on elections. Democrats are very fired up.
Speaker 2: The Democratic base now is filled with high propensity voters,
Speaker 2: a shift that's part of the realignment. As you know,
Speaker 2: the voting coalitions have moved around, and Democrats have more
Speaker 2: college educated voters tend to be higher propensity voters. But
Speaker 2: when you're talking about a midterm election, you're still talking
Speaker 2: about it being important that you have those high propensity
Speaker 2: voters and who is really super motivated and also who
Speaker 2: is depressed. So if you have a creatoring economy, you know,
Speaker 2: a stock market that has fallen, economy that is either
Speaker 2: in recession or teetering on the brink of recession, prices
Speaker 2: that have skyrocketed, stagflation, and all of it is late
Speaker 2: at the feet of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Even people who are like more or less.
Speaker 2: His supporters, they're not going to be super psyched about
Speaker 2: coming out to vote for more of this agenda. At
Speaker 2: the same time, just in terms of you know, additional
Speaker 2: economic news, you continue to see consumer sentiment falling off
Speaker 2: a cliff. You also continue to see things like delinquencies
Speaker 2: on mortgage payments, delinquencies on car payments going up and up.
Speaker 2: So the indications are pretty dire. It's not like the
Speaker 2: economy is on really firm footing here for people to
Speaker 2: be able to absorb the type of shock that Trump
Speaker 2: is planning to put into plays. That is a landscape
Speaker 2: here and it is going to be a wild ride.
Speaker 1: I guess the only thing that you can say is
Speaker 1: because he's not actually he's never been committed, like officially
Speaker 1: to any of this stuff. He's always been willing to
Speaker 1: pull back. Is you should all hope for that. Let's
Speaker 1: say there's a twenty to thirty percent correction and you
Speaker 1: get into a full blown panic on Wall Street, which, look,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't downplay any of this stuff, because this is
Speaker 1: real shit. That is a result. Oh yeah, not only
Speaker 1: is four oh one k. I mean that's just a
Speaker 1: personal level for everybody who is out there. That means,
Speaker 1: think about it. Whenever your market cap and your stock
Speaker 1: and all that stuff goes down, what do people usually do?
Speaker 1: They pull back, not only pull backsmen, and they fire
Speaker 1: a bunch of people. So there's real there's real jobs,
Speaker 1: millions of jobs that are on the line here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So you know, I can't sit here and just be like, oh,
Speaker 1: let's all just hope for a correction and all that plasts.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. You know, depression goes up the suicide rate.
Speaker 1: If you really want to see something depressing, go check
Speaker 1: it foraight oh nine. It's a disaster every single time.
Speaker 1: Every major US depression from the Great Depression forward. In fact,
Speaker 1: the highest one of some of the highest suicide rates
Speaker 1: the United States ever had was during the Great Depression.
Speaker 1: So you can go and see it for yourself. There's
Speaker 1: really human consequences to a lot of this, and you know,
Speaker 1: you can't screw with people's lives generally, And you know,
Speaker 1: even on the tariff point. This is the last thing
Speaker 1: I'll make is you know, as you said, even with
Speaker 1: the China stuff, it's not all that popular. I mean
Speaker 1: it's around like the fiftieth or sixtieth percent. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to sit here and pretend it's like ninety percent.
Speaker 1: I think the immigration stuff is way more popular than
Speaker 1: anything on tariffs. The problem that I always come back
Speaker 1: to is we have sitting on fifty some years of
Speaker 1: a policy and of an agenda that has been sold
Speaker 1: to people. Now, think about the amount of deprogramming that
Speaker 1: it takes to say no, TVs being cheap is not
Speaker 1: the most important thing. Buying a new car every five
Speaker 1: years is not only financially responsible, but is also something
Speaker 1: that you know, the new bills and whistles and all
Speaker 1: that from China, that's not the be all end all
Speaker 1: of what your entire life is just supposed to be
Speaker 1: about same with the new consumer goods. The American dream
Speaker 1: is not built on cheap you know, MacBooks like this
Speaker 1: from China that you buy every two years, or an
Speaker 1: iPhone which is basically the same over the last ten
Speaker 1: years that you just renew all the time. It's about
Speaker 1: being able to have children, if you want to, staying
Speaker 1: in place, if you want to moving, if you want to,
Speaker 1: being able to buy a house and to pursue whatever
Speaker 1: it is that you want to do, and not all
Speaker 1: of the accoutrement that's in your house. But that's been
Speaker 1: the standard of living now for fifty years. That's two
Speaker 1: generations that effectively that have been brought up on this.
Speaker 1: So you would need not a massive cultural project like
Speaker 1: something from the White House, which is disciplined, which is different.
Speaker 1: You would need like an entire apparatus that is united
Speaker 1: in this discussion. And you can't just sell it within
Speaker 1: all the bounds of chaos, because if you do, what
Speaker 1: you risk is actually getting in totally affirmed of people
Speaker 1: saying like no, no, no, no, this is not only what
Speaker 1: I know, but this is what I want, and then
Speaker 1: we're never going to get back. This will be look
Speaker 1: as an aberration. Yeah, not as something else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that's that's right.
Speaker 2: I mean you also you have to sell people on
Speaker 2: a new and different bargain that is better than the
Speaker 2: one they have. And instead, what is being promised is
Speaker 2: just like we're going to hike the prices of the
Speaker 2: things that have remained to be you know, relatively inexpensive,
Speaker 2: and we're not going to help you on healthcare, We're
Speaker 2: not going to help you afford a house. In fact,
Speaker 2: the terrors are going to make housing even more expensive
Speaker 2: because many of the construction materials are you coming in
Speaker 2: from abroad and are going to be more expensive. So
Speaker 2: you're not offering people like, Okay, we're ending this bargain
Speaker 2: of cheap consumer goods. We're China basically like exported deflation
Speaker 2: on these cheap consumer goods.
Speaker 4: We're ending that bargain. But here's the new bargain. Here's
Speaker 4: what you get.
Speaker 2: You're going to be able to afford home, You're going
Speaker 2: to be able to send your kids to college is
Speaker 2: going to be more affordable, you're gonna be able to
Speaker 2: get help. None of that is being offered. So it's
Speaker 2: just we're going to hype prices and you're going to
Speaker 2: suffer for what nobody could really say. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: just no narrative that is being offered here that makes
Speaker 2: sense to people whatsoever. And so, yes, I actually am
Speaker 2: for a new economic you know, grand bargain.
Speaker 1: So to speak.
Speaker 3: Here I am in favor of that. That's not what's
Speaker 3: on the table.
Speaker 2: What's just being offered to most people at a time
Speaker 2: when they already are really stretched thin because of the
Speaker 2: inflationary effects, because also because of decades of wage stagnation,
Speaker 2: because of decades of union busting, destroying worker power, because
Speaker 2: of decades of yes, well, those consumer goods were cheap,
Speaker 2: all of the building blocks of a middle class life. Housing, education,
Speaker 2: healthcare have skyrocketed in price so that it is so
Speaker 2: difficult to afford on one or two incomes. It's almost
Speaker 2: impossible for many people to be able to afford those
Speaker 2: things on two income households working full time. So you know,
Speaker 2: that's the landscape into which they're saying. And by the way,
Speaker 2: suck it up and pay more for your car, Suck
Speaker 2: it up and pay more for these consumer goods clothing, food.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's not a good deal that's being offered.
Speaker 2: That's on the table right now.
Speaker 1: No, it's not, and you actually need to offer something
Speaker 1: very very different, as I said, Otherwise you basically think
Speaker 1: about it. With Trump's chaotic strategy, which is constantly pulling
Speaker 1: back and going saying something and then pulling back, then
Speaker 1: you will not only inflict damage in the interim, you
Speaker 1: won't get the end result that you were trying to do,
Speaker 1: and you will turn the public that is against you.
Speaker 1: And I think that's really what they're flirting with right
Speaker 1: now and America really, I mean, let's think about it.
Speaker 1: When's the last time they had a full blown COVID
Speaker 1: is a little bit different because COVID was like, you know,
Speaker 1: it was a pandemic, et cetera, and the economy, the
Speaker 1: stock market drop and all that was like relatively short lived.
Speaker 1: We have not had prolonged stagnation for a long time.
Speaker 1: Even twenty twenty two I think was the last year
Speaker 1: that there was a drop in the overall S and P.
Speaker 1: But then you had two rip roaring years after that.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have not had, you know, a couple
Speaker 1: of years of like actual decline in a long time
Speaker 1: in this country. And if you remember what things were
Speaker 1: like in eight nine, it's not a surprise that that
Speaker 1: is where so many, not only the populist movements come from,
Speaker 1: but that is where the millennial generation and all of
Speaker 1: that really became disconnected from the overall American dream. And
Speaker 1: then the split that has happened since then has been devastating. Anyway, Look,
Speaker 1: they're long standing social consequences. You don't need to be
Speaker 1: a historian or any of that to see multiple times
Speaker 1: in the past when things like this have happened. And
Speaker 1: so they want to save not only their political future,
Speaker 1: but really I think that the contract that they're trying
Speaker 1: to sell to the country, they're going to have to
Speaker 1: do something different. But there is no indication of that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Turning now to Signal Gait. Okay, so the idiocy continues
Speaker 1: in the White House. Remember if we'll recall the signal
Speaker 1: chats leak. Mike Waltz says that Jeffrey Goldberg, the neo
Speaker 1: kon journalist over at the Atlantic, that his number got
Speaker 1: sucked into his phone. Obviously it was preposterous. He says
Speaker 1: he never met him there, and the photo came out
Speaker 1: showing the two of them together at an event over
Speaker 1: at the French Embassy. He says I didn't ever have
Speaker 1: talked to him before. Well, Goldberg is basically saying that's
Speaker 1: bullshit to basically every single claim that Mike Walts has made.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen. This isn't the matrix.
Speaker 6: Phone numbers don't just get sucked into other phones. I
Speaker 6: don't know what he's talking about there. You know, very
Speaker 6: frequently in journalism, the most obvious explanation is the explanation
Speaker 6: my phone number was in his phone. Because my phone
Speaker 6: number is in his phone. He's telling everyone that he's
Speaker 6: never met me or spoken to me. That's simply not true.
Speaker 6: I understand why he's doing it, but you know, this
Speaker 6: has become a somewhat farcical situation.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's parse some language, shall we. My phone number
Speaker 1: is in his phone because my phone number is in
Speaker 1: his phone. My theory behind all of this, and I'm
Speaker 1: curious what you think. Yeah, Ryan basically said this as well,
Speaker 1: is it's obvious Waltz has been leaking to Goldberg now
Speaker 1: for quite some time. Yeah, screw up here was so
Speaker 1: big that Goldberg had to burn him. But he had
Speaker 1: to burn him in such a way that he can't
Speaker 1: fully cast the blame. So he can't come out and
Speaker 1: just be like, look, this is ridiculous. He's been leaking
Speaker 1: to me for X, Y and Z number of months,
Speaker 1: so he's to say careful things. My phone number is
Speaker 1: in his phone because my phone number is and his
Speaker 1: phone not, because it's like he's had my phone number
Speaker 1: for a number of years, and obviously we've been in communication.
Speaker 1: I mean, the meeting thing, this is the other thing
Speaker 1: about Goldberg. He puts it in the story, but he's
Speaker 1: very sly. He's like, yes, we have met, you know, once,
Speaker 1: but he didn't talk about some of the actual circumstances.
Speaker 1: And then the photo comes out from twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: literally of the two of them standing right next to
Speaker 1: each other, right, and then you add Mike Waltz's sketchy
Speaker 1: behavior on top of all of this. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: so preposterous for everything that is happening right now inside
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, I think it's starting to fade away, Like
Speaker 1: I think that Maga and Trump are basically getting away
Speaker 1: with it. They're like, We're gonna weather the storm, no
Speaker 1: scalps for the enemy. And I'm like, do you guys
Speaker 1: not understand like how this is going to land to people?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, it's weird to say the signal
Speaker 1: story is the biggest story of the Trump administration. All
Speaker 1: the data shows us that. I mean, and I think
Speaker 1: because it's funny, like there's an element of hilarity to
Speaker 1: it about texting the wrong person or whatever, and everyone
Speaker 1: can like somewhat relate to it, and everybody likes to
Speaker 1: see people in power just be like them. But that's
Speaker 1: not the point. The point is not about all of that.
Speaker 1: It's really about the lies, about the sheer idiocy behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, and how they insult our intelligence, like to
Speaker 1: take to the national airwaves and say that somebody's phone
Speaker 1: number got sucked into my phone. I'm just sitting here
Speaker 1: being like, I am I taking I feel like I'm
Speaker 1: a Zoolander, Like I'm like, am I taking crazy pills?
Speaker 1: And the craziest part about it is, you know, I
Speaker 1: think you originally made this comparison with making fun of
Speaker 1: joy Read and be like, oh, it's just like those
Speaker 1: Russian hackers who hacked her old blog posts. I'm like,
Speaker 1: they genuinely think, not only are you so stupid that
Speaker 1: you're just going to sit there and take it, but
Speaker 1: this is an indictment of the entire like MAGA ecosystem,
Speaker 1: which is either silent on it and or just backing
Speaker 1: Trump upping. Actually it's Goldberg's fault. I saw somebody saying, like,
Speaker 1: he's a he should have left the chat immediately, Like what, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, guys, the point is he's a CIA
Speaker 1: cut out because he left the chat. You don't leave
Speaker 1: the chat. You stay forever and then you leak some
Speaker 1: stuff to your colleagues or whatever. I just, I really,
Speaker 1: I'm so stunned by how they're trying to give them
Speaker 1: a pass and they're like no scalps or whatever, and
Speaker 1: it's like, well, hold on a second, Like I thought
Speaker 1: that they were supposed to have merit or whatever. But
Speaker 1: you know, similarly, I personally know several federal employees who
Speaker 1: have been screwed by either work you know, coming back
Speaker 1: chaotic procedure, no office space, which even though they were
Speaker 1: called back sheer stupidity. I know several people who have
Speaker 1: either taken the buyout off or et cetera. So you're
Speaker 1: firing tens of thousands of people, including park rangers and
Speaker 1: the nuclear scientists, who are then rehiring on the theory
Speaker 1: that all these people are dead weight, and then that
Speaker 1: you have this guy, the most basic screw up of
Speaker 1: all time, for the top national security advisor, and he
Speaker 1: gets a pass. You don't think that people aren't going
Speaker 1: to see this, yea, you know, at a very that's
Speaker 1: my thing about fairness as well. If you're going to
Speaker 1: fire all of these people, then you should actually be
Speaker 1: even more ruthless with the people in yourself. But no,
Speaker 1: they're setting a different standard, and it's like, Okay, I
Speaker 1: think America should really pay attention that the sheer idiocy,
Speaker 1: the stupidity, the lying, the expecting you to you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a maga out there and they're genuinely they
Speaker 1: think you're a fucking idiot like that. I want you
Speaker 1: to be clear, like that's what they think of you.
Speaker 1: They think you're so dumb, and you know, to be honest,
Speaker 1: many of them are right that you'll just just serve
Speaker 1: as some sentinel and be like, actually, it's the left
Speaker 1: that's the problem here, that's demanding a scale. We don't
Speaker 1: play by their rules. I'm just like, okay, then, you know,
Speaker 1: just have them at the top of your national security advisor.
Speaker 1: I'm sure the entire country will be better off for it.
Speaker 1: I can't believe it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I really can't. Tribalism right ros brain, it really does.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean I think the reason that so,
Speaker 2: first of all, that interview Mike Waltz gave to Laura Ingram,
Speaker 2: it felt like, I guess he didn't think he would
Speaker 2: be pressed at all by her, and so even the
Speaker 2: basic question of like yeah, but how like why was
Speaker 2: this number on your phone? He had to come up
Speaker 2: on the fly with this like oh, Willy and maybe
Speaker 2: God like sucked into my phone. And then I loved
Speaker 2: when he was like, we're going to get the best minds, like.
Speaker 3: We already know what happened.
Speaker 1: Elon's technical experts right are looking like we.
Speaker 2: We all know what happened here. It's you and Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Goldberg have the same ideology, like your allies. You may
Speaker 2: be on different political teams technically, but in all of
Speaker 2: this you are allies. So it's very obvious what happened here,
Speaker 2: you know. I think with regard to he feels like
Speaker 2: he has to lie about it because he feels like
Speaker 2: the biggest sin for Trump, in particular Goldberg's would be
Speaker 2: being friendly with Goldberg, somebody that he hates.
Speaker 1: It does say something though, doesn't it about the whole
Speaker 1: relationship with him in Goldberg where that is, like you
Speaker 1: just said, you do have the same uniparty ideology, and
Speaker 1: all the reporting from behind the scenes is that Waltz
Speaker 1: quote annoys his colleagues because he's constantly talking about bombing
Speaker 1: Iran and or you know, it's like or he's like, oh,
Speaker 1: actually you even saw in the chats right, like he's
Speaker 1: like a brain dead idiot being like the muh actually
Speaker 1: muff freedom of navigation please, you know, sitting in there,
Speaker 1: anybody from the Atlantic Council could have written something like that.
Speaker 1: It's just the way that this has all gone down
Speaker 1: just demonstrates also the stupidity. Why did Trump? You know,
Speaker 1: Michael Tracy me a good point because I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a person who's out of step with the
Speaker 1: Trump admin. And he was like, you know, that's not
Speaker 1: even true because Trump picked him. I go, you know what,
Speaker 1: You're completely right, Yeah, Trump picked him for this job.
Speaker 1: So what are we all supposed to sit here and think?
Speaker 2: And the person who supposedly was you know, is closest
Speaker 2: to Trump, Stephen Miller, who sort of like was speaking
Speaker 2: for Trump, in coming in and say, okay, well this
Speaker 2: is you know, sorry JD about your concerns, but this
Speaker 2: is what the boss actually wants.
Speaker 3: Is Stephen Miller and.
Speaker 2: Steven Miller is there backing up the Yeah, no, we're
Speaker 2: going to bomb them.
Speaker 3: We're going to bomb this apartment building.
Speaker 2: Yay to you know, the death and destruction and great
Speaker 2: job everybody, even though you know, not a word is
Speaker 2: said about the fact that this policy, which by the way,
Speaker 2: they've continued to bomb and has continued to not work.
Speaker 2: This policy was trying the Biden administration. It was a failure.
Speaker 3: There is no.
Speaker 2: Even expectation that it's going to be successful this time around.
Speaker 2: It's just like bombing for the sake of bombing, and
Speaker 2: because Israel wants us to.
Speaker 3: So the whole thing is.
Speaker 4: Getting a look at those chats, it shows you how
Speaker 4: incredibly like idiotic and facile and borderline insane the foreign policy,
Speaker 4: the standard foreign policy thinking is in this administration and
Speaker 4: carryover this particular policy carryover from the last administration as well.
Speaker 2: And it also really gives you a window. This is
Speaker 2: something I was talking to Ryan and Emily about on Friday.
Speaker 2: It gives you a window into like Okay.
Speaker 3: JD does his.
Speaker 2: Little like, well, you know, this is really like kind
Speaker 2: of Europe's problem. He's shot down by everyone who cares
Speaker 2: away in in that thrust. There should have been like,
Speaker 2: it's not just Mike Waltz. There should have been theoretically,
Speaker 2: Pete heagsth has had this come to Jesus moment and
Speaker 2: now he's Magan, he's America first, and he's against the wars.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: He's not backing him up. There's no one in that chain.
Speaker 2: Chelsea Gabbard's on that chain act, she's not backing them up.
Speaker 2: Steve Wikoff is in there, he's, you know, running around
Speaker 2: Moscow at the time. He's not that Nobody in there
Speaker 2: has anything to say other than yes, go team, bomb
Speaker 2: the apartment building.
Speaker 3: Get the bad guys way to go.
Speaker 2: Not a mention of the fact that the policy will
Speaker 2: accomplish literally nothing other than complete and utter, you know,
Speaker 2: other than death and destruction and.
Speaker 3: Linger Israel is a very Israel's bidding.
Speaker 1: What was the easiest to do. The lowest common denominator
Speaker 1: opinion in Washington is bomb the hoo thies and or
Speaker 1: let's stick it to Iran. Even JD if we're all
Speaker 1: being honest, the Europe thing is probably just I have
Speaker 1: no inside knowledge. I'm just telling you from what I
Speaker 1: think is very obviously it's like one of these like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but my Europe. You know, Europe is bad and that's
Speaker 1: why we shouldn't do it, which is like obviously something
Speaker 1: that you use because you know it's a framework that
Speaker 1: everybody has to be built into. It's fine, you know,
Speaker 1: you don't hate the player, you hate the game, but
Speaker 1: you know, as you said, it's the one voice. And
Speaker 1: then Miller comes in shuts it down. Mike Waltz comes
Speaker 1: in again with some literal copy pasta from chat GPT
Speaker 1: about freedom of navigation, about why we got to do it.
Speaker 1: Pete hex Set's like, we're gonna go. We should go
Speaker 1: right now. And we've been bombing Yemen now for multiple days.
Speaker 1: That's you know, nobody just sits there and go, hey,
Speaker 1: did it work? You know what happened? How much we
Speaker 1: spend on this operation mulhunt, you know, tens of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars. We have now spent and discharged more missiles
Speaker 1: against the hoo Thies than in all the previous thirty
Speaker 1: years of combat from the United States in America. We
Speaker 1: don't sit there and just take any stock of any
Speaker 1: of that. It's like, it's so ridiculous. And it shows
Speaker 1: you too that the hardest thing to do is to
Speaker 1: even use some fake argument about like maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this'. That is the difficulty. That's the difficulty in
Speaker 1: Washington today, is to actually preach restraint, even couched in
Speaker 1: political rhetoric. Yes, that is actually the sickness at the heart.
Speaker 1: And it also shows you all. Going to war it's easy.
Speaker 1: You know. Every time I've read about the decision to
Speaker 1: go to war in Iraq, you would think that it
Speaker 1: would be difficult. No, no, no, no, it was the
Speaker 1: easy decision to make. Not only was the psyopped American
Speaker 1: people in on it, the media was bloodthirsty. Congress wanted
Speaker 1: to do something. It took lone voices of courage to
Speaker 1: say no, we should not do this. And even they
Speaker 1: failed or didn't prevail or were compromised, you know, in
Speaker 1: their own way. Yes, sure, it's great to be vindicated
Speaker 1: years later. It doesn't matter if you don't say anything
Speaker 1: at the time. It's just you're done. Yeah, and well
Speaker 1: we're going to end up in a disaster. I really
Speaker 1: fear that's where we're next Tomorrow, we're going to cover
Speaker 1: this Iran situation. Things are not good right now, you know,
Speaker 1: the rejection of negotiations and all that. I know what
Speaker 1: the solution is. We all do. We know where things
Speaker 1: are going to end up. It's the easiest path of
Speaker 1: least resistance for them, but definitely not for us.
Speaker 3: And all done so casually.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what like the emojis, that's why everybody
Speaker 2: is sort of sticking on that understandably, because yeah, it
Speaker 2: feels like, you know, a group chat you'd be in
Speaker 2: with your your buddies or your family or you know,
Speaker 2: I said on Friday, like your kid's soccer team coordinating
Speaker 2: snacks for the next game or whatever. Like it feels
Speaker 2: so casual, and yet fifty some people were killed in
Speaker 2: this strike, like you know, fift pound emoji fire, American flag.
Speaker 2: There's not a care or consideration over is, like who
Speaker 2: is this target?
Speaker 3: Is this? What's the club?
Speaker 2: We're talking about a civilian apartment building here that we're collapsing.
Speaker 2: We're all just like celebrating, like that's fine, And you know,
Speaker 2: I know that our foreign policy has killed many civilians, but.
Speaker 3: They always tell us, oh, we take all the care.
Speaker 2: And consideration, and you know, at least in the past,
Speaker 2: now it's not even it's not even contemplated. So to
Speaker 2: have these decisions that are both life and death for
Speaker 2: the people that are being bombed and also can have
Speaker 2: extraordinary consequences in terms of, you know, pulling our nation
Speaker 2: into potential war with Iran, to be taken so casually
Speaker 2: and with so a total lack of regard for what
Speaker 2: the policy is even going to accomplish. That to me
Speaker 2: is what is so unsettling here. And then you know,
Speaker 2: the use of signal itself, I feel like hasn't gotten
Speaker 2: commented enough that Pam Bondi went on and was like, yeah.
Speaker 3: We're going to keep using signal.
Speaker 2: Basically, it's ying used intentionally to avoid FOIA requests.
Speaker 3: I mean they are this is a way.
Speaker 2: To try to subvert the legally acquired records keeping that
Speaker 2: you know is congressionally mandated, and I think it is
Speaker 2: standard protocol, And no one on that chain is like, wait,
Speaker 2: why are we using signal for that?
Speaker 4: This?
Speaker 2: Shouldn't we be using more secure channels. Also, it was
Speaker 2: weird how many people were on the chain like why
Speaker 2: is the Treasury secretary on the chain, you know, like, okay,
Speaker 2: it has to do with freedom of navigation. So for
Speaker 2: him to understand the overall plant, fine, does he really
Speaker 2: need to know like what time and where and what
Speaker 2: type of military hardware is being Floyd, et cetera.
Speaker 3: The whole thing is just total.
Speaker 2: Amateur hour, you know, I said on Friday, it gives
Speaker 2: like children playing war games.
Speaker 3: And I think.
Speaker 2: That's also a sober why it has so broken through
Speaker 2: with the American public and so captured people's attention, because
Speaker 2: it does like there's a when you're on the outside,
Speaker 2: you have this idea that serious people are making serious
Speaker 2: decisions with a lot of thought and you know, a
Speaker 2: lot of intelligent argument about how exactly to do these things,
Speaker 2: and then we see the reality of it, You're like,
Speaker 2: holy shit, these people are nothing. They're nothing special and
Speaker 2: this is being done incredibly casual.
Speaker 1: If there is one thing that I could take away,
Speaker 1: it's that, guys, Washington, this is how it all works.
Speaker 1: I want you all to know that this America has
Speaker 1: been too siopped from all of these movies into thinking
Speaker 1: that we have like great men at the top. We
Speaker 1: once did, but that's been a long time coming, and
Speaker 1: everyone sits in the situation room and very seriously sits
Speaker 1: there and deliberates. It's like, no, this stupidity is actually
Speaker 1: how our entire government is run and has been for
Speaker 1: a long time. Put B two up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: It's possible that Mike Walts could not be long for
Speaker 1: this world. Nobody really knows it, says in private meeting,
Speaker 1: Vance and top advisors suggest Trump oust Waltz. So the
Speaker 1: tell that JD actually did tell him to fire walt
Speaker 1: is that quote. Vance's office did not respond to comment
Speaker 1: on this. So if he had said it, then he
Speaker 1: would have denied it right, or he hadn't said it,
Speaker 1: then he would have denied it. Here was buried down
Speaker 1: at the bottom. But that's a classic little Washington way
Speaker 1: and whether you can tell if something is actually true
Speaker 1: or not. Inside Apparently both JD, Susie Wiles, and who
Speaker 1: else in here said that they wanted to fire. So
Speaker 1: basically the top advisors for Donald oh Sergiogre, who is
Speaker 1: the top personnel official at the White House PPO director,
Speaker 1: all of them said, sir, you should fire him. He
Speaker 1: clearly is leaking, he's lying, and he has committed like
Speaker 1: a very basic act of appearing like an idiot. It's
Speaker 1: just incompetence. It's not something we want. And Trump is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but I don't want to give Jeffrey Goldberg a scalp.
Speaker 1: It's like that is the priority, you know, in his mind.
Speaker 1: And it's not the foreign policy view, it's not anything else.
Speaker 1: It's just the fact is is that he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to appear as if he's giving too much away, you know,
Speaker 1: to the liberal media and its calls for.
Speaker 4: He specifically hates Goldberg over the the.
Speaker 1: Suckers and loser story. That's right, right, yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I read an article this morning. Actually, let's go and
Speaker 1: put that one up there on the screen B five please,
Speaker 1: just so you guys can see from B here, Mike
Speaker 1: Wallace is losing support inside the White House. What they
Speaker 1: point out is that, you know, his position is tenuous.
Speaker 1: Trump has apparently been furious with him. But and this
Speaker 1: was my big takeaway, is that he's like on the
Speaker 1: phone with his advisors. Trump says that he does not
Speaker 1: want to recreate the stories of his first term and
Speaker 1: you know, willing miillery, firing people and having personnel issues
Speaker 1: and so in this way though, this is where the
Speaker 1: stupidity of it comes in. You are actively keeping someone
Speaker 1: in place who absolutely deserves to be fired just to avoid,
Speaker 1: you know, the story of somebody leaving, and they think
Speaker 1: that it would have been a cascading effect. I couldn't
Speaker 1: disagree more. The fact is is that Waltz is lies,
Speaker 1: and then the insistence that no classified information was shared
Speaker 1: is actually what made the story ten times worse if
Speaker 1: they had just come out the day afterwards. And like
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor Walts offered his resignation this morning to
Speaker 1: the President. The President has accepted it and he wishes
Speaker 1: him well. It was obviously mistake. The National Security Advisor
Speaker 1: takes full responsible. I genuinely think the story would have
Speaker 1: gone away, but all the stupidity of it. They can't.
Speaker 1: They really believe that by going on the offense constantly
Speaker 1: that they can just survive these things. But my point
Speaker 1: is about survive to what end? To keep a neo
Speaker 1: con leaker in his job just so that you don't
Speaker 1: own the Atlantic. It's like, but you know the other
Speaker 1: irony here, nobody's getting owned more than anybody who doesn't
Speaker 1: want to go to war with Iran, like Jeffrey Goldberg,
Speaker 1: is actually succeeding in keeping somebody like Mike Waltz in
Speaker 1: his job if you decide to own him by not
Speaker 1: firing him. Okay, good luck to you. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I don't think this is going to put Mike
Speaker 2: Waltz off of leaking future things to.
Speaker 3: Jeffrey all either.
Speaker 1: Ideological.
Speaker 3: Goldberg has gone out of his way to try to
Speaker 3: protect Waaltz.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the fact that he hasn't already pulled up like
Speaker 2: here's the picture, another picture and be with here's our chats,
Speaker 2: here's the other things that he sent me. Oh you
Speaker 2: want to say, buddy, that you don't know who I am.
Speaker 3: Here are the receipts, here is THEO.
Speaker 2: Like, the fact he hasn't done that is a incredible
Speaker 2: kindness to Mike Waltz, because that actually would pull the
Speaker 2: pin on him if it was shown and Trump believed
Speaker 2: that they were in regular or semi regular communication, Like
Speaker 2: I think that would pull the pin on Mike Waltz
Speaker 2: in terms of his you know, future within the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: But he's not doing that. He's just saying, like, it's
Speaker 2: not true. We do know each other. My phone number
Speaker 2: is in his phone, because my number is in his phone,
Speaker 2: even with regard to how he handled the release of
Speaker 2: this getting out of the chat to begin with, then
Speaker 2: he initially doesn't want to actually release the details which
Speaker 2: proved that this was clearly classified information.
Speaker 3: That's the other thing that is so dishonest.
Speaker 2: Pretending like these war plans or attack plans, as they
Speaker 2: want to say, like this isn't classified information. Is also
Speaker 2: so insulting to anyone who has a brain and knows
Speaker 2: even the first thing about how Washington works and how
Speaker 2: much of this information is classified. But you know, Goldberg
Speaker 2: did his best to try to protect these guys, and
Speaker 2: they just forced his hand at every single turn. So
Speaker 2: I was gonna mention, you know, there was your point, Zachera,
Speaker 2: about how they're handling this so differently than the treatment
Speaker 2: of you know, any other lower level federal government employee.
Speaker 2: There was a DHS staffer that accidentally included a reporter
Speaker 2: on some details of forthcoming ice rates, and it was
Speaker 2: a much lower level screw up in terms of like
Speaker 2: the consequences, and that DHS staffer was immediately put on
Speaker 2: leave and had their their classification threatened, Like they're yeah, good,
Speaker 2: that's you know it was, Look, you messed up, and
Speaker 2: now you're going to be out of the job and
Speaker 2: you are not going to have access to the sort
Speaker 2: of classified intelligence again. But for Mike Waltz, because he
Speaker 2: doesn't you know, because Trump don't like Jeffrey Goldberg, He's
Speaker 2: hanging in there now. I will say, I think, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe if down the line, if he screws up again
Speaker 2: and there's some other excuse to get rid of him.
Speaker 2: I do think that he's a little tenuous at this point.
Speaker 2: I think that's that's what you could say. But no,
Speaker 2: the handling of this has been incredible, and it is
Speaker 2: also crazy to me that it is kind of the
Speaker 2: biggest like Trump, given everything that has happened in the
Speaker 2: Foreign Alien Enemies Act and the you know, the economic
Speaker 2: crashes and all of these, the roundups on college campus.
Speaker 2: Is everything that's been done, and this is the thing
Speaker 2: that has really broken through because it's a clown show.
Speaker 1: It's just that that's it. That's right. That Look, all
Speaker 1: of those are substantive stories of which people what's the
Speaker 1: what's the normal response from somebody who doesn't know a
Speaker 1: ton about it, I don't know that much about it,
Speaker 1: you know, or something like that that seems complicated. People
Speaker 1: inherently have a reversion to to what to controversy or
Speaker 1: to something that seems like very complicated, but with this, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no complication. Finally, here, I just wanted to show
Speaker 1: you in terms of what this what it looks like
Speaker 1: for the people who are out there trying to defend this.
Speaker 1: This is the best that they've got. Some idiotic what
Speaker 1: aboutism that again just deeply insults your intelligence. Here's Greg Gottfeld.
Speaker 1: Let's take a.
Speaker 7: Listen, and we were all smeared for speaking the truth
Speaker 7: that was clearly on display for years. And now these
Speaker 7: same jackasses are telling us that the signal app story
Speaker 7: is a grave concern when they hid the fact that Biden.
Speaker 3: Was literally a concern for the grave.
Speaker 7: That a little turnabout in language, all right, I liked it.
Speaker 7: There has to be a penalty for this cover up.
Speaker 7: The scandal isn't that they elected a vegetable. It's that
Speaker 7: journalists knew it and refused to act like journalists even
Speaker 7: as the facts got worse. Not penalty should be a
Speaker 7: complete loss of credibility, not just now but forever. The
Speaker 7: rest of us, from Trump on down to his supporters
Speaker 7: have earned a free punch, meaning every time they shout scandal,
Speaker 7: we get to hit him with ridicule. I mean, you
Speaker 7: expect us to care about some group chat regarding a
Speaker 7: successful strike against terrorists after gaslighting us about a senile
Speaker 7: old man for four years.
Speaker 1: You, yeah, that's the guests that they've got. Oh, you
Speaker 1: gaslighted us, So now we're going to gaslight you.
Speaker 2: Right, we get a free punch. Yeah, we get to
Speaker 2: not care about the scandals.
Speaker 1: You just know there's a bunch of boomers out there
Speaker 1: eating that up.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it was getting cheers in the audience. I
Speaker 2: also love a successful by what measure? How was this
Speaker 2: a success?
Speaker 3: Although the bomb went boom?
Speaker 2: Okay, congratulations, guess what you accomplished? Literally nothing?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what counts for success in Washington.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Opparently, all right, let's.
Speaker 1: Get to Trump three point zero.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so apparently.
Speaker 2: In this interview with NBC News, Trump made it quite
Speaker 2: clear that he plans on seeking a third term in office.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up on the screen. Kristen Welker was
Speaker 2: doing the interview here. She said, are you joking about this?
Speaker 2: He says, I'm not joking. When asked to clarify, I'm not.
Speaker 2: It is far too early to think about it. When
Speaker 2: asked whether he has been presented with plans to allow
Speaker 2: him to seek a third term, Trump said, there are
Speaker 2: methods which you could do it. He also was asked
Speaker 2: whether that could involve running jd Vance and then him
Speaker 2: basically like sort of taking over for JD Vance and
Speaker 2: as they said, a possible scenario which Vice President jad
Speaker 2: Vance would run for office then pass the role to Trump.
Speaker 2: Trump responded that that's one method, but there are others too.
Speaker 2: Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded, no. So
Speaker 2: Steve Bannon has been out there saying similar things, you know,
Speaker 2: seeming to I mean, he has said quite clearly that
Speaker 2: they're going to figure out a way to get Trump
Speaker 2: to run for a third term. The constitutional language is
Speaker 2: as clear cut as it could possibly be. There is
Speaker 2: literally no ambiguity there. Did you pull it up, you
Speaker 2: want to read.
Speaker 1: It for it? Read it for everybody. I was looking
Speaker 1: at it this morning just to get the exact text.
Speaker 1: No person shall be elected to the office of president
Speaker 1: more than twice. No person who has held the office
Speaker 1: of president or acted as president for more than two
Speaker 1: years of a term to which some other person was
Speaker 1: elected president shall be effected elected to the office of
Speaker 1: President more than once. This article shall not apply to
Speaker 1: any person holding the office of President when this article
Speaker 1: was proposed by Congress. Shall not prevent any person who
Speaker 1: may be withholding holding the office of President, or acting
Speaker 1: as President during the term within which this article becomes operative,
Speaker 1: from holding the office of President or acting as President
Speaker 1: during the remainder of such terms. So the background is
Speaker 1: twenty second Amendment was passed Congress in nineteen forty seven,
Speaker 1: was ratified by the States in nineteen fifty one. Nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty two is a first presidential election under the new
Speaker 1: rule under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who subsequently was elected
Speaker 1: to two terms. And the background of it, as we
Speaker 1: have discussed here, the twenty second Amendment was, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: a severe overreaction to FDR seeking the unprecedented third and
Speaker 1: to fourth terms. The Congress at the time was very
Speaker 1: upset at how much power FDR had accrued under his
Speaker 1: what twelve or so years while he was in office.
Speaker 1: They wanted to make sure that it never happened again,
Speaker 1: and to try and to ratify the two term norm
Speaker 1: that was set by George Washington actually into law. But
Speaker 1: now it is the law of the land. It is
Speaker 1: the Constitution of the United States. I was thinking, you know,
Speaker 1: even in terms of how that whole like JD would
Speaker 1: run and you could hand it off to him, as
Speaker 1: the Constitution makes clear, no person who has been elected
Speaker 1: president twice twice can serve again as president, so he
Speaker 1: would actually not be in the technical line of succession.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, so you could not even you know, constitutionally
Speaker 2: put Trump as like the VP on the ticket and
Speaker 2: then have JD step down, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Well, even if Trump stepped down today and handed it
Speaker 1: over to JD, he still would never be elected or
Speaker 1: eligible because it says no person elect twice elected there
Speaker 1: the definition is ratified victory by the Electoral College, which
Speaker 1: has now happened twice.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and listen to some of the ways
Speaker 2: that Steve Bannon has been talking about this, because I mean,
Speaker 2: I have been taking seriously this possibility for a while,
Speaker 2: because Bannon has been pretty consistently talking about it, and
Speaker 2: you know, there was even at Sea Pack there was
Speaker 2: a whole booths set up there about we want Trump
Speaker 2: to be, you know, our red Caesar. We want him
Speaker 2: to be able to serve a third term, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And listen, this is a man who, when he did
Speaker 2: lose the election in twenty twenty, refused to accept defeat,
Speaker 2: like he did not want to give up power, And
Speaker 2: so I don't think any of us should expect that
Speaker 2: he's going to be willingly accept giving up power this
Speaker 2: time around as well. So I think you have to
Speaker 2: take seriously now that you have Bannon and you have
Speaker 2: Trump being quite clear that he intends to seek a
Speaker 2: third term, you have to take it seriously and start
Speaker 2: thinking through the scenarios of how he could even theoretically
Speaker 2: try to accomplish this goal. With all that being said,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and take a listen to C three
Speaker 2: Steve Bannon talking about this possibility.
Speaker 8: I am a firm believer that President Trump will run
Speaker 8: and went again in twenty twenty eight. So I've already
Speaker 8: endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once
Speaker 8: every century. If we're low lucky, we've got him.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 8: He's on fire, and I'm a huge supporter. I want
Speaker 8: to see him again at twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 9: And obviously, anybody who doesn't like what you say but
Speaker 9: judges is at a function of a lack of intelligence.
Speaker 9: Doesn't know anything about you. I don't make that mistake.
Speaker 9: You're a smart guy. You know he's term limited. How
Speaker 9: do you think he gets another term?
Speaker 1: We're working on.
Speaker 8: I think we'll have I think we'll have a couple
Speaker 8: of alternatives.
Speaker 1: Let's say that. We'll see we'll see what the definition is.
Speaker 8: We'll say that people, We'll say what the definition of
Speaker 8: term limit is?
Speaker 9: All right, Well, so you're talking about litigating this issue
Speaker 9: because I don't want people to listen to our interview
Speaker 9: and say Bannon's cooking up an insurrection. Bannon is cooking
Speaker 9: up you know what I mean? I want I want
Speaker 9: people to get a straight take on where your head is.
Speaker 1: What do you see Chris? As you know, I've had
Speaker 1: I've had.
Speaker 8: Greater long shots than this, and we supported President Trump.
Speaker 8: After the election, I realized, you don't believe the election
Speaker 8: of twenty towrners stolen.
Speaker 1: We do.
Speaker 8: We fervently believe that. Not prepared to talk about it publicly,
Speaker 8: but in a couple of months I think we will be.
Speaker 9: But you are not suggesting revolution or overthrow or anything
Speaker 9: that people would condemn.
Speaker 8: Chris, we just won one of the biggest sweeping victories.
Speaker 8: We're in the middle of a nineteen thirty two type realignment.
Speaker 1: If we can continue on and.
Speaker 8: Continue to have populist policies, populist nationalist policies, we have
Speaker 8: African amatic analogy coming.
Speaker 3: To our side.
Speaker 2: So again, I mean, I guess they're going to try
Speaker 2: to come up with some sort of like Kakamami legal theory,
Speaker 2: but even that, because the language is so clear, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure how they would do it. You know, I
Speaker 2: have been thinking about this. One of the things that
Speaker 2: I did consider is that you whether it's Jdie Vance
Speaker 2: or Don Junior, you run someone who basically is like
Speaker 2: a puppet figure.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is kind of what Putin did in Russia.
Speaker 1: Oh, like a Medvedev, like a meddev.
Speaker 2: And it's like you, Okay, he's technically the president, but
Speaker 2: Trump is the one who's really pulling the strings. And
Speaker 2: you know, if you if that's the plan, then it
Speaker 2: sort of makes sense that he withheld his support from
Speaker 2: jade Vance as his successor because jade Vance has proved
Speaker 2: himself that he will be a total, willing, compliant puppet
Speaker 2: for Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, if that's the case, you should just go ahead
Speaker 1: and pick your son Bottle, because no self respecting personal
Speaker 1: think and.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's maybe that's why he isn't getting behind JD.
Speaker 3: I considered that possibility.
Speaker 2: I also thought through, like you know, Trump has been
Speaker 2: They've been threatening the courts and trying to you know,
Speaker 2: pressure and bully them and defying I would say, some
Speaker 2: of the court orders.
Speaker 3: They have been using the weight.
Speaker 2: Of the federal government to punish states for doing things
Speaker 2: that they don't want the states to do, you know,
Speaker 2: launching investigations with helding federal funding. You see the same
Speaker 2: playbook with regard to media outlets, with regards to law funds,
Speaker 2: with regards to universities. You could use some of that
Speaker 2: pressure to like, you know, let's say, okay, Trump runs
Speaker 2: a Republican primary, he wins the nomination, and then it
Speaker 2: comes down to what our state's going to put him
Speaker 2: on the ballot.
Speaker 3: You could use some of that.
Speaker 4: Pressure to try to coerce states to go along with this.
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
Speaker 2: I just my mind is not devious, devious enough to
Speaker 2: come up with the scenario of how this ends up
Speaker 2: working out for him. But like I said, I think
Speaker 2: you have to take it seriously, given that this is
Speaker 2: not a man who willingly gives up power, and he's
Speaker 2: saying quite openly. And I think one thing we've learned
Speaker 2: about Trump two point zero is the things that he
Speaker 2: says he's going to do and many things beyond that,
Speaker 2: he is entirely serious about it.
Speaker 1: I think it's possible. I also think that his ego
Speaker 1: is just so fragile at the idea of having to
Speaker 1: pass on power, and all presidents who are two terms
Speaker 1: struggle with this, right like Reagan famously, he's like he
Speaker 1: didn't particularly love HW and he didn't really want to
Speaker 1: hand the reins over. His wife wouldn't even give him
Speaker 1: a tour or whatever. Psychologically, these people are crazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: we really need to think about it. And so that's
Speaker 1: what it takes to be able to get up to
Speaker 1: this level. So for Trump, I'm beginning to see now
Speaker 1: the reason why he doesn't want to endorse JD or
Speaker 1: Don Junior or anybody is because the idea that you
Speaker 1: could hand over his life's accomplishment of getting elected president
Speaker 1: of the United States twice or three times, I guess
Speaker 1: in his mind over to somebody else. It's just so
Speaker 1: psychologically wounding because it's a subservient position and it's one
Speaker 1: that he correctly views as when you do that, you
Speaker 1: no longer are the king maker. Right, There is a
Speaker 1: transition there where whoever he endorses then becomes the pre
Speaker 1: eminent head of the party, and you lose a lot
Speaker 1: of your control and of your power. That is ultimately
Speaker 1: what I think drives him. As you've said too, though,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that Look, if we were going
Speaker 1: to say realistically the way that this would ever happen,
Speaker 1: let's put C four up there on the screen, where
Speaker 1: there's been an amendment to the Amendment that has now
Speaker 1: been introduced, and it says introduced a House resolution to
Speaker 1: amend the Constitution to allow a president to be elected
Speaker 1: for up to, but no more than three terms. The
Speaker 1: language of the proposed amendment reesis follows. No person shall
Speaker 1: be elected to the office of president more than three times,
Speaker 1: nor be elected to any additional term after being elected
Speaker 1: to two consecutive terms. And no person who has held
Speaker 1: the office of president or acted as president for more
Speaker 1: than two years of a term to wish a president
Speaker 1: was elected president shall be elected to the office of
Speaker 1: president more than twice, which basically means what it means
Speaker 1: Obama and Clinton and Bush could not run for a
Speaker 1: third term. But that Trump.
Speaker 3: Bombas could there, that's Trump could beat Obama.
Speaker 1: See, I don't know. I think Obama's hold is gone.
Speaker 1: I think his twenty years sigh up and the American
Speaker 1: people has finally ended just because of that Democratic poll
Speaker 1: where people are people are fought up with him. Michelle's
Speaker 1: doing her dumb ass podcast about whether you should what
Speaker 1: was it whether you should recline your seat on a
Speaker 1: commercial airliner? Lady, you have never been on a commercial
Speaker 1: airliner for the last twenty years.
Speaker 2: You know, lecture us just as a digression our guests
Speaker 2: that we're having on Jock and Allen Amy Parn's great reporters,
Speaker 2: both of them. One of the tidbits they have in
Speaker 2: their book is that, you know, when remember when Obama
Speaker 2: was going to endorse Kamlin, I like took a long
Speaker 2: time and he did that, like weird scriptive video whatever.
Speaker 2: Apparently one of the requirements is Michelle did.
Speaker 3: Not want to be in the video. Wow, that's kind
Speaker 3: of interesting, right.
Speaker 2: I Mean, there's a lot of rumors swirling about how
Speaker 2: their marriage is going, et cetera. So I don't know
Speaker 2: that kind of fuel. It was like made me think
Speaker 2: about that, but then also made me think about like,
Speaker 2: I guess she's just.
Speaker 3: Like, doesn't really like Kamalin maybe too.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it's definitely possible. Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean to be honest, if you read both of
Speaker 1: their books, I have no idea how either of them
Speaker 1: is still in that marriage. It's totally insane. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just one of those where he literally is running
Speaker 1: for office and she's like I don't want you to
Speaker 1: do this, and he just does it anyway, and you're
Speaker 1: like okay. I mean, she's like, I don't want to
Speaker 1: be first lady. He's like, okay, suck it up. I
Speaker 1: have no idea. Why would you stick it out?
Speaker 2: I don't think out in hand like you had to
Speaker 2: know this was who you were marrying.
Speaker 1: I guess yeah, I don't know. You know, it's one
Speaker 1: of those where she's like, okay, then I'm just going
Speaker 1: to move in my mom and he's like, okay, you know,
Speaker 1: it's listen. I'm you know, don't judge. I guess whatever.
Speaker 1: But if you read behind between the lines of but
Speaker 1: you really should read the chapters of his rise in
Speaker 1: his book and in her book, and if you read
Speaker 1: that you're like, this is nuts, this is a total digress.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but anyway to get back to the cool point here,
Speaker 2: I think Trump is going to try to run for
Speaker 2: a third term. I don't know how it's good. I
Speaker 2: don't know how. I don't know what argument he's going
Speaker 2: to make. I know Republicans will go along with whatever
Speaker 2: it is that he says and try to make the case.
Speaker 2: I haven't been able to figure out what exactly strategy
Speaker 2: they'll deploy. Apparently they haven't figured out what strategy they'll deploy.
Speaker 2: But I one hundred percent think that he is serious
Speaker 2: about this. I don't want to give up a power,
Speaker 2: and he doesn't want to be a lame duck. You know, midterm, right,
Speaker 2: they're going to get They're going to get schlacked in
Speaker 2: the midterms, Like they already know it. I mean, they
Speaker 2: already know they're going to lose the House at the
Speaker 2: least and it could be a bloodbath.
Speaker 3: We're going to get a little.
Speaker 2: Bit of a glimpse of that this week of just
Speaker 2: like how bad it could end up being for them,
Speaker 2: and if there's a session, if there's a stock market crash,
Speaker 2: all of those sorts of things. So midterms are likely
Speaker 2: to go poorly for them, and then you've got you know,
Speaker 2: Trump on his way out. This is an old man too,
Speaker 2: by the way, like we forget he'll be I think,
Speaker 2: eighty two in twenty twenty eight if he were to
Speaker 2: try to run again, et cetera. But yeah, you could
Speaker 2: imagine Republicans starting to agree and maybe create a little
Speaker 2: bit of space and think about who's going to be next,
Speaker 2: and start positioning themselves and start trying to make the break,
Speaker 2: et cetera. I mean, you still see Ron De Santis
Speaker 2: doing a little bit of this already down in Florida.
Speaker 2: He doesn't want any of that. He wants to keep
Speaker 2: a firm grip on power. Bannon has also said he
Speaker 2: believes Trump will be you know, arrested and imprisoned if
Speaker 2: once he's out of office, if he doesn't run for
Speaker 2: a third term again. Trump probably believes that as well,
Speaker 2: so he'll feel it as like ecxistential too, And so
Speaker 2: I do think they'll try to pull it off, and
Speaker 2: they'll use whatever tricks in the bag legal, illegal, constitutional, unconstitutional, moral, ethical, unethical,
Speaker 2: or you know, otherwise that they can to try to
Speaker 2: accomplish that goal.
Speaker 1: It's look I've said before I want the twenty second
Speaker 1: Amendment to go away. I think it's anti democratic. It's
Speaker 1: one of those where, yes, as horrific as it may
Speaker 1: seem for many of our liberal viewers, like, it doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense to term limit somebody if that's the
Speaker 1: person who is being democratically ratified. You also should remember
Speaker 1: that if Obama had been allowed to run, he almost certainly,
Speaker 1: at the very least it would not have been Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Would you beat Trump in twenty sixteen, I don't know, Okay,
Speaker 1: nobody will know for sure, and he probably would have
Speaker 1: had a better chance, I think, than Hillary Clinton because
Speaker 1: it was pretty close.
Speaker 2: So it was close, right, and Hillary was a horrendous candidate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and if you just think about it, it was
Speaker 3: still popular.
Speaker 1: If you just think about it. I mean, there's actually
Speaker 1: an argument you made that we would be living now
Speaker 1: in the last term of the Clinton administration if there
Speaker 1: had been no twenty second Amendment. Maybe not would have
Speaker 1: you know, it would have been the best, but we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been in Iraq, so maybe it would have
Speaker 1: been Okay, true. No, It's like, listen, the twenty second
Speaker 1: Amendment has cost us a lot of really stupid presidents
Speaker 1: or or as actually sorry, given us a lot of
Speaker 1: very stupid presidents. Bush is almost certainly one a result
Speaker 1: of that, and the yo yo effect of that is
Speaker 1: likely due to the twenty second Amendment. I mean, even
Speaker 1: if you go back to nineteen forty, if FDR had
Speaker 1: decided not to run for his third term, we could
Speaker 1: have been in a hole, in a very very bad situation,
Speaker 1: which was his argument there at the time. Yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: I democratically am very against the twenty second Amendment. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't have term limits in Congress. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: term limits for the President's preposterous. It was just obviously
Speaker 1: done to screw over the legacy of FDR.
Speaker 3: Yeah that's true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I mean, you know, I have a thoroughly
Speaker 2: unprincipled position on this, which is I also in theory.
Speaker 3: Second, but this.
Speaker 1: Guy didn't beat him.
Speaker 3: This guy here ago, we gotta be done with this man.
Speaker 3: You can beat him there one last thing.
Speaker 2: Put up C five on the screen, so you know,
Speaker 2: the public, like you got to.
Speaker 3: Give them credit.
Speaker 2: At the time when the media was all like, oh, Biden,
Speaker 2: he's fit as a fiddle and sharp as attack. What
Speaker 2: they were like come on, and a majority here are
Speaker 2: also like a very clear majority. I think those who
Speaker 2: think that Trump is not going to run for a
Speaker 2: second term, it's like thirty some percent, But in any case,
Speaker 2: fifty two percent are like, yeah, he's gonna try.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's gonna try.
Speaker 2: And I think that's probably where the smart money is.
Speaker 2: He's out and noun saying it. So I don't know
Speaker 2: why we wouldn't take him seriously at this point, given
Speaker 2: that he's definitely meant many of the things that he
Speaker 2: has said here.
Speaker 3: Coming into the second term.
Speaker 1: Well we'll see. I will enjoy tracking this great. My
Speaker 1: hope is that they are able to pass a complete
Speaker 1: that they are able to amend the Constitution and to
Speaker 1: finally repeal this amendment. In fact, the trade I'll take
Speaker 1: is that we'll bring back prohibition and then we'll take
Speaker 1: this one away. So that's I did not that's the
Speaker 1: biggest mistake, the biggest mistake. We not going to take
Speaker 1: you prohibition. Yeah, that's right, this country school of drunks.
Speaker 1: But you know whatever, all right, you guys will get
Speaker 1: over it, just like they did in Prohibition. Some people
Speaker 1: will figure it out and the overall drinking rate will
Speaker 1: go down. It was better for all of you. Sorry,
Speaker 1: it's true.